Will of God

[The Terrible Sweal]

have your say

[King Kojack]

Although I'm on the fence when it comes to God's existence, I don't believe anyone could know the will of God.

[Newfie Canadian]

Assuming for the sake of argument that God exists, isn't it presumptuous to assume that He even has a will, and assuming further that He do have a will, our comprehension of such a will would be implausible, wouldn't it?

[willy]

Jesus?

Who was he?

It is presumptuous to say you know the will of God but that is not to say we no nothing of God?

Prayer, bible, spirt.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Votes stand at 8-0 for implausible and presumptuous. I'm surprised. I know that there are people here who advocate adoption of policies based on the idea that God requires certain things. Did none of those people vote??

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Terrible Sweal,

I voted for perfectly sensible. Mind you, this is out of viewing God in a religious sense, not in an 'agnostic's (sic) sense. It is entirely possible that a 'God' (or creator) exists that resembles none of 'human's religions'.

Most religions, at least the major ones, claim to know the mind of God because they say He revealed it to them. It is not through any deduction that people claimed to have derived this knowledge, but through His Will that they (or we) be told. Now, Islam does not deny Abraham (or Ibrahim) or Jesus, or Moses, nor the messages they 'received from God', but they claim Muhammed received NEW instructions from God, and these are the ones we must follow.

Let's face it, the notion of God is pretty universal, it is just religions that 'transcribe God's will" into day to day instructons, mostly to ensure that the church remained rich and powerful. Further, 'God's will' smacks remarkably of 'man's will' since we have 'personified God' to make him in our likeness.

Here's the kicker... I have discovered exactly what God is, and can put Him in a jar in liquid form. I have called 'Him' H2SOteric. All thoughts (and memory) in humans are a result of chemical reactions in the brain, and therefore they truly only exist inside one's own cranium. If I was to say to a group of experimental subjects, "think of a chair", and then extracted some of that cranial fluid that changed when they did so, I would have the rudimentary 'brain-fluid' sample of some 'chair'. If I showed them a specific chair, then removed it, and told the subjects "think of THAT chair", my chemical formula would be that much more refined. The same applies to God, He is, as far as humans are concerned, a chemical formula existing (possibly only, but even if not, for sure) in one's brain.

So, to know 'His will' is perfectly plausible, because it comes from the same place He did.

[PocketRocket]

"God works in mysterious ways"

"No one knows the mind of God"

And so many more we could dig up if we wanted to.

All have, at one time or another, been quoted by those selfsame people who will occasionally say "It's God's will".

But hardcore believers, like the scriptures themselves, seem oblivious to their own self-contradictions.

Now having said that, before anyone jumps on me about being a "non-believer" or a heretic or whatever, take note; I am neither of the above. My beliefs are my own. I simply choose to acknowledge the fact that I do NOT know God's will. I do NOT take the Bible as the literal truth (how can I when it is filled with so many contradictions??).

Born Catholic, practised Protestant, now, for lack of a better term, Independent.

My God, my beliefs, my religious practices, are all personal, based on my perception of who and what God is, and how I would want people to behave if I were God.

Bottom line for me is simple, The Golden Rule.

[willy]

So then PocketRocket, you know the will of God? You must to have a private religion where you know what is right and the path you should follow.

From what you have said I can only assume you only take the parts you like out of religion and at no point challenge the inconvenience of God.

If you still associate with Christianity, it is clear that it is not a personal or private religion.

If you reject it all for your own perception are you not presupposing your own judgment over that of God.

So as a private religion, how is that golden rule working for you? And a follow-up, does it work for others.

[PocketRocket]

WILLY: Thanks for the response, but I believe you misinterpreted what I had to say.

  So then PocketRocket, you know the will of God? You must to have a private religion where you know what is right and the path you should follow.

Actually, no. What I said, clearly and concisely was.....

My beliefs are my own. I simply choose to acknowledge the fact that I do NOT know God's will.

I think that was pretty clear. It says that I do NOT know the will, or the mind, of God, and that I acknowledge that fact.

From what you have said I can only assume you only take the parts you like out of religion and at no point challenge the inconvenience of God.

