Why Does God Require Worship?

[carrdero]

carrdero writes: When applicable I have considerately used my personal experiences to state my case.

Apotheoun writes: That's all you've used.

Again, what would you have me use? What other practical, reliable, irrefutable sources could I utilize in good conscious to explain/support/describe my beliefs in these matters than what I have gleaned from my relationship with GOD?

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='carrdero' date='Aug 15 2004, 08:46 AM'] carrdero writes: When applicable I have considerately used my personal experiences to state my case.

Apotheoun writes: That's all you've used.

Again, what would you have me use? What other practical, reliable, irrefutable sources could I utilize in good conscious to explain/support/describe my beliefs in these matters than what I have gleaned from my relationship with GOD? [/quote]
Your intellect, which can transcend your personal experience and discover the objective nature of the truth. But based on your comments thus far, I don't think you believe that there is an "objective" truth.

[carrdero]

Apotheoun writes: Your intellect, which can transcend your personal experience and discover the objective nature of the truth. But based on your comments thus far, I don't think you believe that there is an "objective" truth.

Objective-something real and observable

Everything I have posted I have described from real examples/experiences/events that I can see/notice/witness/observe in the world today.

I believe in a objective truth but I am not receiving very much of it lately from other people. I have recieved book beliefs (beliefs procured from books/essays/articles). I have witnessed beliefs procured in faith/grace/divinity. And I have heard beliefs procured in second hand talk and here say. All of which do not lead to objective truth.

I haven't read of anyone applying intellect in PROVING or DISPROVING my posts or their own. I haven't witnessed any logic or reasoning in PROVING or DISPROVING my posts or anyone else's. And I haven't heard of anyone using personal experiences to explain how they arrived to their objective truths. Is this the CORRECT way to conclude objective truths? Is this how GOD taught us to PROVE our objective TRUTHs?

[Guest JeffCR07]

carrdero, your view of "objective" is drastically skewed. In addition, you only have listed part of the definition. The part that you have left out: "Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices" (www.dictionary.com, entry: "objective", section 3).

This is what Apotheoun was refering to, and it is what you seem to be incapable of doing. Whenever anyone begs you to come out from the shell of "person experience" you either a.) claim not to be an intellectual and thus, for some reason, the laws of reason shouldn't apply to you, or b.) it isn't legitimate to use pure reason because it cannot be "proven" via sense-experience, and so you fall into a circular fallicy (you claim only experience to be legitimate to use, because it is the only thing that can be backed up by experience).


I know what shape the answer will take, but please I will beg you once more, engage in a formal debate with me, based on Reason, I suggest we again start with the topic of whether or not your "god" is really the One True God of the universe, as I (it seems) have already proven not only that this is not true, but also that your "god" is not a God at all.

[jasJis]

[quote name='carrdero' date='Aug 15 2004, 11:38 AM'] Apotheoun writes: Your intellect, which can transcend your personal experience and discover the objective nature of the truth. But based on your comments thus far, I don't think you believe that there is an "objective" truth.

Objective-something real and observable

Everything I have posted I have described from real examples/experiences/events that I can see/notice/witness/observe in the world today.

I believe in a objective truth but I am not receiving very much of it lately from other people. I have recieved book beliefs (beliefs procured from books/essays/articles). I have witnessed beliefs procured in faith/grace/divinity. And I have heard beliefs procured in second hand talk and here say. All of which do not lead to objective truth.

I haven't read of anyone applying intellect in PROVING or DISPROVING my posts or their own. I haven't witnessed any logic or reasoning in PROVING or DISPROVING my posts or anyone else's. And I haven't heard of anyone using personal experiences to explain how they arrived to their objective truths. Is this the CORRECT way to conclude objective truths? Is this how GOD taught us to PROVE our objective TRUTHs? [/quote]
One can discern objective truth by observing laws of reason. Please do not assume that you are adrift with only your own intellect and observations to guide you. That's the point of the institution of a Religion. You have recieve objective truth from people hear. Because it does not line up with your 'personally defined [i]truths[/i]', you reject them as being non-objective. That's a common attitude we see here at phatmass from the many who come to prostelize us here. The rare few stay and learn to exchange ideas and grow themselves, or help us grow. I suspect, with the amount of personal pride you've invested in your 'book', you will be one of the many who leave. Frustatrated and bitter because you can't change our minds because you're against opening yours. Christian philosophy is inherently logical and reasonable. It's practice goes against what others may identify as reasonable, but they usually believe themselves to be a god unto themselves.

