How does one know God without religion?

@dpmartin,

dpmartin,

Interesting,could you expand upon your thoughts.Most religious people have a very particular image wrapped in a particular narration and that, to them is an absolute.God cannot be a generalized or be a universal concept,indeed he/she/it must be seen as a very particular human like personality with human like passions.Spirtuality seems an innate quality in humans,I do not think it necessarly applies to organized religions.

I have found for many people religion limits as well as it embraces.Religious people I know are really without wonder,their lives totally taken with domestic affairs.As defenders of the literal text of the bible, born again Christians often put themselves on the defensive.Any new idea is a potental threat,is a new evolutionary theory which is going to jump up and smack them.Perhaps you could share with us what you mean, by truth and the way?

dpmartin,you ask how could a man/women know God without religion.I guess that would depend upon who is defineing it.Perhaps if being in the world is a unique experience,as most people seem able to agree upon.Then religion would only be crediable when it is the man's immediate personal experience,as unique as his individuality.

It is a dreamy moving not quite thing,only the illusion is the grasp of the ring!

0 Replies

@dpmartin,

boagie
As I am sure you know where I stand already, but for the record:
My Way to know the Living God is through Jesus the Christ. Under His Lordship with both feet within His Kingdom of everlasting Life.
Not necessarily the opinion of others, but that is their choice.

Now that said, it is no religion at all, religion is an institution of mankind and the "Christians" then known, (from what I understand), as the people of the Way, were given the opportunity to take advantage of the institution after experiencing many years of brutal persecution. Would consider it a gift from God not to be persecuted when Constantine decided that their God was to be the official God of the Roman Empire. Which was common practice with emperors, pharaohs, and kings. What mankind did with and in the institution is their responsibility, but dose not change the Truth. There are institutions of all manner such as businesses, or nations, or families, that proclaim God, but it dose not make, in my case, Jesus a business, or a nation, or a charitable foundation just because they proclaim Him or not. If your experiences with churches or church goers are less then desirable. It is regrettable but that is not my fault, nor is it God's fault. The world is what it is, with powers therein, given into the hands of mankind. In the hand of God there is mercy, but in the hand of mankind there is no mercy.

The theme pops up( understandably ) through out this site that religion sucks. So, what is the solution? If there is a Way, which there is, then it is incorruptible which would have to be the Word of God.
It is my contention that if there is an honest question, there is a answer that is True.It is my position that God is right, or correct if that's better, and I am wrong.
To barrow from a most excellent song writer:
Yes, I have reason to believe that we can all be received in Graceland.

**********
Mankind must be under the Truth, The Way, and The Life, for mankind cannot make any of these. Only declare or deny they are, or lie about it.
**********

0 Replies

@dpmartin,

If there exists a god, there is nothing that implies it must relate to us through religious belief. There is nothing to imply that there must be a conscious understanding, knowledge, or connection to the god.

By creating an omnipotent god, christianity has made its own religion unnecessary.

0 Replies

@dpmartin,

This is no doubt interesting. I'd like to ask how exactly we are defining "religion." If we say that to practice a religion is to adhere to certian customs/traditions/rituals, etc., then I think a Christian could know God without knowing religion. As I myself am not a Christian, I may be wrong here (and please correct me if I am), but to be a Christian and to know God requires a faith that Christ is the true Lord and Savior. One really doesn't have to attend church to hold such a faith. So if we define religion as rituals/etc., it is possible to know God without religion.

However, if religion is a belief in the "structure" (for lack of a better word) of the Universe, then it's not so simple. A belief in Christ would be a belief in how the Universe came to be (Genesis creation), and would be a religion.

To be honest, I can't come up with any definitive answer without a clear definition of religion. What did you have in mind, dpmartin?

0 Replies

@dpmartin,

Mr. Fight the Power

There is nothing to imply that there is not a Living God, other then that which can come out of the mouth of mankind. All that there is, implies that there is a Living God that can be known, understood, or have a relationship with, other then that which can come out of the mouth of mankind.

An omnipotent God, proves, that religion is unnecessary.

Last22

One could make a religion out of what some consider Darwinism. But the general public's understanding is that it is not a religion, but yet it is a set of beliefs. Many believe that it is true that mankind evolved from primates but yet it is not a religion. The big bang is also a theory that is believed by many, and that is not considered a religion ether. But kneeling to a stone x amount of times a day is a religion, no matter what the individual that kneels believes in their heart.

