Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's absurd to close your mind and question nothing. What you're advocating is a mindset devoid of curiosity and rational thinking. The only reason someone would want to close off questioning something is because they know it is false.
The effects of sin on the human race are indeed great, aren't they?
Sin? I am sinless. Oh you mean crap like smoking and imbibing alcohol, being attracted to wimmenz and sex outside of marriage? That sin?
If he is so concerned with all of that, he should not have invented tobacco, weed, grapes, barley, yeast, hobs, corn and if he is so concerned with what folk do with their "naughty" parts, he could have simply allowed for us to self replicate w/o sex.
How absurd is it for so many millions of "minds" to question the One who created them. The one who gave them their ability to think, feel, reason, etc.
How can the lump of clay "question" the potter?
Yet so many people question God. They question His motives, His values. They think He is "outdated" or "set in his ways." He doesn't quite "get" the enlightened younger generation. Maybe his thinking is wrong and he should listen to his creations more for better ideas.
It's so absurd that it's laughable.
The ability to think, feel, reason, but we aren't supposed to do it?
Am re-posting the OP again, as a number of posts have needed to be deleted as off topic. Thread is not a pro-life/pro-choice debate, and needs to resume getting back on topic. Also, no baiting, please!
Thanks, and a good day to all!
OP:
How absurd is it for so many millions of "minds" to question the One who created them. The one who gave them their ability to think, feel, reason, etc.
How can the lump of clay "question" the potter?
Yet so many people question God. They question His motives, His values. They think He is "outdated" or "set in his ways." He doesn't quite "get" the enlightened younger generation. Maybe his thinking is wrong and he should listen to his creations more for better ideas.
Even assuming for the moment that I believed that I was created by a God, I was obviously given the ability to question ... so am I not supposed to use it? You see, I'm not the "blind obedience" type of person (presumably God made me that way, no?) I can't just shut my eyes and simply accept whatever is thrown at me. If we stop questioning, then we may as well pull our brains out through our noses because we won't be needing it anymore. Just put yourself on obedience "auto-pilot" and do whatever your told to do, feel as your told to feel, etc. Just like a robot (yeah, a robot, precisely what believers say God didn't want humans to be).
As soon as I hear about a potter who gave his pot sentience, I'll get back to you. Otherwise, comparing a sentient being with a non-sentient object doesn't work very well. Because if the pot had the ability to question, it most likely would question the potter - a lot.
Have you ever stopped to think: Maybe God wants to be questioned. Perhaps this is why God gave us the ability ...
Laughable, is it? So, I'm going to assume that you advocate murdering non-virgin brides on their wedding night, stoning to death unruly children, executing people who work on the Sabbath - yeah, I'm sure you know the drill by now.
Ergo, yes, he IS outdated - unless you want modern America to regress back to Bronze Age morality, where a man who offered to toss his two virgin daughters out to a sex-crazed crowd is considered the only righteous man in the city (I'm sure you know who I'm referring to). Is that the kind of morality you want? Because that seems to be what you're cheerleading for.
I would put my morality up against God's morality any time, any where - and even YOU would have to admit my morality is far better. Unless, of course, you really DO want to live in an oppressive and tyrannical society where subjecting your daughters to gang rape is considered a-okay in the book of God's morality.
There is not much more to say . . . this pretty much covered it all. The real question, however, is how would we question God anyway . . . since He is kinda hard to find? Surely Ozzy doesn't mean questioning the Bible . . . because that would be idolatry . . . making the Bible God.
Well, now wasn't this insightful ! Thank you, Zelva.
Now, there are sarcastic, angry, questions with attitude...and then you have the childlike, innocent
questions full of wonder. Just wanted to point out the difference.
The first doesn't really expect an answer ...the other is guileless and earnestly wanting
an answer.
What the 'angry' questioner doesn't realize is that if h/she is filled with resentment,
anger and disbelief an answer would come to them h/she creates the exact environment
or atmosphere in which h/she will just never be able to receive it ...often a
sudden moment of sheer transcendental insight...sometimes shortened to the word revelation.
You are inviting a Guest...and 'He' will not come. Sorry.
And then, so often, the child pounding on the door has a fit and forever says there is no door,
there is no One on the other side...the whole thing is a sham...typical of children, but shrouds
it in intellectualization and develops professional reasons why nothing exits that is
Unseen or in the Invisible Spirtual Worlds
When you clean a room, make the bed, put flowers and fresh towels guests or the Guest
will come. It really is as simple as that...child's play, really.
God is not a mystery at all...but He is hidden, some say, shy...and reveals Himself
easily and readily to those that invite 'Him' in.
