justcool:

From my encounters with the so called atheists, I have noticed that their disbelief is always of a particular god or belief system.

I will give an example: An atheist may spend hours disproving the validity of the bible. At the end of the day he may succeed in proving that some of the stories in the bible are questionable and he will base his atheism on this, But what he forgets is that the fact that some of the stories in the bible are questionable does not mean that God does not exist.

A better conclusion for such a person would be this: "If God does exist, He is definitely not exactly what the bible says He is."
In this conclusion he acknowledges two things; (1) God and bible are not exactly the same. (2) The fact that certain things in the bible fails to live up to the test of reality does not mean that the existence of God is false too.

I will give another example: An atheist may spend hours disproving the validity of the Koran. At the end he may succeed in proving that some of the stories in the Koran are questionable.  From this he will then conclude that since the Koran is questionable, then the existence of God is questionable too thus a fallacy.

But the fact remains that all religions and all sacred books are peoples perception of God, not God Himself!
Thus if one does not agree with the biblical perception or the Koranic perception, the individual is left to seek to have his own perception of God. Out of intellectual and spiritual laziness the individual gives up the belief in God without putting it through a thorough and unbiased scrutiny. He takes the easy way out and call himself an atheist. However, he is not really an atheist! He is just opposed to certain perceptions of God.

Thus anybody that arrives at this conclusion should not call himself an atheist. He acknowledges that God exist, whether he calls God a power or whether he call Him God or Allah. What difference does it make? But one thing is certain, he[b] has seen the evidence of the existence of God.[/b]

Sorry but this argument seems flawed to me. First off i do agree that no atheist can actually argue that a "God" or power does not exist. That is simply outside the powers of perception of any human being. The problem though is that most definitions of "God" only exist within the context of some established religion or the other. There is little of a universal God definition that can satisfy all/most religions across board. Also few Muslims or Christians will agree with the same God concept. So yes until that time the "atheist" can insist that he does not believe in any of the prevailing concepts of "God".

It's becoming clearer to everyone why the country is in the state it's in. The fellows in positions to change things around are too busy running around naked in babalawo shrines. As a nation we are extremely immature and self centred. What possible agenda to make his state or constituency better can a man have when he's prepared to swear a blood oath for position.

Lastly for those who say we should not be offended that Nigerians are using our own cultural or traditional means you seem to miss the point completely. The question is what is he swearing the oath for? A legislator swearing an oath that he will never oppose the Governor of the state!? How exactly is he supposed to do his work properly?

mactao:

What happened to that girl is one of two things:

1. Her parents' faith wasn't strong enough to take care of the situation. It's not stupidity when the Bible says to call for the elders.

2. Her time was up. The Bible talks about God taking the righteous away before the evil day. If for example God sees something coming that your faith cannot handle, He might just take you away.

Notwithstanding all that, his ways are not our ways and his thoughts are not our thoughts.

Very sad reply. A simple trip to the hospital would have solved the problem. Playing the faith card with a child's life!? Pathetic

noetic:

what are talking about? do u read at all?
what are the convictions of naturalism, even if none of them are sacred?
do u know the meaning of a "belief"?
well this contradicts what mazaje postulated. , , , . . .sounds like naturalism makes no sense.
To learn what? on what basis?

All that u learn or are learning evolves around the notion that a GOD DOES NOT EXIST, so what are u talking about?
isnt that as biased as the "christianity" u antagonise?

there is nothing wrong with that saying. It only sounds stupid when said against biblical truths u have no alternative for.

is that ur angst against the bible?
define "growth" in this context? define "change" in this context?

what u posted was next to nonsense.

It seems to me you have no will to learn at all. Well if belief in the biblical god makes you a happy person by all means carry on with it. It's unnecessary to justify your faith to anyone as you are clearly unable to carry on a coherent and civil discussion. Cheers

what is the truth? what is nature's truth? it doesnt require "sacred" convictions? but isnt it pointless if a belief has no conviction at all?
otherwise, do u know d meaning of a belief?

I don't get this comment at all. First why must our belief require "sacred" convictions? The fact that you may feel the need to have sacred convictions does not mean your beliefs are correct. Naturalism is based more on observation of what we as human beings observe. Consequently naturalism does not at any time claim to have an all encompassing "truth" about everything. It gives space for learning and adaptation of theories and postulations as time goes on. What is wrong with saying today "I don't have an answer for this or I don't know how this came about". Why should it be necessary to come up with stories the explain everything like the bible seems to do. This is even sadder when over time some biblical "facts" have been proven to be wrong. If you accept scientific facts like the earth going round the sun - which is not as the bible has it - then can't you accept the bible may be flawed? A belief system with the capability to accept new knowledge and grow is not pointless, on the other hand one that refuses to change and holds on dogmatically to ancient beliefs is one that is terribly flawed.