[carrdero]

JeffCR07 writes: I know what shape the answer will take, but please I will beg you once more, engage in a formal debate with me, based on Reason, I suggest we again start with the topic of whether or not your "god" is really the One True God of the universe,

There is a post awaiting your debate from me in Identifying The True God Posted: Aug 12 2004, 11:01 AM

jasJis writes: One can discern objective truth by observing laws of reason.

Who’s laws of reason? Man’s laws or GOD’s Laws?

jasJis writes: I suspect, with the amount of personal pride you've invested in your 'book', you will be one of the many who leave.

I am not a big believer in pride but I do suspect that the amount of pride that you have invested in your beliefs will be enough for you to avoid engaging me in mine. The only reason I could think of leaving is if I was bored or can’t afford the time. The latter reason seems to be taking precedence.

jasJis writes: Frustatrated and bitter because you can't change our minds because you're against opening yours.

Frustrated and bitter? No, I do not think so. This is after all a charitable debate. I have been where you are already, I have been where you have not been. The only way that I have arrived to where I am today is because I have kept an open mind.

jasJis writes: Christian philosophy is inherently logical and reasonable.

Then why are there some many Christian religious organizations proclaiming they have the TRUTH? Why are there so many Christians with contradicting perspectives? Sometimes within the same religion.
Christian philosophy is inherently man-made and interpreted by man.

Edited August 16, 2004 by carrdero

[jasJis]

[quote name='carrdero' date='Aug 15 2004, 07:16 PM'] jasJis writes: One can discern objective truth by observing laws of reason.

Who’s laws of reason? Man’s laws or GOD’s Laws?


jasJis writes: Christian philosophy is inherently logical and reasonable.

Then why are there some many Christian religious organizations proclaiming they have the TRUTH? Why are there so many Christians with contradicting perspectives? Sometimes within the same religion.
Christian philosophy is inherently man-made and interpreted by man. [/quote]
See, right off the bat, you've closed your mind to the possibility that others may be as intelligent as you, and be more reasonable. Christianity is inherently logical and reasonable. Take the existence of God for example. He can neither be proved or disproved with scientific logic, but without a dout, His existence is established using logic and concluding that it's more reasonable to believe God exists than to believe were are cosmic accident. Establish basic fundamtal points of reason, and you can build on that.

But we digress from the objective of you starting this thread. The reason we let this thread be waylaid, is because you rejected good reasonable, and thoughtful responses that disagreed with you. It isn't even a Cath/Prot thing. It's basic and sound theological philosophy.

Start another thread if you really want answers to your last question. I think that they can be adressed by the principles we can address in the thread I started with your claiming that we can all start our own religions.

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote]There is a post awaiting your debate from me in Identifying The True God Posted: Aug 12 2004, 11:01 AM [/quote]

The post of which you speak is merely an implicit reference to your book and a series of opinions unbacked by any sort of rationality. If you genuinely wish to debate, let's debate in an orderly manner: No editorial-style posts, and, while personal opinion may certainly be referenced every now and again, it should not be the focal point of the debate, but rather, rational propositions and assumptions should be the center of discussion.

If you accept the above, then I would be glad to engage in a debate. However, if you do not, then it really won't be worthwhile, as you will merely be telling me about your personal relationship with god, and I will tell you mine, and your god will be irreconcilable with the God who has saved and loved me. The end result, if we base our arguments purely on opinion will be the both of us claiming to truly know the nature of God, and neither will get anywhere.

[carrdero]

JeffCR07 writes: If you genuinely wish to debate, let's debate in an orderly manner:

I have heard this before and I grow weary of it.
Look Jeff, you asked me to answer your questions I answered your questions. I thought your questions and my answers was a wonderful way to start a debate in an orderly manner. If you have nothing to reply to those answers then say you do not have anything. If you agree to those answers then say you agree, if you do not agree tell me why and the debate begins again if you desire. If you do not have the time to answer my posts then say you do not have the time. If I ask you a question and you do not know the answer tell me you do not know the answer. You have that right and you have that choice. I will not think any more or any less of you. The ball is still in your court.