As Mr. Fight the Power has so graciously has helped me to explain: An omnipotent God, proves that religion is unnecessary.

**********
Mankind must be under the Truth, The Way, and The Life, for mankind cannot make any of these. Only declare or deny they are, or lie about it.
**********

1 Reply

@dpmartin,

dpmartin:

First off, when you refer to a "Living God", do you mean an active, interventionary god, or is there some greater meaning?

Now, I will agree that there is nothing inherent to nature that implies the nonexistence of a god or gods, living or otherwise. It is only interpretations that cause men to believe that.

I also believe that the counter is true, though, that there is nothing inherent to nature that implies the existence of god or gods, either. I attribute the belief in a god or gods to the individual subjective interpretations of men.

I do not posit that your interpretation is wrong, only that it is subjective, and that what might be true for you is not necessarily true for me. I suggest that in the end, nature will never be sufficient to prove either of our interpretations correct.

0 Replies

@dpmartin,

Mr. Fight the Power
"First off, when you refer to a "Living God", do you mean an active, interventionary god, or is there some greater meaning?"

The Living God who speaks and does what He says, the Provider/Creator of all things.

"Now, I will agree that there is nothing inherent to nature that implies the nonexistence of a god or gods, living or otherwise. It is only interpretations that cause men to believe that."
"I also believe that the counter is true, though, that there is nothing inherent to nature that implies the existence of god or gods, either. I attribute the belief in a god or gods to the individual subjective interpretations of men."

I would say, that depends on what one considers what the Truth is. And what is the source of everything that is.

"I do not posit that your interpretation is wrong, only that it is subjective, and that what might be true for you is not necessarily true for me. I suggest that in the end, nature will never be sufficient to prove either of our interpretations correct."

There is no doubt that a point of view from where one stands in this world expressed honestly is a valid point of view. But what are you seeing, and what direction you are facing. And what it is your looking for. The eyes can show one what is within oneself. And if desired, others can see also.

But my main contention is; to know the Living God, or to have a relationship with the Living God, is in the Truth of His Word, by the Way of His Word, and is Life, Life everlasting. And that is not a religion, tho the human institution of religion has and still is used to convey that message to the public. Correctly or not.

**********
Mankind must be under the Truth, The Way, and The Life, for mankind cannot make any of these. Only declare or deny they are, or lie about it.
**********

1 Reply

@dpmartin,

dpmartin wrote:

I would say, that depends on what one considers what the Truth is. And what is the source of everything that is.

Not at all. Even you are not relying on nature for your proof, you are using some Descartian circle and relying on the truth of God to display the truth of God.

Quote:

There is no doubt that a point of view from where one stands in this world expressed honestly is a valid point of view. But what are you seeing, and what direction you are facing. And what it is your looking for.

This is very true. Perhaps you should turn this thought back on to yourself.

Quote:

But my main contention is; to know the Living God, or to have a relationship with the Living God, is in the Truth of His Word, by the Way of His Word, and is Life, Life everlasting. And that is not a religion, tho the human institution of religion has and still is used to convey that message to the public. Correctly or not.

But isn't your reliance on the "Truth of His Word" and the "Way of his Word", but a rather direct appeal to the authority of the Church?

If the omnipotent God makes the church irrelevant, doesn't he also make his own word irrelevant?

0 Replies

@dpmartin,

Mr. Fight the Power

"Not at all. Even you are not relying on nature for your proof, you are using some Descartian circle and relying on the truth of God to display the truth of God."

The Word of God is the proof of the Word of God. When God says something, it is fulfilled.
Therefore one knows it's from God, and not the words of man.

All thoughts of mankind go into the ground just as the body. Just as one's physical strength many give one more athletic capability than another, so is the mind. The mind makes nothing true. It can be used to contemplate Truth. Or it can be used to contemplate lies, or desirers of the flesh or to justify what is in the heart, or retain and or analyze information. And of course that is only some of it. What ever the soul commands it to do within it's own capabilities. Of course there are some if not many, who have reasoned by observation of themselves, or others, or their environment around them, that there must be a God. But there are just as many who argue otherwise. Some genuine in the effort to proof, some not. The Maker knows exactly how to communicate to that which He has made, in a manner which one can understand. The Knowledge of God is not exclusive to intellectual might.
It is the soul, which all have at same strength, that shares the Knowledge of God.. Surly one should fear for the life of one's soul more so then the rest of oneself. Otherwise one is nothing more than an animal that can dominate to consume for it's own pleasure.

