Existential crisis? I don't even know.

[jlay]

Joined April 15, 2009 ???????

not you, Kioku.

As far as Kioku saying things that contradict, he sounds to me like he is just struggling to figure out exactly what he believes and why. He's being honest enough to talk about his difficulties, even if they are not completely consistent. That's why, I imagine, he is having problems--because he sees the inconsistencies and wants to resolve them one way or the other. Who better to talk to than people who have studied this and talk about it on a regular basis?

I guess that is why I am struggling to know IF he believes.

What I am saying to you is that you need to be just a little more careful about who you are ready to label a fake . .

Pont taken, and my deepest apology to Kioku. Of course if he is sincere, I want to facilitate anyway I can.
But this is different than what you think I am implying. You are talking deep philisophical points. Based on Kioku's own input and statements, I am more interested in knowing whether Kioku is truly saved.

If someone says, "I am doubting God. Am I really saved?!?" and someone replies, "Hey, the very fact that you are worried about your doubt is proof that God is working with you/proof that you really are saved because it points to the Spirit's ministry" is using unbelief as a sign of belief. Now, perhaps you don't hold to that theology. I was speaking more generally in my statements in that regard. If they don't apply to you, then so much the better.

That is absolutely not my theology. Questioning why you did somehting, which I'm sure you have, is a form of doubt. "How could I say that, think that, do that. etc?" Anytime we disobey God, anytime, we are demonstrating unbelief or doubt. That doubt does NOT prove you are saved. Heaven forbid. It is fact that you are worried about displeasing God that is the element that shows God's spirit working in you effectually. Godly sorrow worketh repentence that leads to salvation.

Ask him about his personal experiences, not me. What I am saying is that doubt are an issue of the intellect, not the emotion or the will. It doesn't do any good to preach at people who are experiecing genuine doubt about their need to repent or submit or any of that. Remember your apologetics, man!

I agree, we just need to be certain of what ground we are starting from. I am hearing doubts of God's existence, and the afterlife, aren't you? There is an appropriate place for apologetics. I'm still wondering if we are there yet.

[cslewislover]

You think it is a choice. I don't.

Tell ya what, so as not to derail this thread too much . . . forgive me if I misunderstood you. Based on your citations of those verses, I don't think I did (it is very typical of people who I have not misunderstood who hold to the view I have gotten the impression that you do), but if you'd like to talk about the nature of belief, I'd be more than happy to. I'm sure it would be an interesting and useful discussion for us both.

Anyway, I am out for the evening. I have a Bible study to go teach. God bless, and I look forward to seeing lots of progress in this thread when I get back!

Been fun.

Jac, yes you do misunderstand me, and it's not too kind to tell someone that they don't understand their own conversion or faith, or how scripture relates to it (you asked me to forgive you if you have misunderstood, but then imply that you haven't). I have a relationship with the Lord, so how would discussing the nature of belief improve it? How could you improve on the Lord? If you think you are helping Kioku that's great; others like myself can help him as well, hopefully, without having to answer to you. And I see you didn't address what I said about my impressions of your posts regarding choice. But I'd like to read over everyone's posts more and see what else I may or may not add.

[waynepii]

Does there have to be a waterfall for there to be water in a stream? Virtually all species of social animals have "rules of conduct" (ie morality) that control and moderate their interpersonal relations. Relatively few conflicts over food, hierarchy, mating, ... result in serious injury, even in species that are fully capable of easily killing one another. It's in the species' best interests to "pull their punches" and avoid needless bloodshed. We humans are the only species I am aware of that kills one another almost routinely.

While I don't think I have ground to chime in and the topic could drive this thread off its own topic, human beings are morally superior to animals with pack behavior like dogs. For instance, if I left a human infant near a wild dog, I'd expect the dog to violently attack the child. If I left a wild human near a wild baby dog, I don't think its initial reaction would be to kill it. Human beings have more advanced brains and minds. In fact, we choose to save species from extinction and wield that power frequently. In fact, a lot of places plant two trees for each one they cut down.

If you left a human baby near a domesticated dog, it would probably be fine. If you left a baby dog near a domesticated (aka civilized) human, it would also probably be fine. A baby human left with a wild dog or a baby dog left near a wild human would both be likely to be in serious trouble. Frankly, a puppy left near a civilized human of a culture that considers dog as a food item rather than a companion could also be in for a bad day.

