If I saw God, I would still not be a christian

[KathleenStand]

If, for some reason, the whole jesus and god myth turned out to be true, I would still not be a religious person. I may accept that the bible / whole christian paradigm is true, but I would not worship the Lord, follow his commandments and obey his will when these actions contradict the complex process that is my decision maker.

I would not worship a god simply because he exists.

[evolvedForm]

[ QUOTE ]
If, for some reason, the whole jesus and god myth turned out to be true, I would still not be a religious person. I may accept that the bible / whole christian paradigm is true, but I would not worship the Lord, follow his commandments and obey his will when these actions contradict the complex process that is my decision maker.

I would not worship a god simply because he exists.

[/ QUOTE ]

If it's really this "complex decision maker" that is making the decision, then how can you say preemptively, "I would not worship that god?" Where did this "I" come in, and why do you think it has any say in the process, according to your logic?

If you were to ask me, I'd say your decision maker has some serious kinks in it if it could not accept an evident truth.

[KathleenStand]

I didn't say I would not accept christianity as true.

[Allinlife]

i think you are just being stubborn now lol

[amirite]

I hope that the constant agonizing torture that Hell is supposed to be is offset by the satisfaction you will gain from knowing you raged against the machine until the very end...

[Prodigy54321]

My first post on the 2+2 forums (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&Number=3439346&page=)

they put me in my place /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Riddick]

[ QUOTE ]
they put me in my place

[/ QUOTE ]

After reading your post, its pretty clear you don't know anything about Christianity or the Christian God.

[MidGe]

To the OP. I am the same, he would get no worship from me. I think immorality should never be worshipped. That is true of any god, not only the xtian one.

OTOH, if he manifested to me, I would have quite a few questions and suggestions to make before kicking it in the backside.

[The Don]

Would you know that it was the God which is described in the Bible? If you see God, that doesn't necessarily mean that Christian writings about Him are true (unless He tells you as much).

I agree with your statement though. I would hate life if I was extorted into worshiping something . If the God you saw, though, did claim to be the God which is described in the Christian Bible, I think that I would have to worship him because Hell seems to be very -EV (it would be a 'rock and hard place' situation to say the least).

It's a good thing that I will probably never have to worry about this /images/graemlins/wink.gif.

[Peter666]

I think you should experiment by holding a lighter to your finger and burning it while thinking how cool it is to defy God. If you can hold that flame there while your flesh burns off and your bone is charred, truly, you are a man among men.

[godBoy]

Kathleen you haven't seen or known God so I don't think it that odd that you think you could not worship Him if he was as he is described in the bible. But..
If you came into the presence of an almighty God who had all power wisdom and glory that is attributed to Him in the bible I think it impossible for any 'man' to rebel against him or raise their voice to their maker.

No matter how 'bad ass' you think you are.

[AJFenix]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
they put me in my place

[/ QUOTE ]

After reading your post, its pretty clear you don't know anything about Christianity or the Christian God.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think too many so-called Christians do either.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
they put me in my place

[/ QUOTE ]

After reading your post, its pretty clear you don't know anything about Christianity or the Christian God.

[/ QUOTE ]

my last post on that subject acknowledged that and as I said, it was my first post...I later changed my mind (something not found too often in this forum)

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
I think you should experiment by holding a lighter to your finger and burning it while thinking how cool it is to defy God. If you can hold that flame there while your flesh burns off and your bone is charred, truly, you are a man among men.

[/ QUOTE ]

A very stupid man among men...

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
I think you should experiment by holding a lighter to your finger and burning it while thinking how cool it is to defy God. If you can hold that flame there while your flesh burns off and your bone is charred, truly, you are a man among men.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sounds like an extreme S & M game to me.

[benjdm]

[ QUOTE ]
I later changed my mind (something not found too often in this forum)

[/ QUOTE ]
Or any other.

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
I would not worship a god simply because he exists.

[/ QUOTE ]
Indeed. Two novels that illustrate this point very strongly are Small Gods by Pratchett and Job by Heinlein.

[J.A.K.]

[ QUOTE ]
but I would not worship the Lord, follow his commandments and obey his will when these actions contradict the complex process that is my decision maker.


[/ QUOTE ]

What does this mean?? Sounds like you have a complex about subordination. Once a Truth has been established does it really matter what I think about it? How I react to it? Is it less "true" because I refuse to be affected by it? And what do I gain by ignoring it? The freedom to say "I am not beholden to another" seems to pale in comparison to a discovery that offers unconditional Love and the meaning of Life.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
The freedom to say "I am not beholden to another" seems to pale in comparison to a discovery that offers unconditional Love and the meaning of Life.

[/ QUOTE ]

The point is being made over and over again. God is far from unconditional love (saved on "condition" you recognise it) and far from benevolent (life has many cruelties inherent in it).

