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?

BUT imo you need wisdom to know what forgiveness is (and isn't) and how to do it, or how to go about getting it, more like.

niminypiminy

WM: I know all that. I do know about what scientific method involves, and I know about replication, and I know about peer review.

Peer reviewers do not replicate experiments.

Erm, what? I never said peer reviewers do replicate experiments (they can if they choose, but that's by the by). The point is that an experiment (and more importantly, its results) can be replicated, not that they are replicated (although as mentioned in the link, they often are to ensure consistency).

They make a judgement about whether the testimony of those who did is credible -- as your wiki source says, whether the description supplied by the experimenter is credible. There is no difference between this and testimony.

That is correct, but you're not arguing the point. The experimental evidence is the evidence; it's validity is supported by peer review. The testimony is not evidence.

Analogy 1: blood spatter from a crime scene is evidence - it proves that someone bled at that scene (or rather, it proves that blood was splattered there); a forensics expert states that the blood formed the patterns it did due to strikes to the head from a blunt instrument: testimony.

Analogy 2: Instead of God talking to a prophet, let's imagine a girl who suffers from selective mutism. She talks to only one person, when no one else is around.

That person says, "she spoke to me," but he cannot prove it to anyone. He can testify to that effect as many times as he likes, but it is not proof.

However, one day, unknown to the girl, he takes a hidden audio recorder with him when he visits her (we'll ignore the moral discussion around that for the moment) and records her speaking. Now, he has evidence to support his testimony.

That evidence can be drawn on many times: it is replicable. He cannot necessarily make her speak in the presence of the recorder again, but he can rewind and press play as many times as is required - the evidence is replicable.

The next issue is, is that the girl's voice? No one else has heard her speak, so a peer reviewer cannot confirm that the evidence is valid.

The man proposes a second recording. This time he allows the reviewer to examine the recorder before visiting the girl to ascertain that there is no other recording on it, and he has no other such recording on his person. He visits the girl, records her speech and immediately demonstrates to the reviewer that he has obtained a recording of his voice and a girl's voice that cannot be anyone's other than the girl.

We now have validated evidence. The peer review is an element of it, but not the evidence itself.

Open the window somebody, it's getting a bit stuffy in here.

anyways! God, God and God. It's good to talk about God

niminypiminy

Do you have any evidence it's just a book?

I suppose I can't say it's just a book, because it's also a film by Monty Python.

So god wants us to just forgive people who have harmed us. Why couldn't he do the same without the cross if its possible to 'just forgive'. I still see no reason that barbaric torture is necessary for forgiveness. And if god is so into this forgiveness why did he promote the 'eye for an eye' system in the OT?

Yeah I do worry about things. Must have been another poster?

"So god wants us to just forgive people who have harmed us. Why couldn't he do the same without the cross if its possible to 'just forgive'."

Because if Christ did not suffer and was not made to suffer, then what would there be for Him to forgive? The message is that if God can forgive when being crucified, then you should forgive those who do you wrong too.

"And if god is so into this forgiveness why did he promote the 'eye for an eye' system in the OT?"

The Old Testament and the New Testament are completely different. The New Testament is about Christ and that differs from the Old Testament.

So god got himself crucified so he had something to hold against us so he could forgive us for it?

So what happened to god between old and new. Why the v different attitude to forgiveness?

So he had himself crucified so we could use that to learn how to forgive? It is my hope that my kids can forgive others because I have shown them that none of us is perfect and we all fuck up from time to time. How come non-Christians can forgive others without recognising the crucifixion?

Lots of people are asking why not 'just forgive" - why suffer too? I understand the question but wonder why we want life to be suffering-free, as though life-lite is a better experience than life in its true complexity and depth.

I started to understand why God let Jesus die on the cross when I became a parent. If my DC, as toddlers, were constantly naughty and I'd just casually said, 'I forgive you,' they'd have learned nothing. They had to see cause and effect. If you hurt us, we are damaged. If you ride roughshod over people, they will suffer. To fully understand what they were doing and why it was wrong, I had to say: 'Stop screaming. When you scream I can't think. It gives me a headache and makes me grumpy.' Sometimes I'd even scream back, just a short shout and say, 'See? It's horrible to listen to, isn't it? Now calm down.' It worked, incidentally. Explaining what effect their behaviour had on others made sense to them. Just saying: I forgive you darling wouldn't. True forgiveness is painful at times, when we forgive people who have badly hurt us. (I'm guessing here, a bit. I'm lousy at it.) The bible reflects how hard it is. It's not fairy wand waving time. It's tough.

So Jesus on the cross is (imo) God's way of saying - I forgive you, even though what you are doing is killing me. I am prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice for you, to lay down my life for you, with love, so that you can be free, but please, in return, respond to me. Please notice the effect your behaviour has on me. Please think about it and change. Which seems fair enough. It's about being in a loving relationship, not being a child who expects Sugar Daddy to provide handouts every time we smile needily and then not mind if we ignore him the rest of the time. Like all worthwhile relationships, it's a two way thing.

hih, genuine q: why are you posting? At length, on and on. What do you want to get from it

But Racing it sounds like your children have and are learning to care about others without having yourself gratuitously tortured in front of them. Wouldn't that seem a little abusive if you did that?

I just like to from time to time. I assume people will ignore me if they find my questions irritating.

I'll stop asking questions when I get some answers that satisfy me )

Headinhands, your posts are goady. Jesus, on the other hand, is not. If you cannot understand the profound and simple message of the Cross then I suggest you return to the bible, first of all praying for God to open your eyes.

I don't mean to come across as goady. What would I want to goad you into?

You will never be satisfied while you consider yourself and this world to be in some way important and inherently 'good'. You are an insignificant speck in this life and you matter not a jot in the grand scheme of things. Your body will return to the dust like your ancestors before you. But Jesus loves you. He is real. He lived and was crucified and is the Son of God. Read the gospel of Mark and get to know the man and the Saviour.

I think you genuinely get a kick out of belittling the Christian faith.

I have read the message, but to me, it doesn't make sense, so I'm curious how others get it to sit with them.

How am I belittling anything by asking logic questions of it?

No, you are not curious, you are goading, which means you keep annoying or criticising someone until they react. We know you don't believe in God and you think it's all bullshit, but I think the exact same of Humanism yet I don't go around demanding evidence for their experiences. Have a little humility and look at how your posting style makes you appear.

HTH

I have read mark. I'm well aware I am just a bunch of atoms. But I appear to have a lower sense of importance than the Christian. I have no reason to believe that this world was made for me or that there is a god who is interested in me.