An inventive mechanism (Evolution)

by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Saturday, September 13, 2014, 21:05 (3722 days ago) @ David Turell

->David: Your questions to me I think imply a very personal God. -I view him as very personal. Not only is that the view given throughout the bible, it is also the view that have witnessed in my own life. Suffice to say that I should have been dead, quite literally, two dozen times over, both in war and peace. I've seen things manipulated in a way that is inexplicable by mere coincidence. I think this is one of the major differences in our thinking, though.-
>David: God gave us free will, so that means He can't anticipate the things humans do, but that was His choice. In that sense I view us on our own. It we get into a nuclear war in my opinion He will not step in to save us, if He can. I don't think God answers personal prayers, but belief in God gives a strength to solve your own problems.-
Despite my comment above, I actually agree with this, to an extent. I don't agree with the part about prayer. We are left to our own devices if we choose to be left to our own devices, just like a petulant teen that runs away from home. -
>David: So, (a) God knows his future and His plans and how they will work out, but hopes we will work out our problems. (b) As I explain below some of God's interventions in the OT are not accepted as real history, but are stories, accepted by Reform Judaism, to make a moral point. Therefore, I stay with my dilemma, and tend to feel God does not intervene. -
This is where your thought on all of it and mine truly depart. People pick and choose what they want to believe for the same reason atheists disbelieve entirely: because on the surface it's easier, or at the very least more fun. -
> 
>David: I rely on Karen Armstrong's "A History of God" to analyze the three Bibles: the OT is somewhat primative in its picture of God, made fun of by Richard Dawkins as vengeful,vindictive, etc. I've listened to Rabbi's sermons based on Talmudic reasoning which accept much of this as allegory and have heard the deeper reasoning that change the words to a softened view. The OT is a book of love. The Quran has its nasty parts also, but it views God primarily through His works, which I view as a very mature way to find God, the path I have followed.
> -I haven't read her assessment, and quite honestly I don't think I will. Anyone that thinks that the OT's God is primitive is not an authority on the Bible. Even the OT paints him as a god of love, and as an immensely complicated figure. "The OT is a book of love." I could not agree more with anything you have said. The OT is a book of love, and most often a book of unrequited love. Reading through it I can FEEL the pain and anger that God must have felt at the steady stream of betrayals. Because I do view god as personal, and because I am empathetic to the way humanity has treated him, I am more conscious of my own actions.-
>David: I consider these three books as man-made attempts to understand our religious feeling, feelings we seem to be born with. I do not 'believe in the OT', but I use aspects of it in my thinking. One God, no Trinity.
> -Believe it or not, I believe in "One God, no Trinity" as well. The bible never says Christ was god. Christ never claimed to be god. And the trinity doctrine is not, and never was, supported in the bible. Neither was the hell doctrine, for that matter. I will be first in line to admit that Christendom has twisted and perverted the Bibles teachings, but then, it happened just as the bible said it would happen.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.