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?

"We are kind of going back to the Woolworths pick and mix style of biblical interpretation."

You have to use some of your common sense rather than believe whatever a senior church official says, when we have recently witnessed the hypocrisy of a senior cleric making statements against gay sex etc while himself having gay sex. you have to use some of your own judgement in order not to be misled by hypocrites.

@ Caster8

"headinhands is a wolf in sheeps clothing. Beware."

Because he/she is asking some pertinent questions you circle the wagons and issue 'warnings', very enlightened!

Caster, making spurious claims about my character doesn't help the debate along and weakens any argument you may like to make.

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.

I don't think it's necessary to believe in "God" to find comfort in life. Instead of trying to believe in something you don't believe (and I'm not saying you shouldn't give it a go here), how about looking at some of the good points of religion that are compatible with non-belief and take comfort from them? Alain de Botton's "Religion for Atheists" has some good ideas on this theme.

As an atheist, I do get that religious people often find a comfort that i don't, with their beliefs in heaven/good people going to heaven/all things happening for a reason etc. But I also think that if you don't believe in heaven etc. it can be easier to focus on THIS world and all its amazingness. There's something odd about wanting to believe in an all-knowing God ... it kind of seems like giving up on life or abdicating responsibility for your own life or something.

Though are are Christians for whom the promise of heaven is the main comfort of there faith, there are many others (myself included) who really don't think about it all that much. It's the way Christianity frees me to live more fully and abundantly in this world, freed from the weight of the bad things I have done and will do (not that I am free of their consequences - I never can nor should I be), secure in the knowledge that I am loved, and grateful for the amazingness of this world and all I have within it.

Just because God is all-knowing doesn't free me from making hard moral decisions, or having to work out for myself how to live out 'love your neighbour as yourself' in practice. But it gives me a ground, a compass for doing so.

But it gives me a ground, a compass for doing so.

At the risk of sounding wantonly facetious (I'm not) how can a god who would set bears on people who disagree with him possibly ever offer you a sound framework to work within when making moral based decisions? (or allow as much to be attributed to him).

Sorry, hih, I haven't followed the ins and outs of the bears discussion! But see my posts passim about the Bible as human document, the developing knowledge of God documented therein, and the revelation of Christ in the New Testament for an answer to your question.

Headinhands - I maintain that I gave answer C, seeing as I am the one who gave the answer, I feel qualified to say what my answer is and isn't! But I don't expect you to agree with anything I say, so let's just agree to disagree shall we?

For the record, I didn't say "they learned their lesson", I had clearly referenced a website article and they were not my own words.

I also put in the news links about bears tearing people apart and eating them, but people surviving to tell the tale. That was as much to open peoples minds to the possibility that the horror of death may not have been death, and it seems more balanced to avoid making up stories to be worse than they seem. A wasp sting that kills is much worse than a wasp sting that you recover from, type thing. You can't make wild assumptions all the time or you look a bit like you're just trying to stir up a hornets nest albeit unsuccessfully I might just add ??

worldgonecrazy - I haven't looked at the witch reference because your point is that the bible is calling people witches when they aren't, yet a witch even in modern cartoons casts spells, uses magic potions for this purpose, and mutters/chants to evoke ' evil powers'. So whether your translation says "mutters and casts spells", or "makes magic potions" (for the same purpose) its all much of a muchness really.

And I would say if you dabble with the dark side you can't expect God to smile on it because He gives plenty of warnings not to do it, but people still ignore Him and rebel regardless. The thing about the spirit world is that I don't know much about it, and for all I know his could have a special reason to see it as a crime worthy of a strong punishment. Why should we be surprised really, after all, we mortals have a hierarchy of crime and punishment. You wouldn't expect a thief to have life imprisonment for stealing a fiver, but you would expect that of someone who murders your granny for drug money.

sorry atrcts, I see that it was pasted from a website. So you disagree with the articles sentiments then?

I also put in the news links about bears tearing people apart and eating them, but people surviving to tell the tale. That was as much to open peoples minds to the possibility that the horror of death may not have been death, and it seems more balanced to avoid making up stories to be worse than they seem

I don't see what difference it makes. If you upset me and I set a vicious dog on you, but intervene before it kills you, would that be moral or immoral? When does setting wild animals on people become wrong? As for making this story worse than it seems, If you heard of a man throwing 42 people into a lions den for teasing him are you really going to sit about thinking 'I'm sure it can't be as bad as it seems'.

What's going on here are two things. Firstly there's the just world hypothesis. You want the world to follow certain rules. You want everything to be fair, because you're a good person. Thats great, but you also want and need god to be good and nice. So you're trying to bend the story to fit your preconceived ideas about the character of god.

