Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

To want to make myself believe in god?

999 replies

HopHopHopSkip · 25/07/2013 22:55

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 Grin 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?

OP posts:
headinhands · 01/08/2013 08:47

'Who am I to judge god' You must have judged him at some point to decide wether to be Christian. If you're not allowed and can't be trusted to make value judgements how do you know your god is good?

headinhands · 01/08/2013 08:48

So claig it sounds like you're saying god doesn't have free will. Is that right?

claig · 01/08/2013 08:52

God has free will, but God is good and therefore doing bad doesn't even come into the equation.

You are right that God acts according to His nature, which is good, and that therefore bad is not a choice that God can make, but that doesn't mean that God does not have free will, as free will is not synonymous with choosing to do bad.

headinhands · 01/08/2013 08:52

Evidence that was repeatable, testable and observable by independent individuals would certainly be something I'd be interested in.

claig · 01/08/2013 08:55

But you will never get that evidence, so you will have to make a decision without it.

headinhands · 01/08/2013 08:57

So his nature precludes him from making certain decisions and as such he is always going to make 'good' decisions. That doesn't sound like free will though.

headinhands · 01/08/2013 09:01

So we have to make a decision which will actually be a random guess because we have no good reason to chose one god/religion over another. And god would hold us accountable? Wouldn't it be more logical to say 'look, I have no evidence so I will refrain from making a choice until I can be more sure.' How could god argue with that?

claig · 01/08/2013 09:02

It is free will to choose to be good. You don't have to be bad to prove that you have free will.

A good person has chosen to be good, but God is beyond choice, God just is, God is the alpha and the omega, God does not make teh sort of choices we humans make, God does not choose whether to have a lie in for an extra hour, God just is.

claig · 01/08/2013 09:06

"Wouldn't it be more logical to say 'look, I have no evidence so I will refrain from making a choice until I can be more sure.' How could god argue with that?"

Many people would disagree with you, but God will not argue with you, God will not punish you for God has given you free will and it is up to you to choose.

God is not angry, God is sad, becuase God is love, and God will wait and there is no joy in Heaven so great as when people find God or when a sinner repenteth

atrcts · 01/08/2013 09:06

There are many trick questions floating around out there that are often used against God. Some may ask, “Can God create a rock so big He cannot lift it?” Others will say, “If God can’t lie, then he can’t be all powerful!” and in this case we are hearing "if God can't do wrong then it doesn't sound like He has free Will".

There are many others, and the reality of the situation is that there will always be another such question around the corner.

The answers to all such questions though do no not need to limit God's attributes. Rather God’s attributes are the answers to these questions.

Because God is who He is, he is free to choose according to His nature at all times. He will not contradict Himself. He does not have to. He will not do anything less than perfect. He has no reason to. He will never choose to do evil, for there is no power on heaven or on earth that could ever compel him even to entertain the idea.

We, on the other hand, have free will to chose right or wrong, because unlike God, we are prone to imperfection, and influenced by our internal struggles as well as external forces.

It is not that God doesn’t have the free will to do something wrong, He just will never be compelled to act anything that is contradictory to his nature. And God, by His very nature, is good, and perfect.

Unlike you, headinhands, and unlike me too Wink

headinhands · 01/08/2013 09:15

he just will never be compelled to act anything that is contradictory to his nature
I say that isn't free will.

claig · 01/08/2013 09:17

But being compelled to act against one's nature is the exact opposite of free will.

Giod is not compelled to do anything, because God is Almighty.

worldgonecrazy · 01/08/2013 09:17

He will never choose to do evil, What??? You mean like sending a bear from the woods to kill some children who were taking the piss out of an old man for being bald??

CuChullain · 01/08/2013 09:20

@Claig

"But you will never get that evidence, so you will have to make a decision without it."

And this is the rub. In my view there is no evidence yet I am asked to just believe, some Christians point out the 'wonders of nature and the world around us' as proof of a god, but sadly I need something a bit more than an opinion. Maybe it is my scientific education that has made me demand that? On top of that I am being asked to believe in an entity that that if the bible is to be believed, is jealous and proud of it, is petty, unjust, an unforgiving control-freak, a vindictive bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser, a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic bully. Why would I want something with those deeply flawed character traits to be true let alone want to aline myself in worship of said entity. I have travelled to many parts of the world and have seen untold suffering, people suffering through no fault of their own, yet we are casually told that for all of gods omnipresence power, he is not his fault, that it is 'evil' to blame, he can create a universe but not stop a starving malnourished child from having to dig for scraps in a rubbish dump.

claig · 01/08/2013 09:21

"You mean like sending a bear from the woods to kill some children who were taking the piss out of an old man for being bald??"

When was this?

headinhands · 01/08/2013 09:22

And what will happen now is someone will either say

a, it was how it was interpreted and god didn't send them (why allow it to recorded as such) or

b,we can't use our own human ideas of goodness to judge god (except he thought our ideas of goodness were good enough to decide to follow him).

claig · 01/08/2013 09:29

Good questions, CuChullian.