JeffCR07 writes: The post of which you speak is merely an implicit reference to your book and a series of opinions unbacked by any sort of rationality.

Then tell me which parts are irrational and why you believe that way. Also an inclusion of your beliefs of who you think GOD is would be welcomed if it supports your claim. As for my book I have told you before I do not need a book to have a relationship with GOD. If I quote from the book it is because I would prefer you hear it from GOD’s words not mine. My editorializing style of posts is to make absolutely sure that you understand where I am coming from and where you are coming from because misunderstandings and misinterpretations are abundant in this phormat. If you do not like the methods in which I compose my posts, tell me and I will make sure you do not receive any of my posts or I will make sure not to respond to any of yours. It’s that simple.

jasJis writes: Your arrogance is insulting, and only leads to blindness.
See, right off the bat, you've closed your mind to the possibility that others may be as intelligent as you, and be more reasonable.

I already K(NOW) that there are other people more intelligent than me. It would also be helpful if you did not take offense (or defense) to me every time I blink my eye. Nobody has anything to lose in these debates except beliefs and if you have as many as I do, maybe losing a few is not such a bad idea.

jasJis writes: I think that they can be addressed by the principles we can address in the thread I started with your claiming that we can all start our own religions.

Actually that was GOD who claimed that, not me. I will consider your thread and if there is anything to contribute I will be more than happy to respond.

[Guest JeffCR07]

Carrdero, I see now that all of my efforts are in vain. Your entire outlook on religion is relitivistic, and your preconceived notions of members of "organised religions" is tremendously biased. However, I will try one final time to confront the inherent flaw that is intrinsic in your point of view.

I have a personal relationship with God. I work every day to make it deeper and stronger. Let us assume for just a moment that the being you have direct communications with is, in fact, God. Now, while He does not directly speak to me, I think even you would admit that I can still be open to him, and here what he has to say through other means, such as speaking to my soul while I am in prayer.

Now my dilemma is that God reveals and speaks to my soul in an indescribable manner, and He tells me that he is Trinity, three persons in One God: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. He tells me that he is the Unmade-maker and the Unchanging Constant, the Alpha and the Omega. Now I could defend all of these things with the Bible, Church Teachings, etc, but I know that they hold little weight for you. Thus, I will merely put before you that I know these things to be true because God has told them to me, speaking clearly and concisely to me through the inaudible and deafening voice of my soul.

But God has told you that He [i]does[/i] change, while He has told me that he [i]does not[/i]. Either he is a liar, or we are engaging in a relationship with the same God.

Even if you argue that God speaks differently to different people, you are still implicitly admiting that God lies to some and not to others, because, by definition, if God does not change for me, he cannot change for you. This is true because God doesn't tell my soul "I don't change in my relationship with you, Jeff," but rather, he says to my soul "I don't change ever, in anything, or with anyone, I AM, I always have been, and I always will be, unchanging."

I hope you will respond, and respond to my post in its entirety, and not merely one sentence or another.

[carrdero]

JeffCR07 writes: I have a personal relationship with God. I work every day to make it deeper and stronger.

How do you make it deeper and stronger? How do you/we know that it is a personal relationship?

JeffCR07 writes: I think even you would admit that I can still be open to him, and here what he has to say through other means, such as speaking to my soul while I am in prayer.

I can also believe/admit/suspect that your preconceived notions, and personal faith and the perspective that you know about GOD could deeply affect your relationship too.

JeffCR07 writes: Now my dilemma is that God reveals and speaks to my soul in an indescribable manner, and He tells me that he is Trinity, three persons in One God: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.

Though other religions have told me this it was not expressed to me in this way by my GOD.

JeffCR07 writes: I will merely put before you that I know these things to be true because God has told them to me, speaking clearly and concisely to me through the inaudible and deafening voice of my soul.

