Random or god?

[AgnosticBoy]

As for the Bible, it may give some comfort to lampoon it and dismiss it as children's stories. But that is not what I see at all by any means. I see a God has a purpose who encounters obstacles to it - one right after another. And through a long history we view how God branches over the obstacles all along the way one right after another. I see a Person for whom walls, roadblocks, obstacles of every imaginable kind CANNOT ultimately thwart Him from achieving His will.

I believe that religion is very important to society in that it offers values that help stablelize or ground us in many ways. For instance, I don't have any proof that objective morals exists, but I believe that we should as hek better treat certain moral standards as if they are objective and/or sacred (just as religions advocate for), otherwise, society will start to deteriorate.

This is a test from me user Invited_Christian to see if I can post yet. It appears that I can.

You passed. I'll give you an A+

Hi everyone. Because the Forum seems willing to invite others besides Agnostics I took up the invite. I am a lover of Jesus Christ who I got convinced is God. Pleased to meet you, one and all.
I would only add at this time, thankyou for the invite - AgnosticBoy. And I do consider it something of a miracle that I actually believe in God. It seems to me as some kind of miracle that I was given the ability to come to know Jesus.

Now let me see what discussion I might like to join.

Welcome to the forum, Invited_Christian. Yes, we invite everyone to participate. Eventhough I don't restrict it to agnostics, but consider the environment being like one where you debate in a room full of open-minded and non-partisan agnostics.

I look forward to reading your views on a whole lot of topics!

 

[Invited_Christian]

I believe that religion is very important to society in that it offers values that help stablelize or ground us in many ways.

Jesus did say that that His believers were to be "the salt of the earth." That is to arrest somewhat the decline into rotteness of the surrounding society. The God-less world must rot. But the salt of the earth may preserve it from happening too fast until He comes to establish His kingdom.

Many unbelievers (and some believers) think of the church as being on earth to fix all the problems of society. Maybe a bandaid here and there. Maybe a bandage here and there until we all are fixed and can go on our merry independent way. Is this what you mean by the society being stablelized with religious morals a bit?

I see Christ coming not to take sides but to take charge. As you know seemingly well minded people tend to rally Jesus for thier concept of how society should be. We don't see the Apostle Paul organizing the believers to go down to city hall and clamor for laws. We do see him establishing city by city local churches. These are intended to be the light shinning in a dark and degrading world - the salt of the earth only, to arrest some the inevitable decline of the God-less society into complete rotteness.

I believe the one inevitable is the complete vindication of that man who died and rose. The prophet Haggai calls Him "the desire of the nations." He is the longing of all the societies. And He will decide justice among nations. That's what I believe.

For instance, I don't have any proof that objective morals exists, but I believe that we should as hek better treat certain moral standards as if they are objective and/or sacred (just as religions advocate for), otherwise, society will start to deteriorate.

You passed. I'll give you an A+

Wow. Those are pretty high marks there. We don't have absolute PROOF of too much imo. Absolute PROOF would require perfect and absolute knowledge.

We believe the earth revolves around the sun. Absolute PROOF that it does and that the whole solar system revolves around the earth is hard to obtain.

Yes, I agree that there must be a universal source of our sense of what OUGHT to be. Even though we are too often not able to live up to what we think OUGHT to be, we have knowledge of it. This is called, I believe, "the knowledge of good and evil". It involes the awakening of the God created human conscience just in case man rejected to be in direct communion with his Creator.

The conscience of man was a kind of breaking system. I believe the choice between taking in God Himself as divine life was on one side and uniting with God's enemy was on the other side - the tree of life verses the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

This knowledge of good and evil we have and are very proud of also. Unknown to Adam who chose to not take the tree of life in favorof the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was:

1.) He would not always have the life power to carry out the GOOD that he knows.
2.) He would not a;ways have the life power to reject the EVIL that he knows.

In other words the first parents gained the KNOWLEDGE but forfeited the life POWER and life ability. Why? Because they became united with God's enemy.

I do not mistake simplicity for naivete. And I think God arranged things to happen in this manner to communicate that the origins of man are grounded not in the natural but in the supernatural. It seems like a child's story. In actuality I think it reflects the unsearchable wisdom of our Creator God.

That's what I believe.

Welcome to the forum, Invited_Christian. Yes, we invite everyone to participate. Eventhough I don't restrict it to agnostics, but consider the environment being like one where you debate in a room full of open-minded and non-partisan agnostics.

I look forward to reading your views on a whole lot of topics!

Thankyou again for the welcome.

