Should 'God' be taught is school? (Non religiously)

[Immanuel Can]

Then God is deceptive trash, void of goodwill, and only people lacking in character will kiss his ass.

I see you're hoping to provoke a reaction. However, if you speak that way, the reaction will not come from me. I simply suggest to you that Jesus Christ said this:

"But I tell you that every careless word that people speak, they shall give an accounting for it in the day of judgment."

I wish to talk to you, but I don't wish to become the occasion by which anybody is induced to heap judgment upon his own head. Therefore, let me, in all goodwill, encourage you to choose words that you are going to be happy to answer for. I can't partner with you in you harming yourself.

No. I gave God an honest, even chance to convince me personally. And He did. I just started looking, reading the Bible, and I saw. Above all, I saw Jesus Christ, for the first time, as a person. There isn't a better person to lead one, really.

I also read the Bible and was raised as a Christian very early in my life.

That's interesting. What kind of "Christian"? And were you "raised" that way, or did you make a personal decision to be this sort of Christian?

I believed in God for a while and he turned out to never be there.

I'm interested. What convinced you of that?

(If I had kept depending on God, and hadn't taken matters into my own hand, I would probably already be dead, actually, but that's beside the point.)

I sense a story behind this. Do you feel free to share it, or is it personal and private? If you want to share it off the main board here, you can even send me a personal message, and I'll keep your confidence and continue our conversation by private chat. I won't betray your trust.

[Atla]

I see you're hoping to provoke a reaction. However, if you speak that way, the reaction will not come from me. I simply suggest to you that Jesus Christ said this:

"But I tell you that every careless word that people speak, they shall give an accounting for it in the day of judgment."

I wish to talk to you, but I don't wish to become the occasion by which anybody is induced to heap judgment upon his own head. Therefore, let me, in all goodwill, encourage you to choose words that you are going to be happy to answer for. I can't partner with you in you harming yourself.

If God is deceptive trash then maybe I don't care whether I go into his heaven or not.

That's interesting. What kind of "Christian"? And were you "raised" that way, or did you make a personal decision to be this sort of Christian?

Catholic, wasn't my choice, was decided for me. (Well it's complicated, some of my relatives wanted me to be a Christian and some an atheist.)

I'm interested. What convinced you of that?

After he consistently failed to show up in any way or form in my life.

I sense a story behind this. Do you feel free to share it, or is it personal and private? If you want to share it off the main board here, you can even send me a personal message, and I'll keep your confidence and continue our conversation by private chat. I won't betray your trust.

What I've been through in my life, I prefer to keep to myself. Plus we both know that you can't be trusted anyway.

[Immanuel Can]

I see you're hoping to provoke a reaction. However, if you speak that way, the reaction will not come from me. I simply suggest to you that Jesus Christ said this:

"But I tell you that every careless word that people speak, they shall give an accounting for it in the day of judgment."

I wish to talk to you, but I don't wish to become the occasion by which anybody is induced to heap judgment upon his own head. Therefore, let me, in all goodwill, encourage you to choose words that you are going to be happy to answer for. I can't partner with you in you harming yourself.

If God is deceptive trash then maybe I don't care whether I go into his heaven or not.

I care. Even if you don't believe in a judgment, I do. And I can't join with you in making you harm yourself.

I know you're feeling angry. Of course you're allowed to. And I hear you. But the wording's unnecessary to convey that, and doesn't stand to be in your interest. So for my sake, if not for your own, please be cautious.

That's interesting. What kind of "Christian"? And were you "raised" that way, or did you make a personal decision to be this sort of Christian?

Catholic, wasn't my choice, was decided for me. (Well it's complicated, some of my relatives wanted me to be a Christian and some an atheist.)

I believe you. It's not God's plan that you should not have a choice.

I'm interested. What convinced you of that?

After he consistently failed to show up in any way or form in my life.

Still interested: what were you looking for?

What I've been through in my life, I prefer to keep to myself. Plus we both know that you can't be trusted anyway.

I can be. I have never violated any confidence offered me on this site, or any other. But your privacy is sacred, of course. It will be entirely up to you; I won't pry.

[Atla]

I'm interested. What convinced you of that?

After he consistently failed to show up in any way or form in my life.

Still interested: what were you looking for?

I wasn't particularly looking for anything; it's simply that there has never been any 'actual' sign of him in my life.

[Nick_A]

Tesla

well. education will help one grow beyond what they are today into something new tomorrow. what is a good definition for the idea of God? should it be taught in the classroom to look for God(s) through the scientific method?

It should but the question cannot be discussed where arguing opinions about God reign supreme. It requires a different mindset which isn't wanted. As you can see Simone Weil and Jacob Needleman have been rejected. It was a nice effort on your part but people as a whole are not ready for these ideas which tend to open the mind to recognizing the objective value of science and religion as complimentary paths to what furthers objective human meaning and purpose.

[seeds]

So where or what does God or God(s) look like?

To slightly paraphrase something I have posted in an alternate thread...

My own personal visualization of what God might look like can be explained in the following thought experiment:

Close your eyes and create a giant mirror before the eye of your mind.