Mowire:

Convoluted! (big english I no sabi)

I did not say Jesus came to amend the laws, the bible does not say so; and Jesus did not say so.

Jesus pointed out that MOSES (not God) made certain laws to curb what could have been the excesses of the Israelites because they were stiff necked people. Moses did not design the tabernacle and the altar in it, he impletemented the design God gave to him. The same goes for the order of conduct on and around it. May be you should take time to meditate on the aspects of the laws.

Women lib, as popular with the world, was not championed by christian women. Christian women only adopted it. Yet God did not create the woman to be a slave.

Like I said round and round in circles. When verses in the old testament say "and God told the Israelites to enter a city and kill every man, child and beast" are those not direct instructions from God? Which among the barbaric instructions or laws were directly from God and which were man created? You make it sound as if God's laws are based on the prevailing culture of the day. As if after people go one way or the other then God decides to say "Thou shall or shall not do this". If that's the case then which of God's laws are absolute and are we free to change whatever laws don't go with our culture at a particular time?

Mowire:

You've forgotten that that was before the coming of the Lord Jesus, and one the reasons he came was to ensure that such things don't continue to happen. He showed the superior God's opinion in such matter when dealing with issue of the woman caught in adultery.

First off there are several barbaric instructions in the old testament, the case of a woman caught in adultery is just one. Now I find this statement of yours very curious "the superior God's opinion". What exactly does that mean? God is all knowing, all powerful, unchanging. Can God have an opinion that is more "superior" than another opinion of his?

You insinuated that women being preachers now is due to man's rebellious nature. I then said that by your assumption God instructions in the old testament times were the "correct" instructions. This should also include laws about stoning of sinners, genocide during war etc. You turned around to say that Jesus Christ (God) came to amend this laws. Laws God himself had given beforehand. I wonder if you see how convoluted this argument is becoming?

Mowire:

I don't know where you are coming from, faithwise, friend. But God could not have been ignorant in future (the present), that future is not however necessarily His desire.

God had stated what is good or man form the beginning. The present situation that run counter to His instructions as laid out in Bible is just a continuation of man's rebellion. We cannot be wiser than our creator. Simple.

However the woman is not made the slave of the man. But the roles are different. I suppose that is because He that made us knows what capability He has put in each one of us.

Interesting, there are verses in the bible that talk about slave rights, people being stoned to death for one sin or the other. This verses were also supposed to be God's word. Today we would not consider following any such barbaric laws. From your argument the present situation where we don't follow this laws is due to man's rebellion. Things should really be as the bible describes right?

This sort of arguments tend to go round and round in circles. Problem is it's another part of the bible that shows the bible is largely tainted with the cultural views and norms of the people that wrote it. It's impossible in this present age to justify verses that clearly say women should keep silent and be subservient to their husbands. Women nowadays are leaders in many facets in and out of the church. Question is how can people still try to claim that the bible is the inerrant word of God. If the bible is then it means God did not realise that sometime in the future woman will have more or less the same rights as men.

Completeness like happiness is not something that one can get from someone else. A spouse or a friend can give you happiness on occasion, just like having kids can be a source of joy for you. But all this cannot make you a happy person. Your life long happiness can only come from you and involves you loving yourself, listening to your inner self and actualizing your intrinsic (or God given) purpose in life.

JeSoul:

  I'll say it again my dear, the problem with a lotta people reading the bible is that they expect to use our limited minds and understanding to completely comprehend it.
  I will not get into the specifics of creation whether it was 6 literal days or 6 thousand days or 6 million. The only important thing to take away is that "God created the heavens and the earth". And that is more than enough for me. I don't need to know or understand how He did it, BUT I believe that He did it and that's all that's truly important. The knowledge of how will not affect or change my life for the better.
  Whether Noah's ark floated on water or on air could bother me not. But the meaning of the event, the cause and effect is what matters.

  People get to caught up in trying to prove/disprove the scientific validity of the bible that they miss the entire point of it. And before you get it wrong, I'll let you know that I'm a scientist. Searching out and understanding things is what I do for a living. But I also know when and where to let go and let faith be my proof.
And I'm dying to know what your criteria was for certifing that these "christians" and the "church" of that time were "spirit-filled christians. Again I'll say[b] the spirit is perfect, but it is in imperfect human beings.[/b] We don't always listen and learn and follow and understand His ways.
  And that's why I've been chanting FAITH FAITH FAITH since the first page my dear. My faith is my proof to me (and no one else), everyone should be searching out for themselves and reach their own conclusions. And some of us will be right and others wrong.
  I understand your point, but your advocating a quest that cannot be acheived.
My christianity clouds and covers and affects and dictates EVERY decision that I make. That's who I am and what I've chosen to believe in. There's a spiritual, intangible dimension to us all, one that cannot be measured, dissected, studied and reproduced in a lab. The soul and spirit are not just simple variables in a statistical distribution, you cannot substantiate and validate issues that have to do with them.