[kioku]

Bingo. However, dogs do not have advanced cultures they would obtain from the wild. Humans have built up society, and domesticated those dogs. Therein lies the problem. Humans are the key.

Left alone for the same amount of time, dogs have not accomplished what we have. Left alone for longer, no other animals have obtained what humans have. Reasoning. Logic. Above that, morals.

[waynepii]

You missed the point of my example. If I am at a stream that is being fed by a waterfall, do I have to acknowledge its source to enjoy the benefits of it? Of course not. Likewise, I do not have to acknowledge the benefits of morality (God) to enjoy their benefits.

This is why I keep saying that morality is part of the fabric of reality itself. Do I need to believe in God to know how much I weigh? No. Why not? Because my weight is a part of reality itself. It is precisely the same thing with reality. However, if God did not exist, would my weight exist? No. Why not? Because if God did not exist, then the Universe would not exist for the reason that it would have no Cause.

But that only carries weight as proof to one who already believes.

So, AGAIN, I am telling you plainly: human beings do not need to BELIEVE in God to be moral. However, God does not exist, then human beings can neither be moral nor immoral, regardless of whether they believe in Him or not, because there would be no such thing as morality or immorality. Kioku seems gets that.

Perhaps, Kioku, you would like to help me explain that to waynepii if I've still been unclear?

don't know how much that last post will help Kioku, but I am digging it. That's some good stuff on morality. Thanks

Hopefully it'll help. Complete package answer? No. We'll need to go a bit further into other issues, but it should help him on the terminology side of things. But glad you are getting something out of it. It helps me to write it all out, anyway, because, as you know, every time you explain something, you get a little better at getting to the heart of the matter.

Let me refresh your memory about the original post to which I responded ...

[ ... ]Let that really sink in and use the classical example: what Hitler did, if atheism is true, was simply not wrong. For you or me to say it was would be on the same level as saying he ought to have preferred our favorite flavor ice cream. And now make it more personal. Think of the person you love most. It would NOT be wrong for someone to rape, torture, and murder them.

That's atheim's world.

... You have made it clear that you feel right and wrong wouldn't exist without God. But that viewpoint is meaningless to one who doesn't already believe in God. Hence, the point is of no aid in helping Kioku find his proof. In other words, the fact that one believes Hitler's actions were abhorrent is not proof of God's existence to one who doesn't already believe in God.

[waynepii]

Bingo. However, dogs do not have advanced cultures they would obtain from the wild. Humans have built up society, and domesticated those dogs. Therein lies the problem. Humans are the key.

Some other species of domesticated animals fair considerably differently than our companion animals - ie chickens, turkeys, cattle, sheep, ... Being considered a human's food item is not a good thing.

Left alone for the same amount of time, dogs have not accomplished what we have.

Some of our "accomplishments" aren't much to brag about - the ability to kill thousands at time for no good reason, repeatedly coming close to ruining our planet and most everything on it, treating others extremely poorly, ...

Left alone for longer, no other animals have obtained what humans have.

Left alone for longer, no other animal has come close to destroying the world.

Reasoning. Logic.

Reasoning and logic exist in other species, albeit not to the extent of a human's capability.

Above that, morals.

As I said before, social animals depend on a code of behavior (aka morals) to preserve their society.

[kioku]

While I do believe I should weigh both sides, I really can't begin to compare other animals to human beings. They've advanced much faster. They are self aware. They are aware of the universe and its laws. Why?

[waynepii]

While I do believe I should weigh both sides, I really can't begin to compare other animals to human beings. They've advanced much faster. They are self aware. They are aware of the universe and its laws. Why?

I assume the "they" to which you refer to be humans. BTW some other species are self aware, some animals are able to recognize their reflection as their reflection.

Both self awareness and the ability to advance are related to mental "horsepower". Ability to advance is also related to the opposable thumb (which allows use of tools, among other things), upright posture (freeing the forelimbs for other duties), and the ability for complex communication. While intelligence plays a part in each of these, they are also key reasons in their own rights. Without all of them we would probably be "just another animal".