 

[bbyrd009]

Jesus did say that that His believers were to be "the salt of the earth." That is to arrest somewhat the decline into rotteness of the surrounding society. The God-less world must rot. But the salt of the earth may preserve it from happening too fast until He comes to establish His kingdom.

well, that kingdom will not come by observation though, right

Yes, I agree that there must be a universal source of our sense of what OUGHT to be. Even though we are too often not able to live up to what we think OUGHT to be, we have knowledge of it. This is called, I believe, "the knowledge of good and evil". It involes the awakening of the God created human conscience just in case man rejected to be in direct communion with his Creator.

The conscience of man was a kind of breaking system. I believe the choice between taking in God Himself as divine life was on one side and uniting with God's enemy was on the other side - the tree of life verses the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

seems like the knowledge is being elevated in the first paragraph, and condemned in the next, so i would ask for some clarification there

 

[bbyrd009]

If you're going to waste your life considering any meaning to the bible or god you need to look for PROOF. Without that the bible has some gory short stories to read the kids at bedtime and nothing more.

lol or so you hope anyway. fwiw i will say that when read with different eyes, setting aside one’s preconceived labels etc, the Bible becomes a treasure trove of information, that requires no proof, as the truths will be self evident. I would even go so far as to say that if the point of a passage is not self evident then it is pointless to try and establish proof for a particular perspective of it or iow the correct perspective will evince no (meaningful) debate

 

[bbyrd009]

I do not need now absolute proof in some mathematical sense about Jesus being Son of God.

word
i would even say that any proof would only lead to a false concept anyway, If they say to you “Here He is, right over here,” dont even bother going to look

 

[Invited_Christian]

word
i would even say that any proof would only lead to a false concept anyway, If they say to you “Here He is, right over here,” dont even bother going to look

Fortunately, unlike any other teacher in human history, Jesus said He would come to His lovers and make an abode with. That is a imparting of Himself into their innermost spiritual being. No other teacher, leader, sage, prophet ever made such a promise.

John 14:23 - Jesus answered and said to him, If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word, and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make an abode with him.

He and His Father as the Divine "We" will enter into His lovers' innermost spiritual being to make a mutual abode in them. This is something that the world cannot give. And the world cannot take it away.

If I said I have not experienced Jesus Christ making an abode with me, I would be lying for sure. No other teacher ever taught he or she would as God and man, come to me, enter into me and make a living abiding place within me.

Look again. Here Jesus says the coming of the Another Comforter, the Holy Spirit, is just His coming to us in another form.
John 14:14-18 - And I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Comforter, that He may be with you forever,
Even the Spirit of reality, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not behold Him or know Him; but you know Him, because He abides with you and shall be in you. I will not leave you as orphans; I am coming to you.

He says the Spirit of reality as another Comforter is to come to them. Then suddenly He switches to mean that He Himself is coming to them - I will not leave you as orphans; I am coming to you.

We can receive the mysterious yet real living Person of Jesus Christ Himself to come to us and make an abode with us. The One who dwelt WITH whom they knew for three and a half years has transformed Himself in resurrection. So in addition to being a risen man He is also a Comforter, the Spirit of truth, the Spirit of reality, to be imparted Himself INTO our innermost spiritual being.

but you know Him, because He abides with you and shall be in you. I will not leave you as orphans; I am coming to you.

 

[Invited_Christian]

well, that kingdom will not come by observation though, right
seems like the knowledge is being elevated in the first paragraph, and condemned in the next, so i would ask for some clarification there

In brief:

The tree of life has a simple name - it means life - eternal life - Him who is the origin of being and life - God.
The tree of the knowledge of good and evil is a rather complicated name.
My present theory is that it was falsely advertized in a positive light.
Perhaps the name was given to it by Satan God's temporary enemy.

Actually it is a tree of DEATH. While the tree of life means dependence on God who is the source of eternal life, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was a thrust to INDEPENDENCE. And this independence is withdrawal from God as the source of divine life into DEATH. Was it not a revolt and a rebellion? We have a choice before the first created man: God's way or "the OTHER way."

Now this matter of Adam between the two trees - one of "life" and one of death called "the knowledge of good and evil" is one of the things which convinces me that the Bible is a divine book. IMO no human mind would have written this. What would the human imagination have written? I think it would have been something like this:

The tree of good verses the tree of evil.
That us everythng good was positive and everything evil leads away from God, the good.
Yet this is not what we read. It is not like the Greek mythology of Pandora's Box.
That the dichotomy is between LIFE on one side and the knowledge of GOOD and EVIL on the other side.
My opinion is that this is deeply philosophically suprizing.

The scene in Genesis of man between two sources being compelled to CHOOSE is like an even older book in the Bible - Job.
Like the book of Job it is like a wager between God and His enemy, Satan the slanderer.
And one tree represents God as life and the source of life.
The other tree represents DEATH and dynamic withdrawal from God.

