Why Would Anyone Wish Christianity to Not Be True?

[Slyhunter]

It would be nice to believe that all this shit we go through is worth it and we'll be rewarded some day for going through it. There is no evidence that it is true.

 

[alang1216]

You think my wishes have given rise to my faith. I think your bias has blinded you and is preventing you from seeing that spirit created the material world so that beings that know and create would arise. I think you perceive God to be some magical fairy tale and everything you see is skewed to that result. There isn't one single thing that you will agree with or accept.

You're right, I do think your wishes have given rise to your faith. I also think that your faith has made God real to you and prevents you from seeing that the material world created your wishes, faith, and spirit.

In the end it really doesn't matter which of us is more correct. We each trust our beliefs and they bring us peace. What more does anyone need?

 

[alang1216]

Is that why you are here discussing things you don't believe?

Shouldn't everyone search for the truth and not just assume they already know everything?

Absolutely. That's why it is odd that you dismiss the possibility that spirit created the material world.

It is certainly possible. Many things are possible but few offer convincing evidence.

 

[alang1216]

An understanding of those who actually have faith.

Oh, good! For a moment I thought you might want an understanding of spouse and children!

Everyone is different, unique--and even within a single one of us, there are a variety of reasons. I, myself, have always had this rule of thumb that generally, we all have three good reasons in coming to a decision. For me, these three reasons played a part. Belief in God gave me a new perspective on my own life, comparing God's ways to my ways--what as important to Him versus what was important to me. Second, belief in religion took my mind off myself and broadened my thinking. Third, following the teachings of Jesus, while difficult and even bewildering, worked. They changed my life and how I viewed life and others. Faith in Jesus was making a huge difference.

In the interest of full disclosure, I did have a couple of experience of God along the way, so I never had to work on faith alone. I know God is. That is a huge motivator for choosing to follow either Christianity or Judaism.

In some ways I envy those who know the truth. I fear I'll spend the rest of my days looking.

 

[alang1216]

Atheist are usually extremely jealous of strong believers.

I also hate getting to the party late and everyone is already drunk.

 

[ding]

Is that why you are here discussing things you don't believe?

Shouldn't everyone search for the truth and not just assume they already know everything?

Absolutely. That's why it is odd that you dismiss the possibility that spirit created the material world.

It is certainly possible. Many things are possible but few offer convincing evidence.

I disagree. I believe there is convincing evidence.

At the heart of this debate is whether or not the material world was created by spirit. If the material world were not created by spirit, then everything which has occurred since the beginning of space and time are products of the material world. Everything which is incorporeal proceeded from the corporeal. There is no middle ground. There is no other option. Either the material world was created by spirit or it wasn't. All other options will simplify to one of these two lowest common denominators which are mutually exclusive.

So we need to start from that position and examine the evidence we have at our disposal which is creation itself. Specifically, the laws of nature; physical, biological and moral. And how space and time has evolved. And how we perceive God.

If we perceive God to be some magical fairy tale then everything we see will skew to that result. There won't be one single thing that we will agree with or accept. Whereas if we were trying to objectively analyze the evidence for spirit creating the material world we would listen to the whole argument and not look for trivial things to nitpick.

My perception of God is that there is no thing that can describe God because God is no thing. God is not matter and energy like us and God exists outside of our four dimension space time. In fact the premise is that God is a spirit. A spirit is no thing. Being things we can't possibly relate to being no things. A two dimensional being would have an easier time trying to understand our third dimension than we - a four dimensional being - would in trying to understand a multi-dimensional being outside of our space time. The closest I can come to and later confirm with the physical laws is that God is consciousness. That Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.

A case for spirit creating the material world can be made by examining the evidence that we have at our disposal. So now that a realistic perception of God has been established we need to examine the only evidence at our disposal. It should be obvious that if the material world were not created by spirit that everything that has unfolded in the evolution of space and time would have no intentional purpose. That it is just matter and energy doing what matter and energy do. Conversely, if the material world were created by spirit it should be obvious that the creation of the material world was intentional. After all in my perception of God, God is no thing and the closest thing I can relate to is a mind with no body. Using our own experiences as creators as a proxy, we know that when we create things we create them for a reason and that reason is to serve some purpose. So it would be no great leap of logic to believe that something like a mind with no body would do the same. We also know from our experiences that intelligence tends to create intelligence. We are obsessed with making smart things. So what better thing for a mind with no body to do than create a universe where beings with bodies can create smart things too.