  My general rule is as long as my lifestyle and belief don't adversely affect others, long as I'm not creating evil instead of good, long as my belief system allows you to live as you please without shoving and dictating my way onto you, then why shouldn't I be left to live my faith?

For a president its no different, whether christian or not. As long as he/she is fair to all, shows compassion to all, is not partial to some, is just and reasonable in all his decisions, where's the beef? This character is what God wants to see in us all.

I tell you there are many many people who've never set foot in a church who'll make it into heaven. God looks upon the heart and motives and intentions. He'll look at your soul and spirit and make the call from there.

Hmmmm, i'll try and take this comments one at at time. First we seem now to agree that the bible can't always be taken literally since you have moved on to say that you don't actually care if the text is literal or not. According to you whether Noah's ark floated on water or air could bother you not. You are of the opinion that the message is the most important thing to grasp. That's fine, a lot of people would go with that flow. However what does this say about the bible and it's validity? If we can simply say - it's the message that counts - then the bible becomes more or less a motivational or inspirational book with little real historical validity. If on the other hand we say everything in the bible is true, but can only be understood by faith then why even bother looking at the bible critically at all. The believer should simply accept it as it is - with faith.

I personally believe that people should be ready to learn and ask questions about their faith. This I believe it's the only way one can be said to have a firm belief in one's faith.

You made a comment about the spirit being perfect and that the only problem is imperfect people. This statement you made in response to a comment I made about Christians in the past thinking the earth was flat. Are you honestly saying to me that during that period there were no truly spirit filled persons that the truth could be revealed to? Is it a coincidence that with education and enlightenment a lot of this old age beliefs were abandoned?

A question I once asked in another thread is whether at times the need for faith causes us to shelf our ability to reason critically. As far as the science/spiritually debate is concerned I can assure you that I'm in no way involved in this argument. I believe that there are a lot of things we don't know and are probably unable to comprehend. I do believe that science is a very good method for observing the nature of things around us. Science may come up with a lot of theories about how things work, but in no way claims to know all things. Organized religion on the other hand always seems to have an all encompassing explanation for everything.

The beliefs of a American president will have an impact globally. I'm sure the situation in Iraq will have been different if the American president was muslim or even agnostic. It's quite impossible to say your beliefs will have no negative impact on someone somewhere. The stronger your conviction in a particular faith the higher the probability of your beliefs have an marked impact somewhere.

The last point you made about many non-church goers having the chance to go to heaven is one many literal christians will not agree with. One question do you believe a moral, loving person that does not believe in Jesus Christ can go to heaven?

JeSoul:

Not a problem just jump right in
How does needing the spirit of God to understand the bible = Don't take the bible literally?

I said Sometimes my dear, I said the bible is sometimes difficult to understand. For example Jn3:16 "For God so loved the world he sent His only begotten son that whosoever believes in Him will not perish but have everlasting life" is pretty much straightforward and doesn't require much 'translation'. But go into the book of Daniel and Revelation and it gets harder to understand. Then we need the Holy spirit that much more to be able to understand what is being said in those places.

Yes they will. Sometimes they might attack it from different angles but the overall message should be in harmony . . . however you're missing one thing: while the Spirit is one and is never confused - the problem is with the us. Even as christians we don't always listen to the spirit, don't always pray and study closely enough and hence sometimes end up with disagreeing thots and doctrines, all claiming to be based on the bible.

So how do we differentiate who's wrong and who's right? Well the bible teaches each christian to study and discern (with the help of the holy spirit) to figure it out. So we come back to where I said each man has to search and account for themselves, I cannot confirm or deny for you which way you should go, you find out from God.
We're back to faith sweetie I only 'know' with assurance and confidence becos I've chosen to believe the bible above and before anything else.
Oh yes they do make sense and are very good points.

Ok, one definition of literal is - in accordance with, involving, or being the primary or strict meaning of the word or words; not figurative or metaphorical. In this sense the mere fact that a text or some parts of a text are subject to interpretation and translation by certain "special" persons means it's literalness is weakened. If some parts of the bible cannot be taken for what they mean in the primary or strict meaning of the words, then they cannot be described as being literal. Genesis says the world was created in 6-7 days. Is that number of days exactly the 24 hrs we understand days to mean now? If not and you can only understand this part of the bible with the special spirit of God then the bible is not literal. Ditto for several other stories like Noah's art, tower of babel, creation of different species of animals etc.