Questions? They are all answered.
Sincerity is the key...along with humility, openness and simple expectation which
demonstrates trust and meeting Him halfway...like a child reaching up their hand
to Daddy...this IS how simple it is....take it from someone who really really knows this.
Don't listen to those that don't know...usually filled with skeptism and intellectual strongholds.
Purity of heart, sincere desire are the keys to receiving answers, help, grace, gifts,
and direct personal connection with your Creator, your Love.
Oh yeah.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miss Hepburn
Well, as I said, but could always add more adjectives...a simple heart of wonder..and asking God..."Do you exist?"
Then proceed with your quest...Why am I here? What is this place all about? I want
to know You?
Etc. These are prob not what the op was thinking of..but I was.
Then, wait, sit, be open...another key besides sincerity and humility , etc...is waiting..
Keep on ...just as a child keeps jumping to be picked up...keep on ajumpin...cause
Dad can't help himself when he sees the persistence.
Again, no matter how many words disagree...take it from one who really knows.
Question God and ask things like...Will You reveal Yourself to me...Can I see You?
Is it true what I hear that You aren't some punitive Creator and You're nothing but love?
I really want to know ...ok I'll sit and meditate, being still..because I want to know.
Paramahansa Yogananda wisely said, When a child is pulling at his mother while she is busy...she will give him a toy. When the child comes back whining, she will give him a candy bar...when the child comes back crying again, she stops and realizes nothing with satisfy him, but her.
Our Father is the same way...if something else will distract us..it is not really Him we want..this is what He'll do...when our desire becomes focused and one pointed...He can not help but come.
I have found this to be true.
(And I hope you all know I have no similar beliefs with others that God is punitive.
That actually hurts my heart, someone thinks that. Without a personal experience, this
is a common belief and has pushed so many away from believing in God.)
Oh my, I am seeing a trend here reading above me....I will be backing out of this
conversation now...this is not what I thought it was..babies, stoning, sin...oh my!...
Twice you have asserted, in the midst of your two postings above, that all of us readers here should "take it from someone who really knows". Really? So you know these assertions and claims of yours to be true and the rest of us who don't necessarily take what you say at face value simply "don't know"? Really, Miss Hepburn? So you are asserting that you have faculties and powers of perception available to you that I do not have available to myself? Can you validate and prove this to the satisfaction and agreement of all of us? What you rather do have and have demonstrated here is actually a greater willingness to invest belief in things that cannot at all or cannot truly be discerned, perceived and experienced (i.e., experienced in any way outside the confines of our own minds), tested or validated -- and then rather claiming that these things are, in fact, able to be discerned, perceived and experienced, tested and validated.
Even if there IS, in fact, some supreme creator being of some type or nature, said supreme creator being undeniably doesn't communicate with ANY of us in any way that we can ALL unambiguously and unmistakably discern and agree with one another about but instead obviously and undeniably chooses to remain completely silent, hidden, invisible, unknowable, undiscernable, undetectable, uncommunicative, and undemonstrative. You can't stare us all in the face and claim to us that you are someone who "really knows" otherwise. What you have demonstrated here is simply a capacity for and willingness to engage in make-believe (i.e., making yourself believe things to be true that you do not epistemologically KNOW to be true but just take it upon yourself to assume as true . . . as a act of pure faith).
Some of us actually DO, in fact, care that the things we claim or at least propose to be true and real (i.e., regarding the workings of the natural order or the cosmos and everything that occurs within it) ARE, in fact, true and real. This tends to be referred to as being "intellectually honest". Then there are others who convey by the things they say and/or how they say it that they don't seem to really care if their claims and assertions are, in the end and in fact, actually true and real . . . for they will make their claims and assertions true and real in their own minds (as a form or type of subjective reality) and then actively promote their claims and assertions as "truth" to all others. They do not really look to discover truth but rather to invent their own truth. But truth of the type that I am speaking is defined as objective reality (not subjective). If something is truly true for and applicable to ALL of us, then it has to be discernable as true for and by ALL of us. A true truth seeker doesn't take it upon himself or herself to invent truth but rather to discover truth "as it is" (wherever it leads us, whatever its outcome for us, whether said truth is pleasing or less-than-pleasing or even displeasing to us personally).