Perhaps Satan said "Oh no, Do not call my tree the tree of death. Rather give it an encouraging name like, umm, yes - "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil." Maybe in the Job like contest God said "Okay. we will call it the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. But I will warn Adam that to partake of this forbidden tree means DEATH."

Furthermore perhap God warned Satan that if man succumbed to the temptation, SOMEDAY Satan and his angels would go to eternal damnation prepared for them - an eternal punishment.

Now this scenario of coversation between God and Satan is just my imagination. I would not press it too far. But it seems to me that the tree of DEATH is a tree of independence.

No created being is independent from God. Only God is automonous -self existent and ever existent. All other created beings are dependent upon God. Satan advertized this alternative source to God as a tree of knowledge of good and evil. This sound very noble. This sounds very good. And it was an awakening of this knowledge. But it was a thrust to independence from God and therefore no matter how GOOD the knowledge- independence from God can only led to death.

You may know that the subtlety of wickeness can cause even our EVIL to be advertized as GOOD. Was it not a good thing when Judas complained that the oil poured out on Jesus for His burial by an adoring disciple, might have better been spent on providing for the poor? Isn't it good to sell expensive perfume and give the proceeds to the needy? Yet it was an excuse to not love the Son of God who is about to die a redeeming death for all man.

This verbose reply may not exactly address your concern. But what started the tragedy of man's fall was not a "tree of murder' or a "tree of stealing" or a "tree of adultery" or a "tree of greediness". It was a tree of something SO well advertized as acceptable. This is the subtlety of Satan imo. A Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. But beyond the name, the well sounding name, what was it really? It was a way to DEATH. It was a way to INDEPENDENCE from God- taking ALL His created attributes and going it alone.

The sinfulness in it is with the thrust towards independence from God - regardless of what good human virtues man is created with.

Your thoughts here?

 

[bbyrd009]

In brief:

The tree of life has a simple name - it means life - eternal life - Him who is the origin of being and life - God.
The tree of the knowledge of good and evil is a rather complicated name.
My present theory is that it was falsely advertized in a positive light.
Perhaps the name was given to it by Satan God's temporary enemy.

well, or at least “opposer”

Actually it is a tree of DEATH. While the tree of life means dependence on God who is the source of eternal life, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was a thrust to INDEPENDENCE. And this independence is withdrawal from God as the source of divine life into DEATH. Was it not a revolt and a rebellion? We have a choice before the first created man: God's way or "the OTHER way."

Now this matter of Adam between the two trees - one of "life" and one of death called "the knowledge of good and evil" is one of the things which convinces me that the Bible is a divine book. IMO no human mind would have written this. What would the human imagination have written? I think it would have been something like this:

The tree of good verses the tree of evil.
That us everythng good was positive and everything evil leads away from God, the good.
Yet this is not what we read. It is not like the Greek mythology of Pandora's Box.
That the dichotomy is between LIFE on one side and the knowledge of GOOD and EVIL on the other side.
My opinion is that this is deeply philosophically suprizing.

The scene in Genesis of man between two sources being compelled to CHOOSE is like an even older book in the Bible - Job.
Like the book of Job it is like a wager between God and His enemy, Satan the slanderer.
And one tree represents God as life and the source of life.
The other tree represents DEATH and dynamic withdrawal from God.

Perhaps Satan said "Oh no, Do not call my tree the tree of death. Rather give it an encouraging name like, umm, yes - "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil." Maybe in the Job like contest God said "Okay. we will call it the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. But I will warn Adam that to partake of this forbidden tree means DEATH."

Furthermore perhap God warned Satan that if man succumbed to the temptation, SOMEDAY Satan and his angels would go to eternal damnation prepared for them - an eternal punishment.

Now this scenario of coversation between God and Satan is just my imagination. I would not press it too far. But it seems to me that the tree of DEATH is a tree of independence.

No created being is independent from God. Only God is automonous -self existent and ever existent. All other created beings are dependent upon God. Satan advertized this alternative source to God as a tree of knowledge of good and evil. This sound very noble. This sounds very good. And it was an awakening of this knowledge. But it was a thrust to independence from God and therefore no matter how GOOD the knowledge- independence from God can only led to death.

You may know that the subtlety of wickeness can cause even our EVIL to be advertized as GOOD. Was it not a good thing when Judas complained that the oil poured out on Jesus for His burial by an adoring disciple, might have better been spent on providing for the poor? Isn't it good to sell expensive perfume and give the proceeds to the needy? Yet it was an excuse to not love the Son of God who is about to die a redeeming death for all man.

