Help .. A Serious Question

Jesus is the second person of the Trinity. He is God in human form. Not "a" god. Not merely a good teacher (although he was that).

And btw, keepitlow, the Trinity is mentioned, in numerous places. Most notably in the Great Commission (Matthew 28:16-20). And Nicea wasn't voting on "approving" God. They were voting on what the Scriptures REVEALED about God. And that comment about Jesus' "supposed" life and death. You would be hard-pressed to find a legitimate scholar, even an athiest one, who would argue that Jesus of Nazareth never existed. His signficance is open to debate (he himself said it would be), but not his existence. And there are few people that don't know that December 25th isn't Jesus' literal birthday. Or that he was probably born between 4-6BC, and not in the year 0. It doesn't change the meaning of his life, death, and Resurrection.

For that matter, Christians don't believe Paul , and, by extension, Moses, since Paul was a Jew, are the only ones to experience God personally. The entire Old Testament is about peoples' (David, Isaiah, Jeremiah, the Minor Prophets, etc.) personal experiences with God.

Nor do the Muslims believe in the same God as Christians and Jews. Do both groups both believe they're descended from Abraham? Yes. But their views of God are so different that to believe they're the same is to prove you've never read both the Bible and the Koran (as I have, both on them on several occasions).

 

Actualy most of those mentioned in the bible were Jewish Including Jesus this is something that most christians seem to either forget or simply dont understand. The disciples/ Moses/ etc were not Christian/Protestant/Catholic these did not actual exist then.
They would have been members of one of the many Jewish sect's possibly if they were Roman they would have worshiped a number of gods then lets not even talk about if they had come from somwere else LOL
Christianity as we know it today is a fairly new thing my own country only realy started to turn to Christianity in numbers with the Norman conquest and even then there were areas that still worshiped the old gods. Most of europe was in the same situation

 

I grew up with a Russian Orthodox mother. She took my family to church every Sunday, but the practice sort of died out in my family by the time I was in middle school. When I was in 8th grade, I started thinking about evolution and questioned the existence of God. I held many of the same opinions that I've seen in this thread so far, especially holding on tight to certain pieces of "evidence" that I thought justified my stance as an atheist. Now I am entering my senior year in high school (yes, still young, I know), and must admit that I have been drastically altered by both my personal experiences and by my reaction to academia.

In 8th and 9th grade, I could not understand how anyone could possibly believe in God. The idea seemed absurd. The existence of God, I believed, could be logically disproved, if one thought carefully about it. My father gave me this book to read, called "The True Believer" by Eric Hoffer, which sparked my interest in human psychology and sociology. This book is essentially a discourse on the nature of mass movements. At this point, I thought, "Oh. So this tendency toward religion can be simply explained by psychology. People want to belong. They don't want to struggle to decide for themselves, so they "give themselves up" to a higher authority, like God or the Church."

And this may be right, essentially. However, what triggered my next stage of thinking was something that was quite stupid. I was of the opinion that people who were well-educated and obviously, smart, had to be atheists. My favorite series is Ender's Game, by Orson Scott Card. One day I decided I would like to know a little bit about him, so I found his web site and started reading some posts. I was completely shocked to discover that Card was religious. Which I then realized was a bit stupid, since there are obvious religious tendencies in his books. But anyway, I was forced to redefine how I saw religion. I considered him an intellectual role model, based off of his Ender series. I did not know how to rationalize this. So I spent a long while of that time of my life thinking about it, and I decided three things.

One: one's upbringing/situation plays a pretty substantial part in defining one's beliefs (although beliefs can change, this lays the foundation). This is essentially psychology/sociology.
Two: 1) there is no way to either prove or disprove the existence of God. In that vein, it doesn't make sense to me to spend time going to church or to be religious. I'd much rather spend my time doing what I want, rather than what I feel obligated to do. However, the second part 2) is to understand that this is a personal choice. Not everybody thinks this. Not everybody has had the same upbringing/experiences as I have had, so it is perfectly logical for other people to make the choice to be pious. It is important that I respect that.
Three: Religion is not the same as believing in a divine force. As stated in earlier posts, there have been a sundry of religions in existence. However (please correct me if I'm wrong), I do believe that the vast majority of religions have dealt with the idea of something unseen, and beyond us. I know this will piss some people off, but I do believe that there is no such thing as a one "true" religion. Different people have found different ways to express their beliefs in what I call this "beyond." By this argument, it is perfectly plausible for some sort of divine force to exist. I don't personally choose to bother thinking "is there or isn't there" anymore, since I don't see a use for it.