I gain nothing by my position apart from the smugness of knowing that I have not been duped by a tyrant. It is the only possible position, albeit, a heroic one, when faced with the tragedy of the human condition. It is the only one that shows itself capable of any compassion for other beings.

[Marko Schmarko]

[ QUOTE ]
I would not worship a god simply because he exists.

[/ QUOTE ]
Avoiding eternal damnation doesn't qualify as sufficient incentive?

Seems shortsighted.

[maurile]

Doing something morally irresponsible just to avoid eternal punishment is selfish and wrong.

Worship is morally irresponsible.

(To worship a god is to say to it, not my will, but thy will be done, no matter what its will actually is. That attitude is a betrayal of our duty to use our own best judgment and do what we think is right. Doing something that is contrary to our own best judgment because we are "just following orders" is morally irresponisble.)

[Marko Schmarko]

[ QUOTE ]
Doing something morally irresponsible just to avoid eternal punishment is selfish and wrong.

Worship is morally irresponsible.

(To worship a god is to say to it, not my will, but thy will be done, no matter what its will actually is. That attitude is a betrayal of our duty to use our own best judgment and do what we think is right. Doing something that is contrary to our own best judgment because we are "just following orders" is morally irresponisble.)

[/ QUOTE ]

She said that the God she saw would be the Christian God. My understanding of the Christian God states that he is the well from which all morality flows. Simply because something that He asserts is inconsistent with what our comparitively infinitely feeble minds can conjure certainly can't mean that our deferring to his infinitely perfect judgment is irresponsible.

All of the morality-based arguments you make are clearly wrong if the Christian God is actually "the truth." Clearly following true morality can be neither selfish nor wrong, because being either would be immoral. And clearly worshipping isn't morrally irresponsible if God himself, the creator of right and wrong, has specifically ordered you to do so—and regularly.

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
My understanding of the Christian God states that he is the well from which all morality flows.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, your understanding is wrong. Morality can't come from any gods. It's the Euthyphro Dilemma.

[Marko Schmarko]

I'm not sure that this dilemma is relevant, although I must admit that I had neither heard of it nor did I take the time to understand it...
But, either way. If the Christian conception of God is true, I think it can be asserted that His conception of morality is perfect, and that that understanding has been passed down to us by the Bible.

Thus, doing anything within God's will must be moral since his will is perfectly congruent with reality.

Please tell me how I'm wrong.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

I may accept that the bible / whole christian paradigm is true, but I would not worship the Lord


[/ QUOTE ]

Lewis was right. The doors of hell are barred from the inside.

[J.A.K.]

[ QUOTE ]

The point is being made over and over again. God is far from unconditional love (saved on "condition" you recognise it) and far from benevolent (life has many cruelties inherent in it).

I gain nothing by my position apart from the smugness of knowing that I have not been duped by a tyrant. It is the only possible position, albeit, a heroic one, when faced with the tragedy of the human condition. It is the only one that shows itself capable of any compassion for other beings.

[/ QUOTE ]

OP states: "If, for some reason, the whole jesus and god myth turned out to be true, I would still not be a religious person. I may accept that the bible / whole christian paradigm is true,"

The burden of proving it is now off our shoulders. God and His word and His attributes (unconditional Love) are established. What good is the feeble philosophy that we have scraped together in the face of absolute Truth? Is smugness a viable quality of life? Was Mother Teresa "...duped by a tyrant."? Was she laboring under a misapprehension? Was hers not a TRUE life of compassion? If we are using words like "heroic" she gets my vote.

[Marko Schmarko]

Now that I've read more into the dilemma, I feel as though I must be missing something.
I obviously have a great deal of respect for Plato, but this dilemma doesn't seem to be as unsurmountable as most.

I find no contradiction in the assertion that God loves piety for its own sake, and thus loves the pious for having that quality.

I love big breasts for their own sake, and love big-titty women because they have them.

If you assume that God's preferences are the sole source of morality in the same way that my breast-size preferences are have no higher source, I see no circular reasoning, and no dilemma.

I must be missing something.

edit: commentary based solely off of:
[ QUOTE ]
In Euthyphro, Socrates and Euthyphro are discussing the nature of the pious. Euthyphro agrees to the proposal that the pious is the same thing as the god-loved, but Socrates finds a problem with this proposal. Clearly, the reason that the god-loved is god-loved is that the gods love it — this fact is what makes the god-loved god-loved. But we cannot likewise say that the reason why the pious is pious is that the gods love it. For, as Socrates presumes and Euthyphro agrees, the gods love the pious because it is pious (both parties agree on this, the second horn of the dilemma). And you can't have it both ways — you can't say that the gods love the pious because it is pious, and then add that the pious is pious because the gods love it, for this would be viciously circular. So, since what makes the god-loved god-loved is not what makes the pious pious, it follows that the god-loved and the pious are not the same thing — they do not have the same nature. Socrates admits that the proposal under discussion might give us a mere feature of the pious, but insists that it does not give us the nature of the pious.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Marko Schmarko]

The Mother Theresa arguments are kind of irrelevant.