Now to the spirit being able to tell us the truth - several wrong stances have been held by spirit filled christians. Lets take the example of the earth being flat,
a view held by the church for a long time. Time and education has taught us that that view was wrong. Another example is the belief in the past that people with mental illnesses are demon possessed. If the spirit of God is what we need to enlighten us about the true nature of things, then this errors will not be made. Time and education should not be factors in a spirit that is supposed to bear the absolute truth.

Lastly of course I agree with you that a person may with faith believe absolutely in the bible. That's the person perogative, it however does not make his beliefs true. If the persons beliefs hold a strong influence on how he relates to other persons or he's outlook on life as a whole, I think it's worth it to critically study this beliefs. Where am I getting with this, imagine if a person with this very strong beliefs in hell, heaven, armageddon etc is the president of the United States. His beliefs will play a role in his decisions which will have an impact on the lifes of millions all over the world. Can you see why trying to understand the validity of this beliefs can be important for us all. Cheers

JeSoul:

and I do, 100% without any reservations. I believe the bible is a complex book that cannot be understood by human understanding. We need the spirit of God to reveal the difficult and sometimes confusing things in it.
and my dear Dudu is[b] God to blame for [/b] the actions of men? Isn't it us who make our surroundings peaceful or war-zones? Don't we have the freewill to do as we please?
God has given the earth to man, it is now up to us to do evil or good with our power. Why do we then turn around and blame God when we do evil?
lol . . . it happens all the time. But temptation will always lose

Sorry guys, haven't really been part of this thread for a while. Just a few comments, first Je Soul the part where you say the bible cannot be understood by human understanding is a bit of a problem. It goes back to arguments of whether the bible can be taken literally or not. If it takes a special kind of spirit to understand the bible that only some people have acquired then we may conclude that the bible cannot be taken literally. It means that if the bible says there was a flood that covered the whole earth - this statement may not be literally true. However if you have the true spirit of God in you then it is true , somehow. I'm not sure if you see how murky this leaves the translation of the bible. First off can we then assume that all people with the spirit of God in them will interpret the bible the same way, see the same hidden meaning in all biblical verses. This is in fact not true as evidenced by the various denominations of of the Church in existence. So where does that leave us.

The second problem with this argument is that those who study folklore is different cultures have seen and heard several stories like the biblical stories. Their studies have brought a great understanding to how ancient folklore originates and develops into accepted "fact" in many cultures. In another thread I asked the question that if a sango worshipper told you stories similar to ones you read in the bible how long would it take you to discard the stories. Many Africans believe stories about Oduduwa are folktales but the biblical stories are true. Can it possibly be because we feel the more civilized religion is simply superior? If this is the case then a 100 years from now who can say if Christianity will still a widely accepted religion.

I'm not sure you will agree with the points i have above but i would be interested in hearing if you think they make any sense at all. Cheers

The story of Adam and Eve is definitely a mythological one. If you read about a lot of other ancient cultures you are bound to come across all sorts of stories about the creation of earth and man. Think about it, if a Sango worshipper told you a similar story about man's creation how long will it take you to discard it. Science gives us some glimpses of how things may have been in the beginning, but truth told no one actually knows the full story.

Mad_Max:

You have issues with the Bible. Don't we all? What I don't understand about its teachings are a mile long. But I have come across truth there as well. I'm not throwing the baby out with the bath water.

I'm not emphasising religious doctrine here. I don't know enough about it to argue for or against it. But I do think every individual should find out precisely what the truth is about spiritual matters. Separate the chaff from the wheat, so to speak,and hold on to what is true. You concede there might be a spiritual sphere. I merely suggest we find out more,given how weighty it is, because it concerns what happens to us after we die. I've read several books on the subject,including extensive case studies, and what struck me most was the utter helplessness of people to influence events once they were in those places.

I think one should find out more. Spiritual things shouldn't necessarily be coloured with religous overtones.

Question is can human beings really understand things in this "spiritual" realm. If there are events happening outside our present powers of perception, can we genuinely begin to fathom this things? Problem is different religions claim to have the answers to what is happening in this realms. The followers of these religions can then be led to commit all sorts of atrocities in the name of "God". Almost all the time the agenda being pursued is all human and has nothing whatsoever to do with Gods plan. The admission that there may be things human beings cannot truly know should not lead to the acceptance of this very human religions. As for what happens after death, i don't know but the stories most religions tell sound more like man's fantasies of the afterlife.

duduspace:

Madam Toronto or sorry, is it Boston? flip flopping as usual I see, can you please reconcile the two statements made by you in bold above or don't they seem contradictory to you? If they don't, then you are definitely from Toronto.
Typical of most Theists anyway.

