Can a Christian really think freely?

[Vigile]

I'm going to go ahead and jump into the fray on this one.

 

I haven't seen a very good explanation of what "free-thinking" means in this context. Let me offer what I think might a few of its basic features:

 

1) A willingness to evaluate and modify previously held positions

2) Embracing a wide range of possible solutions to any questions prior to consideration

3) Apeals to an authority, or an authoritative body of thought, are less valued than ideas held on the basis of personal investigation and careful reasoning

4) Once reached, conclusions are still open to the possibility that future information may alter or invalidate them

 

I think this is a fairly balanced and easily agreeable set of features - if anyone wants to modify or tweak them, feel free.

 

I hope this isn't the case on this forum (I'm still rooting through the threads and finding my way), but many times when faith-followers of any tradition are accused of not being "free-thinking", what people really mean to say is, "Nobody who reaches the conclusions you've reached could possible do so as a result of a rational thought-proccess." It's not a critique of process, it's a critique of conclusions.

 

I am an adherent to the orthodox Christian faith tradition. For some of you, nothing I say after that sentence will matter, I've already lost any possibility of being "free-thinking."

 

But for the rest of you, I would add that I hold my ideas about faith under exactly the set of conditions listed above. When I started looking for the possibility of a metaphysical dimension to life, I reevaluated and in many cases modified my previously held positions (i.e. my agnosticism, then later my deism). At the beginning of my investigation, I embraced the possibility of a wide range of possible solutions (Eastern traditions, atheism, pagan traditions, Christian traditions) and gave each one careful consideration.

 

This one will be the rub for a lot of people. There is a difference between obedience to an authority, and coherence with an authority. I give very little weight to "authoritative teachers" or to some authoritative body of teaching in reaching conclusions, but I may end up in agreement with their conclusions. This shouldn't be a surprise, we see it all the time. I agree in large part with the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I do not agree with it because I accept it out of blind obedience or thoughtless devotion, but because we have independently arrived at the same conclusions. I agree in large part with what might be called the orthodox body of beliefs of the Christian faith, but I don't do so out of some sense of obligation to it, and I don't hold it on the basis of it's authority. That's a careful distinction, but an important one.

 

Finally, I hold my conclusions open to the possibility of future information that may alter or invalidate them. I hold them as operable, as reliable, as justified, and as true, but that's not the same thing as saying that they are closed off to any possible review.

 

So you tell me - do I qualify as a free-thinking Christian?

 

I personally won't judge whether or not you came to your conclusions objectively but I will say that you presented your side in a more coherent way than any christian visitor to this site that I have encountered. I also agree with the features of free thought you presented.

[Ouroboros]

Finally, I hold my conclusions open to the possibility of future information that may alter or invalidate them. I hold them as operable, as reliable, as justified, and as true, but that's not the same thing as saying that they are closed off to any possible review.

 

So you tell me - do I qualify as a free-thinking Christian?

 

First I want to say welcome SM.

 

Good input, it forced me to think a bit… darn it…it hurts too much…

 

Anyway, for every rule there is an exception. And I think you maybe would fall into that exception, which is cool. Actually there’s a couple of Christians in this site, that are very open and can discuss issues from different angels, and even change their opinion.

 

So, I think it would be ok to call you a freethinking Christian.

 

It’s interesting when you try to collect your thoughts about a subject, and always you make your process of arguments from a singled out group of people. Instead of including all different kinds of Christian variations of beliefs, I feel that when I argue about Christians in general, I go more for the ultra fundamentalist Christians instead, and it’s probably because I come from that kind of congregation.

 

I would say your definition of a freethinker is fairly good, because freethinking doesn’t mean you have found the truth, but that you are still searching and still open minded.

 

When it comes to a majority of Christians, they won’t keep an open mind though. If you present any evidence to that God might not exist, they freak out and can’t really make any good argument. And this time I’m not going to make the mistake and say every Christian, but I think a lot of Christians are like this.

 

Why do I say this? Look at the Evolution vs. ID debate. People are afraid of the Evolution Theory, because it would present a threat to their beliefs. That is denial.

 

Or take Texas Gov. that want all gay to move out from the state. Homosexuality threatens his little faith system, so he needs the threat to disappear.

