Zone1 Why is it so tough to believe in God?

Pretty hard to ignore it if you read it for what it is, and not try to pastorsplain it away.
Try reading it in the original language (Hebrew) instead of the King James English. Try to read it from the perspective of ancient, middle-eastern culture instead of the perspective of modern, western culture. The Bible is not to be read, it is to be studied. There is a huge difference.
 
After he went through rehab for the NT. The OT he was not loving. He was not merciful. He was not good. He was not just.
In depth study is necessary.
 
Someone may have answered but for many it is the reality of existence. If there were a loving God would they tolerate the horror of every day existence for many? The starving children, the horrid existence for many, the cruel actions of leaders - it was an interesting idea but humans made a mess of it.
This question was one of the first addressed in the Bible. Mankind wanted the knowledge of both good and evil.
 
Is it because:
  • Lack of belief we are lovable
  • Lack of belief we are cared for
  • Lack of belief God is an active agent in our lives
  • Lack of belief we have a reason for being
What blocks people from believing in God? Why is it so hard to believe?
Ultimately, man hides behind a shield of unbelief because to admit God exists is to admit you are not sovereign, that there is one who created you. That means you can't hide anymore from the deliberate choice of obedience or disobedience.
 
Pretty hard to ignore it if you read it for what it is, and not try to pastorsplain it away.
Then you should learn how to read Hebrew and understand all the idioms and figures of speech the original writers used.
After he went through rehab for the NT. The OT he was not loving. He was not merciful. He was not good. He was not just.
By your standards. A toddler doesn't think Dad is being just when it's bedtime and he can't play anymore, or he's put in timeout after a temper tantrum. A deer doesn't think it's loving, kind or merciful when a herd is culled to make it stronger.

IOW, you cannot legitimately impose your standards on God.
 
Then you should learn how to read Hebrew and understand all the idioms and figures of speech the original writers used.

By your standards. A toddler doesn't think Dad is being just when it's bedtime and he can't play anymore, or he's put in timeout after a temper tantrum. A deer doesn't think it's loving, kind or merciful when a herd is culled to make it stronger.

IOW, you cannot legitimately impose your standards on God.
Sending your kids to the town elders to have them murdered for talking back isnt "just"
Sending 2 bears to kill 40 kids for making fun of a bald person isnt "just"
Murdering infants and children because their dads liked dick in their mouths isnt "just"
 
That isnt needed.
Not when you are already happy with your own conclusions. Keep in mind the definition of a conclusion: It's the point where one stops thinking. How is your war against God coming along? Ever think of trying out a new perspective of who God is and how he relates to you?
 
Not when you are already happy with your own conclusions. Keep in mind the definition of a conclusion: It's the point where one stops thinking. How is your war against God coming along? Ever think of trying out a new perspective of who God is and how he relates to you?
lol as if. I have explained my disdain. That isnt just going to go away. Im not going to all of a sudden throw away my morals.
 
Sending 2 bears to kill 40 kids for making fun of a bald person isnt "just"
It was two she bears, most likely teachers, mauled 40 kids for making fun of a baldy. Like you never thought your parents were going to kill you after doing something stupid. It was a metaphor mixed with hyperbole. Thats it.

You might as well find fault with God because the big bad wolf ate grandma which isn't "just" lol
 
It was two she bears, most likely teachers, mauled 40 kids for making fun of a baldy. Like you never thought your parents were going to kill you after doing something stupid. It was a metaphor mixed with hyperbole. Thats it.

You might as well find fault with God because the big bad wolf ate grandma which isn't "just" lol
I obviously dont believe it actually happened. But that is the characteristics that man put on god. You do right or you will suffer. Scare tactics. Rule by the sword and all that.
Violent MFrs.
 
You may be aware that there is much of reality that is invisible to the human eye, ear, and other senses. Have you considered that some may be more sensitive to a reality that you dismiss as "supernatural" and therefore non-existent?
I suspect there are supernatural things, like God, that you accept but there are also supernatural things you reject. How do you pick and choose? Do you believe the universe is riding on the back of a turtle? Why not, other people do and they might be more perceptive than you.

I often use the example of my nephew who was born color-blind. It took us several years to know that he could only see in black and white (probably more accurately, shades of grey). Color is not a reality for him. It is impossible to explain 'blue' to him--for him, it simply doesn't exist. The difference between him and you, alang, is that he does believe color exists for others. Not only do you not believe God exists for you, you cannot/will not believe He exists for others.
Your nephew can run experiments to prove there is a difference between colors without having to see them for himself. I don't know of any experiments that will reveal God.

Carl Sagan's "absence of evidence" is a tricky debate and proving a negative is not generally possible. However, Sagan also said "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".
 
Sending your kids to the town elders to have them murdered for talking back isnt "just"
Do you really understand what children are being talked about and what they would have done to deserve that, or did you just hear about that part of the law and react to it without trying to understand it?
Sending 2 bears to kill 40 kids for making fun of a bald person isnt "just"
Do you not understand that the word translated children is the same one that is translated elsewhere as young men? Let's put this in a different perspective and see how it looks. The prophet is walking past a town, and a gang of young men come out, surround him and start harassing and threatening him.