I don't see God as being an inconvenience. Do you???

I do, however, see some of His followers as people who sometimes cause inconvenience to others.

If you still associate with Christianity, it is clear that it is not a personal or private religion. 

Hmmm. I don't recall saying I have my own personal religion. Let me re-read my post.......nope. Never said that.

If you reject it all for your own perception are you not presupposing your own judgment over that of God.

No. We all have our own perception, and our own interpretation of any information that we see or hear.

Just look around this very forum and you'll find proof of that.

So as a private religion, how is that golden rule working for you? And a follow-up, does it work for others. 

Again, I never said anything about a private religion. I said my beliefs and my practices are my own. To a certain extent, this can be said of anyone.

I try to treat others as I would wish to be treated, so, as a basic guideline, The Golden Rule works fine for me.

As for others, I cannot say.

[willy]

PocketRocket,

Do you think God is okay with your beliefs?

I am a religious person, and God has changed my life.

I do submit to the authority of my church and the bible.

This is an inconvenience to the lifestyle I once led.

It is in human nature to be the center of our own universe, the challenge is to not focus on self but to focus on God and then share his grace and mercy with others.

I apologies if my first post was condescending in nature, I regularly don't put enough thought into my posts.

But,

To state that your beliefs and practices are you own, is not to acknowledge the people and experiences in your life that shaped those beliefs.

IMO God can and does play a role in shaping these things, through the bible, believers, and the holly sprit. I might not know his will but he gave me a rule book and a player’s guide.

[The Terrible Sweal]

If you reject it all for your own perception are you not presupposing your own judgment over that of God.

But that's a fallacy of assumption, begging-the-question.

You appear to equate the Christian framework with the will of God ... you voted 'perfectly sensible', I suppose?

I might not know his will but he gave me a rule book and a player’s guide.

Sez who though?

[PocketRocket]

WILLY: With all due respects, I did not enter my initial comments in this thread with any intent to debate religion. I simply do NOT debate religion because such debate leads nowhere, and often ends with people getting upset. I will briefly answer your questions here, and then move on. You may have noticed that I have been very careful not to name any religions of which I disapprove, nor any religious leaders who I do not care for. The reason for this is the same reason I normally do not debate religion.

  PocketRocket,

Do you think God is okay with your beliefs?

I do not know. I thought I made that quite clear by repeatedly saying that I do not know the will, or the mind, of God.

BTW, you don't know either, nor does anyone else. No offense intended by that remark.

I am a religious person, and God has changed my life.

Whatever your beliefs may be, I respect them entirely, and hope that they bring you peace and comfort.

I do submit to the authority of my church and the bible.

This is an inconvenience to the lifestyle I once led.

Not knowing any details, I can make no comment on this. Probably wouldn't even if I knew more details.

It is in human nature to be the center of our own universe, the challenge is to not focus on self but to focus on God and then share his grace and mercy with others.

Organized religion does not have a monopoly on sharing His grace and mercy. Men of good will can do so without being directed by a particular religious affiliation.

I apologies if my first post was condescending in nature, I regularly don't put enough thought into my posts.

No problem. No offense taken, none intended.

  But,

But??? BUT??? Oh-oh, there's a "but"!!! Please Lord, why is there always a "but"????

(Sorry, a late night, and too much coffee this morning make PR a silly boy)

To state that your beliefs and practices are you own, is not to acknowledge the people and experiences in your life that shaped those beliefs.

Good point. But (oh no, another "but") how do go about saying briefly that your personal religious beliefs were influenced by the Catholic church, the Baptists, United church, Robert A Heinlein, my Mom, a very good friend who is Islaamic, Shintoism, Buddhism, etc etc etc....and much introspection, while still giving reasonable credit to each as to it's individual influence???

We are all a product of the sum of our experiences. This also holds true outside of our religious beliefs.

IMO God can and does play a role in shaping these things, through the bible, believers, and the holly sprit. I might not know his will but he gave me a rule book and a player’s guide. 

Oh boy, here comes the caffiene again. The "Holly" spirit??? No. I'm not going to touch that one with a ten-foot pole.

