Why do/don't you believe in a higher power? (Any HP)

[The New California Republic]

The dead cannot look at a cross though.

The fuck does this mean? It's a bit of a truism, is it not? The dead can't look at anything, so it is kinda implied that they can't look at objects like crosses either. I really don't see what you are getting at by raising this point; if it is indeed a "point" at all...

[Arctrucia]

The dead cannot look at a cross though.

The fuck does this mean? It's a bit of a truism, is it not? The dead can't look at anything, so it is kinda implied that they can't look at objects like crosses either. I really don't see what you are getting at by raising this point; if it is indeed a "point" at all...

Humans are naturally spiritually dead. It takes divine intervention for them to be able to have live and have faith ar all. So as predestination says.

The parable of the rich man and Lazarus deal with that, actually. Abraham there says that “Do they not have the prophets and the Law of Moses?” In short, the problem is disbelie, not presentation.

Divine election also comes in here; the natural state of man is to constantly deny God. God is the one initiating the process and obviously not all will get it. If you think that is unfair... well, fair would be witholding grace at all and letting every single sinful human to hell.

Except God spends a considerable part of the Bible very actively and visibly taking part in human affairs and making himself very much known. Curious how God's exhibitionism is inversely proportional to human scientific understanding and advancement. Shame he'd gone into complete seclusion by the time we invented the camera.

It is no longer necessary for Him to be pumping out miracles when the Word of God is already here.

[Threlizdun]

I don't believe in any sort of literal deity or generally any sort of supernatural entity for the most part given the lack of evidence I see for one. I do use the ideas of gods as metaphors for aspects of nature and the human condition, and as means for me to relate to the world. I have recently adopted pagan practices and a sort of momentary suspension of disbelief during rituals or prayer as a means of seeking the proven mental health benefits that both ritual and belief in a higher power can provide.

So do I generally believe in the existence of gods? No, however I sometimes do when I'm looking for an honest placebo. It's a balance I'm quite happy with at the moment.

[Korhal IVV]

The dead cannot look at a cross though.

Not sure what that’s supposed to mean.

https://www.ligonier.org/blog/what-doctrine-divine-election/

Why are some verse very explicit in God “choosing” though?

In the OT much of God “choosing” is poetic. God Chose but such choices were made before time, not in the moment as it were. My point was that Korhal’s explaination of election, that God chooses who will be saved and who won’t be, is heresy to all ancient churches and many Protestant ones. Only the Calvinist bent take that heretical view. Free will is a necessary component of Christian Easchatology and Soteriology.

Before we get derailed into something that rightfully belongs to the Christian Disc. Thread, I will just say that my own point of view actually has free will (as is the moderate Calvinists) in it.

God looks unto history, sees who will believe, and chooses them for the triple process of justification, salvation, and sanctification. Merely believing won’t do anything when one is not justified by it; however, God declares the repentant sinner righteous, and puts their name in the Book of Life. Humans naturally deny God, but if one will believe, then they are chosen. Not all will believe, obviously, and therefore not all will be chosen, either.

[Thuzbekistan]

The fuck does this mean? It's a bit of a truism, is it not? The dead can't look at anything, so it is kinda implied that they can't look at objects like crosses either. I really don't see what you are getting at by raising this point; if it is indeed a "point" at all...

Humans are naturally spiritually dead. It takes divine intervention for them to be able to have live and have faith ar all. So as predestination says.

Except God spends a considerable part of the Bible very actively and visibly taking part in human affairs and making himself very much known. Curious how God's exhibitionism is inversely proportional to human scientific understanding and advancement. Shame he'd gone into complete seclusion by the time we invented the camera.

It is no longer necessary for Him to be pumping out miracles when the Word of God is already here.

And how do you know you're predestined for heaven, oh chosen one?

[Korhal IVV]

Humans are naturally spiritually dead. It takes divine intervention for them to be able to have live and have faith ar all. So as predestination says.


It is no longer necessary for Him to be pumping out miracles when the Word of God is already here.

And how do you know you're predestined for heaven, oh chosen one?

If you believe and exhibit signs of sanctification, then you are.

If there are no signs of sanctification (e.g,, being less of an ass than before), then it is in question. But not an absolute yes or no.

