Hmm. Well, it's tough to believe in God, like most people do. For example, that he created everything for us, Jesus died for us on the cross, the definition of a sinner, etc.

As you can probably tell, I'm not big into religion, haven't read the bible, but I'm just sharing my two cents here. The majority of people seem like they need a reason to believe in something in the world, a reason to "repent their sins" or whatever the wording is. I believein your own thoughts and feelings.. Why can't you just "repent" at home? Or say a prayer at home? It's exactly same.. Except you're apparently doing it in a "place of god," even though it's just some building that a construction crew built..

Anyways, I could rant and rave about this topic, but lets hear some other insight. Agree, disagree, whatever, reply!

Although I agree that needing forgiveness is a huge part of having a religion, I think the biggest part is in having purpose. People instinctively need to attach reason to things and if something happens without an explanation, well, then it's just mysterious and at some point in history, came from the gods or a god or ghosts -- invisible things!


The Bible quotes Jesus as saying "Wherever two or more gather in my name there I am in their midst." He was implying that you don't need to go to a physical pre-determined building to worship; the church is the people, not the place.

That being said, I'm not sure why he said 'two or more' and not 'one or more.' It begs the question: am I on mute to God until I'm with another person?


Karl Marx said "religion is the opiate of the masses." An opiate is a 'dulling of the senses' and I think he was trying to convey that most people want a standard set of answers to adhere to so they don't have to A.) think too much and B.) keep on searching. It's a foundation to speak from -- a pulpit. Personally, I think these are idiotic reasons to choose to believe in God or to have a religion. It implies laziness.

Don't get me wrong, I'm lazy when it comes to a lot of things but not when it comes to THE question. That one is going to get my A-game.

I'm wondering where the concept of God as a God of tolerance comes from. I understand that God is a God of love (I Corinthians 13 is a prime example) and that he provides peace that passes understanding and calls us also to be at peace with everyone, as far as it is up to us (Romans 12:18). But I looked up tolerance in my concordance and found one example, in Romans 2, where it sort of makes sense. But in most of the Bible I see God as a righteous judge who will not tolerate sin, and is only tolerating our evil out of his great love for us in order to give us time to repent. I don't know. Maybe I'm just scared of the word "tolerance" because its new connotations seem more like "permission" than the old kind of tolerance where you would suspend your judgment temporarily to see the other person's point of view.

just bouncing some more thoughts...


i agree, tolerance doesn't necessary have to equal advocation or permission; however, humans are all intrinsically imperfect, and i think that there are allowances made based on that. 

'I see God as a righteous judge who will not tolerate sin, and is only tolerating our evil out of his great love for us in order to give us time to repent.'

if God expects us to be ultimately infallible, that's a nearly impossible order to fill: what if, whilst on one's death bed, one pricks oneself with a needle and, out of habit, mistakenly yells, 'christ! that hurt!' and then falls over dead; there was no time to repent in that case, so should that person be condemned to hell, even if they atoned for all of their sins prior?

i know it's sort of a nit-picky thing to ask, but it's these little things that add up and cause me to go with my own interpretations.  it's hard for me to agree 100% on one specific religion; if God sees the situation above and uses that last bit to make His judgement, then that, in effect, erases all the hard work that individual did to cleanse themselves.


to me, the conduct and character of someone on earth should also be just as important a factor for admission to heaven: why would we be given the opportunity to live if it ultiimately means nothing?

The God of the bible doesn't expect perfection but apparently can't stand to see anything imperfect. I remember one analogy I heard on Christian radio a while back: your sins are hideous to God and Christ is like the white sheet that covers them up.

The only requirements are that you: A.) Believe Christ died for your sins and B.) Don't take the name of the Holy Ghost in vain

So I'm not sure what qualifies as taking the name of the Holy Ghost in vain, but "christ!" might qualify.