 

Why do some Churches forbid their kids to read Harry Potter? Could it be that it’s a threat to their religion, and it could open up the thinking process and the questioning?

 

Why do right wing politicians and media people talk about Sponge Bob being gay? And why are they so upset over it? Sponge Bob is supposed to be 9 years old, his sexuality hasn’t developed yet, so if Sponge Bob was a real kid this would be a very silly discussion! Sponge Bob is just a silly little 9 years old, for godssake!

 

The behavior of a large group of Christians only proves to me they are afraid to question their own beliefs, and that they are not open minded. I truly do believe many Christians live in fear (even though I mentioned it in another thread, and it was not agreed upon). Some of the Christians here and some of the ex-Christians here maybe never felt that. But I have first hand experience of the threat a book creating fear in you, during my time as a Christian. The fear is there, in many, but maybe not all, and the freethinking Christians are a minority, which is a shame.

[Ouroboros]

<<hands Han a tissue so that he can wipe that brown stuff off of his nose>>

 

Nah, I don't need one. I have a Michael Jackson nose, just take it off, run it in the washer, comes out like brand new!

[Ouroboros]

Oh boy! It looks like we have a Clash of the Christians™ going on here.

 

This could get interesting. 

~~In my chair and farting, occasionally.~~

 

CAT FIGHT!!!

[chefranden]

Chefranden... I must say that I like your humor. Approaching things with a light heart is a great way to be assertive, yet maintain some diplomacy. Hopefully I will learn more of that on this site. Now...

And you dear Amanda are a delightful heretic, able to leap tall texts with a single bound. What ever you call yourself, TAP is correct. You are not Christian by any standard definition, not that I care.

 

Advice: Give up Strongs, it is the reason you have found nothing wrong with KJV. This Greek - English Lexicon is much better. And this Hebrew - English Lexicon for the old testament. I think that the American Standard is your best translation bet for the NT and This translation for the OT.

 

 

By one man condemnation came upon all men, even so (equally so) by one man salvation came upon all men.    It was done once and for ALL.  I don't recall the clay pots analogy, yet I've heard the wheat is kept and the tares are distroyed. It is not that you are wheat and I am tares...    it is the separation of the wheat and tares in each of us. It is the distruction of what we hold to of the lie eliminated from our life.

Matthew7: 12 All things therefore whatsoever ye would that men should do unto you, even so do ye also unto them: for this is the law and the prophets. 13 Enter ye in by the narrow gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many are they that enter in thereby.  14 For narrow is the gate, and straitened the way, that leadeth unto life, and few are they that find it.

 

Romans 9: 17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, For this very purpose did I raise thee up, that I might show in thee my power, and that my name might be published abroad in all the earth.    18 So then he hath mercy on whom he will, and whom he will be hardeneth.  19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he still find fault? For who withstandeth his will?  20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why didst thou make me thus? 21 Or hath not the potter a right over the clay, from the same lump to make one part a vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor?  22 What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering vessels of wrath fitted unto destruction: 23 and that he might make known the riches of his glory upon vessels of mercy, which he afore prepared unto glory,

 

Interesting commentary on the wheat and the tares, but not orthodox -- not that I care, but just to support TAP, I mention it.

 

All will be in heaven sooner or later.    Being accountable and responsible means that some will have to go through the fire for awhile (fire- greek word purose- means to cleanse intensely- a way of sterilization) Some will go through the fire more than others... The gates to heaven are narrow, and the gates to hell are wide... yet all will eventually make it through the narrow gates.. for EVERY knee shall bow and EVERY mouth shall confess Jesus is Lord... and one can not confess that Jesus is Lord but by the fullness of the Holy Spirit within them. 

Well I shall not so confess. And I have nothing to be cleansed from. And when I die I shall be, well, dead. There is nothing that needs fire or a place to go to.

 

However, if you should need your soul pacified, bring it out before me and I will pacify it for you.

 

I'm afraid that the depth of this in this manner is too much for you to really understand, yet I know you have wisdom and may even venture to apply it here with an open mind. 

 

Yes, I see o'wise one, Guru of the ages. My mind cannot be open unless it sees as you see, hears as you hear, feels as you feel, tastes like you taste, and smells like you smell. Alas, I am and cannot learn to be tricksy.