"This is very true. Perhaps you should turn this thought back on to yourself."

One can look to one's environment, one can look to oneself, or one can look to God.

"But isn't your reliance on the "Truth of His Word" and the "Way of his Word", but a rather direct appeal to the authority of the Church?
If the omnipotent God makes the church irrelevant, doesn't he also make his own word irrelevant?"

Buy what authority is the church? Should not the church be under the authority of the Word of God? Then how is it that the church controls the Word of God. If the church be obedient, then it follows Jesus. The church does not control the Word of God. Nor is Jesus exclusive to the church. Jesus is for all. Not just for church goers.
In the past, the church has been known to think it was in control, and the Gospel went on without them. Martin Luther is a good example. Even Rene Descartes had his reservations about publishing his writings in his day, for probably some of the same reasons.

**********
Mankind must be under the Truth, The Way, and The Life, for mankind cannot make any of these. Only declare or deny they are, or lie about it.
**********

1 Reply

@dpmartin,

dpmartin wrote:

The Word of God is the proof of the Word of God. When God says something, it is fulfilled.
Therefore one knows it's from God, and not the words of man.

Exactly, this is no argument that nature provides evidence of God, only that nonsensical logic provides evidence of God.

Quote:

All thoughts of mankind go into the ground just as the body. Just as one's physical strength many give one more athletic capability than another, so is the mind. The mind makes nothing true. It can be used to contemplate Truth. Or it can be used to contemplate lies, or desirers of the flesh or to justify what is in the heart, or retain and or analyze information. And of course that is only some of it. What ever the soul commands it to do within it's own capabilities. Of course there are some if not many, who have reasoned by observation of themselves, or others, or their environment around them, that there must be a God. But there are just as many who argue otherwise. Some genuine in the effort to proof, some not. The Maker knows exactly how to communicate to that which He has made, in a manner which one can understand. The Knowledge of God is not exclusive to intellectual might.

This is all true, of course, but I seriously doubt your commitment to the idea that religion is unnecessary.

Your reliance on dogma shows this.

Quote:

It is the soul, which all have at same strength, that shares the Knowledge of God.. Surly one should fear for the life of one's soul more so then the rest of oneself. Otherwise one is nothing more than an animal that can dominate to consume for it's own pleasure.

What is the horror of this?

Surely the lion that strives and provides for his own satisfaction is a much more virtuous creature than the yoked oxen who provides for the satisfaction of another. I cannot understand one who would plead for a yoke.

Quote:

One can look to one's environment, one can look to oneself, or one can look to God.

When man is unsatisfied with himself, he looks to his environment, when he finds his environment unsatisfactory, he invents God.

Tell me, when one looks to God, what does one look for?

Quote:

Buy what authority is the church? Should not the church be under the authority of the Word of God? Then how is it that the church controls the Word of God. If the church be obedient, then it follows Jesus. The church does not control the Word of God. Nor is Jesus exclusive to the church. Jesus is for all. Not just for church goers.

Why is the church necessary, why is Jesus necessary? Should not both be considered unnecessary middle men bound for Occam's razor?

My question is, if God can interact with you on a completely personal level, if he is a part of you, or you a part of him, why should we assume that church has any authority over the conveyance of the message.

Why in the world would you assume the church or Jesus, for that matter, to be obedient?

Quote:

In the past, the church has been known to think it was in control, and the Gospel went on without them. Martin Luther is a good example. Even Rene Descartes had his reservations about publishing his writings in his day, for probably some of the same reasons.

You are still relying on dogma, what you call the "Gospel" is a pointless thing.

0 Replies

@dpmartin,

Mr. Fight the Power
Thanks for the opportunity to reply.
Would not the K.I.S.S. theory be more to the point?

I find it interesting that there is so much mental effort to not believe in a Living God, His Word and the revaluation of it. It seems obvious that, in this case, Jesus is seen to be an object that is categorized as religion and subtitled church that one could avoid or justify not having a direct relationship with the Word of God. It seems convenient to do so in order to keep true information about the Living God away from oneself, and others if possible.