I agree with you wholeheartedly on this with a small caveat that when most people discover during the course of their search that God either does not exist or is not interested in being found, they then end up creating their own Gods. I assure you I've searched for him too but he is no where to be found, he is possibly hiding under your bed and that is an idea you wouldn't find so revolting or offensive if you consider the fact that a man whose favorite pastime was peeping tom behaviour was described as a man after his heart in your "Holy book".
An apt description of the author.

People may fault me for this comment, but is it possible the "intelligent designer" really wants us to figure out how to survive decently together on our own? To use our limited powers of perception to learn how to live with each other peacefully and harmoniously?

Mad_Max:

And what about atheists who held no prior religious convictions and yet experienced the spiritual dimension after clinical death?

It's not at all as simple as you make out,and if it could be discountenanced like that some of the world's most prominent scientists and universities wouldn't have been investigating if for decades. The resusitated didn't necessarily see beings from religious literature,and a lot of their experiences are similar and have motifs in common,irrespective of race,background,education and religious belief.That's how scientists could determine a pattern to them.

For starters you may wish to examine the refences and further reading material on
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near-death_experience

I can also list a few of the hundreds of books,articles and research findings in the area by scientists,psychiatrists,psychologists,doctors and university professors,many of them atheists prior to their investigations. A staggering number of them discarded atheism after research, but touted man as divine instead,and birthed Omega and New Age and other spiritist groups. I guess that's their way of acknowledging the spiritual and the afterlife without bringing God into it.

Right people may have strange stories to tell during near death experiences, many people have had dreams that seem very spiritual,deep and complicated. How the brains works in a semi conscious or unconscious state is not something humans beings know much about. Brain activity of a person in a coma is something medicine is still struggling to deal with. Mankind as a whole is in a learning process, several things we know today were not known hundreds of years ago. My simple argument is that why can't we simply be humble enough to say we don't know that much about our existence. Why must we create a concept of God to account for everything we cannot figure out. It's all so embarrassing when some years down the line we are forced to apologise for absolute statements we have made about God due to our limited knowledge - case in point, God created a flat earth or the sun revolves round the earth.

JeSoul:

  Good question. And I give you the same answer: Faith. The bible teaches that Faith is all the evidence and proof that a christian needs that God is.

Now, can I prove that my faith is the right faith? NO. So to answer your question there's no way I can definitively show you that 'my' God is the right one. Christianity and the gospel of Jesus was never meant to be proven, but simply believed and accepted by faith. And then God reveals Himself to the person in a unique and intimate way that they become assured of the path that they walk.

That's why the pursuit of the knowledge and understanding of God is a very personal journey. I cannot show you, you have to search it out and discover what the truth is for yourself. I hope this answers your question.

A mature outlook in the topic. Few "Christians" would take the same posture. However the point still stands that its possible that the God you believe in may not be real. I'm talking from a purely psychological point of view. If anyone is well devoted to a faith, follows that faith with dedication and belief he/she is bound to "see" things in his life that he would look on as blessings from his God. What produces this results in the devotees life, the actual existence of his God or the process of being a faithful follower of a doctrine?

bindex:

The problem is that the creation story in the bible and the koran is very ridiculous and incoherent, there are so many things wrong with it but let us just take a look at one or two from the bible (my koran is not here but i will show of of the ridiculous assertions about its own creation story when I get home.)

On the second day

Gen 1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

Gen 1:10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

Gen 1:11 And God said, Let the earth put forth grass, herbs yielding seed, [and] fruit-trees bearing fruit after their kind, wherein is the seed thereof, upon the earth: and it was so.

Gen 1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, herbs yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit, wherein is the seed thereof, after their kind: and God saw that it was good.

And the story continues till the end of creation and how God rested.

Gen 2:2 And on the seventh day God finished his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.

Gen 2:3 And God blessed the seventh day, and hallowed it; because that in it he rested from all his work which God had created and made.

Gen 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that Jehovah God made earth and heaven. (What does this mean? generations of heaven and earth when they were created in the day God made them? what is this? )

OK now here is the problem.

Gen 2:5 And no plant of the field was yet in the earth, and no herb of the field had yet sprung up; for Jehovah God had not caused it to rain upon the earth: and there was not a man to till the ground.

In Gen 1:11 And God said, Let the earth put forth grass, herbs yielding seed, [and] fruit-trees bearing fruit after their kind, wherein is the seed thereof, upon the earth: and it was so.

Gen 1:12 And the earth brought forth plants, herbs yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit, wherein is the seed thereof, after their kind: and God saw that it was good.

When did plants grow on the earth? on the second day or after the entire creation? Genesis 1:11 said on the second day of creation, while genesis 2:5 said after the entire creation because the bibleGod had not yet caused it to rain and because there was no man to till the ground. Is that really how the world was created? 

Genesis 1:27

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

But before this verse it was "Let us create man in our image", and not "his own image". Which is it? His image, or "our" image, in reference to the quote before the above?