[Guest smoothmoniker]

I personally won't judge whether or not you came to your conclusions objectively ...

 

You're going to have to unpack that word "objectively" for me - it seems to change meanings based on who uses it.

 

HanSolo, this was the entire point of my post. The argument was implied in the very first post that a person cannot be both a Christian (in the Orthodox sense of the word) and also free-thinking. Well, one of the proofs of possibility is actuality; if at least one free-thinking Christian can exist, then the two ideas are compatible.

 

You might want to change your presumption at this point and say "Some, or even most, Christians are not rational, not free-thinking, not open to revision in their conclusions." To which i would say, fair enough. That's true of most people who adhere to any school of thought; do you think the mass of people who run toward the tenets of post-modernism do so after a careful and thoughtful reading of de Man, Derrida, or anyone else for that matter? My point is this; bad adherents to an ideology, people who hold conclusions for bad reasons, or act in bad manners as a result of those ideologies, are not an argument against the ideology.

 

People do evil and ignorant and foolish things while holding the banner of Christianity. That's not an argument against Christianity, it's an argument against evil, ignorance, and foolishness. Two quick examples:

 

I hold the scientific method in high regard - the strict empirecism and logical rigor that it employs has proven a robust method for discovering new truths about our world. I abhor what Josef Mengle did under the banner of science at Auschwitz. Were his actions an argument for abandoning science? We would all say of course not - they were an argument against perpetrating evil, under any banner.

 

I have several friends who are hard-core liberals, supporters of the Democratic party. They vote straight ticket in every election, including every local and county seats, regardless of the candidate. This frequently means that they vote for candidates that they don't know, don't have any reason to think they might want in office, that may in fact be awful people. Does the ignorance of my friends argue against the ideology of the Democratic party? Again, no. If there's an argument to be made, it's against ignorance, not against liberalism.

 

So here's my soapbox - Christians who are thoughtful, reflective, rational, compassionate, well-informed, and yet still faithful DO exist, and they serve as the counter-argument.

 

If you want to argue against ignorance, against bigotry, against fear, against authoritarian abuse, I'll stand right beside you and hold the megaphone for you. But don't argue against Christianity as an ideology on the basis of people who are bad adherents.

[Ouroboros]

You're going to have to unpack that word "objectively" for me - it seems to change meanings based on who uses it.

 

HanSolo, this was the entire point of my post. The argument was implied in the very first post that a person cannot be both a Christian (in the Orthodox sense of the word) and also free-thinking. Well, one of the proofs of possibility is actuality; if at least one free-thinking Christian can exist, then the two ideas are compatible.

And I didn’t deny that you did, merely confirmed what you said. I’m willing to change.

 

You might want to change your presumption at this point and say "Some, or even most, Christians are not rational, not free-thinking, not open to revision in their conclusions." To which i would say, fair enough. That's true of most people who adhere to any school of thought; do you think the mass of people who run toward the tenets of post-modernism do so after a careful and thoughtful reading of de Man, Derrida, or anyone else for that matter? My point is this; bad adherents to an ideology, people who hold conclusions for bad reasons, or act in bad manners as a result of those ideologies, are not an argument against the ideology.

True. And these arguments are the ones we wanted to discuss. Some Christians that come to this site are very hard headed, and can’t change view, regardless of arguments you give them, while others actually do change their opinion.

 

And when I think of it, unless I had been open minded (at least at some point) I wouldn’t have been able to de-convert! So at some point every ex-christian submitted themselves to an open mind and freethinking, which in most cases led to leaving the Christian realm. But anyway, it does prove that Christians (at some point or some level) can be freethinkers.

 

But if we change the line of thought just a little bit, to what kind of people usually (de facto) are the ones called “freethinkers”, it would be people in the range from Deists to Atheists, and Christians are not included. The term might have a wrong connotation to who can belong to it, it is just the common usage that doesn’t include all.

 

People do evil and ignorant and foolish things while holding the banner of Christianity. That's not an argument against Christianity, it's an argument against evil, ignorance, and foolishness. Two quick examples:

Also true.

