You once dissed me for not having progressed beyond my 12-year-old’s self’s view of the Bible.
Until I was 12 years old, I had a childlike faith in the Bible - because I was a child. My parents told me God existed, I’d go to heaven if I was good, etc. etc.
Then at age 12, when I started attending Religious Education classes (I was at a boarding school that required that, as well as prayer before meals, and probably attendance at a church service every Sunday if I hadn’t been fortunate enough to be able to go home on weekends) and I actually started reading the Bible with a maturity I hadn’t had until then - that my childlike faith ended and I began to realize all the problems with that document.
Perfectly fine if you want to believe in God, not so much so if you wanted to believe in a competent and ‘all-loving’ God.
Which I guess is a long-winded way of saying, “Child-like faith” is all very well, but children have to grow up and face reality sometime.
Are you saying we shouldnt open doors because it might make us lose faith?
Or maybe “child like faith”, asking questions, finding reasons is a natural part of spiritual development that should be embraced. What’s the worst that can happen if someone abandons literal or “classical” biblical interpretations?
You talk as if YOU understand God by saying God isnt understandable and asking so questions makes God “small”. How would you know? Maybe God and “us” arent as far apart as you think. Maybe getting rid of “child like faith” brings God closer.
People who believe God punished Jesus for their sake have a great love of God, which is a very good thing. However, if punishment was not a factor–and it does not seem that it was as this was never stated by Jesus–doesn’t it paint a libelous or at least blasphemous portrait of God?
Where do the scales tip? Does the idea of Jesus being punished for their sins draw more people to God? Or does the idea of God punishing his innocent son through torture push more people away?
Either way, don’t we owe God–not to mention all of mankind–the truth?
I was recently told by a non-Catholic Christian that I shouldn’t speak so much about God’s love–that it makes people complacent. I can’t keep quiet about God’s love, and that is why a part of me feels so strongly about settling the question of the Father punishing the Son.
Agree. And if the Conscious Observer is indeed infinite, it may explain why each of us can only perceive a tiny portion of Him. Could that be a reason that mankind has pursued religion, and account for the variances in our beliefs and religions as well?
It’s kind of circular if you assume the “conscious observer” is God, let alone the same God which is described by many religions when asserting that God exists as part of the question. “Maybe since we all perceive portions of God, that’s why we created religion”. That doesnt really get us out of the question: why do we have concepts of “God” in the first place and where do such concepts come from. Saying the reason we have different concepts of God because we experience different parts of God begs the question - where does the concept of God come from?
It could be that consciousness is simply an eternal field in parallel with physics. And that religion arose out of how our biological brains affecting those conscious fields. It falls right in line with evolution, and that religion arose as a utility for survival and a way for our brains to fill in gaps of understanding of death, birth, and natural events. God in many western religions is an idealized conception - who we want as a father figure, human attributes, peace, love. These are evolved constructs of our brains, which work in tandem with a conscious field. It does not follow though that such things arise FROM a conscious field in any non epiphenomenal sense.
So in a sense, yes, but it’s not “portions of God” - it’s simply how our brains affect how we perceive reality in tandem with a field that gives us sense of “self” and subjective awareness. A thunderstorm is also a “portion of God”. Theres nothing uniquely “God like” about consciousness, in the abstract.
I hope these are all rhetorical question and not ones you expect me to answer. My previous response should be clear about what I’m going to say to them.
Somewhat rhetorical, but also bringing up the truth that the decision to do nothing, can be just as much an action as doing something–recognizing that doing something may bring unintended consequences.
Must be an archaeologist at heart. I seem to favor digging for truth.