I think the word you wanted was "Holy".

The divine trinity. Father, Son, Holy Ghost. Or as the old joke goes, "Big Daddy, Junior, and Spook".

Nowhere did I contest the notion that God plays such a role. Nowhere did I reaffirm that He does.

I was very careful not to do so, and for a reason which I stated in the opening of this post.

As for the rule book and players guide, well, if you speak of the Bible, then that's subject for another debate which I will not get drawn into here. I have seen too many threads in too many forums get out of hand over such contention, and will not be party to this.

WILLY, my post was NOT meant to start a debate on the existence of God, His prophets, or His word. I thought that was pretty clear. I will NOT be drawn into a public debate on religion. If you want to discuss (not debate) further, I would be happy to do so via PM's, but (oh dear, "but" again) I would prefer not to carry this on further here.

Nonetheless, I thank you for your interest and your replies.

And, Happy New Year to you.

[willy]

PocketRocket,

I am off on holiday's. In the next couple of weeks I will work on my spelling.

Thanks for the feedback.

TTS, I do not claim to know the will of God.

Here is the but, I think Christ was who he said he was.

[August1991]

The divine trinity. Father, Son, Holy Ghost. Or as the old joke goes, "Big Daddy, Junior, and Spook".

That's a good one. Never heard it before. (Have you heard: Will, Chuck and Di?)

Sorry. Back to the thread.

Is the Will of God the same as the Hand of Fate?

In Game Theory, there are games against nature and games against people. An important distinction is that in games against people, a player must be aware of what information is being divulged to an opponent. In games against nature, nature doesn't care about us.

IOW, when you say the "Will of God", do you mean the "Will of Someone who takes into account what we are doing" or do you mean the "Will of Nature who doesn't give a damn"?

[The Terrible Sweal]

The divine trinity. Father, Son, Holy Ghost. Or as the old joke goes, "Big Daddy, Junior, and Spook".

Swiss Army God.

[Richie]

Considering the fact that "God" is a creation of our own Human imagination, I suppose you could argue that we do know the will of "God" because he is just an invention of our own imagination.

At any rate, Human Beings will someday no longer feel the need for a parent figure to look up to and to turn to when things go wrong. I look forward to that day: the day when religion withers and dies.

[PocketRocket]

The divine trinity. Father, Son, Holy Ghost. Or as the old joke goes, "Big Daddy, Junior, and Spook".

That's a good one. Never heard it before. (Have you heard: Will, Chuck and Di?)

Haven't heard that one, but I have a suspician as to where it leads. Fill me in, even if it's via PM.

Sorry.  Back to the thread.

No apology necessary, at least not to me

Is the Will of God the same as the Hand of Fate?

I don't know. I guess we'd have to ask Him. I'm reminded of the sketch from Monty Python's Meaning of Life (Don't just stand there gawkin', like you've never seen the 'and of God before)

In Game Theory, there are games against nature and games against people.  An important distinction is that in games against people, a player must be aware of what information is being divulged to an opponent.  In games against nature, nature doesn't care about us.

I know not of what you speak. Game Theory???

IOW, when you say the "Will of God", do you mean the "Will of Someone who takes into account what we are doing" or do you mean the "Will of Nature who doesn't give a damn"? 

(What does "IOW" mean???)

When I say "Will of God", I'm not sure exactly what I mean because I don't know the will of God.

How's that for a completely vague answer???

I know, it's not an answer at all, but PocketRocket works in mysterious ways

The divine trinity. Father, Son, Holy Ghost. Or as the old joke goes, "Big Daddy, Junior, and Spook".

Swiss Army God.

What??? No can opener??? Damn it, I'm hungry, and this is the last can of beans

[PocketRocket]

Now this I like. A non-religious debate about religion. Into the fray.....

  Considering the fact that "God" is a creation of our own Human imagination,.....

I imagine you'd have a hard time selling that theory to a Christian, or a Muslim, or a Jew, or just about any believer of any religion at all.

But hey, you have the right to believe in whatever God, or lack thereof, that you wish.