Some Christians could argue that Jesus existed already before he had been born hence It could be that the bibleGod was talking to him at that time. But even without me believing all that, it still sounds farfetched.

Well most religions encourage you to believe first and then all things will be made clear. Problem is after the faith few "believers" are ready or willing to question or even investigate the history and basic tenets of their religions.

JeSoul:

   If you have a better theory as to who created the universe, how and why I would love to hear it

  There is nuthin outlandish about building ones belief system based on things that have happened to them. We all interpret the world around us based on the knowledge and understanding we've acquired thruout our lives. I understand you say "then 'God' will be different according to each person"  true.

  Now will they be wrong sometimes? yes. All the time? perhaps. But still, its not illogical to apply ones experiences as a means to understanding the world around them.
  Impossible. Both groups (and thousands more) differ in their accepted ideological definition & character of God, so much so that there can be no reconciliation btw the two.
 
lol, you give the atheists too much credit.
I'm glad though that you've left open the possibility of an intelligent designer. I see that your beef is with when anyone says with "certainity" that their God is the culprit responsible for the universe.
  Brotha we could simply throw up our hands and say why bother? we can never know. That is not entirely an unreasonable position. But you are forgetting one central thing:

FAITH. It is only by faith (with the absence of evidence or proof) any of us believers can say God is real and that He created all the universe. So its not a "bending over backwards to make up stories", it is an intangible belief in the heart that these things are even though we cannot prove it.

Well as you may have picked up from my post my argument is not about the possibility of the existence of an intelligent designer. That's a possibility. My argument is whether this designer is necessarily the God described by many established religions. If you choose to be religious and you enjoy the lifestyle and emotional benefits, all well and good. Can you however deduce from your experiences that your definition of God is true and everyone else is wrong and misguided?

This is actually a very simple question I want to ask…, hope to get some intelligent answers. Oft times when a person claims not to believe in God they resort to this argument. They say look around you, who do think made the stars, the clouds, human beings etc. Since these things exist then “our” God must be real. This claim is common with Christians, Muslims or “religious” persons. I don’t really understand this claim. How do you take the leap from I don’t know where this thing came from……. to hence my God must exist. The other angle taken a lot is that “I know that God exists because of certain things that have happened to me personally”. This is even funnier because anyone from any other religion can claim God exists from the personal experiences he/she has had in life.

Next, when the Muslim and Christian agree that God exists isn’t that extremely laughable. Two persons with widely contrasting views of “God” both arguing for his existence. Perhaps the first step should be a universally accepted definition of who “God” is.

Lastly I feel that even though the term “atheist” is thrown about a lot in the forum, does there really exist a true one? The creation of everything we can perceive is largely a mystery to all of us. That there is probably a lot more we cannot perceive is quite possible and that there is a force behind creation is a real possibility. I doubt if many “atheists” would deny this.

This question really is that how does this admission of lack of knowledge lead to belief in Koranic, Biblical Gods? Instead of bending over backwards to make the stories of these religions seem tenable can we not simply admit that we do not know everything about our existence? Would love to hear your comments.

ezme:

@themometer
do you believe blood money rituals actually produce money?
do you believe there are powers outside that of God?
cos if u do,then u are having selective judgement . If people do rituals and actually get rich, why can't a person transform into a goat.
Nigerian Police arresting a goat is hilarious fine.
But if you say powers don't exist.
Then face it you are all Yankee-wannabees,Feigning I'm all enlightened and don't believe this crap.
Its 2009 fine,but lets don't come on nairaland pretending we are not Africans

Excellent! The above post explains very accurately why Nigeria is in the state it is in. A country where it citizens (even the "educated" ones) believe in blood rituals and people turning into goats. I'd love to hear your explanation of how the internet works, could it be something about little spirit beings bearing text messages up and down the ethernet?

Very very sad. In the 21st century we still have stories like this to tell. I weep for this country. Well, please lock the goat up till he confesses. Pathetic!

It tells me that these people didn't think the way we do because they didn't live in our time. And that in order for us to understand what they wrote, we have to understand how they thought. Instead of thinking how we do today, think how they did then. You will then understand what their message is.

I believe Noah's story took place, I just understand how it is he thought. I don't think he knew that the earth wasn't flat and that there were other people who lived in other places in the world. I think he thought that the world was what he could see. So the world he knew is not the world we know, so don't use the world we know as a standard to the world he knew.
It might say world, but you have to understand what world meant to him.

The Bible should be read as it was written and not as if it was written today.