As we've discussed before, your ideals aren't necessarily God's ideals if God does exist. "Conduct" and "character" in your eyes might be very different in the eyes of an omniscient deity. I'm not saying it ultimately means nothing; I'm just saying -- don't assume (if you are going to believe) that just being a good person is good enough. The smallest sin is enough to buy you death and a ticket to hell (according to Christianity).

(hey, scizzottle.)

our talk yesterday jumbled my head quite a bit; now i'm wondering what to say at all, because i know that you're looking for proof and i simply don't think it's possible to have any.

as we discussed, one person or two thousand could see Jesus; for the rest that weren't present, there are a lot of possibilities denouncing it, not the least of which being the power of one's mind and its affect on perception.

even in law enforcement training, it is reiterated that rarely do two people see (and recall) the same thing, which is why there is so much focus on paying attention to details.
if these people all see Jesus, it is likely their storieswill not match completely.  and if they did, it's possible they simply collaborated to construct matching accounts.

too much thinkinggggg....but now i'm even more lost on where i stand with things.  i guess it is like a child with santa claus: it comes down to being a choice of whether to continue believing or not.  a child feels santa exists, an adult feels God exists...but there's no way to dissect a sensation to find roots of truth.
perhaps it's harder for me to decide because i'm an idealist and a realist at the same time, and those are hard to mix.


one thing has always felt clear to me, though: religions are human interpretations of divine beliefs.  they can all say what they feel/think/know God wants/thinks/feels, &c, but even if anyone has been close enough to talk to Him, they still would interpret what He says based on how they're perceiving it.


gah.


ps.  my bit about atonement: that was poorly worded (a common fault of mine). it was basically saying this: what if a person sinned just before death, even though they'd confessed and repented for everything prior to that last action?  would the last sin, no matter how bad it might be, be forgiven?  or would it be enough to keep them out of heaven?

also, about the bible being 'an interpretive guide': i know it was written to be followed literally; personally, though, i have a hard time believing every single bit of it to be true.  christians &c are quick to point out that 'it has every answer to every question one could ask,' but that isn't proof for me because people were looking for answers, and that's one reason it was initially written.

sorry for the confusion.

don't apologise, scott, for making me question things further; it was my choice to engage the conversation and likewise to listen and absorb your points, too.  if there is any fault, it's my own, though it's hard for me to believe that it's necessarily something 'right or wrong.'  it just is.

i sincerely want there to be a God, too; i just keep going in circles because blind faith in anything has never come easy to me.


now then.
i was talking to mike about some of this a bit ago and had a bit of a 'lightbulb' moment:
why does God test the faith of believers?

1 He's trying to make sure we believe in Him;
2 He's allowing us to exercise free will;
3 it's 'just a part of life'.

however, this is a three-part dilemma for me:
regarding point 1, why would he test the faith of someone who already believes? 

let's break it down.  say i tell mike that i'm throwing him a party; likewise, i tell him exactly who i've invited, i tell him where it'll be held, show him the food i've purchased for the event, everything.  he sees the evidence, he rings up the invited guests who confirm what he's learnt, etc.
he knows there's gunna be a party.  (woo hoo!)

then i (spontaneously?) decide to tell him the party is off.  i don't give him a reason; rather, i leave it up to him to figure that out.  he then is forced to choose,
'do i believe this party is off?'
or
'do i keep believing that this party is going to happen and it's just a test of my resolve?'

if mike already believes there's going to be one, why would i be so cruel as to pull that rug from under him?

this leads me to point 2:  i can understand why God would test a person not believing in the 'correct' religion, why He'd give them the free will to find the right way.
i don't get why, when you've got the valid ticket in hand, you'd suddenly be thrown in a position to question whether it's good or not.  why wouldn't He be glad you've found Him and let you sorta ride the coattails with your correct decision?

both 1 & 2 seem like divine manipulation to me.  i don't like that possibility, but when humans do it, that's what it's called.

and the third point, that it's just a part of life...that's an easy response, but to explain it would require a solid answer to points 1 and/or 2.



any suggestions?