(Imagine its vividness and seeming “realness” as being at the level you experience during a vivid dream.)

Now, assuming that that mentally created mirror could literally reflect an image back at you, looking into it, what do you suppose you would see?

I suggest that if you could actually see the “eye” of your mind (i.e., the locus/source/focal-point of your consciousness) reflecting back at you, then you would in essence be seeing a “familial-like” replication of whatever it is that God looks like.

To frame this in more “natural” sounding terms,...

...the reason why we cannot see what God actually looks like right now is the same reason why we could not see what our mothers actually looked like while we were suspended within the amniotic water of her womb.
_______

[Tesla]

Tesla

well. education will help one grow beyond what they are today into something new tomorrow. what is a good definition for the idea of God? should it be taught in the classroom to look for God(s) through the scientific method?

It should but the question cannot be discussed where arguing opinions about God reign supreme. It requires a different mindset which isn't wanted. As you can see Simone Weil and Jacob Needleman have been rejected. It was a nice effort on your part but people as a whole are not ready for these ideas which tend to open the mind to recognizing the objective value of science and religion as complimentary paths to what furthers objective human meaning and purpose.

Opinions. That says it all. In science evidence must be substantial enough that a reproducible experience will validate it to the entire community of science. That reduces belief to an evidence based belief system. Why shouldn't we have evidence to base such core beliefs on? You have a lens you view the world through, your world lens. You cannot see if its corrupted--its your lens.

If some sort of god is real, then there would only be one mindset of all of humanity: It is real, in your face, science has parts of it to study. But if all religions are scams and belief proliferated through teaching of children (Plato wrote of Socrates saying "We must believe what our fathers taught us of the gods" (paraphrased)

But Weil and Needleman and Plato and Aristotle have all failed even when they have succeeded, because they did not approach knowledge the same way as current societies can, with tools they could only dream of. knowledge they could only hope to get a glance of. Those old writings and books of the past were full of ignorance as well as the knowledge it attempted to pass on. it is time to write that next chapter, overcome indoctrination. Throw away your religion while in this class, and study the potential 'whats' of God(s) and open the mind to the potential non exist in any form that religion has taught, and may not even exist at all.

THEN. only then. could this class find validity, and mankind can then either build God(s) or discover it.

[Immanuel Can]

After he consistently failed to show up in any way or form in my life.

Still interested: what were you looking for?

I wasn't particularly looking for anything; it's simply that there has never been any 'actual' sign of him in my life.

Well, here's my question about that, and I mean it without a drop of cynicism. What "sign" was lacking? In other words, what kind of event were you looking for, that you did not see? What was missing?

[Atla]

Still interested: what were you looking for?

I wasn't particularly looking for anything; it's simply that there has never been any 'actual' sign of him in my life.

Well, here's my question about that, and I mean it without a drop of cynicism. What "sign" was lacking? In other words, what kind of event were you looking for, that you did not see? What was missing?

Anything. Surely an omnipotent God would be able to reveal himself?

[bahman]

I wasn't particularly looking for anything; it's simply that there has never been any 'actual' sign of him in my life.

Well, here's my question about that, and I mean it without a drop of cynicism. What "sign" was lacking? In other words, what kind of event were you looking for, that you did not see? What was missing?

Anything. Surely an omnipotent God would be able to reveal himself?

Perhaps there is a reason for why God hides Himslef.

[Atla]

Well, here's my question about that, and I mean it without a drop of cynicism. What "sign" was lacking? In other words, what kind of event were you looking for, that you did not see? What was missing?

Anything. Surely an omnipotent God would be able to reveal himself?

Perhaps there is a reason for why God hides Himslef.

There is a 'perhaps' for anything.

[bahman]

Anything. Surely an omnipotent God would be able to reveal himself?

Perhaps there is a reason for why God hides Himslef.

There is a 'perhaps' for anything.

Well, it is difficult to argue about the existence or non-existence of something which is possible. Especially when all things are possible. We will never know the truth unless we face it.

[Immanuel Can]

I wasn't particularly looking for anything; it's simply that there has never been any 'actual' sign of him in my life.

Well, here's my question about that, and I mean it without a drop of cynicism. What "sign" was lacking? In other words, what kind of event were you looking for, that you did not see? What was missing?

Anything. Surely an omnipotent God would be able to reveal himself?

Well, yes, of course. But if you can't tell yourself what you're looking for, how are you going to know when you find it?

Were you looking for God to give you life? Well, I would say He did that. Were you looking for Him to reveal himself to your nation or culture? He did that. Were you looking for Him to write a book? He did that. Were you looking for Him to make a difference in history? He did that. Were you looking for Him to come personally to save you? He also did that.

But beyond all that, what further thing would you look for that would finally have shown you that He exists?

Again, I mean this uncynically. Even if you don't believe all I've suggested above that He's already done, surely there must be something you would say he OUGHT to have done for you, that would have swung the balance of your opinion over to Him.

All I'm asking is, what would that have been?

[Nick_A]

Tesla

Opinions. That says it all. In science evidence must be substantial enough that a reproducible experience will validate it to the entire community of science. That reduces belief to an evidence based belief system. Why shouldn't we have evidence to base such core beliefs on? You have a lens you view the world through, your world lens. You cannot see if its corrupted--its your lens.