.....I suppose you could argue that we do know the will of "God" because he is just an invention of our own imagination. 

Here's the sticky point. There's no conclusive proof to support the existence of God, or gods.

But, given the nature of the arguments FOR the existence of God, ie; He wants us to believe in Him based on our faith, not on concrete evidence. So, if He does exist, He would leave no conclusive proof of His existence laying about.

And so, there is no conclusive proof AGAINST the existence of God.

Make it kind of hard to argue for or against when there's no solid proof either way.

So, I won't argue this point. The next part is the part I like.....

At any rate, Human Beings will someday no longer feel the need for a parent figure to look up to and to turn to when things go wrong. I look forward to that day: the day when religion withers and dies. 

This could be true, stipulated that humans will continue to evolve.

Now, I may be taking liscence here, but I think a disbelief in any God, would require a devout belief in the evolution theory.

That being stipulated, let's look at the human race from an evolutionary standpoint.

Evolution theory demands hardship to help a species to develop. "Survival of the fittest" is what leads to favorable mutation, and thus to advancement of a species. The slow, stupid and weak get eaten by predators, the quick/smart/strong survive to pass on their genes. This is an oversimplification, but an apt description nonetheless. Competition is a prerequisite to evolution.

But civilisation has eliminated competition as defined by evolutionary theory. We have created an environment in which the slow, the stupid, and the weak, are not eliminated by competion with the strong, fast and smart. So, the slow and stupid, being free to continue breeding, are not eliminated from the gene pool. They continue to interbreed with the fast and the smart, thereby diluting the favorable genes which would lead to physical and mental advancement.

In fact, not only are the slow/stupid allowed to survive and breed, they are in fact coddled and protected by our welfare system. Often, not having to work to support themselves, they have more time to spend breeding. Incentives like baby bonus checques (or whatever they're called these days) encourage them to breed even more than the regular working folk, because these government-issued stipends are a substantial addition to their income, allowing them a more comfortable lifestyle.

All over the world, this trend is advancing.

There are still, of course, incredibly brilliant people being born every day. But these people are in the minority, as they always have been.

Now, all that being said, religion is largely a matter of opinion. It is, or seems to be, your opinion that no God exists. I fully respect that.

But opinions, like the proverbial a$$hole, are something that everyone has.

And the opinion of an idiot will not be changed by the opinion of an intelligent man. This is especially true if the idiot has "faith", for after all, that's all you need to be a member of most religious groups.

So, that was simply a long-winded way of saying that I disagree. I don't think religion will die off. As long as there are people, they will believe in God or gods. Pick your deity, there are plenty to go around.

[Richie]

You're right, PocketRocket, that was londwinded!

I just see religion as a childhood affliction. Humanity is still in its childhood and hence the need for a parental figure in the sky.

I'm more optimistic than you regarding the overall intelligance of Humanity; I think this need for a father figure will die out as we continue to develop as a species. After all, do you still believe in that monster under your bed?

[Black Dog]

I just see religion as a childhood affliction. Humanity is still in its childhood and hence the need for a parental figure in the sky.

I'm more optimistic than you regarding the overall intelligance of Humanity; I think this need for a father figure will die out as we continue to develop as a species. After all, do you still believe in that monster under your bed?

I'm more or les sinclined to agree, but I'm not optimistic about he chances of mankind "outgrowing" religion anytime soon. After all, belief in a higher power(s) has persisted for millenia. And I think we nee dto ask why.

On the one hand, there's the paternal angle you mentioned, as well as the need to explain the otherwise inexplicable or incomprehensible. Another is the self-aggrandizing aspect: people like to think that they as individuals or as part of a larger group, are special. What could be more special than a Supreme Being who favours your particular group above all others, or a Supreme Being that picked this one little planet for his pet project humanity. Belief in God is a way for people to feel better about themselves, excuses the diminishment of "infidels" and to make sense of the world. Thos eneeds will always be part of human nature and accounts for the persistance of religion. Even if religion were to fade away, something would take its place.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear PocketRocket,

The slow, stupid and weak get eaten by predators, the quick/smart/strong survive to pass on their genes. This is an oversimplification, but an apt description nonetheless. Competition is a prerequisite to evolution.