God would not make souls to be alone nor without Life, and the source of the soul's Life is the Word of God. The soul is alone without Spirit of God, for the soul is a spirit. And without the Word, the guarantee of the Living God, mankind has nothing to trust. For mankind can look to his environment and see the handy work of God. But he does not see God. mankind can look within himself and he will not see God for mankind is not God. One should look to the Living God and ask's Him who are you, and how may I know you. Why? God is in heaven and the Father of spirits.

Being born into this world gives one the birthright to know God in His Spirit and through His Word. If a man disregards his birthright to know God, and values the immediate need of the flesh more. The soul has sot that which he can not take with him, and without God he goes. Then what is he but dead already. For he who disregards there birthright shall miss out on his inheritance, which is in this case Life.

Jesus is the Testimony of God, the Mercy of God, and the Commandment of God. Therefore the acceptable Way of the Lord. If it is not acceptable to you then without God shall you be. The only thing one can take with them is their relationship with the Living God.

It is the Testimony of God, the Mercy of God, and the Commandment of God that establishes the Kingdom of God in the earth as in Heaven, and that is what makes Jesus necessary. He did not come saying peace unto you the church is a hand nor a new religion is at hand. A church is merely a gathering of those with like mind, or Spirit if they proclaim the Kingdom of God in Jesus. But the church nor religion is the Kingdom of God, even tho those in the Kingdom of God may be participants in a church or religion.

God will dwell with mankind whether an individual be for Him, or against Him, is up to the individual. He who loves what is given more than He who has given it, shall receive accordingly. He who loves God more than anything else shall receive accordingly.

It would be unwise to find excuses to not believe the Word of God, it is much heathier to find justification to believe and Trust the Word of God. When one is in God's presents there will be no justification for not believing His Word. And there is nothing outside of yourself you can blame it on, not even a church, or a religion.

It is in the name of Jesus the Christ is the Kingdom of God at hand to anyone that call upon His name. It is the Kingdom of God that is relevant.

**********
Mankind must be under the Truth, The Way, and The Life, for mankind cannot make any of these. Only declare or deny they are, or lie about it.
**********

2 Replies

@dpmartin,

Keeping things simple entails removing anything that complicates the issue but does nothing to objectively explain a given set of circumstances. Such is the case with a God. Removing the idea of God changes nothing, everything that is here would still be here because it can all be explained without a God. Everything that people feel, think, experience, perceive can also all be explained without introducing a supreme being. The religious explanations requires faith or else they make no sense, where as proven scientific explanations do not ask for the benefit of the doubt, they are valid whether one believes in them or not. For many, an omnipotent being explains existence, and it is true that a being capable of anything would explain existence, but of course simply because something explains a situation does not mean it is the correct explanation unless it can objectively shown to be so. All of the world's major religions can point to their own scripture to prove their own validity, they can reference the devotion of their followers as proof of their doctrine, but none of them can reference any objective criteria to validate their beliefs.

0 Replies

@dpmartin,

Easily said since all that there is already is, and is set in its order. But the only thing out of order is the will of mankind and if mankind seeks the will of Him who has set all things in order then it is the man that changes, everything else even God remains the same.

What stupid foolishness makes man feel so superior just because he may have found something that was there all the time or may be able to understand something that was always there to be understood or known. It would seem quit small minded to think oneself superior, when the same is at the mercy of what he thinks he is superior of, which is the environment around him. If he discovers nothing then he is squat amongst his piers who also think themselves superior. The more they learn the more they see they don't know, whether it be to the smallest of things to the vastness of the universe. It has always been that way, and shall always be that way.

The science community at large these days are funded by corporations, governments and other entities that do not permit, or have no interest in whether a God exists or not. Nor do they have any interest why some thing is, or does. They only want the result of what something is or does. Therefore the prevailing interest in the science community is the interest of their costumer. So the prevailing publishers, and the most influential individuals, and entities in the science communities are comfortable without the possibility of God's existence.