Lots of people do lots of good things w/ and w/o believing in religion.
The tyrannical nature of her guide is of little consequence.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Now that I've read more into the dilemma


[/ QUOTE ]

It's an old dilemma and it's a false one. It's been discussed here before.

The dilemma is:

1. If God says something is good because of His will only, it's arbitrary, He could just as easily say evil is good and by that standard it would be good.

2. If God says something is good because He knows it's good by a standard independent of Himself then He isn't God - the standard is higher than He is.

It's a false dilemma because God IS good. What He commands isn't arbitrary - it's not simply a fiat like a tyrant would issue, but proceeds from His character. He looks to nothing outside Himself for the standard, He IS the standard. Moral goodness is an expression of His character.

Something has to be ultimate. Euthyphro is really just an attempt to deny the possibility of an Absolute, Personal God. It is the never ending attempt to insert an impersonal standard between us and God because no one is obligated to the impersonal.

[J.A.K.]

[ QUOTE ]
The Mother Theresa arguments are kind of irrelevant.

Lots of people do lots of good things w/ and w/o believing in religion.
The tyrannical nature of her guide is of little consequence.

[/ QUOTE ]


Was responding to posters remarks:

"...I gain nothing by my position apart from the smugness of knowing that I have not been duped by a tyrant. It is the only possible position, albeit, a heroic one, when faced with the tragedy of the human condition. It is the only one that shows itself capable of any compassion for other beings."

Therefore, it is relevant.

[MidGe]

Sometimes we need to move or turn the pieces of a jigsaw to obtain completion.

"God made man in his image"

Right, therefore we are all born cruel, needing to be loved/admired if not worshipped.

"In taking of the fruit Adam and Eve lost their innocence, they could distinguish good from evil"

Right, before the very first act of dissobediance, the were like children, living in fantasy land, unable to see the underlying reality to their dreamlike existence. God surely did not want them to know about his own negative side, as he wanted to be loved, so he forbade them the fruit of the tree of knowledge.

Having partaken of this fruit, humans have now the capability to discern good from evil. The illusory (due lack of knowledge) paradise is replaced with the vision of reality. God, the universe, life are in a cruel state.

At this point armed with this knowledge, human can actually redeem god. They can act "contra naturam" (against nature). The can act against their tendencies that are inherited from god. In that way a truly open eyed (filled with knowledge) human can make acts that are redemptive to god. Humans are really the potential saviours of god. By confronting god with goodness, it may be possible to transform god into a god of love.

That is the true meaning of life for an atheist using biblical symbols to explain. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Ah well, same symbols... slightly different story. It can be elaborated upon and seems to fit the facts better. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[LadyWrestler]

You will one day see, in person, the one you are unknowingly obeying right now; (and one very, very sad part is) although extremely more experienced than both of us together, his processor is not nearly as complex as yours...or even mine.

Have a great day, KathleenStand. -Sharon.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I may accept that the bible / whole christian paradigm is true, but I would not worship the Lord


[/ QUOTE ]

Lewis was right. The doors of hell are barred from the inside.

[/ QUOTE ]
Lewis didn't think that god demanded worship did he? The best evidence I (and many other people) have is that if god exists then worship is not important. I (and they) also have the best possible evidence that if a good god exists then he doesn't demand belief - I think Lewis might agree with that as well.

chez

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Lewis didn't think that god demanded worship did he?


[/ QUOTE ]

He did. But the idea of God commanding us to worship Him is completely unlike what most of you think. God has no need whatsover of anything from any of His creatures. No creature adds one thing to God in any way. He is totally self-sufficient in the most absolute way. Therefore, when He commands worship it isn't because He needs it, it isn't because His ego requires outside affirmation, it isn't because of any of the reasons humans seek praise. He requires it first because He is worthy. It's right to worship God because He's worthy. He does all things well. Second, He requires it for our benefit. Genuine, heart-felt love for God expressed in worship (not the sycophantic, cynical boot-licking most of you think we mean)is in our best interest.

[ QUOTE ]

I think Lewis might agree with that as well.


[/ QUOTE ]

Nope.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Lewis didn't think that god demanded worship did he?


[/ QUOTE ]

He did. But the idea of God commanding us to worship Him is completely unlike what most of you think. God has no need whatsover of anything from any of His creatures. No creature adds one thing to God in any way. He is totally self-sufficient in the most absolute way. Therefore, when He commands worship it isn't because He needs it, it isn't because His ego requires outside affirmation, it isn't because of any of the reasons humans seek praise. He requires it first because He is worthy. It's right to worship God because He's worthy. He does all things well. Second, He requires it for our benefit. Genuine, heart-felt love for God expressed in worship (not the sycophantic, cynical boot-licking most of you think we mean)is in our best interest.