[Thuzbekistan]

And how do you know you're predestined for heaven, oh chosen one?

If you believe and exhibit signs of sanctification, then you are.

If there are no signs of sanctification (e.g,, being less of an ass than before), then it is in question. But not an absolute yes or no.

Mhm

[Korhal IVV]

If you believe and exhibit signs of sanctification, then you are.

If there are no signs of sanctification (e.g,, being less of an ass than before), then it is in question. But not an absolute yes or no.

Mhm

Lmmmmm,mmmm,mmmm,mmmmmmmm

[Sirocca]

You see, I do believe in the existence of the Judeo-Christian God, but I'm disillusioned that he or any other idea of "god" that people say exists or not, is really all-loving or all good. After all, he created our very human nature to begin with.

[Tarsonis]

The fuck does this mean? It's a bit of a truism, is it not? The dead can't look at anything, so it is kinda implied that they can't look at objects like crosses either. I really don't see what you are getting at by raising this point; if it is indeed a "point" at all...

Humans are naturally spiritually dead. It takes divine intervention for them to be able to have live and have faith ar all. So as predestination says.

Except God spends a considerable part of the Bible very actively and visibly taking part in human affairs and making himself very much known. Curious how God's exhibitionism is inversely proportional to human scientific understanding and advancement. Shame he'd gone into complete seclusion by the time we invented the camera.

It is no longer necessary for Him to be pumping out miracles when the Word of God is already here.

St. Paul would suggest other wise.

“For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but the doers of the law who will be justified. 14 When Gentiles, who do not possess the law, do instinctively what the law requires, these, though not having the law, are a law to themselves. ” Romans 2:13-14

[Neutraligon]

You see, I do believe in the existence of the Judeo-Christian God, but I'm disillusioned that he or any other idea of "god" that people say exists or not, is really all-loving or all good. After all, he created our very human nature to begin with.

The judeo -christian god is non-existent, and I would say that regardless of my belief in a god.

[New Legland]

Mhm

Lmmmmm,mmmm,mmmm,mmmmmmmm

what

[Myrensis]

The fuck does this mean? It's a bit of a truism, is it not? The dead can't look at anything, so it is kinda implied that they can't look at objects like crosses either. I really don't see what you are getting at by raising this point; if it is indeed a "point" at all...

Humans are naturally spiritually dead. It takes divine intervention for them to be able to have live and have faith ar all. So as predestination says.

Except God spends a considerable part of the Bible very actively and visibly taking part in human affairs and making himself very much known. Curious how God's exhibitionism is inversely proportional to human scientific understanding and advancement. Shame he'd gone into complete seclusion by the time we invented the camera.

It is no longer necessary for Him to be pumping out miracles when the Word of God is already here.

*looks at Judaism still existing and the countless sects within Christianity*

Clearly some Appendices are needed, because even the people who believe in the Word of God can't seem to agree on what most of it means.

Doubly so given your suggestion that humans require divine intervention to have faith, a collection of 2000 year old books whose own adherents can't agree on the meaning of seems like a horribly inefficient system for delivering said intervention, compared to the much more straightforward angels and miracles and burning bush chat methods of the old days.

[Ifreann]

Lmmmmm,mmmm,mmmm,mmmmmmmm

what

ॐ मणिपद्मे हूँ

[Dogmeat]

The dead cannot look at a cross though.

The fuck does this mean? It's a bit of a truism, is it not? The dead can't look at anything, so it is kinda implied that they can't look at objects like crosses either. I really don't see what you are getting at by raising this point; if it is indeed a "point" at all...

Maybe he means vampires?

[Celritannia]

Humans are naturally spiritually dead. It takes divine intervention for them to be able to have live and have faith ar all. So as predestination says.

Yes, and what about cultures that did not know of Christianity when it originated in a small area of the Middle East?
Until Imperialistic military expansionism, Christianity did not reach other cultures until the Fall of Rome (Europe) and then the rest of the world (European Imperialism).

So are you saying the American First Peoples are non-spirited? Or the ancient Chinese, ancient Indians? Ancient Romans, Ancient Greeks?

Also, from some of your previous posts, are you denying other creationist myths, such as the Japanese, Chinese, Roman, Greek, Native American creationism?