 

I know my post was really really long, but I do have a few other points I wish to address. I forgot to say earlier how I arrived at the whole “God can’t be proven/disproven” conclusion. It’s simply that I reached a point where I asked, “Why is the universe even in existence?” And not the Big Bang stuff, I mean the how-can-something-be-created-out-of-nothing stuff. And then you might ask, “Well, who created God, then?” And then you stop because you have a headache, and you realize that you’ve entered one of those never-ending circles like, who came first the chicken or the egg. And then you just stop.

Another comment: a lot of people lose their faith when they think, “How can God be so cruel?” I started thinking about this when I read “Night” by Elie Wiesel, about the Holocaust. He lost his faith, and then regained it afterwards. I found that peculiar. I’ve also had experience questioning a God, because I am hearing impaired. It’s hard to ask, “Why me” and come back from it. A religious person may say that it’s actually a blessing, since it forced me to learn to concentrate from a young age, hence my good grades and persistence. But I was so discontented with that answer, that I started thinking about the nature of right and wrong, fair and unfair, and truth and untruth. And here’s my conclusion: everything depends on perspective. There is no such thing as right or wrong, fair or unfair, truth and untruth, or even simply, justice. The world is not black and white, and there are never only two sides to an argument. There is no ‘good’ and ‘evil,’ because it’s a matter of perspective. I may hate Nazism, but I’ve come to think that it is simply just what it is. It’s the result of ambition, prejudice, and power in the hands of a few people. It is horrible, yes. Terrifying and terrible, yes, but I think that ‘evil’ is like a Jungian archetype; a way for us to represent our own internal struggles, fears, and thoughts in a real-world type of way. It’s the appeal of a story. Of psychology that developed as a result of our very long history of evolution.

 

Very good post, there is a old saying that God has many faces so who is to say that if a God exists that it can not manifest itself in differing ways to different folks

 

I agree with Steve, very interesting perspectives on the whole question of belief. Eric Hoffer's True Believer was an early favorite of mine because it explained in detail why people felt the need to believe and puts to rest the idea that people have believed for centuries therefore God must be real. However, if you are really interested is some good reading on the topic of God's existence, read Richard Dawkin's "The God Delusion". It's not so much about why people need believe but looks at the logic or false logic behind belief systems.

My 16-year old is convinced that religion is nothing more than a bunch of crap. Even though I don't have a belief system myself, I tell him that his not believing in God with such complete assuredness is really no different than those that are completely convinced that there is a God to believe in. I see absolutes as the problem with religion and if those that don't believe also have absolutes, they really are just another type of religion that doesn't believe in a God.

I don't know if God created us or we created God but I'll listen to anyone's point of view until they start throwing absolutes at me at which point I simply nod and smile. Those that claim to know what God actually wants are the biggest liars of all.

 

Well said.

 

I agree with Stujoe on his assessment. You're right in telling you're son that he has a belief system that deals in absolutes. In fact, we all do. Simply to say, "there are no absolutes" is an absolute statement.

But you're coming around. We'll have you voting for Palin yet! ;-) (Not that I would. I'm not a Tea Partier.)

 

I'd vote for anyone who promotes Tea LOL

 

No one can prove to me that there either is or isn't a God in Heaven. One side would have me believe in God as an exercise in faith. The other side would have me disbelieve in God as an exercise in logic. When has either faith or logic been infallible?

People have had faith in all kinds of things throughout human history that have proven to be false and they have also intellectualized the logic behind any of number of natural phenomena only to be wildly off the mark.

In my opinion, having absolute faith or absolute reliance on logic is just a recipe for eventually being proven wrong. I believe that the more we think we know, the less we’ll actually know in the end. Keeping your mind open to all possibilities is the only way to know what you are failing to consider by adhering to absolutes.

 

Edited:
Those who needed to see it and saw it are all that matters. Nuff said.