Searching for GOD...

[BeRational]

There are a multitude of human ideas about how God should do things.
But we can't aspire to know the mind of God.

You seem to know a lot about it?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB: "There are a multitude of human attempts to seek ultimate reality, purpose and meaning, but there is only one truth, and we only have only one lifetime to find it."

(33595)

AB: "But we can't aspire to know the mind of God." 

(33599)

As, presumably, in your head at least the ultimate truth would be “to know the mind of God”, which of these two mutually exclusive positions do you actually take?

[Sriram]

But there is far more to the reality and purpose behind our existence than the aspiration to "be civilised".  I believe the awareness of our spiritual dimension here on earth gives us just a glimpse of the true reality which is our ultimate destination.  We cannot discern purpose and meaning behind our existence using our own limited mental faculties alone.  So we look to divine revelations from prophets and scripture, using our metal faculties to pray for discernment to distinguish man made attempts to seek God from God's own revelation.

There are a multitude of human attempts to seek ultimate reality, purpose and meaning, but there is only one truth, and we only have only one lifetime to find it.

While there is probably one ultimate truth, as far as we are concerned, each of us has a different truth that works for us, in the sense that we all have different objectives depending n or stage of development.  Like a kid in 1st class has 2nd class as his objective, a kid in 5th class has 6th class as his objective, a boy in high school has college as his objective.

And I believe that we have several lifetimes to achieve this.

[Stranger]

There are a multitude of human ideas about how God should do things.
But we can't aspire to know the mind of God.

The point is that the lack of an obvious god and its message, is inconsistent with there being a fair, just, and omnipotent god who has an important message for its creation.

Either you just give up on reasoning about it and just go with blind faith or you are forced to conclude that there can't be a fair, just, and omnipotent god who has an important message for its creation...

[Roses]

There are a multitude of human ideas about how God should do things.
But we can't aspire to know the mind of God.

No we can't because the mind of god is whatever the human imagination comes up with.

[Alan Burns]

AB: "There are a multitude of human attempts to seek ultimate reality, purpose and meaning, but there is only one truth, and we only have only one lifetime to find it."

(33595)

AB: "But we can't aspire to know the mind of God." 

(33599)

As, presumably, in your head at least the ultimate truth would be “to know the mind of God”, which of these two mutually exclusive positions do you actually take?

You are attempting to put words into my mouth.  The ultimate truth is simply to know of God's existence and our own spiritual nature.  Once you discover God, more will be revealed.

I am open to what God reveals through prayer, scripture and experiences.

[Alan Burns]

The point is that the lack of an obvious god and its message, is inconsistent with there being a fair, just, and omnipotent god who has an important message for its creation.

Either you just give up on reasoning about it and just go with blind faith or you are forced to conclude that there can't be a fair, just, and omnipotent god who has an important message for its creation...

God's message is adequately summed up in John 3:16-17  -

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.  For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

You are attempting to put words into my mouth.

They were your words and I quoted them verbatim. I don't expect you to apologise for your false accusation, but you should.

The ultimate truth is simply to know of God's existence and our own spiritual nature.

An unqualified, un-evidenced and un-reasoned assertion you're fond of making, but as yet you've never once managed to provide even a smidgin of an argument to suggest you're right about that. 

Once you discover God, more will be revealed.

Your basic misunderstanding of language is letting you down here. If you think that believing there to be a "god" and there to be a "spiritual" is the ultimate truth, there can't be another, even more ultimate truth to follow.   

I am open to what God reveals through prayer, scripture and experiences.

And I'm open to fairies leaving me 50p when my tooth falls out. So?

[Stranger]

God's message is adequately summed up in John 3:16-17  -

I'm sure you believe it is, but that doesn't make it an obvious message from the only true god. It's just a passage from an old, incoherent, and often self-contradictory collection of books, which itself is only one such set of writings amongst many that various people think are messages from various gods.

As I said, if there is a just and fair god, with an important message, why is it playing silly games of hide-and-seek?

[Roses]

God's message is adequately summed up in John 3:16-17  -

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.  For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.

Which says nothing good about god, if the world needed saving it should have put its own life on the line, not produce a human to do the job.

[Gordon]

God's message is adequately summed up in John 3:16-17  -

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.  For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.

How have you assessed the risk that the above may be propaganda aimed at those inclined towards a religious narrative: in other words, in what way is the above distinguishable from fiction?

[Alan Burns]

AB,

They were your words and I quoted them verbatim. I don't expect you to apologise for your false accusation, but you should.

You quoted two separate phrases - "the ultimate truth", and "to know the mind of God".
I never used these two phrases together in the way you inferred.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

You quoted two separate phrases - "the ultimate truth", and "to know the mind of God".
I never used these two phrases together in the way you inferred.

I neither inferred nor implied any such thing. Statement one said one thing that statement two then contradicted. I merely pointed out the contradiction and asked which one you subscribed to as both could not be true.

