Pros and Cons of Proving God Exists?

[Elok]

Their thinking began with themselves, and what they knew, and was independent of the absurdity in the world.

We have little record of what Abram/Abraham thought at all, just his actions, which began with a command from God to go and have a great nation made of him. Which he obeyed. Any hemming, hawing and absurdity is in Kierkegaard's envisioning of the man, not the original story--though one aspect of it (the sacrifice of Isaac) has been used, not just by Kierkegaard, but later by Sartre to illustrate an existentialist theme.

[Kidlicious]

The thinking is not important. It's the action. Although there must have been some thinking going on. He is accredited as the Knight of Faith for his actions.

[loinburger]

Their thinking began with themselves

The thinking is not important.

You're not even trying anymore - you're contradicting yourself in a matter of minutes instead of in a matter of days

[Kidlicious]

Going back to the Fall of Man story, Gen 3. If you look at the verses just before the one you quoted you get a clearer picture.

The serpent said to the woman, "Did God really say, 'You must not eat from any tree in the garden'?" The Woman said to the serpent, "We may eat fruit from any trees in the garden, but God did say,'You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden ...." etc...

evidentally Eve is trying to impress with her knowledge and rights. Then of course she tries to impress by disobeying God.

[Elok]

If thoughts don't matter, why are you calling him an existentialist for the thoughts he supposedly had?

Going back to the Fall of Man story, Gen 3. If you look at the verses just before the one you quoted you get a clearer picture.


evidentally Eve is trying to impress with her knowledge and rights. Then of course she tries to impress by disobeying God.

He asks her a question which, in the English translation cited and in my OSB, is ambiguous in phrasing (is she not allowed to eat from any of the trees, ie no apples, no oranges, nothing that grows on a tree?), and she responds clearly with no more information than is necessary. There's nothing in there to indicate a desire to impress. The reasons given by the text itself are: the Serpent's argument that she will become Godlike, the fruit looks tasty, and the tree is attractive.

[Imran Siddiqui]

You're talking about humans as a whole though, and I don't see how any creator figure could view things in that way. If we have free will and are truly unique minds, then surely any journey of understanding must be carried out by the individual not the group?

Why can't it be both? And individuals are usually very much the product of their group.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Wikipedia article on Existentialism, the part on "Existentialism & Christianity":

Christ's teachings had an indirect style, in which his point is often left unsaid for the purpose of letting the single individual confront the truth on their own.[87] This is evident in his parables, which are a response to a question he is asked. After he tells the parable, he returns the question to the individual.

An existentialist reading of the Bible would demand that the reader recognize that he is an existing subject studying the words more as a recollection of possible events. This is in contrast to looking at a collection of "truths" which are outside and unrelated to the reader, but may develop a sense of reality/God.[88] Such a reader is not obligated to follow the commandments as if an external agent is forcing them upon him, but as though they are inside him and guiding him from inside. This is the task Kierkegaard takes up when he asks: "Who has the more difficult task: the teacher who lectures on earnest things a meteor's distance from everyday life-or the learner who should put it to use?"[89] From an existentialist perspective, the Bible would not become an authority in an individual's life until that individual authorizes the Bible to be such. Existentialism has had a significant influence on theology, notably on postmodern Christianity and on theologians and religious thinkers such as Nikolai Berdyaev, Karl Barth, Paul Tillich, Wilfrid Desan and John Macquarrie.

Is it just me, or does that sound like the anti-Kid?

Quite frankly, I think I'm fairly on secure ground when I refer to myself as being somewhat of a Christian existentialist (I am a Postmodern Christian), but Kid?

[Kidlicious]

Um no. Do you know what a leap of faith is? No because you haven't read Kierkegaard. Yes you see the Bible as possible truths outside of yourself but someting inside of you tells you it is true even though some things in there seem absurd to your rational mind. But having no alternative way of finding God you leap across a chasm in full abandon to what you used to believe.

Does this sound like you? No. What you do is not believe the parts of the Bible that don't make sense to you. Your beliefs don't come from the Holy Spirit but from your own stomach because you never made a leap of faith and you won't let go and trust God.

[Kidlicious]

Elok, I already said. Do you thonk he dodn't have any thoughts. We don't know what they were but we know they led to his actions. His actions are what count because if he didn't act then he didn't believe his thoughts. He wasn't really an existentialist, not in the total sense.

[Kidlicious]

There is a difference between trusting society and the church and its doctrines and trusting God. A christian existentialist trusts God. This isn't inconsistant in believing in the Bible as an act of faith, not because people tell you that it's truth.

[Robert]

http://www.apolyton.net/showthread.php/198207-Pros-and-Cons-of-Proving-God-Exists/page5

Why do you tell them that? Do you see nothing wrong with yourself lusting over women? It's a sin. It can also be an addiction. You could be encouraging people to be obsessed and addicted to sex. Wouldn't it be better to teach them to think of healthy things?

I have told them that as well.
The worst I could tell them is both that they can follow all the lusts they want AND/OR that they could not have any lusts and should reject any thought about sex.

[Aeson]

Why can't it be both? And individuals are usually very much the product of their group.

While there could be a bit of both, to the extent that it is one, it overrides other.

[Kidlicious]

http://www.apolyton.net/showthread.p...d-Exists/page5



I have told them that as well.
The worst I could tell them is both that they can follow all the lusts they want AND/OR that they could not have any lusts and should reject any thought about sex.

That sounds about right. I don't think you can reject a thought, but you can pray about it and read the Bible. That usually works for me. I think the point in the Bible is to not judge people for sexual deviancy because we all have the same thoughts. So we all sin.

[Robert]

But let's talk about just one part of the Bible. It might as well be just one if we aren't going to talk about the whole Bible. So in the Garden of Eden when the Serpent told Eve sin, why did she sin? I don't k now your answer but this is mine. Eve ate the fruit because she didn't care about the truth but she wanted to impress the serpent and Adam. The same for Adam, he wanted to impress the serpent and Eve. Now what's wrong with this interpretation?

Well, I actually love it to see if there's something in there that I didn't see at first.
So don't fear that I will initially reject any new theory. Once I easily accepted that the star that was being followed by the wise men (kings) to Bethlehem did not originate from God but from satan as a tool to let Herod kill all children of Bethlehem, hoping that the Messiah would be one of them. (people hate me for destroying the beautiful story).

Anyway, regarding the garden-story in Gen 2-4....
The impress approach you take, can you explain a bit more first what makes you think that this is the key to the story?

IMHO there are 2 key elements in the story, first the 'unworked garden' that needed workers, which it got after Adam falled and had to work it with sweat in his face.
2ndly it is about the tree of knowledge of wisdom, being like God. What is it to be like God?

I can't comment on your ideas before you explain a tad bit more where you got it from.

[Kidlicious]

Why can't it be both? And individuals are usually very much the product of their group.

Just because we take a journey to the same place doesn't mean we follow each other. Or we might be led astray. So follow the Shepherd.