This is a tacit admission that the Bible cannot in fact be the undiluted word of God. If all Biblical stories were written based on the knowledge of the writer - mostly ancient uneducated nomads - one can only begin to imagine the amount of error and wrong perception that must exist in the Bible.

ttalks:

Read the whole bible to get the complete and meaningful story.Don't just generalize on the passages that seem evil to you. One thing you should realize is that God is the creator of all existence and does things according to his will and pleasure; no one can question him! God had a plan and his plan involved the Israelites alone; brought about by the promise established by God to Abraham(the Israelites are offshoots from Abraham). Abraham was the only one that God found worthy on earth among every other people there;that was why he made the promise to him because he pleased him. The promise was to provide salvation to all mankind through his seed but the fulfillment of this promise was for a set time established by God(When you make a promise,the time of fulfillment is always up to you,right?). If any other person had pleased God instead of Abraham, definitely,the promise would have been made to such and probably, the covenant of old would have been between God and another set of people.The covenant was set up between God and the Israelites alone because of Abraham and the promise; it never involved any other nation.
God did not deal with the other races back then because it was not involved in his well laid out plan - doing so would have messed up the plan. He could give the people the grace to live decently back then, but again, he didn't because he wanted it to be as he planned from the very beginning. He wanted that grace to come through Abraham's seed; which is Christ.

God had a plan how humanity would play out their roles and how they would end it ever before he set them(humanity) into existence; so that is all that happened. It's not a question of  - "couldn't he", "shouldn't he have". Just like some one said before on this site, it's like he wrote a script and the humans are playing it out in accordance.

The laws back then were what guided the agreement or the covenant of old; any one who broke them was subject to the punishment - whether it made sense or not. The people knew this.
But whatever the case maybe, all that do not matter again. When the time came, God said he was setting up another covenant that would be much better than that of old - Jeremiah 31:31-33 and Hebrews 8:8-10.Which was to bring about the establishment of his promise to Abraham since the early days.

The new covenant covers both the Israelites and the rest of the world; that is, those who chose to be part of it.

We are God's people; his creation.Whether it makes sense to you or not, we are all fulfilling our roles in God's plan and purpose for humanity; even you that is not in agreement with the bible and its sayings, and also those who do not believe in God.
That's just the way it is. It doesn't have to make sense to everybody; God intended it that way.

**sigh**
Ok I hear you. God’s word does not have to sense to us. Even when all our analytical reasoning tells us the opposite we just must believe. To enter the Kingdom of heaven we must believe that Jonah lived in the belly of a whale for 3 days, we must believe the whole earth was submerged in a great flood and a pair of all animals in the world survived in a boat, we must believe God instructed kids to be killed for mocking an old man, we must believe a woman turned round to look at city and turned into a pillar of salt. All this things we must believe if we are to avoid going to hell. At times it’s makes me wonder why God even bothered giving us a brain. We obviously need to shelve the use of this organ be at peace with the Lord!

ttalks:

Hi poster,
It is very clear from ur post that u do not understand the bible at all,hence ur post.
Those laws u quoted were part of the laws that existed within the old covenant between God and the Israelites.
Such laws do not exist in the new covenant which is between God and all mankind(The old covenant was exclusively between God and the Israelites).
Those laws were laid down to ensure that the Israelites toed the line with God.
In this new dispensation of grace brought about by the new covenant,things are different as those laws are no longer applicable,so ur wonderings are quite unnecessary.

@ttalks
This argument is one i've heard quite a bit and I just can't fathom it. You must realise the implication of your comments above. First why did God only have a pact with Israelites back then. Did other people, Africans, Chinese, Indians, Red Indians not exist then? Or did God simply find it unnecessary to deal with the rest of the world back then? Secondly why would an all powerful, all knowing God find it necessary to instruct his "people" to kill, rape, take slaves, stone people to death back then! Was it out of God's power to give people the grace needed to live decently back then? Did he have to wait for centuries of barbaric existence of man before deciding to make a change.

When you read a verse that says "if a man works on the sabbath he should be put to death" can you think of any good reason why that law should have existed at any time in mankinds history at all? How about the right to buy children of strangers - is that easier to understand?

The simple explanation - which most bible apologists find hard to accept - is that the verses are not God's word at all. This are laws made by barbaric ancient cultures that have no application in todays world. They were simply called God's word because it made it easier to implement that way. Same way football fans motivate themselves by saying God is behind us.

Read the last comment i made here, think about it and honestly tell me if you don't think this explanation makes more sense than saying at some point in history God felt if a man cheats on his wife he should be put to death. Cheers

The simple explanation for such passages in the Bible is that it simply reflects the level of civilization of the Jews then. I'm sure several ancient cultures had similar barbaric laws. For instance their were Nigerian tribes that believed in killing one baby if twins were born. They certainly felt that was the wish of their God then. Point is with most religions there is a funny "cart before horse" thing that happens. First off the people need laws that work in society. Life may have been harsh and backward then and thus the people made harsh and barbaric laws. The easiest way to get the people to accept this hard laws was to claim that the laws were "God's word". Consequently we usually see a softening of the laws as the society becomes more civilised. This is a simple and clear reasoning that explains the discrepancies between "God's word" in the old testament and "God's word" in the new testament. Some philosopher said if God did not exist it will be necessary for man to create one, perhaps one can also say if God's word did not exist it would have been necessary to create it.

