To want to make myself believe in god?

[HopHopHopSkip]

I have always been very logical and so despite going to a Christian primary school, having a very religious mum(though not in a pushy way) and reading the bible when I was younger(the story version I was a bit of a book worm) I have never really got my head around how god could be possible.

But I really wish I had the extra "something" that some people seem to find by believing in god. I'm probably not making much sense, but I wish I could get myself to feel like there's somebody watching out, that there's something after death, that everything happens for what'd ultimately a good reason/what's meant to be so on.

AIBU to try going to church for a bit even though I don't believe in god? Or am I just being silly, is it something you can't 'make' yourself feel?

'community-minded' sounds a bit small to me - perhaps that's me. I'm talking more about changing the entire focus of our lives and looking in, investing in, another direction ie outward instead of inward. If we all did it - or even a tidy percentage - our world/community would be transformed and we would, indeed, become 'all-powerful'. We have the power, we don't use it because we're selfish . Then we blame God

head are you serious about this. Or are you just sounding off for the sake of it.

Not blaming something I see no evidence for. Okay, I'm guessing hat for the bulk of it you and me lead very similar lives. We care deeply for our family and friends. We do what we can for others with what we have. Sometimes we let people down and feel awful and sometimes we get it right and feel great. We shop, work, worry, visit the dr when we get sick and stay up too late on the Internet . I'm guessing we're largely indistinguishable on paper.

And your thought process is reasonable and logical, hih. All your arguments and questions make sense, and I can see how they could make foolery of this thing we call faith. Sometimes I would like to fall back on such logic and say I've had enough, I'm not going to believe anymore. It would seem easier, at times.

But. But there is a difficulty, and that is that for me, knowing God and knowing God's work in my life and in the lives of countless millions, I cannot. The logic may try to tear me away, but the relationship is too strong, the love too powerful, the presence too beautiful. It would be like someone trying to tear me away from my dh, saying but he is a man, and men have done terrible things in all of history, and he doesn't stop you being ill, and doesn't stop dd being bullied, etc etc (I know that falls down on the omnipotence thing but it's an illustration of how I feel about God - a love that cannot be quenched.)

You say that worshipping something that demands it for obedience sake is abhorrent. But worship is so, so different to this mindset. Worship sets us free. Worship is what we are made for, and is what sets our minds and souls at rest.

So yes, hih, I do get these questions and cannot deny they are hard hitting and logical. I know you think I am disingenuous, but I am trying to communicate the huge gap between the plain logic and the reality of incredible relationship with the God who loves beyond anything, beyond death.

Man's lack of action? We're highly evolved animals. We appear to be steadily refining and improving our ideas on humanity etc and I think we're heading in a upwards direction slowly.

Oh and going back a bit to another post 'They left out the gospels which didn't give he right impression of the Christian faith that they wanted at that time.'

No, not at all. Actually what the council of Nicea did was to carefully sift through the material and only include the books in constant use, and constant use from the first century - they were incredibly consistent about their choices. The gospels left out were of dodgy authorship, dodgy dating and even more dodgy material, which had no consistency with the gospels in use from very early on.

I know people feel a deep connection to their god/gods, I know people feel their faith has helped them achieve great things. But all those wonderful things you sincerely feel can be explained without a supernatural force. I used to be a Christian. I've been caught up in worship, arms aloft But I now see that that was no different to the feelings I had for a certain Mr Phil Collins when I was 12. It all came from me.

And back to my first post there; it's not that I think believing in God is illogical, not in the least. I believe there is a robust case to be made for evidence for Jesus' life, death and resurrection, but we've been down that road a lot

LOL at love for God being the same as love for Phil Collins. HIH, I know what you mean, it doesn't all make logical sense, but you can't argue with someone's real faith in something. Unless you think you had real faith in Phil Collins.

I've been there too hih, thinking that all that must come from myself, and is no different to any concert hysteria etc. The difference though is how it effects my entire life and how there are things I couldn't in a million years put down to merely coming from my imagination and emotion.

I tried, I promise...

Not everything in our lives is decided in advance of us being born, so God doesn't know in advance what choices we will make in life.

So what you're saying is that god is not omniscient, he is not all knowing?

Well, Adam and Eve's descendents haven't exactly been loving and caring for the world and everyone in it have they?

Have all of them not been loving or caring?
Do they all deserve to be punished for what Adam and Eve did?

Also we have many lives, we have many chances to get it right.

Proof?

No, not at all. Actually what the council of Nicea did was to carefully sift through the material and only include the books in constant use, and constant use from the first century - they were incredibly consistent about their choices. The gospels left out were of dodgy authorship, dodgy dating and even more dodgy material, which had no consistency with the gospels in use from very early on.

Even so, it means the Bible can't really be called the the Word of God as some Christians claim.

Unless, of course, it's qualified as, "The Word of God, edited by a bunch of men 300 years after Jesus died."

"And then translated and re-edited many times over the next 1700 years."

I find it very hard to believe that the Bible is the inspired word of god, especially the Old Testament, before he had a personality transplant, with it's morally dubious 'ethics' and it's factually incorrect, scientifically disproven nonsense.