I have only recently discovered the Christian Gnostics and their metaphysical, philosophical, spiritual, mythical understanding of God and Christ. They do not believe that the God of the Old Testament is the real God. They believe that he is the Demiurge and that he created this material world and we are trapped in physical form on this planet with our divine spark within us, and that we can reunite with the true God through gnosis (knowledge).

There is no doubt that evil exists, we only have to read our newspapers every day and we can sometimes even see it in certain faces, but that evil is not of God.

Exactly why it exists, exactly why we are here, we will never know, but it is only through thought and gnosis that we can hope to get near to an answer.

Rosieres · 01/08/2013 09:35

With regards to refraining from making a choice due to a perceived lack of evidence... (1) it all depends on what you would count as admissible evidence or not and (2) what threshold of certainty you set before you are prepared to make a decision.

We all make important decisions on less than conclusive evidence, because that is the nature of life. When I married I was effectively taking a punt that the person I loved on my wedding day would also be the person I loved in 50 years time, something I was unable to scientifically prove and for which evidence was highly inconclusive. But if I had said to my partner "I love you, but cannot commit my future to you because the future is unobservable and therefore I lack 100% certitude for a decision of that magnitude" I doubt it would have gone down well. When I had children, I had no previous experience to back up my assumption that having children would be a good thing to do, and while I knew friends with children (and they seemed to be doing well out of it), I knew that I couldn't really know what it was like until I had ones of my own.

Some decisions (choosing to marry, choosing to have children, choosing to follow a faith) are ones which we really understand as we live them day by day. The proof is not managed a priori, deduced from observable data and first principles, but a posteriori, as we live them and our decisions are confirmed or denied by the results. I am pleased to say that after 18 years of marriage I believe I made the right choice, after 9 years of parenthood I am still very much delighted with my children, and after 22 years of practicing Christianity I still believe that, for me, following God has proved fruitful and life affirming. And as such I intend to remain married, a parent and a Christian for the foreseeable future - my evidence on the value of these things is gathered as I live these choices.

CuChullain · 01/08/2013 09:37

"People say miracles don't happen, but they happen every day.

www.nydailynews.com/news/national/daughter-lifts-bmw-father-crushed-beneath-car-performs-cpr-article-1.1126449

and it is faith that causes them to happen."

You would think a nice god would have not allowed the car jack to slip in the first place. He is a strange fellow indeed when he rewards those with faith by dropping cars on their fathers.

I remember way back when Pope John Paul II got shot, at the time it was hailed as a 'miracle' that he had survived, even JP2 himself claimed he had 'felt the hand of GOd guide the bullet away from vital organs'. A cynic might argue that the 'hand of god' would have diverted the bullet away from his body altogether, you would think gods chosen representative on earth would get a bit more leeway in terms of divine favours. I find it astonishing how some religious folk seek out miracles when the event looks more like a vengeful act. Some old women gets hauled from the rubble of a collapsed building 10 days after an earthquake has struck and its claimed as a miracle, "there is your proof of a benovolant god", while quietly ignoring the thousands of others who have been killed or lost everything.

claig · 01/08/2013 09:46

But God does not run this world like clockwork, he allows for free will. He is not controlling what happens every second.

Just because people say God told them does not mean that He did. I seem to remember Tony Blair and George bush said something about God telling them or talking to them about the invasion of Iraq.

We don't know if anyone is God's representative on earth. There are different Christian denominations who do not believe that the Pope is God's chosen representative.

Bad events happen, natural disasters occur, and most of us no longer believe that it is due to God's wrath with sinners that innocent people die in earthquakes, but many of us do believe that it is a miracle if someone is pulled alive out of the rubble after two weeks etc.

madhairday · 01/08/2013 09:47

On top of that I am being asked to believe in an entity that that if the bible is to be believed, is jealous and proud of it, is petty, unjust, an unforgiving control-freak, a vindictive bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser, a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic bully.

Heck, I wouldn't want to believe in that kind of god either.

I believe in a God who, if the bible is to be believed, is jealous for people to be in relationship with him because he loves them, just as your OH would be jealous if you buggered off with another man/woman; is full of integrity, is just, is forgiving to even the most hardened of people, is an upholder of the rights of widows and orphans, is compassionate, is for women, loves all people whatever their race, sex, sexual orientation; is vehemently opposed to child sacrifice, is sacrificial of himself for others, loves to free people, and hurts when we are bullied and suffering.

atrcts · 01/08/2013 09:48

headinhands - or maybe a third option you may not have considered (from the "answersingenesis" website...) Wink