George Wald, Nobel Laureate and an atheist said, "We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds beings that know and create."

The biological laws are such that life is programmed to survive and multiply which is a requisite for intelligence to arise. If the purpose of the universe was to create intelligence then a preference in nature for it had to exist. The Laws of Nature are such that the potential for intelligence to exist existed the moment space and time were created. One can argue that given the laws of nature and the size of the universe that intelligence arising was inevitable. One can also argue that creating intelligence from nothing defies the Second Law of Entropy. That creating intelligence from nothing increases order within the universe. It actually doesn't because usable energy was lost along the way as a cost of creating order from disorder. But it is nature overriding it's tendency for ever increasing disorder that interests me and raises my suspicions to look deeper and to take seriously the proposition that a mind without a body created the material world so that minds with bodies could create too.

If we examine the physical laws we discover that we live in a logical universe governed by rules, laws and information. Rules laws and information are a signs of intelligence. Intentionality and purpose are signs of intelligence. The definition of reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event. The definition of purpose is the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. The consequence of a logical universe is that every cause has an effect. Which means that everything happens for a reason and serves a purpose. The very nature of our physical laws point to reason and purpose.

All we have done so far is to make a logical argument for spirit creating the material world. Certainly not an argument built of fairy tales that's for sure. So going back to the two possibilities; spirit creating the material world versus everything proceeding from the material, the key distinction is no thing versus thing. So if we assume that everything I have described was just an accidental coincidence of the properties of matter, the logical conclusion is that matter and energy are just doing what matter and energy do which makes sense. The problem is that for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do, there has to be rules in place for matter and energy to obey. The formation of space and time followed rules. Specifically the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible. These laws are no thing. So we literally have an example of no thing existing before the material world. The creation of space and time from nothing is literally correct. Space and time were created from no thing. Spirit is no thing. No thing created space and time.

If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.

Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.

So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.

If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

 

[ding]

An understanding of those who actually have faith.

Oh, good! For a moment I thought you might want an understanding of spouse and children!

Everyone is different, unique--and even within a single one of us, there are a variety of reasons. I, myself, have always had this rule of thumb that generally, we all have three good reasons in coming to a decision. For me, these three reasons played a part. Belief in God gave me a new perspective on my own life, comparing God's ways to my ways--what as important to Him versus what was important to me. Second, belief in religion took my mind off myself and broadened my thinking. Third, following the teachings of Jesus, while difficult and even bewildering, worked. They changed my life and how I viewed life and others. Faith in Jesus was making a huge difference.

In the interest of full disclosure, I did have a couple of experience of God along the way, so I never had to work on faith alone. I know God is. That is a huge motivator for choosing to follow either Christianity or Judaism.

In some ways I envy those who know the truth. I fear I'll spend the rest of my days looking.

Truth is discovered through a conflict and confusion process. Diversity of thought is critical to that process.

 

[ding]

You think my wishes have given rise to my faith. I think your bias has blinded you and is preventing you from seeing that spirit created the material world so that beings that know and create would arise. I think you perceive God to be some magical fairy tale and everything you see is skewed to that result. There isn't one single thing that you will agree with or accept.

You're right, I do think your wishes have given rise to your faith. I also think that your faith has made God real to you and prevents you from seeing that the material world created your wishes, faith, and spirit.

In the end it really doesn't matter which of us is more correct. We each trust our beliefs and they bring us peace. What more does anyone need?

It is my faith that has led me to objective truth. Jesus taught us that it is possible to transform ourselves. Dying to self is how one discovers objective truth. His life was a parable for how to see reality.

The most powerful message in Genesis is that man knows right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept he rationalizes that he didn't violate it. Jesus taught that we don't need to rationalize our sins anymore.

 

[ding]

It would be nice to believe that all this shit we go through is worth it and we'll be rewarded some day for going through it. There is no evidence that it is true.

It seems to me that doing the right thing for no other reason than to get a reward or avoid a punishment misses the point. There is no virtue in being forced to be virtuous. We literally have to choose it for no other reason than we desire to do the right thing for the sake of doing the right thing.

There is meaning in suffering. The trick is figuring out how to discover what that meaning is and what it is that we were supposed to learn from it.

Think of it this way, the good things in life would have no meaning without bad the bad things in life. It is the contrast between the two that gives good its meaning.

 

[Moonglow]

Since Christ died to wipe away our sins then Adam and Eve have been forgiven and there is no more original sin or guilt without effort.