 

I hold the scientific method in high regard - the strict empirecism and logical rigor that it employs has proven a robust method for discovering new truths about our world. I abhor what Josef Mengle did under the banner of science at Auschwitz. Were his actions an argument for abandoning science? We would all say of course not - they were an argument against perpetrating evil, under any banner.

 

I have several friends who are hard-core liberals, supporters of the Democratic party. They vote straight ticket in every election, including every local and county seats, regardless of the candidate. This frequently means that they vote for candidates that they don't know, don't have any reason to think they might want in office, that may in fact be awful people. Does the ignorance of my friends argue against the ideology of the Democratic party? Again, no. If there's an argument to be made, it's against ignorance, not against liberalism.

Yes, ignorance, apathy and unwillingness to change are the dangers to a democratic society, and hence one religion where a majority has submitted their will under some leaders, of doubtful intent, shouldn’t get the sole power. Religions or Political really doesn’t matter, the danger is the same.

 

So here's my soapbox - Christians who are thoughtful, reflective, rational, compassionate, well-informed, and yet still faithful DO exist, and they serve as the counter-argument.

And I think you are one of them, and so are TAP and several others in this site. And they have my respect.

 

If you want to argue against ignorance, against bigotry, against fear, against authoritarian abuse, I'll stand right beside you and hold the megaphone for you. But don't argue against Christianity as an ideology on the basis of people who are bad adherents.

Point well taken, I’m willing to change.

 

The thread was started to get to this debate, and I’m glad that you gave your input.

 

I know some members on this site have a harder attitude than me, but I understand what you’re saying, and I agree.

[Ouroboros]

My title for this post was not the best description.  I wrote this post because I was upset that, oh I forgot what Christian, peed me off..Invictus, I think.  Anyway, he seemed to be mocking the people on this site and the term "freethinking".  This post was written with a bit of anger and I shouldn't have posted in such a bad mood. 

 

I apologize to anyone that I have offended.

 

I don't think you did anything wrong, it is a very good topic.

It's important to think about these things.

 

Personally I hadn't thought it through either, and now I think I have a wide picture.

 

Since my de-conversion, I think there's a lot of things forgotten, like how did I think before, how did I see the world and science etc. So it's a good reminder to connect back to who you were and bridge some of misunderstanding from both sides.

[Amanda]

And you dear Amanda are a delightful heretic, able to leap tall texts with a single bound.  What ever you call yourself, TAP is correct.  You are not Christian by any standard definition, not that I care.

 

Advice: Give up Strongs, it is the reason you have found nothing wrong with KJV. This Greek - English Lexicon is much better. And this Hebrew - English Lexicon for the old testament. I think that the American Standard is your best translation bet for the NT and This translation for the OT.

Well I shall not so confess. And I have nothing to be cleansed from. And when I die I shall be, well, dead.  There is nothing that needs fire or a place to go to. 

 

However, if you should need your soul pacified, bring it out before me and I will pacify it for you.

Yes, I see o'wise one, Guru of the ages.  My mind cannot be open unless it sees as you see, hears as you hear, feels as you feel, tastes like you taste, and smells like you smell.  Alas, I am and cannot learn to be tricksy.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Chefranden, are you always this angry? Or... let me guess... it's just me? My, my... if I'm the worst thing that has crossed your path... you've had far less challenging events come into your life than I. Does your beliefs stir the emotions of rage in regards to what I see in my life as comforting? Have I disrespected you in some way... and it is not that I don't agree with you... is it? If you want to believe when you're dead, you're dead...ok, if you believe that you have nothing to be cleansed from, I can respect your stand... as well as your determination to never confess Jesus is Lord, I'm alright with that as how you believe also ... if you want to believe I am not a Christian... I'm perfectly at peace with that too. I HAVE brought my soul out before you... and if this is the way you pacify it... ok. And let me point out that I didn't say that YOU wouldn't understand the concept... I put the preface on the 'manner' in which 'I' explained it one might not understand. My apologies if I miscommunicated that last idea, the intentions were to put the blame on me. BTW, TAP is wonderful, and I have the utmost respect for her too. My warmest regards Chefranden, and sincerely may you be in the place that finds the most happiness for you.

[Fweethawt]

Chefranden, are you always this angry? Or... let me guess... it's just me?