The vital question of concern to most here is the age of these “little children.” We recoil in horror at the idea of bears mauling a gaggle of preschoolers. Of course, most don’t quibble when they see a Sunday school picture of a little boy David flinging a rock at the big bad giant, but that image of David is quite incorrect. David was already “a mighty valiant man” and “a man of war” who was “prudent in matters” and had already slain a bear and a lion himself (see 1 Samuel 16:18, 17:34–36) before anybody ever heard of Goliath.
The Hebrew words used for Elisha’s detractors include the Hebrew words qatan, na’ar, and yeled, with Strong’s number 6996 (here translated “little”), Strong’s number 5288 (the “children” of verse 23), and Strong’s number 3206 (the “children” of verse 24), respectively. Qatan means small in quantity, size, number, age, status, or importance. Thus, we see it used to describe a cake, a cloud, a room, a city, and a finger, as well as the younger daughter of marriageable age in Laban’s household and the youngest son of Jacob, Benjamin, who was a grown man; this word even describes Saul (a very tall man, but low in status) at the time God anointed him king of Israel (1 Samuel 9:2, 15:17 )! Na’ar means a boy or girl, servant, or young man—it is a word that can cover a range of ages from infant to young adult. Yeled likewise means a boy, child, son, or young man—essentially, someone’s offspring.
In seeing how these words are used throughout the Old Testament, we see that “little child” (qatan na’ar) is used to describe the young rebel Hadad the Edomite (1 Kings 11:14, 17) who fled Solomon’s kingdom and married pharaoh’s sister-in-law. The combination is also used by Solomon to refer to himself when he prayed for wisdom after becoming king (1 Kings 3:7). Thus, we can already see the phrase “little child” being used by the King James translators to refer to the relative youth or immaturity of grown men.
Na’ar is also used to refer to David—the mighty man of valor described above—and all his brothers, as well as David’s son Absalom as he led a civil war, the field hands in Boaz’s fields, and a number of soldiers throughout the Old Testament. The word describes Joseph at age 17 (in Genesis 37), Isaac at about 25 to 28 on Mount Moriah (in Genesis 22),1 spies in Joshua, and (along with yeled) the young men who gave Rehoboam such lousy advice in 1 Kings 12.
Thus, as we ponder the translators’ word choice as well as God’s judgment, we see plenty of precedent for using “little children” to emphasize the relative youth or immaturity of the subjects. The reference to his baldness was likely an ordinary sort of insult: baldness on the back of the head, historically, “was considered a blemish among the Israelites as well as among the Romans.”2 However, when we consider the rest of the taunt these “little children” hurled at the prophet, we see evidence that they possessed a certain amount of theological understanding. Their taunt to “go up” was a reference to Elijah’s recent ride to heaven. By shouting this challenge to Elisha, they were challenging his right to follow in Elijah’s footsteps as God’s designated representative to Israel—and declaring their intention that they wanted him to meet His Maker as well. Yet if the people were to be called back to God, Elisha had to have credibility as God’s designated representative.
Some have found fault with Elisha for cursing them in the name of the Lord. First of all, this was not taking the Lord’s name in vain. Notice that God responded by doing something about the situation—nor was this some vile epithet. Elisha simply made clear to them—and to all who were watching—that it was not his but God’s honor they were impugning. God ratified that position by sending two bears out of the woods to maul them.
Did they die? The Strong’s number for tare is #1234 (baqa‘). This word variously refers to the breaking open of mountains and city walls, dividing the Red Sea, splitting wood, breaking bottles, making a way through a line of soldiers, getting a group of citizens to disavow their nation, and—in a prophetic metaphor for the destruction of a nation in Hosea 13:8—tearing by wild beasts.
When we look at information on modern day bear attacks, we see that some attacks are fatal and some are not. The language of the Bible here is not specific regarding the fate of the 42. As Willmington’s Guide to the Bible puts it, “forty-two of these arrogant rebels were clawed as a divine punishment.”3 Maybe there were 42 funerals, maybe not. We simply cannot say. But one thing is sure: everyone watching and everyone who survived learned a lesson that day: God’s message is serious, and Elisha is His new messenger. The false gods popular in the nation publicly failed to protect these hoodlums from the God whose messenger they challenged.

worldgonecrazy · 01/08/2013 10:00

atrcts so you have found abiblical reader who has decided that the words mean that? That's fine. They can also still be read as "little children", i.e. young children.

Whatever their age, if they were young and just taunting an old man, however badly, it still is an evil act to send two bears out of the forest to injure them. Your "God" is actually a very nasty piece of work indeed.

So to answer the "for or against" argument. Yes, I am against anyone who worships the evil tyrannical downright nasty demi-urge of the Bible because I think they are misguided, naive and stupid and it is the misguided, naive and stupid who are responsible for much of the suffering brought about in the name of "religion".

It's worth noting that the "we've got it all wrong, God isn't a tyrant, he's a nice guy, look God is actually love" message isn't really pushed until after Jesus's death.

atrcts · 01/08/2013 10:04

Internet is full of stories where people report being eaten by a best and surviving. I'm not saying they survived in that bible story, just saying that it doesn't say they died, only torn (mauled) and devoured (eaten) and we can see in our modern day how this might be possible.
www.abajournal.com/mobile/article/critically_injured_by_polar_bear_lawyer_will_survive_to_tell_vacation_stori/
www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1byn1l/i_was_mauled_by_a_bear_fought_it_off_and_drove_4/
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2026914/Mum-bear-eating--Final-phone-calls-woman-19-eaten-alive-brown-bear-cubs.html