Why do we need a God?

Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by aaqucnaona, Jan 25, 2012.

?

Do we need [there to be] God?

  1. Yes

    35.7%
  2. No

    64.3%
  1. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    So God produced, directed and enacted a crucifixion of Himself?

    As long as we go with how God "gave His only begotten son," the crucifixion makes sense, within the bounds of a sacrifice / scapegoat mentality.

    But the idea that God took on a body and played the role of his own son ... that just makes it all very difficult to take seriously.
    God loves us all so much that he killed himself for us??
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Arioch Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,274
    @wynn --

    But that is quite clearly what the "mystery" of the Trinity states.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    Oh, the irony.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Arioch Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,274
    @wynn --

    Irony? Where? These aren't my conclusions, they're the result of thousands of years of christian theology.
     
  8. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    A "clear mystery" is an irony ...
     
  9. Arioch Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,274
    @wynn --

    Why don't you actually go study christian theology before you presume to understand it.
     
  10. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    Oh, you always have a nice word for me!
     
  11. Arioch Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,274
    @wynn --

    Right now these are my nice words. You don't want to hear my nasty ones.
     
  12. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    The things one endures for love ...
     
  13. Rav Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    Incomplete. Christian theology teaches that the son of God is God Himself.

    "But about the Son he says,

    “Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever;
    a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom." - Hebrews 1:8


    Read the whole chapter. This is God Himself speaking.

    Wrong again.

    "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End." - Revelation 22:13

    Read the whole chapter. This is Jesus Himself speaking.

    I can go on providing passages like this for quite some time.
     
  14. Rav Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    You haven't been listening. The sacrifice that God made for us in bodily form is not only an act of love, but a necessary component of the mechanics of salvation. In order to eventually become one with His perfection, our own imperfections need to be washed away. After all, if you add imperfection to perfection, what do you get? Imperfection of course.

    One of the reasons that some people don't understand this is because to them, the whole thing seems rather contrived. But what you're supposed to understand is that in the transcendental realm of God (not that God exists within this realm, rather He is the very quality of it), everything necessarily operates according to His nature. In other words, if you were to try to devise a 'theory' that explained the 'laws' that operate there with respect to things like salvation, love and sacrifice would be among the most fundamental. Therefore any relationship that God has with man also operates according to those laws.
     
    Last edited: Apr 5, 2012
  15. Rav Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    I don't have certainty about what all of theism is and isn't anymore than you have certainty about what all of theism is and isn't.

    What I can do, legitimately, is speak about the reliability of the sort of epistemology that is typically prescribed by religious people for the purposes of evaluating religious claims, and that's essentially what I am doing here.

    And if I can't, then neither can you.
     
  16. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    And this is where fideism comes in. First of all, to be sure, we can talk of fideism only in relation to a particular person, when the person deems that in order to do right in God's eyes, they have to do things that they find repugnant, contrary to their common sense.

    As I have already communicated, the Christian perspective makes no sense to me, I even find it repugnant. Yet the Christian continues to pounce in on the issue, expecting me to give up my moral standards and act against them. The Christian here finds it reasonable, acceptable to expect other people to give up everything that is dear to them. That is abuse.


    However, how about if we take 1 Cor. 10:13 at its word:

    For no temptation (no trial regarded as enticing to sin), [no matter how it comes or where it leads] has overtaken you and laid hold on you that is not common to man [that is, no temptation or trial has come to you that is beyond human resistance and that is not adjusted and adapted and belonging to human experience, and such as man can bear]. But God is faithful [to His Word and to His compassionate nature], and He [can be trusted] not to let you be tempted and tried and assayed beyond your ability and strength of resistance and power to endure, but with the temptation He will [always] also provide the way out (the means of escape to a landing place), that you may be capable and strong and powerful to bear up under it patiently.
    (Amplified Bible - Lockman)

    No temptation has seized you except what is common to man. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can stand up under it.
    (NIV - IBS)


    1 Corinthians 10:13
    New International Version (NIV)

    13 No temptation[a] has overtaken you except what is common to mankind. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted,[c] he will also provide a way out so that you can endure it.

    Footnotes:
    1 Corinthians 10:13 The Greek for temptation and tempted can also mean testing and tested.
    1 Corinthians 10:13 The Greek for temptation and tempted can also mean testing and tested.
    1 Corinthians 10:13 The Greek for temptation and tempted can also mean testing and tested.



    So if God can be trusted not to test us beyond our capacity - then why would there ever be a time when we would need to dismiss our better judgment and instead act in blind faith and on principles that we find repugnant?
     
  17. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    I think that the problem is that you are trying to objectively analyze something that is necessarily subjective/personal.

    And by "subjective/personal" I mean that it is a matter of a person's application, and that only after applying oneself can one come to pertinent realizations.

    It seems to me that your basic argument is that religion is basically self-referential, circular, and that therefore, it can never be really tested, and as such, should be dismissed from being a valid way of approaching issues of truth.
     
  18. Rav Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    Are you sure you want to do this? Earlier in this thread I made an attempt to end this back and forth between us on issues of Christian doctrine out of a genuine respect for you and your own particular circumstances. What I wanted to do here is to play the role of a fundamentalist Christian for the purposes of demonstrating that a defense of the theology can be mounted. What I don't want to do is play the role of pointing out your flaws according to such a viewpoint, and that's what responding to your comments would require me to do.
     
  19. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    Like I said, IRL, I would not discuss these things with a Christian. I've come to a point where I don't seem particularly bothered by them at all anymore.
    I am participating here mostly because the triangle between myself, you and LG has given some interesting chemistry.

    I appreciate your concern for me here. But it seems to me it is actually you who should be the recipient here.
     
  20. Rav Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    • Person A says that a particular rock is black, that this is an objective fact and not merely a matter of subjective perception, and that anyone who says otherwise is objectively wrong.
    • Person B says that the same rock is white, that this is an objective fact and not merely a matter of subjective perception, and that anyone who says otherwise is objectively wrong.
    • Person C says that the rock is both white and black simultaneously (somehow), that this is an objective fact, and that anyone who insists that such a position is incorrect is objectively wrong.
    • Person D says that all of the above positions are equally correct (somehow), and that anyone who says otherwise is objectively wrong.

    Each position is in opposition to every other, even the position that maintains that all other positions are correct.
     
  21. Rav Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    The recipient of what? And why?
     
  22. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    At the risk of sounding glib - While our molars rot.

    In psychology, a general approach to resolving double binds is to address the context they appear in.

    For the philosophically inclined, this tends to be seen as a cop-out, an excuse not to address the problem as proposed.

    But as I already noted earlier, each instance of communication is also an instance where one manifests one's actual beliefs - and that one's conduct can speak of different values than the ones one professes. (A blatant example are people who with great intolerance promote tolerance.)


    Strictly speaking, I suppose there indeed may be people for whom it is a matter of life and death to resolve things like

    and in terms in which they are proposed. For example, people who do philosophy for a living would be such people.

    Everyone else has other concerns that are more pressing - the proverbial rotting molars.

    By this, I don't mean to belittle philosophy or divert attention. There is no doubt that even as a philosophical lay, one may be keenly aware of profound philosophical problems and feel a strong need to resolve them. But one would do best to do so within one's means.

    I think we often get tangled up in trying to solve a problem on a level that is beyond our grasp or affordability.
     
  23. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    There is a Zen question:

    What do you do when nothing works?
     

Share This Page