Science needs a workable hypothesis to prove the reality of a conscious source for creation. Is science capable of such a hypothesis when it is limited to sensory based facts? For example can science form a hypothesis to test the truth of the ONE described by Plotinus?

https://www.iep.utm.edu/plotinus/

a. The One

The 'concept' of the One is not, properly speaking, a concept at all, since it is never explicitly defined by Plotinus, yet it is nevertheless the foundation and grandest expression of his philosophy. Plotinus does make it clear that no words can do justice to the power of the One; even the name, 'the One,' is inadequate, for naming already implies discursive knowledge, and since discursive knowledge divides or separates its objects in order to make them intelligible, the One cannot be known through the process of discursive reasoning (Ennead VI.9.4). Knowledge of the One is achieved through the experience of its 'power' (dunamis) and its nature, which is to provide a 'foundation' (arkhe) and location (topos) for all existents (VI.9.6). The 'power' of the One is not a power in the sense of physical or even mental action; the power of the One, as Plotinus speaks of it, is to be understood as the only adequate description of the 'manifestation' of a supreme principle that, by its very nature, transcends all predication and discursive understanding. This 'power,' then, is capable of being experienced, or known, only through contemplation (theoria), or the purely intellectual 'vision' of the source of all things. The One transcends all beings, and is not itself a being, precisely because all beings owe their existence and subsistence to their eternal contemplation of the dynamic manifestation(s) of the One. The One can be said to be the 'source' of all existents only insofar as every existent naturally and (therefore) imperfectly contemplates the various aspects of the One, as they are extended throughout the cosmos, in the form of either sensible or intelligible objects or existents. The perfect contemplation of the One, however, must not be understood as a return to a primal source; for the One is not, strictly speaking, a source or a cause, but rather the eternally present possibility -- or active making-possible -- of all existence, of Being (V.2.1). According to Plotinus, the unmediated vision of the 'generative power' of the One, to which existents are led by the Intelligence (V.9.2), results in an ecstatic dance of inspiration, not in a satiated torpor (VI.9.; for it is the nature of the One to impart fecundity to existents -- that is to say: the One, in its regal, indifferent capacity as undiminishable potentiality of Being, permits both rapt contemplation and ecstatic, creative extension. These twin poles, this 'stanchion,' is the manifested framework of existence which the One produces, effortlessly (V.1.6). The One, itself, is best understood as the center about which the 'stanchion,' the framework of the cosmos, is erected (VI.9.. This 'stanchion' or framework is the result of the contemplative activity of the Intelligence.

Obvioualy science cannot prove or disprove the ONE. A person "feels" the reality of the ONE normal for the quality of their essence. However it can become more aware of the universal laws which make the process of existence we experience possible. Science can make the logical conclusion that universal laws require a conscious origin making the ONE a necessity. This was Einstein’s conclusion:

Every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe-a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble

So for me the first step in teaching God is enabling students to experience dunamis as Plotinus described while allowing students to experience the humility Einstein did. But secular education will struggle against such teachings which open the mind in favor of societal indoctrination which closes the mind.

Science is making advances in learning the process of existence. For example more scientists are becoming aware of the Law of the INCLUDED middle and not restrict itself to the Law of the EXCLUDED Middle necessary to appreciate our triune universe.

[Immanuel Can]

Perhaps there is a reason for why God hides Himslef.

I think there is.

If God were suddenly appear to you, would you have any choice about that? Could you stand in the presence of the Almighty, and say, "Nope -- I don't want to believe in You. I have other plans for myself, and they don't involve You. Thank you very much, but no thanks." Or would you be automatically overwhelmed by the fact of his existence, and have no choice but to believe and capitulate?

If we're going to have a choice about who runs our lives, and how, and about what we are going to dedicate ourselves to, then there has to be a possibility of a different choice than that. In other words, it has to be possible for us to imagine that there's no God, and that we can operate without reference to any. Now, that's a wretched choice, of course; but it's the only possible alternative that would allow us also to make a free choice to love God. If we are to have the option to believe in God, and to choose relationship with Him, then we have to have the option to disbelieve as well, and to refuse that same relationship. And if God values our freedom, He has to allow us to make either choice.

Freedom is the reason. We need to be able to choose for ourselves. Because the goal is not overwhelm, but voluntary relationship. God even uses the term "friends," on at least one occasion. And relationships cannot be forced...not genuine ones, anyway. We do have names for forced relationships, but none of them are complimentary.

So is freedom worth it? More importantly, is the chance for an autonomous, chosen relationship with the eternal God worth keeping open the option of missing that? If it is, God would have to withdraw some distance. He could give us many assurances of His presence and intentions, and He could invite us to make the right choice; but He could not so overwhelm us that our free choice became impossible. He would have to be, at least for some time, somewhat hidden. He could not be the only and inevitable choice at all times.

The hiddenness of God is the necessary basis of our freedom. And it's the opportunity for us to freely choose a personal relationship with God.

But no opportunity lasts forever.