Not an oversimplification, really, bang on the money. Many religious types deny evolution entirely, and some schools in the US are fighting in court, for and against, having 'evolution' branded as only a theory. I have visited a couple of 'Creationist' web sites, and the 'scientific' explanations debunking evolution are truly laughable. Makes me wonder how valuable a B.Sc is from Bible College.

[August1991]

Evolution theory demands hardship to help a species to develop. "Survival of the fittest" is what leads to favorable mutation, and thus to advancement of a species. The slow, stupid and weak get eaten by predators, the quick/smart/strong survive to pass on their genes. This is an oversimplification, but an apt description nonetheless.

That's wrong because you have said that the survivors are "quick/smart/strong" whereas the losers are "slow, stupid and weak".

The survivors are better adapted to their environment, that's all.

If, for example, there were a nuclear war or some other toxic devastation, it is likely that insects (by far the most numerous species on our planet) would survive. In evolutionary terms, a cockroach is a "winner".

----

PR, you then make a long diatribe involving social darwinism and welfare. Frankly, the only way you can understand evolution (and the universe for that matter) is with very, very big numbers. Our 5000 years of written history is nothing compared to the several million years that our species has been in evolution.

BTW, your genetic code is no different from a human alive about 3 million years ago.

----

People need to be able to talk to themselves. In fact, I'd say good mental health means having a good internal conversation.

This internal conversation also goes by the name of prayer. People need to be able to talk to someone, even the "person" is an invention.

----

IOW = in other words, BTW = by the way. You can look such abbreviations up in Google. BTW, I too was confused at first.

[PocketRocket]

AUGUST1991:

IOW I should research before asking silly, uninformed questions

But, to paraphrase Homer Simpson; If it ain't easy, it ain't worth doing.

BTW (that one I knew), regarding me being wrong in my summary of evolutionary theory, you are right, in part.

I did stress that it was an over-simplification.

You are right in saying that the species best suited to its environment would come out the evolutionary winner.

My faster/smarter/stronger label was meant to apply to species who depend on both their brains and their physical ability to survive.

This would be an apt desription of mankind, if we were still competing in a wilderness setting against both other species, and other members of our own.

But yeah, if survival in a particular niche demanded being slow and dull-witted, well, then we'd all be three-toed-sloths

[PocketRocket]

  You're right, PocketRocket, that was londwinded!   

I told you so

I just see religion as a childhood affliction. Humanity is still in its childhood and hence the need for a parental figure in the sky.

I'm more optimistic than you regarding the overall intelligance of Humanity; I think this need for a father figure will die out as we continue to develop as a species.

I hope you're right, but I fear you're wrong. I guess I'm just an optomistic pessimist. But, in the words of Robert A Heinlein, "Optomists have a better time, but pessimists are right more often".

I'm trying to enjoy the best of both worlds.

After all, do you still believe in that monster under your bed? 

Yes. You would too if you met my cat.

BLACK DOG: Good post. Some great insight there.

THELONIUSFLEABAG: Thanks for the compliment, but really, it was indeed a gross oversimplification, as pointed out quite accurately by AUGUST1991.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear PocketRocket,

That's wrong because you have said that the survivors are "quick/smart/strong" whereas the losers are "slow, stupid and weak".

The survivors are better adapted to their environment, that's all.

If, for example, there were a nuclear war or some other toxic devastation, it is likely that insects (by far the most numerous species on our planet) would survive. In evolutionary terms, a cockroach is a "winner".

It is August1991 that is mistaken. Mind you, your 'simplification' must be taken as species specific. Certainly, the cockroach is a winner in evolutionary terms, but what you describe is evolution amongst the cockroaches.

If being born with two heads, or for humans, Down's Syndrome, or with red hair gave a person an advantage over the others of the same species with regard to hunting/gathering, and longevity, we would see this gene passed on more strongly, as they would be the ones more likely to reproduce. However, as the old joke goes, Q:"What's better than winning a Gold Medal at the Special Olympics?" A: Not being retarded.