[ QUOTE ]

I think Lewis might agree with that as well.


[/ QUOTE ]

Nope.

[/ QUOTE ]
hmmm, not how I read him, nor what previous discussions on this board said. Lewis believed that if you did the right thing it was done in the name of god whatever you believed.

As for saying that worship is different to what most people mean, if thats so then we could be right not to worship god in the sense we mean (which is what this thread is about) and not be in conflict with what you say.

chez

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Lewis believed that if you did the right thing it was done in the name of god whatever you believed.


[/ QUOTE ]

I've always thought Lewis was a little fuzzy at this point. I think he believed you have to accept Christ to be saved but he would not agree to a specific formula that expressed this. He believed you had to accept God in your heart, but he wasn't dogmatic about what that meant in exact terms.

I only have one of Lewis' books in my library right now - loaning them out over the years has reduced my stock. I seem to remember he said more about this is books like "The Four Loves", but I'm not sure. Anyway, here are two quotes from "Mere Christianity" that are relevant:

[ QUOTE ]

The real test of being in the presence of God is that you either forget about yourself altogether or see yourself as a small, dirty object. It is better to forget about yourself altogether.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think this captures the idea I was getting at about worship being beneficial for us, not for God. That guy could write. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[ QUOTE ]

If you devoted every moment of your whole life exclusively to His service you could not give Him anything that was not in a sense His own already. So that when we talk of a man doing anything for God or giving anything to God, I will tell you what it is really like. It is like a small child going to its father and saying, "Daddy, give me sixpence to buy you a birthday present." Of course, the father does, and he is pleased with the child's present. It is all very nice and proper, but only an idiot would think that the father is sixpence to the good on the transaction.


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

if thats so then we could be right not to worship god in the sense we mean (which is what this thread is about) and not be in conflict with what you say.


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with that. It isn't worship at all.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The real test of being in the presence of God is that you either forget about yourself altogether or see yourself as a small, dirty object. It is better to forget about yourself altogether.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I think this captures the idea I was getting at about worship being beneficial for us, not for God. That guy could write.


[/ QUOTE ]
Sounds very zen or some extreme form of hedonism /images/graemlins/grin.gif

Its a good point though. All these arguments about belief and they're really irrelevent. Belief in this god is not like belief that the earth goes round the sun. Its not really a belief at all but a way of being and being in the presence of a good god doesn't require even considering his existence let alone worshiping him in the conventional sense.

chez

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

All these arguments about belief and they're really irrelevent. Belief in this god is not like belief that the earth goes round the sun.


[/ QUOTE ]

I wish I had a nickel for every time I told DS that faith in Christ is not intellectual assent only. I would be at least a quarter richer. "The demons believe and tremble".

[ QUOTE ]

Its not really a belief at all but a way of being and being in the presence of a good god doesn't require even considering his existence let alone worshiping him in the conventional sense.


[/ QUOTE ]

Whoa Nellie. It includes intellectual assent. "Eveyone who seeks God must believe that He exists and rewards those that seek Him". And what Lewis meant was that we should consider ONLY Him - God should be the center of our world.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

All these arguments about belief and they're really irrelevent. Belief in this god is not like belief that the earth goes round the sun.


[/ QUOTE ]

I wish I had a nickel for every time I told DS that faith in Christ is not intellectual assent only. I would be at least a quarter richer. "The demons believe and tremble".

[ QUOTE ]

Its not really a belief at all but a way of being and being in the presence of a good god doesn't require even considering his existence let alone worshiping him in the conventional sense.


[/ QUOTE ]

Whoa Nellie. It includes intellectual assent. "Eveyone who seeks God must believe that He exists and rewards those that seek Him". And what Lewis meant was that we should consider ONLY Him - God should be the center of our world.

[/ QUOTE ]
I disagree and think Lewis did as well. If a good god exists then all goodness is in the name of god whether or not you give any intellectual assent.

and all badness is against god even if you claim to believe in him.

chez

[Nasta]

i think the basic reason this post exists is the fact that u are never going to have to make this decision...

[bearly]

how can you possibly know what you would do if you 'saw' god? it might be a talking mouse, it (the experience) might pull you up into a cosmic whirlwind, dropping you back on earth as a transformed person. but somehow you know just what it would be like, without knowing anything.........interesting............b

[RJT]

I have no idea what the point of this OP is.

[ QUOTE ]
If, for some reason... but I would not worship the Lord, follow his commandments and obey his will when these actions contradict the complex process that is my decision maker.

I would not worship a god simply because he exists.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then don't.

Maybe it's me. I guess I am missing something.