[kioku]

I'm well aware. What's your stance on the issue?

What ethics and morals do animals hold? Are they aware of the underlying laws and constants in the universe? I don't think they would a code of follow morals, since those often defy what's best for their species.

I just don't see the evolutionary necessity of being able to know the universe. It would be the universe developing consciousness manifested through biological processes for no reason, but somehow able to observe itself. Billions and billions of cells, all collecting together in one focus point to observe. Why not billions of consciousness in a single colony? Billions of observers seems like a better way to go about it. After all, being a collective as an individual is something science has yet to tackle, really.

I'd say consciousness causing collapse was explained through M-theory, but multiple universes without evidence of them isn't exactly what I had in mind when I'm already feeling skeptical of religion. I mean if I wanted to weigh my options, energy functioning as waves of probability, existing and not existing in a super state and able to be where they can't until we observe them and behaving as particles ( instead of waves ) when a conscious observer sees them ( which can be tested through the double-slit experiment ) suggests consciousness is special enough to change the behavior of photons. In fact, the results of the experiment can chance if you observe it in the future. This also suggests information can move through time.

Alternate universes are unproven, though. It was a theory to explain away that unsettling prospect in particle physics. The other option of super-states is there, Schrödinger's cat kind of points out the paradox of. Objects existing in two states ( until observed ), as the implications of these small states seem to trickle up. Even the really creepy suggestion that objects don't exist until observed. That has been tested. Many universes? No, nor do I believe it can be tested. That sounds like a religion.

I don't know how I got so off-topic, but the subject's rather interesting. Anyway. It really boils down to whether or not there's a God and afterlife to me. I've been kind of agnostic on the issue for the past days. I'm still not sure.

While moral laws exist, how does this suggest God exists? I'm not being confrontational here. I'm just not 100% convinced on either side, really..

[jlay]

Wow, look at these rabbit trails.

[kioku]

Rabbit trails? I'm sorry, but I don't understand. I'm guessing from context that you mean distractions from the main point, then I agree. Back on topic.

This issue just worries me, I'm not meaning to insult you. My faith is just running out. I don't know if there's a God and an afterlife or not. It worries me to my very core, as I think it would anyone else in my position.

[jlay]

There we go. Back on topic.

This issue just worries me, I'm not meaning to insult you. My faith is just running out. I don't know if there's a God and an afterlife or not. It worries me to my very core, as I think it would anyone else in my position.

No insult. If your faith is based on your supply and power then yes it will run out. Pretty darn quick. That is not why Christ came. It is not a prescription: read this, do this, don't do that. Certainly what is at work within you will produce an effect, which would lead to certain desires. (what to read, what to do, what not to do, etc.)
It is about an indwelling. The very flow of God in and through you, supplying you. Can you say that you now have, or have ever had this?

Why do I pray for God's spirit to fill me, and lead me? We leak. If you are running out, it could be that you need a fresh filling of God's spirit. It could also be that you have never been filled in the first place.

I don't know if there's a God and an afterlife or not.

Isn't this a matter of trust? Faith is not the absense of doubt. Just as courage is not the absense of fear. What you feed grows and what you starve dies. Will you respond with belief? Could you not say, that regardless of my feelings, I am going to purpose in my heart that the claims of Christ are true and endeavor to follow that truth.

This isn't to say that doubt will simply dissapear.

[kioku]

I haven't been feeling it. I know, but I want the absolute truth in the matter. Faith alone isn't making me feel any safer. This place is called, after all, Evidence for God from Science. I want evidence, reasoning, logic.

[Byblos]

I haven't been feeling it. I know, but I want the absolute truth in the matter. Faith alone isn't making me feel any safer. This place is called, after all, Evidence for God from Science. I want evidence, reasoning, logic.

Have you read any of the material provided on the main page and the ones Jac suggested? Start there then come back with questions/rebuttals. This should take you at least a few weeks so get busy.

[jlay]

One of the greatest prayers in the bible.

"Help me with my unbelief."

Faith alone isn't making me feel any safer.

"Who said anything about safe? 'Course he isn't safe. But he's good. He's the King, I tell you."
C.S. Lewis, The Chronicles of Narnia