Would you call out a bear or two if you walked past a dark alley and had 40 gang members come out start harassing you, or would it not be just to do so?
Murdering infants and children because their dads liked dick in their mouths isnt "just"
By your standards. You haven't even tried to figure out what was really going on. All you're doing is trying to impose your standards, which were developed just in living memory, on an eternal God who knows all while you certainly do not.

The bottom line remains, God does not like sin and it is foolhardy in the extreme to indulge in it.
 
I obviously dont believe it actually happened. But that is the characteristics that man put on god. You do right or you will suffer. Scare tactics. Rule by the sword and all that. Violent MFrs.
It depends on how the writings are interpreted as I just showed you how one story is not necessarily about killing 40 children for making fun of a bald prophet. What Christians have failed to include in their speculations is thousands of years of the Jewish tradition of using figurative language - metaphors, allegories, similes, parables, homonyms, hyperbole - known literary devices used by the authors to teach hard learned lessons of the past.

Even the verse when Jesus returns and says, "But as for these enemies of mine who did not want me for their king, bring them here and slaughter them in my presence." This is important. On the surface it seems to be saying to kill Jews which would make any rabid antisemitic fascist seem like a candidate for the returning Christ.

But the word slaughter, as in the laws of ritual slaughter, has nothing whatsoever to do with killing or genocide.

In the same way someone might say that they were slaughtered after some sporting event or debate.
 
Last edited:
Do you really understand what children are being talked about and what they would have done to deserve that, or did you just hear about that part of the law and react to it without trying to understand it?
It says why. Its not hard to understand.
Do you not understand that the word translated children is the same one that is translated elsewhere as young men? Let's put this in a different perspective and see how it looks. The prophet is walking past a town, and a gang of young men come out, surround him and start harassing and threatening him.
The kids called dude bald, the guy asked god to punish them, so god had lions rip them to shreds. That also ist hard to understand.
By your standards.
So you think children and infants should be murdered because of what their dad did? What kind of person WOULDNT have my standards about this? Besides a freakin psychopath that is.

The bottom line is, you look beyond what is written to justify the genocidal maniac.
 
15th post
The kids called dude bald, the guy asked god to punish them, so god had lions rip them to shreds.
It was she bears.

Daniel surviving three days in the lions den is either about not being ripped to shreds by actual hungry lions or not being ripped to shreds, surviving after spending three days and nights (note this) in the Ravenite Social Club.

Which choice is more likely?

In the same way it was written that Jesus spent 40 days and forty nights tempted by the devil in the wilderness while living among the wild beasts. This either means Jesus was a lonely ascetic having auditory and visual hallucinations living with wildlife, mentally ill, or it means Jesus was living outside the jurisdiction of Jewish law (the wilderness) living among the wild beasts, (the Romans) presumably doing what Romans do in the wilderness.

There was a Roman town three miles from Nazareth being built at the time of Jesus where he may have worked.

Which choice is more likely?
 
Last edited:
It was she bears.

Daniel surviving three days in the lions den is either about not being ripped to shreds by actual hungry lions or not being ripped to shreds, surviving after spending three days and nights (note this) in the Ravenite Social Club.

Which choice is more likely?

In the same way it was written that Jesus spent 40 days and forty nights tempted by the devil in the wilderness while living among the wild beasts. This either means Jesus was a lonely ascetic having auditory and visual hallucinations living with wildlife, mentally ill, or it means Jesus was living outside the jurisdiction of Jewish law (the wilderness) living among the wild beasts, (the Romans) presumably doing what Romans do in the wilderness.

Which choice is more likely?
mentally ill :)
 
The answer is amazingly simple:
Because there is no actual, concrete proof that God exists. Two people can look at the same thing--- one might see evidence of God's handiwork, but the other might see nothing but random events.​

So it all comes down to faith, inspiration and insight. Faith is something given, not something achieved. Many people in their entire lives will not find their faith in God because Faith is something God hands out to people who are closer to seeing the truth. Maybe the faith will help them the rest of the way. People simply not ready for God are left to their own designs for perhaps their next lifetime; for them, faith in God is pure fantasy.

The rest is inspiration and insight, again, meted out by God based on where a person is and their actions in this life as well as past deeds. Through inspiration and insight, one receives direct evidence, and usually, most people receiving inspiration and insight from God are well past any need for mere faith and they usually go on to lead holy lives as a priest, minister, bishop, etc., for once one goes past faith into insight, one no longer needs belief for they have seen directly.
Confirmation bias
 
It says why. Its not hard to understand.

The kids called dude bald, the guy asked god to punish them, so god had lions rip them to shreds. That also ist hard to understand.
You mean the gang of young men was threatening him and he called out protection. You failed to address that.
So you think children and infants should be murdered because of what their dad did? What kind of person WOULDNT have my standards about this? Besides a freakin psychopath that is.

The bottom line is, you look beyond what is written to justify the genocidal maniac.
Shakespeare would make no sense if you did not "look beyond what is written".
 
Back
Top Bottom