[Lost Memories]

If we go by christian doctrine, God doesn't need humans to believe in him, in the sense that God doesn't lose something from not being believed in. God is merciful

And yet we'll burn in Hell forever for not believing in him.

First of all, you need to learn to read a sentence inside its context, or, to don't cherrypick sentences out of a discourse to purposely distort them into something senseless. Cause being unable to read a discourse it's a fault on the reader, not of the speaker.
That said, here replies.

According to christian doctrine it's more or less universally accepted that "hell" is the state of being distant from god, someone who stays away from god is in hell.
Going or not in hell isn't the result of some sentence given by some mighty judge, it's the result of ones actions, people go or don't go to hell all by themselves.

Waiting for a proof or reason to be given to start believing, is what lazyness is, lazyness is far away from the state of grace.

This is absolutely ridiculous. It's lazy to not believe in unicorns because I've yet to see any proof of their existence or reason to believe in them? You can't really be saying we should believe in things with no proof or reason. This is one of, if not, the most ridiculous claim I've seen made on this thread.

Here you are taking a sentence out of a discourse, and getting all fuzzy for not understanding the sense of it.
What you decided to cut away, for your own ignorance or intellectual lazyness, was this:

But most higher powers, and especially God, do not exist as a genie in a bottle? Thinking you can, on-demand, have access to... Whatever, signs and wonders, burning bushes, etc. is kind of hubris isn't it?

Not really no, its more like a God could provide a sign anytime he wants if he actually cares about people believing they exist.

If we go by christian doctrine, God doesn't need humans to believe in him, in the sense that God doesn't lose something from not being believed in. God is merciful, but that doesn't change the relation, it is God, and we are humans, humans have no place in ordering or demanding to God, and God can't be bribed. (differently than with pagan gods, where it was custom to try to bribe them with sacrifices)

It's humans who need the grace of God, being in a state of grace isn't something decided from above or forced (a determinist would think that, and they would be wrong), being in grace is one of the possibilities of the free will humans have, God has given the possibility for it, to everyone, realizing that possibility is up to each of everyone.
Others can point the way to God, correct mistakes, and explain what they can, but no one can give you a reason to believe, that part has always been on the single person.
Waiting for a proof or reason to be given to start believing, is what lazyness is, lazyness is far away from the state of grace.

TL;DR
1. God doesn't need others to believe in it, so it has no reason to show miracles to everyone to force everyone believe in it.
2. humans need the grace of God, or call it belief, but that grace isn't forced on anyone, God only gives the possibility for it, anyone can reach it, but reaching it depends all on the person looking for it.
3. since, realizing belief, or reaching the grace of god, requires self-effort. Asking others to do the work for you, is lazyness.
Or ignorance of how christian belief and doctrine works.

You can't really be saying we should believe in things with no proof or reason.

I'm not saying that in fact. That's what your ignorance of religion, coupled with poor reading understanding, made you understand of what i said.

Believing in any religion, same for christianity, isn't a matter of material proofs or scientific reasons.
Believing in a religion is a matter of personal reasons, and those personal reasons only you can know them, you can't ask others to do your self introspection in your place.

[New Legland]

And yet we'll burn in Hell forever for not believing in him.

1. First of all, you need to learn to read a sentence inside its context, or, to don't cherrypick sentences out of a discourse to purposely distort them into something senseless. Cause being unable to read a discourse it's a fault on the reader, not of the speaker.
That said, here replies.

2. According to christian doctrine it's more or less universally accepted that "hell" is the state of being distant from god, someone who stays away from god is in hell.
3. Going or not in hell isn't the result of some sentence given by some mighty judge, it's the result of ones actions, people go or don't go to hell all by themselves.

1. Taking that statement out of context did absolutely nothing to alter its meaning.

2. That really depends on your definition of "universally accepted." A huge number of people believe that Hell is an eternal sentence of suffering.

3. And the omnipotent god can't do anything to alleviate their suffering? Unless it's is clearly stated somewhere otherwise, God could easily destroy the souls of the damned so they wouldn't have to experience Hell.

This is absolutely ridiculous. It's lazy to not believe in unicorns because I've yet to see any proof of their existence or reason to believe in them? You can't really be saying we should believe in things with no proof or reason. This is one of, if not, the most ridiculous claim I've seen made on this thread.