 

Amanda,

 

Your wrong about this. Cheffy isn't angry. He was using a bit of sarcasm in that last paragraph because you wrote as if you are just so beyond him that he could never understand you.

 

It might help you to know that Cheffy was a preacher for a while and he's probably old enough to be your Grandpa.

[chefranden]

Chefranden, are you always this angry? Or... let me guess... it's just me? My, my... if I'm the worst thing that has crossed your path... you've had far less challenging events come into your life than I.

Angry? Oh no! I use bad words with sexual connotations when I'm angry. See? <--- chef not being angry------<<<-

 

Does your beliefs stir the emotions of rage in regards to what I see in my life as comforting?

I try my best not to believe anything. I don't mind a bit if you are comfortable, unless you are a Walton. I don't even mind if you use illusion for comfort. Heck, I can't complain. I use drugs for comfort. Just ask the rest of the boys and girls.

Have I disrespected you in some way

Not that I've noticed

 

... and it is not that I don't agree with you... is it? If you want to believe when you're dead, you're dead...ok, if you believe that you have nothing to be cleansed from, I can respect your stand... as well as your determination to never confess Jesus is Lord, I'm alright with that as how you believe also ... if you want to believe I am not a Christian... I'm perfectly at peace with that too.

Oh happy day! Peace is good.

 

I HAVE brought my soul out before you... and if this is the way you pacify it... ok.

Oh you silly, I was talking about that thing that gets to go to heaven after the rest of you rots. Not a bunch of imaginary theology. Haven't read much Zen have we?

 

And let me point out that I didn't say that YOU wouldn't understand the concept... I put the preface on the 'manner' in which 'I' explained it one might not understand. My apologies if I miscommunicated that last idea, the intentions were to put the blame on me. BTW, TAP is wonderful, and I have the utmost respect for her too. My warmest regards Chefranden, and sincerely may you be in the place that finds the most happiness for you.

Maybe I misunderstood your misunderstanding. Nevertheless my reply was deliciously funny! I giggled all the way through its construction. Specially the

part. I didn't know we had that one. They must have put it on for me. Dave is so nice. He doesn't ban me even though he knows Paypal hates me.

[Totallyatpeace]

My title for this post was not the best description.  I wrote this post because I was upset that, oh I forgot what Christian, peed me off..Invictus, I think.  Anyway, he seemed to be mocking the people on this site and the term "freethinking".  This post was written with a bit of anger and I shouldn't have posted in such a bad mood. 

 

I apologize to anyone that I have offended.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Thankful.......this thread was an excellent idea......

[Cerise]

Chefranden, are you always this angry? Or... let me guess... it's just me? My, my... if I'm the worst thing that has crossed your path... you've had far less challenging events come into your life than I. Does your beliefs stir the emotions of rage in regards to what I see in my life as comforting?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Ah crap. Not the "oh you atheists are just so bitter and angry when all I was trying to do was peacfully help you see the light" spin again.

 

Can I get off this ride? I'm getting dizzy.

[Amanda]

Amanda,

 

Your wrong about this. Cheffy isn't angry. He was using a bit of sarcasm in that last paragraph because you wrote as if you are just so beyond him that he could never understand you.

 

It might help you to know that Cheffy was a preacher for a while and he's probably old enough to be your Grandpa. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Thanks... I've found this out. Not too smart, am I?

[Amanda]

Angry? Oh no!  I use bad words with sexual connotations when I'm angry. See?  <--- chef not being angry------<<<-

I try my best not to believe anything.  I don't mind a bit if you are comfortable, unless you are a Walton.  I don't even mind if you use illusion for comfort.  Heck, I can't complain.  I use drugs for comfort.  Just ask the rest of the boys and girls.

 

Not that I've noticed

Oh happy day! Peace is good.

Oh you silly, I was talking about that thing that gets to go to heaven after the rest of you rots.  Not a bunch of imaginary theology.   Haven't read much Zen have we?

 

 

Maybe I misunderstood your misunderstanding.  Nevertheless my reply was deliciously funny!  I giggled all the way through its construction. Specially the

part.  I didn't know we had that one.  They must have put it on for me.  Dave is so nice.  He doesn't ban me even though he knows Paypal hates me.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Hey Chefranden, don't put extra stess on me like that again!!! I'm the one too old for that!!!