Sometimes they use their influence suppressing theories in the science and educational community that are contrary to there own. Disregarding purpose, or the possibility of God's existence. This can be justified by proclaiming it is not there responsibility to proclaim a purpose of, or the origin of something unless it is with in there hand to prove it. If there where a multi billion dollar a year market for constructing theory and collecting scientific evidence to verify there is a Living God, the science community would be on it like white on rice. They do research and development for profit or profiteers but deny there is purpose. Go figure.
Interpretation of evidence is no different than any other investigation. The evidence that supports the theory that the suspect is guilty is kept and the evidence that does not is disregarded. Sounds like the roman catholic church of old, doesn't it. Power of the world corrupts, but the Will of God, the Word of God, and the Spirit of God are incorruptible.

Scripture, or documentation is not proof there is a Living God. It is validation that which God's Word has revealed to the writer of the document has come true or fulfilled. I speak only in the case of the Hebrew documents also known as the Bible. A history of God said, and it came to pass. Even today, has not Jerusalem become a burden to the world, and shall become more so. This alone was written, tho it is not a quote, thousands of years ago.

**********
Mankind must be under the Truth, The Way, and The Life, for mankind cannot make any of these. Only declare or deny they are, or lie about it.
**********

1 Reply

@dpmartin,

Quote:

What stupid foolishness makes man feel so superior just because he may have found something that was there all the time or may be able to understand something that was always there to be understood or known

True, some do feel superior when they figure something out, that is unfortunately inevitable in any field including religion, where I have met many who think themselves superior because they believe they've learned the "truth." More often than not, scientists feel excited at having learned for themselves why something works. As a scientist myself, me and many of the people I work with are not motivated by the prospect of feeling superior but by the possibility of understanding what makes something work, how something is what it is, fully aware that we are not introducing anything new that wasn't already there for us to try and find. And far from feeling superior, many actually feel quite insignificant compared to what it is they are studying.

I have heard many accuse scientists of being outwardly hostile toward religion, but after reading your post there is clearly no shortage of hostility from the religious towards science.

Quote:

If there where a multi billion dollar a year market for constructing theory and collecting scientific evidence to verify there is a Living God, the science community would be on it like white on rice. They do research and development for profit or profiteers but deny there is purpose. Go figure.
Interpretation of evidence is no different than any other investigation. The evidence that supports the theory that the suspect is guilty is kept and the evidence that does not is disregarded.

Science does not seek to disprove or prove the existence of God, it seeks to find answers. If the methods and equations continually pointed toward the existence of a God, they would pusue it. In fact, there are prominent scientists who believe in God, such as Francis Collins, but their arguments are ultimately emotional, not scientific. The inertia against introducing God into science is not based on blind resentment or hostility, it is because there is overwhelming, OVERWHELMING evidence demonstrating there is no need, it does not point to a God, and in fact demonstrates the existence of such a being is impossible. There are tens of thousands of peer-reviewed papers from everyone from world-renown scientists to scientists no one will every hear of that consistently provide pieces of the puzzle and none of those pieces contains a God. And these theories are not simply taken at their word, these theories are tested, time and time and time again and pass. If a problem arises, it is addressed and the theory is refined, that's how science works. If you don't believe me, then pursue it yourself if you haven't already. If you think there is a mistake in the science, point it out, post it, don't just claim that science is motivated by profits and this and that, prove your claim. You state that scientists supress theories if they do not support their views, yet you seem to be doing this very thing to all of science, dismissing what does not support your view.

Quote:

history of God said and it came to pass. Even today, has not Jerusalem become a burden to the world, and shall become more so. This alone was written, tho it is not a quote, thousands of years ago.

True, that area is violent, just as it was 1000 years ago, 2000 years ago, 4000 years ago. One need not be a prophet to anticipate such events, just an astute observer and a student of history. Many predicted the current chaos in Iraq not because they are psychic but because they understood the history of the region and the mindset of the area. Also, though there is violence in that region, it pales compared to other attrocities such as Rwanda, Sudan, the Killing Fields, etc. that were not prophesized in the Hebrew texts.

0 Replies

@dpmartin,

The science community and the church or churches have a lone history of animosity doing wrong to one another for what they believe are the right reasons. All I am saying on this is one is just as guilty as the other of hindering or agitating one another . But the point I am trying to get across is that God is not a religion, tho there are religions that proclaim the Living God.