You then falsely accused me of putting words in your mouth.

[Alan Burns]

How have you assessed the risk that the above may be propaganda aimed at those inclined towards a religious narrative: in other words, in what way is the above distinguishable from fiction?

I see no reason not to believe these words are true.
And many reasons to believe they are true.

I could ask if you have assessed the risk of wrongly presuming these words to be fiction and not the divinely inspired word of God?

What would be the consequence of getting it wrong?

[Stranger]

I see no reason not to believe these words are true.
And many reasons to believe they are true.

Such as...?

I could ask if you have assessed the risk of wrongly presuming these words to be fiction and not the divinely inspired word of God?

The point being that if they are, then this god is playing silly buggers by hiding its message in an incoherent, self-contradictory set of books, and then hiding that amongst all the other texts that people think have been inspired by various false (if we assume for a minute you're right) gods.

What's it playing at?

[Gordon]

I see no reason not to believe these words are true.

Surely you recognise the risks though: for a start the provenance is unknown, so therefore the possibility of bias is unknown as is the possibility of propaganda - have you considered these risks and, if so, how have you assessed them?
 

And many reasons to believe they are true.

Examples please.

I could ask if you have assessed the risk of wrongly presuming these words to be fiction and not the divinely inspired word of God?

I'm not presuming anything, but I recognise the risks surrounding ancient accounts of uncertain provenance that involve fantastic claims - so I'm asking an advocate of the claim, you, how you have assessed the risks of the passage you quoted being propaganda. If you haven't assessed these risks in any meaningful sense, so that you can explain how you did the assessment, then I'm disinclined to take the passage you quoted as being worth serious consideration. 

What would be the consequence of getting it wrong?

I'm not saying it is 'wrong' but asking you to explain why I should consider to be correct in some way - as it stands I can't see that there are any consequences I need worry about simply by asking you guys to explain yourselves.

[Alan Burns]

Such as...?

The point being that if they are, then this god is playing silly buggers by hiding its message in an incoherent, self-contradictory set of books, and then hiding that amongst all the other texts that people think have been inspired by various false (if we assume for a minute you're right) gods.

What's it playing at?

He gives us the knowledge of good and evil, and the freedom to choose Him as our saviour to deliver us from evil.

[Gordon]

He gives us the knowledge of good and evil, and the freedom to choose Him as our saviour to deliver us from evil.

How do you know this?

[Nearly Sane]

He gives us the knowledge of good and evil, and the freedom to choose Him as our saviour to deliver us from evil.

You mean the evil that it choose to create?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I see no reason not to believe these words are true.

That's your problem. There are many reasons to think them not to be true, just as you think there are many reasons to find the "holy" texts to which you do not subscribe not to be true either. Having decided though that, by remarkable coincidence, the text that happens to be most proximate to you is the only correct one, you suspend your critical faculties regarding just that text so as to maintain your faith.

And many reasons to believe they are true.

But none of them are good reasons, or at least none that you've been prepared to share here.

I could ask if you have assessed the risk of wrongly presuming these words to be fiction and not the divinely inspired word of God?

What would be the consequence of getting it wrong?

You could, but then I could ask you the same question about the various gods in which you do not believe. What if one of the them is as petty and vengeful as your own - or even more so?

Been a while since someone tried Pascal's wager though.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

He gives us the knowledge of good and evil, and the freedom to choose Him as our saviour to deliver us from evil.

Ooh, mindless assertion Top Trumps eh? OK, my turn:

Pixies invented contract bridge.

Your go...

[Stranger]

Such as...?

The point being that if they are, then this god is playing silly buggers by hiding its message in an incoherent, self-contradictory set of books, and then hiding that amongst all the other texts that people think have been inspired by various false (if we assume for a minute you're right) gods.

What's it playing at?

He gives us the knowledge of good and evil, and the freedom to choose Him as our saviour to deliver us from evil.

Not only is this a trite, baseless assertion, it doesn't appear to have anything to do with anything I said...

[Sebastian Toe]

God's message is adequately summed up in John 3:16-17  -

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.  For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.

Ezekiel 18:4 King James Version (KJV)

4 Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.

[Alan Burns]

But none of them are good reasons, or at least none that you've been prepared to share here.

There are many Christians who can give far better reasons for believing in God than I have been able to post on this forum.  But I have no doubt that you will continue to follow the ethos of Sassy's opening post and look for reasons not to believe any of them to be true or valid.

As I have said before, if you do not want to search for God, the evil one will supply you with plenty of reasons not to search.

And I can understand why people would not want to search for God.  Living a life of faith takes courage, particularly in this increasingly secular western world.  It involves sacrificing many of the self centred goals of modern society and living a life of loving service to God and other people.  You may be called to take paths you would not wish to choose of your own accord.  But the rewards are far, far greater than you can ever imagine.

[Sebastian Toe]

As I have said before, if you do not want to search for God, the evil one will supply you with plenty of reasons not to search.

How exactly will he do that?