Again or you sure that this is GOD and not your own individual desire to believe what you have already come to understand? Could this be another entity stroking your ego, confusing you to the accuracies of really K(NOW)ing who GOD is?

JeffCR07 writes: But God has told you that He does change, while He has told me that he does not. Either he is a liar, or we are engaging in a relationship with the same God.

I think that this was already established/confirmed through the Aloysius/carrdero debate that we are indeed speaking about two different entities.

JeffCR07 writes: Even if you argue that God speaks differently to different people, you are still implicitly admiting that God lies to some and not to others,

No, what I am implying is that other entities (physical or spiritual) can and will lie to you. What I am implying is that GOD is TRUE to himself and if he wanted to change tomorrow GOD has that right and choice to do so (GOD doesn’t live for what we expect GOD to BE, GOD lives for GOD). What I am implying is that my relationship with GOD will be different form yours (if you ever desire to meet the GOD that I am speaking to) because we (me and you) are different not GOD.

Ex. If I was to meet and encourage a relationship with one of your friends I have a pretty good understanding that your friend is not going to have the same relationship with you as he does with me.

Please be careful how you conclude my posts and if you have any questions on clarity don’t hesitate to contact me because the error could very well be on my end as well.

JeffCR07 writes: I hope you will respond, and respond to my post in its entirety, and not merely one sentence or another.

My apologies but your understanding on this matter doesn’t allow me to respond to your posts in their entirety. Again there is many points you are addressing and much you desire to know and it is very important not only for myself in explaining it this way as it is for you in understanding.

[God Conquers]

How do you know it is not some other entity that speaks to you carrdero? How do you know it is God, and what proof can you offer us?

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Aug 15 2004, 10:52 AM'][quote name='carrdero' date='Aug 15 2004, 08:46 AM']carrdero writes: When applicable I have considerately used my personal experiences to state my case.

Apotheoun writes: That's all you've used.

Again, what would you have me use? What other practical, reliable, irrefutable sources could I utilize in good conscious to explain / support / describe my beliefs in these matters than what I have gleaned from my relationship with GOD?[/quote]
Your intellect, which can transcend your personal experience and discover the objective nature of the truth. But based on your comments thus far, I don't think you believe that there is an "objective" truth.[/quote]
[quote name='carrdero' date='Aug 15 2004, 09:38 AM']Apotheoun writes: Your intellect, which can transcend your personal experience and discover the objective nature of the truth. But based on your comments thus far, I don't think you believe that there is an "objective" truth.

Objective-something real and observable

Everything I have posted I have described from real examples / experiences / events that I can see / notice / witness / observe in the world today.

I believe in a objective truth but I am not receiving very much of it lately from other people. I have recieved book beliefs (beliefs procured from books / essays / articles). I have witnessed beliefs procured in faith / grace / divinity. And I have heard beliefs procured in second hand talk and here say. All of which do not lead to objective truth.

I haven't read of anyone applying intellect in PROVING or DISPROVING my posts or their own. I haven't witnessed any logic or reasoning in PROVING or DISPROVING my posts or anyone else's. And I haven't heard of anyone using personal experiences to explain how they arrived to their objective truths. Is this the CORRECT way to conclude objective truths? Is this how GOD taught us to PROVE our objective TRUTHs?[/quote]
Carrdero,

It became clear to me when you said, "Everything I have posted I have described from real examples / experiences / events that I can see / notice / witness / observe in the world today," that you missed the point of my post entirely. For you see, this is the point at issue between us, because what you have described are your personal experiences, examples, events, etc., and these things are just that, [i]your personal experiences[/i], and thus they are not mine, and as a consequence they cannot form a common ground upon which we can discuss these issues. The things you have said are simply your subjective opinions without any basis in objective reality. That is why I indicated that any discussion about metaphysics between us must be based on the rules of rational discourse, and not simply on your personal opinions.

Moreover, in your post you said that, "I haven't read of anyone applying intellect in PROVING or DISPROVING my posts . . .," and of course in saying this, you have fallen into a common fallacy, because it is not my duty, nor anyone else's duty, to prove or disprove your subjective assertions; instead, it is incumbent upon you to prove your assertions about the socalled "personal experience" you have with this "god" that you talk about, and simply referring to your subjective experiences, as you've done in all your posts, does not prove your claims. Instead, you must use logic and reason to show that your "god" is real, and not simply some figment of your imagination.