If you look upon a cabinet of fine craftsmanship you may admire it, examen the method of construction and so on, but you will not see or find the maker of the cabinet in the cabinet. And just because the maker can't be found in the cabinet, would it not be foolish to assume that it made itself. Nor if it is so well made that it is self sufficient, does it necessarily mean there is no need for the maker. Since the maker has given charge of some of the cabinet to man, surly it would be wise to consult the maker for proper care and use. Surly the earth would yield the life that is upon it, in pure fullness if mankind where not upon it. The earth and all life other than mankind suffers the presents of mankind by order of the maker. If the earth and the life there on had it's own will, it would cast mankind off itself. It is the will of mankind that is the disease on the face of the earth.

As far as your response to the comment on Jerusalem. Jerusalem was never a focus of any real significance to the rest of the world other than a capital city to posses by those who conquered vast lands, building empires. Islam brought attention to Jerusalem during the crusader years, but I am not a history expert on what was what then. And even then nations such as China or what China was, had no concern. But now it is a focus of the U.N. China now, in dealings with muslim nations for oil must also take in consideration the muslim obsession with the Hebrews dwelling in Jerusalem. And the only reason for the concern of every country that requires oil to operate there economies is one of the biggest suppliers ( muslum nations) continue to remove peace where ever they can, over the issue of Hebrews dwelling in Jerusalem. Therefore now it is not just a violent place, like many others, but is now a burden to the world. I mean the global economy lives on oil. And the global economy promotes peace does it not? If all share in the wealth, there is no motivation for war. But that is a whole other subject.

**********
Mankind must be under the Truth, The Way, and The Life, for mankind cannot make any of these. Only declare or deny they are, or lie about it.
**********

1 Reply

@dpmartin,

Quote:

If you look upon a cabinet of fine craftsmanship you may admire it, examen the method of construction and so on, but you will not see or find the maker of the cabinet in the cabinet. And just because the maker can't be found in the cabinet, would it not be foolish to assume that it made itself. Nor if it is so well made that it is self sufficient, does it necessarily mean there is no need for the maker.

This is one of many forms of the teleological argument, with others using analogies such as watches, etc. However, carrying the analogy over to the universe does not work. For starters, why is it that we assume that a person made a cabinet, a watch and so on? Of course, we already know that humans make such objects, there's no assumption involved, but say you were walking in the woods with braches all over the ground. You suddently come accross a series of branches arranged in a very specific pattern, and assume there is some intelligence behind the design you are seeing. The reason is that with the twigs, or the cabinet, the watch, etc. the arrangement of materials is contrary to nature, it is unatural. From a probabilistic view, the laws of nature do not allow for wood to form into a cabinet naturally, if they did, when we see a a cabinet we would not assume it was man made because we'd have also seen them in nature. That is why that analogy can not be applied to the universe. There is nothing in the universe that is unatural, nothing that should not be yet is that would require an external agent, like a watch or cabinet requires. Everything in the universe behaves as it behaves because it has no other choice, the laws of physics do not allow for any other behavior. And, slowly but surely, everything in the universe will decay into chaos. Many say that the laws that govern the universe were themselves put in place by a creator since they happen to allow for our existence, but this assumes that the laws could be something other that what they are for our particular universe. Furthermore, physics has begun to show that while the circumstances that lead to the creation of our universe could only produce our particular universe, and not a difference one, there are other sets of circumstances, and infinite number in fact, that produce countless other universes with different properties, some which may have life of their own to ponder their existence, some which form and collapse almost instantly. The point is, that a universe with our properties is not a unique miracle, but an inevitability. It may be a less idealistic view of the universe, but it is more realistic. It's not suprising we try to apply sentience where it does not exist, since we only have experience as sentient beings. When we see something organized, like a galaxy, we assume that some intelligence made it that way. It is human bias to assume that the laws of nature must be inherently chaotic and disorganized, requiring some outside influence to force them to play nice. Perhaps the alternative, that the laws of physics simply are what they are, a self-containing self explaining system, is too disheartening for many to accept. Try looking at the universe without the human bias of assumed sentience, assumed purpose, assumed reason and you'll see it is what it is because it could not be otherwise, nothing more, nothing less.

0 Replies

@dpmartin,

dpmartin wrote:

I find it interesting that there is so much mental effort to not believe in a Living God, His Word and the revaluation of it. It seems obvious that, in this case, Jesus is seen to be an object that is categorized as religion and subtitled church that one could avoid or justify not having a direct relationship with the Word of God. It seems convenient to do so in order to keep true information about the Living God away from oneself, and others if possible.