1. Here you are taking a sentence out of a discourse, and getting all fuzzy for not understanding the sense of it.
What you decided to cut away, for your own ignorance or intellectual lazyness, was this:

But most higher powers, and especially God, do not exist as a genie in a bottle? Thinking you can, on-demand, have access to... Whatever, signs and wonders, burning bushes, etc. is kind of hubris isn't it?

Not really no, its more like a God could provide a sign anytime he wants if he actually cares about people believing they exist.

If we go by christian doctrine, God doesn't need humans to believe in him, in the sense that God doesn't lose something from not being believed in. God is merciful, but that doesn't change the relation, it is God, and we are humans, humans have no place in ordering or demanding to God, and God can't be bribed. (differently than with pagan gods, where it was custom to try to bribe them with sacrifices)

It's humans who need the grace of God, being in a state of grace isn't something decided from above or forced (2. a determinist would think that, and they would be wrong), being in grace is one of the possibilities of the free will humans have, God has given the possibility for it, to everyone, realizing that possibility is up to each of everyone.
Others can point the way to God, correct mistakes, and explain what they can, but no one can give you a reason to believe, that part has always been on the single person.
Waiting for a proof or reason to be given to start believing, is what lazyness is, lazyness is far away from the state of grace.

1. The other quotes make no difference whatsoever to the meaning of the statement I criticized.

2. What makes your belief any more justified than theirs?

TL;DR
1. God doesn't need others to believe in it, so it has no reason to show miracles to everyone to force everyone believe in it.
2. humans need the grace of God, or call it belief, but that grace isn't forced on anyone, God only gives the possibility for it, anyone can reach it, but reaching it depends all on the person looking for it.
3. since, realizing belief, or reaching the grace of god, requires self-effort. Asking others to do the work for you, is lazyness.
Or ignorance of how christian belief and doctrine works.

1. And yet he did in the Bible.

2. Anyone can reach it? Tell that to the people who've never heard of your god.

3. I fail to see how it's lazy to ask other people what led them to believe in God so you can achieve your own insight.

You can't really be saying we should believe in things with no proof or reason.

I'm not saying that in fact. That's what your ignorance of religion, coupled with poor reading understanding, made you understand of what i said.

Believing in any religion, same for christianity, isn't a matter of material proofs or scientific reasons.
Believing in a religion is a matter of personal reasons, and those personal reasons only you can know them, you can't ask others to do your self introspection in your place.

Then it sounds like belief in religion doesn't involve much rationality.

[Hardholm]

Seeing as how rationality only extends to the very finite Lonnie of human ability to understand, and, by definition, the supernatural is beyond that which we understand to be natural... I mean, it isn't anything at all other than pride to say "It isn't real if I can't completely understand it".

[Godular]

Seeing as how rationality only extends to the very finite Lonnie of human ability to understand, and, by definition, the supernatural is beyond that which we understand to be natural... I mean, it isn't anything at all other than pride to say "It isn't real if I can't completely understand it".

Incorrect. It is not pride to claim that there is no such thing as the supernatural when there is no evidence to support such a thing. There is pride in claiming that the supernatural exists without such evidence to back it up, with the expectation that we're just going to... what, say 'Sounds legit!'?

[New Legland]

Seeing as how rationality only extends to the very finite Lonnie of human ability to understand, and, by definition, the supernatural is beyond that which we understand to be natural... I mean, it isn't anything at all other than pride to say "It isn't real if I can't completely understand it".

You don't have to completely understand something to have some sort of proof for something as fundamental as its existence.

[Kowani]

Seeing as how rationality only extends to the very finite Lonnie of human ability to understand, and, by definition, the supernatural is beyond that which we understand to be natural... I mean, it isn't anything at all other than pride to say "It isn't real if I can't completely understand it".

You don't have to completely understand something to have some sort of proof for something as fundamental as its existence.

Example: Particle physics.

[Neanderthaland]

You don't have to completely understand something to have some sort of proof for something as fundamental as its existence.

Example: Particle physics.

Or gravity.

[The Grims]

Example: Particle physics.

Or gravity.

Or women.

[Neanderthaland]

Or gravity.

Or women.

u win.