Let me give an example of a proof for the true God's existence that is based on reason. The world that men see around them, that all men exist in, is a contingent reality, and this can be known from mankind's common experience, because all men see things coming into being and ceasing to be. This means that nothing within the created order is by definition necessary, because if it were necessary it could not come into being or cease to be; and so it follows logically, the created world is by definition contingent. But since it is contingent, it follows logically that it cannot account for or cause its own being. This is true because, by definition, a thing which is not being in itself, has received its existence from something outside itself. In addition a contingent being cannot be self-caused, because it would have to exist before it existed in order to cause itself, and this proposition is by definition irrational. Now, because these contingent things can either be or not be, it follows that they cannot be identified with being in itself; and so, there must be a necessary being that gives existence to all that is contingent, and which all contingent being is dependent upon for its existence, and this necessary being is God. This argument is based on reason, and universal human experience, and thus it is not simply a personal or subjective assertion as your claims have been up to this time. It is a rational proof.

Now, what I am asking from you, is that you give a rational proof that backs up your personal opinions about this "god" of yours. Is your "god" necessary being? Is your "god" the uncaused cause? Is your "god" the unmoved mover? Etc.

If your "god" is the cause of all contingent reality, please give the rational proofs that indicate that this is so. Remember that the burden of proof is on you, not on me, when it comes to proving that your "god" is real. You should also bear in mind that your personal relationship with this "god" that you talk about, is not a proof, nor are any of the socalled dialogues you have had with this "god" legitimate proofs, because to use any of those "dialogues" would simply assume that you have proved the existence of this "god" when in fact you have not done that yet. As I said before, I am not required to prove that your subjective assertions are false, but you are required to prove that the assertions you make about your "god," are true. That is the nature of rational discourse.

God bless,
Todd

[Guest JeffCR07]

Todd has adequately addressed the main issue between you (Carrdero) and us, but I would simply like to reiterate (if you don't mind) a point that is of extreme importance.

As you yourself so adequately pointed out, my previous post is inherently flawed as a logical proof, because it is entirely subjective and provides nothing but personal opinion in order to back up my assertions. However, this was precisely my intent, as my post was done in a fashion similar to your own.

Ultimately, this has been my chief problem with our previous conversations, as your responses lack any form of objective basis. It is this problem that I have been attempting to remedy by asking you to engage in a formal debate.

[carrdero]

GOD conquers writes: I How do you know it is not some other entity that speaks to you carrdero? How do you know it is God, and what proof can you offer us?

A very good question. If anyone has read my posts in the past the proof is still out on this entity. Though the entity that is speaking with me today claims to be GOD I am still in the same boat as most people who believe GOD exists but cannot PROVE his existence. As most of you K(NOW) I have a book, which I have written to capture GOD’s conversations (I forget easily). This book was written about GOD today. This book was edited by a professional editor but I have over looked the final manuscript to see if GOD’s word and meaning remained intact. It has. In other words, I K(NOW) where the book came from. This is important for someone like me who exist in this day and age. So is this book the TRUTH? No, a book is not TRUTH. Is this book my Bible? It is now. There have been many things spoken in that book that make sense to me that is just common sense and does not need further validating and there are some points that have been validated through me through other sources like observations, meditations, other people’s conversations with GOD (yes there are other people who are having the same relationship as me). There are also those things that are difficult to PROVE and may never be able to be PROVED in my lifetime.
I think the topics that Jeff and I are trying to uncover is not whose GOD is most comfortable and convenient or which GOD has stood the test of time longer and deserves worship but which GOD makes more sense (reasonably or logically). It is not my intention to “win” or convert people over to my GOD (why should I when it would be just as easy for you to enter into this same relationship and get the answers for yourself) nor is it my intention to keep this GOD to myself. Though I understand that I am in the minority and I don’t exactly have the pep rally squad that the Christian GOD has, I do not mind sharing my beliefs with other people who are interested in this GOD that other people are now beginning to discover for themselves.