It is strange logic to say that actively believing in something requires more effort than making no attempt to believe at all. It seems you are attempting that same Descartian crap about evident knowledge again. Unfortunately, knowledge of God, Jesus, and the bible are far from evident and have only been substantial for a portion of human history.

Quote:

God would not make souls to be alone nor without Life, and the source of the soul's Life is the Word of God. The soul is alone without Spirit of God, for the soul is a spirit. And without the Word, the guarantee of the Living God, mankind has nothing to trust. For mankind can look to his environment and see the handy work of God. But he does not see God. mankind can look within himself and he will not see God for mankind is not God. One should look to the Living God and ask's Him who are you, and how may I know you. Why? God is in heaven and the Father of spirits.

You skip right over the more important argument and assume a soul, so I will pull in the reigns. Why should I believe that I have a soul?

Quote:

Being born into this world gives one the birthright to know God in His Spirit and through His Word. If a man disregards his birthright to know God, and values the immediate need of the flesh more. The soul has sot that which he can not take with him, and without God he goes. Then what is he but dead already. For he who disregards there birthright shall miss out on his inheritance, which is in this case Life.

And the countless millions that have never known God for lack of opportunity?

And I would like to point out that you are rather cavalier with your opinion of the godless and your degradation of their values. It reeks of ignorance of opposing viewpoints.

Quote:

snip

Is this how you deal with difficult discussion, incessant preaching?

Maybe belief is easier.

0 Replies

@dpmartin,

Thanks for the responses, sorry about the delayed reply.

The point is, to LIVE. Not find reasons for death.

You have the power to believe, and the power to follow. And the reward should be Life.

Relinquish your power to believe, and the power to follow, to anything other than the Word of God, is death. As He has said:" Man shall not live by bread alone, but by EVERY WORD that proceeds out of the mouth of God."

In order to live, failure is not an option. But the authority given in the name Jesus the Christ, is the mercy of the Living God who provides Life, and for Life. His Word, given for the restoration of mankind, to the Living God.

**********
Mankind must be under the Truth, The Way, and The Life, for mankind cannot make any of these. Only declare or deny they are, or lie about it.
**********

1 Reply

@dpmartin,

Quote:

The point is, to LIVE. Not find reasons for death.

Even simpler, it is just "live" and all experience is a result of this. I do not find reasons for death any more than I find reasons for the sun. There is a physical explanation for how the sun came to be and how it continues to exist, but there is nothing beyond that, the sun does not require a higher purpose in order to exist. Same with death, it is something that has physical explanations and occurs whether someone believes there are "higher" reasons for it or not. This does not at all mean that I am simply waiting to die, I enjoy living very much, without having to rely on the word of a God as some validation that I actually am living.

Quote:

Relinquish your power to believe, and the power to follow, to anything other than the Word of God, is death. As He has said:" Man shall not live by bread alone, but by EVERY WORD that proceeds out of the mouth of God."

Again, you are arguing from the assumption that the foundation of your argument if valid. Specifically, your foundation appears to be that the only way to live is to believe and follow the word of God. It is the validity of this statement that I challenge. You continue to justify the validity of this statement with something like, "The word of God is true because God says the word of God is true, which is true because God says the word of God is true..." Such an approach can be used to prove, with equal justification, the word of the Bible, the Quran, the Ramayana, etc. Yet these texts do not all agree with each other, and in fact make completely opposing claims. Your approach allows each of them to be equally true, in fact completely true, yet the very content of the texts themselves prohibit this from happening. Therefore, your approach if flawed.

Quote:

But the authority given in the name Jesus the Christ, is the mercy of the Living God who provides Life, and for Life. His Word, given for the restoration of mankind, to the Living God.

It's like being in church, and again has the same problem as mentioned above. Wanting something to be true does not make it so. Believing, even passionately believing something to be true does not make it true. What is true is that many have based their life around their belief that to live, one must know God, and everything that happens in their life from then on they believe is a result of this, even using instances in their life to validate their belief. However, this is no more convincing than the superstitious athlete who believes their lucky coin allows them to hit home runs, and every time they hit a home run, they say it proves that their belief in their coin is justified. Such a system of self-reinforcing belief can become quite powerful, making it harder and harder to a person to challenge their belief to it's core.

0 Replies

How does one know God without religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know