 

[presonorek]

finding the truth does not at least make you more comfortable ... why not happy.

I am not following. Why would the truth consistently yield the same emotion?

Knowing that I had the winning lottery ticket would yield a different emotion than knowing my best friend just died. They both could be truth. My comfort nor my happiness would be relevant.

What exactly are you trying to say?

 

[Anathema]

My experience was much different. I believe He cares greatly. I am so sorry, though, for your hard times. Impossible to explain, I know.

Apparently the end user experience may vary greatly. Thanks for the kind words but after almost 45 years I’ve learned to deal with things. Actually in my case it’s pretty easy to explain, the list of grievances is just too long to type in a reasonable amount of fine.

 

[Meriweather]

Apparently the end user experience may vary greatly. Thanks for the kind words but after almost 45 years I’ve learned to deal with things. Actually in my case it’s pretty easy to explain, the list of grievances is just too long to type in a reasonable amount of fine.

A long time ago I read that the question is not if we will suffer but rather, How will we suffer. Knowing this is a given seems to prompt one of two reactions: Turning away from God or turning to God. Either way, what often troubles me the bottom line seems to be about taking care of self. I found the true challenge is letting go of self (how can we when that is to what we are attached) and reaching beyond to others (which seems more an impossible dream). Life is not easy, but I have also found that along the way there are often surprising oases. I am hoping you find more than a few of these as you continue on your way.

 

[alang1216]

Is that why you are here discussing things you don't believe?

Shouldn't everyone search for the truth and not just assume they already know everything?

Absolutely. That's why it is odd that you dismiss the possibility that spirit created the material world.

It is certainly possible. Many things are possible but few offer convincing evidence.

I disagree. I believe there is convincing evidence.

At the heart of this debate is whether or not the material world was created by spirit. If the material world were not created by spirit, then everything which has occurred since the beginning of space and time are products of the material world. Everything which is incorporeal proceeded from the corporeal. There is no middle ground. There is no other option. Either the material world was created by spirit or it wasn't. All other options will simplify to one of these two lowest common denominators which are mutually exclusive.

So we need to start from that position and examine the evidence we have at our disposal which is creation itself. Specifically, the laws of nature; physical, biological and moral. And how space and time has evolved. And how we perceive God.

If we perceive God to be some magical fairy tale then everything we see will skew to that result. There won't be one single thing that we will agree with or accept. Whereas if we were trying to objectively analyze the evidence for spirit creating the material world we would listen to the whole argument and not look for trivial things to nitpick.

My perception of God is that there is no thing that can describe God because God is no thing. God is not matter and energy like us and God exists outside of our four dimension space time. In fact the premise is that God is a spirit. A spirit is no thing. Being things we can't possibly relate to being no things. A two dimensional being would have an easier time trying to understand our third dimension than we - a four dimensional being - would in trying to understand a multi-dimensional being outside of our space time. The closest I can come to and later confirm with the physical laws is that God is consciousness. That Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.

A case for spirit creating the material world can be made by examining the evidence that we have at our disposal. So now that a realistic perception of God has been established we need to examine the only evidence at our disposal. It should be obvious that if the material world were not created by spirit that everything that has unfolded in the evolution of space and time would have no intentional purpose. That it is just matter and energy doing what matter and energy do. Conversely, if the material world were created by spirit it should be obvious that the creation of the material world was intentional. After all in my perception of God, God is no thing and the closest thing I can relate to is a mind with no body. Using our own experiences as creators as a proxy, we know that when we create things we create them for a reason and that reason is to serve some purpose. So it would be no great leap of logic to believe that something like a mind with no body would do the same. We also know from our experiences that intelligence tends to create intelligence. We are obsessed with making smart things. So what better thing for a mind with no body to do than create a universe where beings with bodies can create smart things too.

George Wald, Nobel Laureate and an atheist said, "We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds beings that know and create."

The biological laws are such that life is programmed to survive and multiply which is a requisite for intelligence to arise. If the purpose of the universe was to create intelligence then a preference in nature for it had to exist. The Laws of Nature are such that the potential for intelligence to exist existed the moment space and time were created. One can argue that given the laws of nature and the size of the universe that intelligence arising was inevitable. One can also argue that creating intelligence from nothing defies the Second Law of Entropy. That creating intelligence from nothing increases order within the universe. It actually doesn't because usable energy was lost along the way as a cost of creating order from disorder. But it is nature overriding it's tendency for ever increasing disorder that interests me and raises my suspicions to look deeper and to take seriously the proposition that a mind without a body created the material world so that minds with bodies could create too.