Because you believe you are in a relationship with god, and that you love the idea of god that you have created in your mind you will try and twist new information into that framework. We do it all the time. It's called confirmation bias which was my second point. You wouldn't be doing it if it was about some guy living in Canada. Because you have no emotional investment in that guy. I know this because I used to do it myself

after all, we mortals have a hierarchy of crime and punishment. You wouldn't expect a thief to have life imprisonment for stealing a fiver, but you would expect that of someone who murders your granny for drug money.

Do you think everyone goes to heaven?

sorry atrcts, I see that it was pasted from a website. So you disagree with the articles sentiments then?

That's ok, we can all read something in a hurry and not take it in correctly.

Can you clarify what you mean by "the article sentiments".

I don't see what difference it makes. If you upset me and I set a vicious dog on you, but intervene before it kills you, would that be moral or immoral? When does setting wild animals on people become wrong?

My point wasn't the rights or wrongs, merely that a person who seems to be determined to try and discredit God, will twist any story. I wanted to show that being dramatic about killing children could have actually been injuring adolescent/young men in the 20's (remember the reference to David being in his 20's being referred to as the "boy" that killed the giant?).

As for making this story worse than it seems, If you heard of a man throwing 42 people into a lions den for teasing him are you really going to sit about thinking 'I'm sure it can't be as bad as it seems'. In the same way that it is possible to make a story out to be worse than it is, a story can be trivialised. If you look at the full story you will see it wasn't just about calling someone a baldy-coot!

What's going on here are two things. Firstly there's the just world hypothesis. You want the world to follow certain rules. You want everything to be fair, because you're a good person. Thats great, but you also want and need god to be good and nice. So you're trying to bend the story to fit your preconceived ideas about the character of god. Not at all, I am reading in context about a God who is different than the one you clearly wish to portray at this present time in your life.

Do you think everyone goes to heaven? No, the bible is clear about that. Many people will continue to trust in and rely upon their own thoughts, morals, good behaviour and man-made religious efforts instead of "Believing in Him".

But I do believe that everyone gets a fair chance. God says He reveals himself to people who have a genuine openness, and that people are therefore "without excuse".

And now I need to hike off to bed pronto, I only got 3 hours sleep last night and my newborn is asleep so I should be to!

Don't use up all the word count while I'm gone people!

will twist any story

It's not any story is it. How can we read it any other way. God is setting wild animals on defenceless humans. None of the justifications make it go away, make god good or just, make it reasonable. At what point when reading this sort of OT story would you say 'no that's just sick, I've obviously been duped'?

People are therefore "without excuse"

Say you have a woman who is just your average woman, pays her bills, looks after her kids and so on, but she's atheist. Imagine she gets raped and murdered by a serial rapist. She doesn't go to heaven. He, on the other hand is arrested and while in prison becomes a Christian. He dies and goes to heaven.

How's that just?

I am reading in context about a God who is different than the one you clearly wish to portray at this present time in your life

I'm reading a recount of god setting bears on people. It's the bible that's portraying him as immoral not me!

*Leviticus 26v29

"You will eat the flesh of your sons and the flesh of your daughters"*

In this chapter god is setting out the rewards and punishments for following/not following him. How moral is it to threaten someone with starvation so bad that they would eat their own children.

Many people will continue to trust in and rely upon their own thoughts, morals, good behaviour and man-made religious efforts instead of "Believing in Him"

The exact same morals he relied on you to use when deciding if he was good just before you became a Christian. If your morals are so messed up how can you trust the decision you made when deciding to be a Christian.

At what point when reading this sort of OT story would you say 'no that's just sick, I've obviously been duped'?

I see it with different eyes entirely. As you might have guessed.

Say you have a woman who is just your average woman, pays her bills, looks after her kids and so on, but she's atheist. Imagine she gets raped and murdered by a serial rapist. She doesn't go to heaven. He, on the other hand is arrested and while in prison becomes a Christian. He dies and goes to heaven. How's that just?

You describe two people, two imperfect beings. One of them is trusting in and relying upon their "good works" yet hardening their heart and rejecting God. The other has a history of being one of the worst low-life's in society, and who has an complete transformation with regret and mourning over the horrors they once forced people to endure. But this person has stopped trusting in himself and now trusts completely on God's word, seeing that God is who He says He is and relying on that with full assurance instead.

The justice is that God gave both "sinners" a fair warning. One was not treated differently than the other in terms of having the same grace available to them.

I'm reading a recount of god setting bears on people. It's the bible that's portraying him as immoral not me!
Out of interest, do you also think the police are immoral to set their dogs on attacking criminals?

Leviticus 26v29 In this chapter god is setting out the rewards and punishments for following/not following him. How moral is it to threaten someone with starvation so bad that they would eat their own children

Have you read the whole chapter in context? It is a beautiful account of chance after chance after chance. More chances than you'd ever give I reckon! In case you haven't, I am pleased to show you it
starts with God clearly offering incredible rewards of good weather for crops (verse 4), plenty to eat (verse 5), peace in the land (verse 6), safety from wild animals (verse 6), success over enemies that may try to attack (verse 7), increased families (verse 9), and above all, God's presence among them (verse 12).