This verbose reply may not exactly address your concern. But what started the tragedy of man's fall was not a "tree of murder' or a "tree of stealing" or a "tree of adultery" or a "tree of greediness". It was a tree of something SO well advertized as acceptable. This is the subtlety of Satan imo. A Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. But beyond the name, the well sounding name, what was it really? It was a way to DEATH. It was a way to INDEPENDENCE from God- taking ALL His created attributes and going it alone.

The sinfulness in it is with the thrust towards independence from God - regardless of what good human virtues man is created with.

Your thoughts here?

remember when you looked in a mirror and did not recognize your “self?” i mean surely not, yet we function for about a year and a half that way; i suggest that there is at least a relationship between recognizing self and the eating the fruit of knowledge of good and evil, which would give rise to “sin.” Do little kids ever call you out for “sin?” Sin is a judgement call then, at least the sin of others, at least in a sense. And personal sin is often only seen in retrospect, at least the first time; which is why an offense done in ignorance carries a different weight i guess

And while it seems impossible to remember before that moment (to me anyway; i can only recall the moment itself, walking in the front door with mom in hand and seeing us both in the mirror, reminding me of a leave it to beaver episode), we do have experiences of “forgetting yourself,” those moments when we are so completely immersed in whatever experience that “we” effectively disappear…

and while we have almost no words for it other than maybe “focus,” the end of the first paragraph there is just a completely different world away from the end of the second, you might notice. It is possible to dwell at the end of the second one, at least im pretty sure

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Jesus did say that that His believers were to be "the salt of the earth." That is to arrest somewhat the decline into rotteness of the surrounding society. The God-less world must rot. But the salt of the earth may preserve it from happening too fast until He comes to establish His kingdom.

Many unbelievers (and some believers) think of the church as being on earth to fix all the problems of society. Maybe a bandaid here and there. Maybe a bandage here and there until we all are fixed and can go on our merry independent way. Is this what you mean by the society being stablelized with religious morals a bit?

I see Christ coming not to take sides but to take charge. As you know seemingly well minded people tend to rally Jesus for thier concept of how society should be. We don't see the Apostle Paul organizing the believers to go down to city hall and clamor for laws. We do see him establishing city by city local churches. These are intended to be the light shinning in a dark and degrading world - the salt of the earth only, to arrest some the inevitable decline of the God-less society into complete rotteness.

I believe the one inevitable is the complete vindication of that man who died and rose. The prophet Haggai calls Him "the desire of the nations." He is the longing of all the societies. And He will decide justice among nations. That's what I believe.



Wow. Those are pretty high marks there. We don't have absolute PROOF of too much imo. Absolute PROOF would require perfect and absolute knowledge.

We believe the earth revolves around the sun. Absolute PROOF that it does and that the whole solar system revolves around the earth is hard to obtain.

Yes, I agree that there must be a universal source of our sense of what OUGHT to be. Even though we are too often not able to live up to what we think OUGHT to be, we have knowledge of it. This is called, I believe, "the knowledge of good and evil". It involes the awakening of the God created human conscience just in case man rejected to be in direct communion with his Creator.

The conscience of man was a kind of breaking system. I believe the choice between taking in God Himself as divine life was on one side and uniting with God's enemy was on the other side - the tree of life verses the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

This knowledge of good and evil we have and are very proud of also. Unknown to Adam who chose to not take the tree of life in favorof the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was:

1.) He would not always have the life power to carry out the GOOD that he knows.
2.) He would not a;ways have the life power to reject the EVIL that he knows.

In other words the first parents gained the KNOWLEDGE but forfeited the life POWER and life ability. Why? Because they became united with God's enemy.

I started a topic on Adam and Eve's sin.

For anyone that wants to jump in...

What was Adam and Eve's sin? Were they set up to fail?

Adam and Eve are said to be responsible for sin being in the world. I've come across several different interpretations of what that sin is. I've heard some even accuse God of the wrongdoing. So lets see what members think of those issues here. Questions: 1. What was Adam and Eve's sin? 2. If...

theagnosticforum.com

 

[bbyrd009]

I started a topic on Adam and Eve's sin.

For anyone that wants to jump in...

What was Adam and Eve's sin? Were they set up to fail?

Adam and Eve are said to be responsible for sin being in the world. I've come across several different interpretations of what that sin is. I've heard some even accuse God of the wrongdoing. So lets see what members think of those issues here. Questions: 1. What was Adam and Eve's sin? 2. If...

theagnosticforum.com

ill comment over there later, but i suggest that this understanding of Adam and Eve as literal people, in history, is not the best way to get the import of the passage