As Richard Dawkins said;
'The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully."

I do not think that we are. The idea that slavery is wrong is hardly new, yet people are still slaves and we buy the products of their slavery. After the horrors of the holocaust we said "Never again", but recent history has shown that we still allow ethnic cleansing and genocide. We have enough food for everyone but people are still starving. People are suffering because of the greed of some and the apathy/desire for an easy life of the majority. Just as it has always been.

Oh of course, a lifetime of loving any god would take more energy than a crush that went on for a few short years but that's not evidence for god in any way. People feel very strongly for many years about many different and mutually exclusive gods (sticking that in for the 'all gods lead to the same god believers out there) and other much more earthly things like football and so on. Which again suggests its neurological as opposed to other worldly.

I think we are getting better, I base that on tolerance levels as a whole. What evidence do you have that humanity hasn't changed or indeed is getting worse?

As for likening your love for your dh to your faith. I assume you have never witnessed your husband stand by and let awful things happen or dare I say it do awful things himself? You have good physical evidence that your husband, for all his flaws and bad jokes and bodily gases, is pretty okay, not perfect but doesn't make out he is. You can actually see him putting the bin out or scraping that weird slimy crap out of the drain every few months? (What even is that stuff?)

ANormalOne. No the bible does not say that God is omniscient and omnipotent.
I think it is the Church of England that says this?

you must know my dh. But yes, that is true, I don't see him stand by to let injustice happen. He does something about it, when and where he can. So does God, I believe. I cannot back this with proof, of course, and realise it sounds fairly foolish. Meh, that's the way of it. I think God hurts so so much when people suffer. Hurts with them, like we do our children. Springy's posts are good, I cannot find a better analogy really, though it does have flaws.

Wrt to how shitty humans can be, even if we could say that we were definitely getting less 'reciprocally minded' if you get what I mean how is that evidence for god? Many species of animal have become extinct because they didn't adapt to their environment sufficiently.

headinhands.It was only after they had eaten the fruit, that they knew good and evil.
He then had to deal with the situation after that had happened. He didnt want it to have happened.

WMittens, yes, that is exactly what the bible is.

It may be worth reading up about the Christian Gnostics to see a different theory about why the world is like it is and why there is suffering and why God lets it happen.

I only found out about them a few weeks back so I don't know much about them and from what I have googled they are difficult to understand etc, but from what I can gather, they believe that the God who created this world and the God of the Garden of Eden story etc is not the real God. They call him the Demiurge (which mens Creator, and is also a term and concept used by Neoplatonists who are anti the Gnostics) and they say that he is evil, as far as I can make out, and that is why there is suffering in the physical realm. They see the spirit as good and matter as bad, and the Demiurge created matter. They say there is the ultimate real God above the Demiurge in the hierarchy and through gnosis (knowledge) we can escape the endless physical cycle (which I think involves reincarnation) and join the real God in spirit through our souls which are spirit, as far as I understand it.

They say that the Garden of Eden story shows that the Demiurge wanted to prevent humans gaining gnosis. This is very similar to the Greek myth of Prometheus, whom the Gods wanted to prevent from telling the secret of fire to humans.

I'm not sure if that is all correct, as I don't know much about it yet.

Evidence that we are not getting better: war, slavery, starvation, exploitation, abuse of the vulnerable, rapid extintion and destruction of natural habitats.

Despite our learning and education, we still (on the whole) chose to do little or nothing. Even here in MN we witness pointless insults and bunfights amongst those keen to see people with differing views as other.

On this site there is a rule regarding Trollhunting. It is not permitted for a number of reasons, not least that it feeds trolls. It is a logical rule and yet time and time again it is contravened to the detriment of this online community.

Having knowledge is not the same as applying knowledge.

'Even so, it means the Bible can't really be called the the Word of God as some Christians claim. Unless, of course, it's qualified as, "The Word of God, edited by a bunch of men 300 years after Jesus died." "And then translated and re-edited many times over the next 1700 years."

No. The word of God does not mean that each word is from the mouth of God. That would be just odd. Inspired by God, and just as inspired were those who gathered to pull it together. They didn't change much when they compiled it, actually - simply put together what was already in wide usage and recognised as scripture. And as for translated and re-edited, this argument falls down when the facts come to light that there are very few translation errors across the different manuscripts that actually change any original meaning. What we read now is amazingly similar to the original manuscripts - 26,000 fragments of early manuscript across various languages iirc, inlcluding around 5,000 in the Greek. We may not have extant fragments but we have some astoundingly early, from 1st century or even before, which match what we read now with great accuracy. The whole translation, re-editing thing is a myth to try and discredit the bible as being irrelevant and innacurate. The fact is, the accuracy of the NT manuscripts goes far beyond ANY other text of antiquity. There is a staggering amount of manuscripts, which have not been changed, across different languages. There are those who will say that there are thousands of errors - and there are. But those errors are tiny, in grammar and syntax, only what could be expected across thousands of copies, - none of which make any change to the original meaning.

headinhands, btw, I think you know that even if we all sat here answering all your questions for evermore, then it still comes back to daisy's point of accepting the bits we know, as we will never know it all.