If we examine the physical laws we discover that we live in a logical universe governed by rules, laws and information. Rules laws and information are a signs of intelligence. Intentionality and purpose are signs of intelligence. The definition of reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event. The definition of purpose is the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. The consequence of a logical universe is that every cause has an effect. Which means that everything happens for a reason and serves a purpose. The very nature of our physical laws point to reason and purpose.

All we have done so far is to make a logical argument for spirit creating the material world. Certainly not an argument built of fairy tales that's for sure. So going back to the two possibilities; spirit creating the material world versus everything proceeding from the material, the key distinction is no thing versus thing. So if we assume that everything I have described was just an accidental coincidence of the properties of matter, the logical conclusion is that matter and energy are just doing what matter and energy do which makes sense. The problem is that for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do, there has to be rules in place for matter and energy to obey. The formation of space and time followed rules. Specifically the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible. These laws are no thing. So we literally have an example of no thing existing before the material world. The creation of space and time from nothing is literally correct. Space and time were created from no thing. Spirit is no thing. No thing created space and time.

If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.

Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.

So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.

If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

Thanks. Interesting but ultimately unconvincing semantic exercise.

 

[alang1216]

Truth is discovered through a conflict and confusion process. Diversity of thought is critical to that process.

Exactly what brings me to USMB. There are plenty of thoughts here that would never have occurred to me.

 

[alang1216]

The most powerful message in Genesis is that man knows right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept he rationalizes that he didn't violate it.

This assumes right and wrong are absolutes. They are not, they are relative to the culture/society in which we live. Were the founding fathers immoral because they kept slaves? Is murder immoral if you live in a culture that demands honor killings?

 

[norwegen]

I would hope that a real god would be nicer than the one depicted in the bible.

Nicer than being born so as to take the blame for everything bad you’ve ever done?

Interesting.

Not what I said. The god of the bible starts out in chapter one by drowning nearly everyone.

I think that's Chapter 7, actually.

It also destroys cities, kills first born, boots us out of a nice place (Eden), and generally does pretty bad things throughout and threatens people with hell...

Hell really isn't a biblical concept. Or not hell as in the fiery pit of eternal torment, anyway.

Yeah. I noticed that each time I read through the Bible. There are very few references to hell in the Bible. The references that are there are vague and ambiguous. I believe the hell most commonly described in our culture is based upon Greek mythology not the Bible.

You know what the Bible calls the towering inferno that rendered the temple a pile of ash, brought closure to the Mosaic tradition, and blotted out Judea's identity from the face of the earth? It calls it a fiery furnace, a lake of fire.

 

[Anathema]

A long time ago I read that the question is not if we will suffer but rather, How will we suffer. Knowing this is a given seems to prompt one of two reactions: Turning away from God or turning to God. Either way, what often troubles me the bottom line seems to be about taking care of self. I found the true challenge is letting go of self (how can we when that is to what we are attached) and reaching beyond to others (which seems more an impossible dream). Life is not easy, but I have also found that along the way there are often surprising oases. I am hoping you find more than a few of these as you continue on your way.

You’re very right. My turn away from the ChrioGid was a means to deal with my perception of being done wrong by him.

The oasis’s that I find in life tend to be dark, angry, violent places where I can unload those emotions without repercussions.

 

[Meriweather]

You’re very right. My turn away from the ChrioGid was a means to deal with my perception of being done wrong by him.

The oasis’s that I find in life tend to be dark, angry, violent places where I can unload those emotions without repercussions.

I pray that one day God might show you His love, which truly is amazing. As many here know, my anthem is don't look for God in great and terrible or great and powerful places. Seek Him in the tiny whisper.

I do wish you well--and good days ahead.

 

[Anathema]

I pray that one day God might show you His love, which truly is amazing. As many here know, my anthem is don't look for God in great and terrible or great and powerful places. Seek Him in the tiny whisper.

I do wish you well--and good days ahead.

Thank you for the kind thoughts and words but I gave up on the Christian God 17+ years ago. I grew up in a devoutly Lutheran family where you can’t swing an arm without hitting a church worker. My maternal grandfather was a pastor for more than 60 years. After 27 years in the church I walked away. I don’t see that changing any time soon.