When can one question God - or not ever?

reply to post by RadicalGnostic

Could it be that our experience is really just a culmination of what we've seen on TV and read?
I just read a book by an Afrikaans pastor who hid the fact that he was gay for most of his life, and he speaks about the "Toronto Blessing" and that whole charismatic phase. He says he gave a sermon in the early 1990s and the whole church began dancing and passing out. Only later did he discover they all saw a video on the "Blessing", and he only understood afterwards that they were simply copying the behaviour.

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by halfoldman

 

Well we should never have to believe anything on blind ignorant faith that's one of the main reasons I don't adhere to any religion.

Any truly all-powerful deity would be able to do better at proving his existence than self-contradictory sacred works and texts filled with logical or scientific errors. If a true perfect God were to write a book said book would turn out perfect, wouldn't you agree?

We must always question religion, for religion is filled with man's flawed perceptions and attempts at understanding "God", the Universe and Everything. Believing these flawed perceptions are absolute truth based on blind faith is just silly but adapting them as we learn and discover more about the Universe around us is the best way to go. Like the Nietzsche quote you posted, if scientific fact proves a religious ideal wrong than that religious ideal needs to be abandoned not defended.

All true and well put. But isn't some of what you mention the crux of ATS? How do we know that anything reported to us (often from far away positions) is true? While a good argument, it leaves us in a no better position than religion.


[edit on 16-5-2010 by halfoldman]

reply to post by halfoldman

How do we know that anything reported to us is true?

This is a very deep philosophical issue. Many philosophers have theorized that it is not possible to ever 100% know anything. Science, however, is bolstered by a good track record (although for a while it was off to a rocky start with all that Alchemy, blood-letting business). Peer review is what typically prevents falsehoods and personal bias from interfering with scientific discovery, the fact that multiple experts have to check off on each others work functions much the same way the US govt's checks and balances are meant to work.

This makes science a fairly trust worthy source. Things like news media and religious media typically have a preconceived bias the way Fox News leans toward the right and the 700 Club leans toward fundamentalist Christianity. Any time someone has a preconceived bias that is left unchecked by outside sources it is much easier for deception to be used.

We should question everything we're told is true no matter the source, though some sources are certainly more trust worthy all are fallible.

Originally posted by halfoldman
reply to post by Kailassa

 

A fascinating narrative. Perhaps in the tradition of "cying out to God in the fox-hole" trope.
If one looks past the over-riding Christian voice here, you seem to have three versions of God that led back to a pretty banal Christian conviction.

I'm not a Christian because I don't believe you must believe in Jesus to go to heaven, I don't believe in a god who sends non-believers to hell. And if there was a god like that, I'd boycott heaven and go to hell with my friends.

My belief in god does not come from my Christian background. My parents were atheists and the pastors were morons. ( One minister even told me, when I was a lonely, timid 6 year old who had to walk miles through the forest alone to get to school, that if I thought god was speaking to me I was a misguided fool, and next time I heard him to run like mad, because it was the devil and he was coming to carry me off to hell. - I might have been young and timid, but I knew that minister was a lying bully.)

And as for the bible, the bloodthirsty invention labelled as god in the old testament would be enough to turn anyone atheist.

I simply experienced god as a friend, and that has been the same through my exploration into different religions, and I have Hindu and Buddhist friends who have had similar experiences, but used different names for their god.


As for the "crying out from the fox-hole," no, god has always been a companion.

I am a Christian. I accept not too much on BLIND faith. I talk to God, He talks to me...I question God sometimes when I don't understand things...sometimes He gives me the answer, sometimes He doesn't... then I have to go on faith. In the end, I receive the answer...and find that in His time...He has given me His answer.

Everytime, I find that He was/is smarter... but then, He's God.

interesting use of the word alienated. i grew up in a baptist-penticostal church family and i had no choice but to attend church 3 days a week up to the age of 11. i was a believer no doubt of that. i worshiped and feared god but as i grew up and my understanding of life evolved i had questions many questions that church and or state could not and would not answer. i no longer believe in either, i cant. but if god does exist and when we meet it on judgement day i would have to ask god..............

WHO JUDGES YOU?
DID YOU CREATE US OR DID WE CREATE YOU?
and last but not least
WHY?

reply to post by halfoldman


Any "God" I can imagine would WANT us to question it so that we could learn. Rather like a good parent who wants their child to learn from their mistakes.

If I falsely labelled anyone a "Christian", I do apologize.
However, unless people specify some other deity they adhere to, or atheism, it cannot be ruled out that Christian motifs can be interpreted in their writing.
Aslo, while looking at the posts one also tries to find the parts that can lead to further debate and interaction. It's sometimes amazing how a somewhat generalized statement can bring out so much.
I'd certainly hate to be any kind of god with you guys around!

reply to post by halfoldman


Perhaps some are overly influenced by media, but when I refer to experience I am speaking of an intuitive experience/knowledge. Gnosis, in other words.

reply to post by RadicalGnostic

Is being gnostic or "salvation' through knowledge the same as experience?
Perhaps to an extent, but doesnt "salvation through grace" demand experience above gnosis? Can one have it both ways?

Originally posted by halfoldman
If I falsely labelled anyone a "Christian", I do apologize.
However, unless people specify some other deity they adhere to, or atheism, it cannot be ruled out that Christian motifs can be interpreted in their writing.
Aslo, while looking at the posts one also tries to find the parts that can lead to further debate and interaction. It's sometimes amazing how a somewhat generalized statement can bring out so much.
I'd certainly hate to be any kind of god with you guys around!

No need for an apology where I'm concerned.

I can't specify which deity I "adhere to", because to me it's all one, you, me, this whole world, each little stone and each star in the sky, there is nothing for it to be but god, and each piece is god in itself.

(I believe Jesus also thought this way, and when he taught what is now known as holy communion, he was teaching the Hindu idea of:
"This food is god, this eater is god, this act of eating is god.")


So in my eyes you are a kind of god already.


What I want to get across is that god and religion are 2 separate things. One can have god without religion, and one can have religion without god.

And one can have goodness and compassion, which are more important, without either.