It then moves on to "If you will not listen to me" (verse 14) and "if you reject my decrees" then there will be the opposite to what is listed above. Instead there will be terror, disease, poor crops and defeated by enemies.

Then verse 18 gives another warning, "if after THIS you will not listen to me"... further poor weather and crops.

The ANOTHER warning in verse 21 (what a gracious God to spell it out so clearly and give so many stages of opportunity to turn around and change their mindsets) "If you remain hostile toward me and refuse to listen to me...." they will experience no protection from wild beasts.

Then in verse 23 "If in spite of these things you do not accept my correction but continue to be hostile to me, I will be hostile towards you..." Another chance to change!!!! And the same again in verse 27. How many chances does this God patiently give his people?

But then in verse 40 we see "But if they confess their sins... their unfaithfulness towards me,....." verse 44 "yet despite this I will not reject or abhor them so as to destroy them completely".

So there you have it. A fair chance spelt out to stubborn haughty people. All it would take would be for them to experience the lighter end of punishment to recognise it and turn around quickly to embrace the positive life offered instead.

Oh I do like context.

The exact same morals he relied on you to use when deciding if he was good just before you became a Christian.

John 3 verse 16 doesn't say "Whosoever uses morals to decide if I am a good God will not perish but have eternal life", it says "^whosoever BELIEVES on Him'.

If your morals are so messed up how can you trust the decision you made when deciding to be a Christian.
Compared to a perfect God, all of us have messed up morals just some more than others

One context of the roots of christianity, therefore the OT, is that it is set in a middle eastern culture. The middle eastern culture is, to this day, so foreign to us in our western culture. Imo there is little point drawing comparisons - though that doesn't stop us trying! - because our cultures just are almost entirely different; but relevant and understood to each (but not to the other!). So, say: one is a lion and the other a flamingo. The lion does lion well, and is a bona fide creature; the flamingo does flamingo well, ditto. A flamingo couldn't say to a lion 'You're doing that all wrong, you should do it like this, this is how it's done, this is what makes sense - can't you see that?' and vice versa.

a flamingo could find a lion barbaric. In the same way we can (generally) find the middle eastern culture barbaric. But they could find us barbaric - in our morals.

eg (the obvious one!) we think that women forced to be covered in order to not inflame the man's eye is barbaric. They would say that women are deeply respected, cared for and protected within their culture and communities. We say 'my eye!' or 'how patronising'. But imo there are times when a woman should be protected by the culture and community, and often isn't in the west eg childbirth, mother to young; when she is naturally vulnerable. We can ride roughshod over such women in the name of equality.

Imo God relates to people culturally. In the OT he was relating to an ancient middle eastern culture. He would have spoken to them, communicated with them, using their cultural language.

It's quite interesting that even within a completely ludicrous framework (the idea that there is this great big invisible Thing that takes an active interest in human lives) people basically get the imaginary friends they deserve. If you are a decent person, the friend you imagine will be a bit like a benevolent parent: it's got your back, it loves you, it might occasionally behave in ways that distress you, etc. If you are an inadequate shitbag, your imaginary friend will be obsessed with interfering in other people's lives, demanding slavish devotion and smiting unbelievers. The imaginary friends remain imaginary, though, and the mythologies around them fairly tedious.

Well said Springytotty

atrcts you didn't respond to the last paragraph in my post about the mistranslation of witches. This phrase from the Bible was used to justify the torture and murder of completely innocent people, usually the meek, the outcast, the widow, that Jesus was so big on protecting, and some have also pointed out that this is important in the OT too. Yet your god allowed the very people that his supposed Son was big on protecting to be tortured and murdered in the most terrible of ways, all in his name.

So what of a god who will send two bears, a storm, the trials of Job, to prove a point, yet will do nothing to help the very people he's supposed to be big on protecting, when terrible unbelievable things are happening to them and it's being done in his name. What kind of god is that and how can anyone truly believe such a god is worth worshipping, never mind that I'm actually annoyed at giving him the time of day discussing him on mumsnet.

Incidentally, I always used to respect other people's views and use a capital letter when referring to the Christian god, but now I've thought about it (thanks to this thread) I will no longer do so. Even if he did exist (which he may do, but certainly not as a loving omnipresent, omnipotent being - if anything he is the demi-urge of the Gnostics) he would not be worthy of a capital letter.

Compared to a perfect God, all of us have messed up morals just some more than others

And yet god expects us to be able to use our messed up morals to acknowledge him as a good guy as opposed to a bad guy. How could you even acknowledge god as good if you can't rely on your own morals?