It's quite sad that meaningful, intelligent threads always tend to get dragged through all this aimless rambling. No wonder the original poster hasn't been back here for a while. The key points made by the poster stand, he's assertion that the Bible is bound to contain many flaws due to the hand of man and hence that he cannot base he's faith on this "imperfect compilation". Where is the confusion in that? He has not said he has [b]nothing [/b]to learn from the Bible he has only said that he reads it with a discerning spirit and takes the message from it with being too involved in the "literalness" (my own word!) of it. A poster keeps going on about him saying that he's faith is not in the Bible. It's obvious that he means he does not bother about the correctness of every word in the Bible but simply reads it in a spiritual way. Is this so hard to understand? If we can admit that errors may have occurred during translations of the Bible from one language to another is it hard to imagine several errors that may have crept in via compilations, editing, intentional manipulation by various Kings and Clerics.

Lastly the question really to ask is that does the fact that a story is not literally correct mean that it cannot carry a message? I can write a completely fictional book that still carries a powerful message to people. Does one have to insist on the Bible being 100% accurate to back up it's usefulness to humankind? If anything insisting the Bible is flawless only leaves room for all sorts of critics to argue endlessly about this, useful time that can sent actually spreading the message of love and care among human beings. The stance that the Bible can only be interpreted properly with the holy spirit has really nothing to do with this argument. Any religious book has a profound message for the reader if one reads with the right spirit, heck a non-religious book may have a profound impact on a person's life if read with the right spirit. Does this mean that the book is literally totally flawless and 100% correct? Of course not! Would be nice if we could reduce this endless arguing for the sake of it and have the courage to admit others might have a point even if it's something we don't feel disposed to agreeing with.

Mr. Kunle I fear you might be fighting a lost battle here. There are people that simply are not ready to look at the Bible critically believing that it is somehow wrong to do this. It's surprising how many Bible thumping Christians know so little about the origins of the Bible and the history and culture of Biblical times. I'm talking about real recorded verifiable history. Many of them back their absolute belief in the Bible with quotations of verses from the same Bible. I have been exposed to the Bible a lot and very early in life realised that one can at best read parts of it metaphorically, and still be able to take a message home from the reading. It's quite impossible to treat the Bible as the "undiluted" word of God. Paradoxically  I think God would find it rather insulting that a compilation of books from all sorts of funny sources can be described as his infallible word.

I really feel what's going on here is more psychological. This people just have such a strong need to believe and any question of the book they believe in is a threat to them emotionally. Hence they find the need to continually take all sorts of impossible stances just so their boat is not rocked. For heaven's sake even the Catholic church that probably knows so many secrets about the origin of the modern day Bible are willing to have intelligent discourse about many parts of the Bible that they know are controversial.

Well I do wish you good luck Mr. Kunle but I suspect many here would never admit that there might even be the slightest flaw in the Bible even if plenty evidence is placed right before their eyes.

Thanks for the thread Kunle, it really helps by touching on a lot of key issues. First off there seems to be no argument here that several people in the past have edited, compiled, expunged parts of the Bible to get the different versions we have now. These people may have had all sorts of motives and reasons for coming up with the final versions we have. For the claim to be made that the Bible is the undiluted word of God means God must have factored in all the editing and doctoring that has occurred to the Bible beforehand. The question is why? If the Bible is supposed to be the infallible, undiluted word of God why allow it to go through the hands of all sorts of scoundrels, The more simple explanation that the Bible is actually the writings of man's understanding of God and his nature is often quickly thrown aside by Bible apologists and fundamentalists. Again I must wonder why? Could it be because the need for faith far outweighs rationality and plain reason?

pilgrim.1:

This shows that you really have no clue as to what is spirituality. From your OP you seem to have pitted those elements against Christianity rather than understand that the Christian faith is not antithetical to them.

First off I have not pitted education and enlightenment against Christianity, I have wondered if there is any need to have the traditional religions at all. Repeating what i said before do we need belief in these religions in this age and can't we go ahead with improving our standard of life here on earth without them?

On the other hand you might be right and I may not have a clue what spirituality is. So you tell me what is spirituality? What role does it have today in terms of bettering our lot as human beings on this earth? Lastly does it make sense to immerse ourselves in this pool of spirituality while our standard of living falls everyday from simple errors that commonsense and informed love for humanity can solve. Cheers