In contrast, I myself do not claim to definitively know (epistemologically so) the definitive truth regarding our origins and the workings of the cosmos ("cosmos" being defined as the entirety of existence and all that is within it . . . whether a singular universe or a multiplicity of universes), why we are all here instead of not here (if "why" is even a legitimate and valid question to ask, as asking "why" presupposes that there is a purposeful mind behind it and there may be or may not be), and whether or not there is a supreme creator being by whatever name or nature. How can I or anyone else claim to "really know" (as you put it) such things? Such information is simply not available to ANY of us. Stating such as I have stated here is a act of humility on my part and, in fact, an act of character. Your stance is. in my view, not so.
Just some food for thought, Miss Hepburn. I hope you take it well.
If you "believe" no proof or answers are needed
If you don't "believe" no proof or answers are going to suffice
Thank you, WestCoast_CA, for proving and validating my point as stated in my above posting (whether you intended to do so or not, I don't know). You have supplied the definitive definition of "belief" or "faith" (or what I have called "make-believe" in my last posting) . . . which doesn't necessarily mean that that which one "believes" to be true or real is absolutely not true or real but that, even if one does not truly know or can't honestly claim to know with certitude that their belief reflects reality, they willfully choose to MAKE themselves believe it and proclaim it to be true regardless. This is what I refer to as "make-believe" (so again, "make-believe", as used here in the particular way that I am using this term here, doesn't say that the proclamation is absolutely and provably untrue or not real but instead says that the proponent doesn't epistemologically KNOW it to be true but willfully decides to embrace their proposition as truth anyway. . . hence, they are "making believe").
So, with that said: So what you are saying with your first of your two statements is, in fact, CORRECT. That is:
If you "believe", no proof or answers are needed. <---- IN OTHER WORDS, WHAT YOU ARE SAYING HERE, WHETHER YOU REALIZE IT OR INTENDED IT OR NOT, IS THAT YOU FILL IN THE BLANKS YOURSELF AND ASSUME BEFOREHAND WHAT THE ANSWERS ALREADY ARE.
As to your second statement ("If you don't "believe", no proof or answers are going to suffice"), not true. One can take a stance saying "I don't will myself to 'believe' anything simply at its face value. I await and/or am open to evidence (i.e., true evidence . . . evidence which really counts as evidence, as determined by the so-called "standard rules of evidence" as defined by the philosophical field of epistemology, which is essentially the same 'rules of evidence' which applies in science and in law). If and as the EVIDENCE bears itself out, that outcome will shape my thinking on the particular matter. If evidence doesn't present itself regarding the matter, then a skeptical yet open mind is what is the most appropriate (i.e., intellectually honest) approach or stance to take." That which I just explained here is not the same as your statement which said "If you don't "believe", no proof or answers are going to suffice". My approach does not take a dogmatic stance to "not believe" (i.e., an absolute refusal to believe regardless of anything); it instead says that "belief" is subject to substantiating evidence which creates a valid and honorable foundation for establishing "belief" or what can be called "reasonable belief". (But, at that stage, if something can be discerned as being true and real beyond a reasonable doubt or beyond any doubt, then it is not "belief" that one has but rather "knowledge".) That is, I am not concerned with "belief" but only "knowledge". I don't ever try to engage in "make-believe" about anything (anything at all). I don't aim to make myself "believe" (or "make-believe") anything. If the particular subject or object of concern is truly true and real, then it should either be able to be validated and established as true and real or else I will say "I don't know" or "I don't know at this point in time" or "it is probable that such a thing is not knowable in any real sense" or "it can be definitively stated that the subject matter we are dealing with here is not knowable in any real sense and will never or may never be knowable". Again, that which I just explained and layed out for you here is not the same as your statement which said "If you don't "believe", no proof or answers are going to suffice".
In summary, my approach (as summarized here) can reasonably be said to represent the standard definition and practice of what can be called "intellectual honesty". Some people DO actually care that that which they proclaim as true and real IS, in fact, truly true and real. Others seem to convey, by what they state and/or how they state it, that they do not necessarily hold such a subscription to absolute or near-absolute intellectual honesty. They are demonstrably more inclined to embrace "making believe" (belief or faith) instead.
How absurd is it for so many millions of "minds" to question the One who created them. The one who gave them their ability to think, feel, reason, etc.
How can the lump of clay "question" the potter?
Yet so many people question God. They question His motives, His values. They think He is "outdated" or "set in his ways." He doesn't quite "get" the enlightened younger generation. Maybe his thinking is wrong and he should listen to his creations more for better ideas.
It's so absurd that it's laughable.
I don't question my "creator". I don't believe that I have one, at least one that fits your definition.
So there is really nothing to question.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The real question, however, is how would we question God anyway . . . since He is kinda hard to find? Surely Ozzy doesn't mean questioning the Bible . . . because that would be idolatry . . . making the Bible God.
