My words My feelings - you're welcome to add yours

LouBelle

For some reason I just want to put this out there.....because I can.

I don't know what kind of a ""christian"" (I don't label myself as one) I am, as I feel that if for certain reasons one doesn't believe in a God, because there is a lack of evidence - He isn't gonna condemn anyone. Because you believe in Ra/ Vishnu or whatever other God doesn't mean you are under condemnation. Even if you believe you are God, doesn't mean you're wrong and under condemnation.

He is an all knowing God, he reads hearts/ knows circumstances & is a God of grace, he will only condem the truly wicked.

I know that I hardly know much about Him, but I have experienced his ""hand"" in my life, but then I'm sure Hindus have experienced god in their lives too.

I don't believe he allows or disallows certain things, as we have a responsibility to ourselves & to each other to treat each other properly. Because I get abused doesn't mean it was his will. It was the will of my fellow human, who doesn't care about his responsibility to me...

People of religions and even christians sometimes overthink this whole God business and try have an answer for everything. In doing this we get so very lost. For me keeping it simple is best.

I don't even know if this flows properly, the above may come out sounding quite short, blunt but I just had to get it out.

DannyBloem

First of all I do not believe in a god.

But if there is a god who cared like the JW's or otehr christians believe, then of course he would know why people did certain things.
Would you yourself condemn somebody who is honest and just does not believe in God because of the lack of evidence? So why would he?

Since there is so little evidence, it would be good not to try to figure out what he wants and wait for him, but to try to do our best ourselves. We are quite capable of knowing good and wrong.
We can do a lot to help. The JW's will do nothing to help other people. That is really wrong, and makes them dangerous and uncaring.
We can do so much good, if there is a god he will apriciate it, but in both cases other people will aprpriciate it and we will appricaiate it ourselves.

Danny

googlemagoogle

this is a nice god you made up, loubelle, no doubt. however... what would be different if this god would not exist (in case it exists)?

LouBelle

Google you can't prove I made him up. He might actually exists for all we know. Nothing would be different if he didn't exist - I just believe he does. Seeing, doesn't mean believing for me.

googlemagoogle

so what is this god good for then, if it doesn't make a difference? just being there, watching? yeah, i know, some would like that. but wouldn't a visible friend be good enough for that?

googlemagoogle (of the "no need to make up invisible friends" class)

LouBelle

oxygen is invisible but you need it...

googlemagoogle

yes. and you can even prove it's there. and it makes a difference if it's there or not.

Sad emo

I think how you put it is brilliant LouBelle. I was reading something this morning which said more or less the same - Is hell going to be empty?

He is an all knowing God, he reads hearts/ knows circumstances & is a God of grace

That's what really counts. He alone knows our intentions. Those who have done truly terrible things in this life will be faced with their actions when they meet Him and either feel the pain of true sorrow for their realised sins and ask forgiveness or they will show nothing and go to hell. (Blimey, I'm agreeing with something David Icke teaches )

google - I think the world would be much worse without 'a god'. As far as I know, most of the morality codes have been developed from religions regardless of whether the god really exists - he exists at least for believers. Without these guidelines I reckon we'd all be living by the law of the jungle - but with all the weaponry on the planet I think we'd have wiped ourselves out by now.

tetrapod.sapien

hey loubelle,

nice thoughts! i think that this worldview of yours fits the evidence at hand much better than a lot of religious people i have known. the fact that you admit that even people of other religions could have experienced god the same as you, is very mature, and fits with the phenomenon of seeing so many different religions and true believers.

and i can respect religious people like this. often "labeling" themselves as deists or pantheists. but whatever. it is mature to note that no one is condemned, if god is to be truly god-like. and that he is personal to each person.

just one note: everything was all well and good until you got into technicalities. up until that point, i could not honestly disagree with you. if you say there is a god, for you personally, and you do not try to prove that he exists, i really cannot say much about it. cool! each to their own! but you will find that it is often technicalities that the theism/atheism debates rage around. so to say:

oxygen is invisible but you need it...

doesn't help your case at all. because everyone knows there is more evidence for oxygen than there is for god. does that make sense?

at any rate, i think you've come a long way since you started posting here. this is what growth is all about. keep up the good work.

sincerely,

TS

tetrapod.sapien

sad emo,

google - I think the world would be much worse without 'a god'. As far as I know, most of the morality codes have been developed from religions regardless of whether the god really exists - he exists at least for believers. Without these guidelines I reckon we'd all be living by the law of the jungle - but with all the weaponry on the planet I think we'd have wiped ourselves out by now.

think about the world for a second as through the eyes of a space alien who just landed here. and then think about this Richard Dawkins quote, and tell me what you think:

The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.
-- Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life (1995), quoted from Victor J. Stenger, Has Science Found God? (2001)

--

bible writers got their morals from the same place that non-believers get theirs from: from within. from society. from survival.

interestingly, from an anthropological perspective, our morals actually did originally evolve from the "law of the jungle". we needed to hunt and gather. it worked better when we worked together, and lived together. but there needed to be authority and order for this all to work. ergo, the birth of morals. this is why morals today, like secular humanism, make more sense than ancient morals, like stonning someone for picking up sticks on the sabbath.

TS

My words My feelings - you're welcome to add yours

Share this