 

I AM glad to find that you're even more wonderful than I thought you were... which did start with a lot of respect to begin this rendezvous. Furthermore... I'm glad you got a lot of giggles at my expense... yet thank you for sharing the giggles with me... and I do appreciate the laughter now. I guess I will be chuckling about this for awhile now.

 

I'm just curious to know if every self proclaimed Christian has this kind of initiation process to go through? Hey, don't hold it against me... I gotta love ya'!

[Amanda]

Ah crap.  Not the "oh you atheists are just so bitter and angry when all I was trying to do was peacfully help you see the light" spin again.

 

Can I get off this ride?  I'm getting dizzy.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Cerise, thank you for sharing that with me.

[Ouroboros]

I want to correct myself a little bit to what I said before.

 

I admitted that Christians can be freethinkers too, but I realized it’s true but only to a certain level.

 

Personally I maintain a belief that there is no God, but I’m willing to change that view if enough evidence would provide itself. But would a Christian do the same to the opposite? If enough evidence that there is no God, would they stop believing?

 

The problem of course is that it’s impossible to prove to one or the other side. My belief is grounded solely on that there is more pointing to “No God” than there is to “A God”. So in my mind I rather go with the simpler solution than the more complex one. The “A God” belief requires just one more step, and without any evidence, there is no need. A Christian maintains a belief contrary to the evidence leaning against their belief, and can’t break out of that box without some amount of “free thinking”. What I’m saying is that an agnostic freethinker has a slighter more of the “free” in the word “free thought”.

[Amanda]

I want to correct myself a little bit to what I said before.

 

I admitted that Christians can be freethinkers too, but I realized it’s true but only to a certain level.

 

Personally I maintain a belief that there is no God, but I’m willing to change that view if enough evidence would provide itself. But would a Christian do the same to the opposite? If enough evidence that there is no God, would they stop believing?

 

The problem of course is that it’s impossible to prove to one or the other side. My belief is grounded solely on that there is more pointing to “No God” than there is to “A God”. So in my mind I rather go with the simpler solution than the more complex one. The “A God” belief requires just one more step, and without any evidence, there is no need. A Christian maintains a belief contrary to the evidence leaning against their belief, and can’t break out of that box without some amount of “free thinking”. What I’m saying is that an agnostic freethinker has a slighter more of the “free” in the word “free thought”.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Dearest HanSolo... it all depends on how one defines God, doesn't it?

[Ouroboros]

Dearest HanSolo... it all depends on how one defines God, doesn't it?

It sure does. And could you think yourself of not believing in any god at all?

Could you see a life without a god of any kind?

Could you see life without a meaning or purpose?

 

If not, I'm a bit ahead of you, and you're falling behind in the freethinking hiking track.

[zfunkman]

So to sum it up........we have faith so we've lost our brains?

lol..............

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes, or you've never found them>

[Amanda]

It sure does. And could you think yourself of not believing in any god at all?

Could you see a life without a god of any kind?

Could you see life without a meaning or purpose?

 

If not, I'm a bit ahead of you, and you're falling behind in the freethinking hiking track.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Ohhhh HanSolo... Trust me on this one, I know I'm behind most of you guys here! Yet that doesn't scare me or intimidate me... or should it? The depth on this site never ceases to amaze me, and as I've illuded to... you really get my appreciation!

 

Now, can I assume that you think God is for those that think they need meaning and purpose? OK. How about one who believes that EVERYTHING is God? Wonder if someone thought that there is this evolutionary process of everything and ALL things eventually evolving into one 'being', God? Have you ever studied in biology the evolution of an organism as it combines with other organisms to make ONE orgnism? Now what? If I didn't believe in God, I wouldn't believe in anything... I see, like you guys... go figure. You got me that time...

[Ouroboros]

Ohhhh HanSolo... Trust me on this one, I know I'm behind most of you guys here! Yet that doesn't scare me or intimidate me... or should it? The depth on this site never ceases to amaze me, and as I've illuded to... you really get my appreciation!

I didn’t mean to intimidate you in any way; it was only an attempt to challenge your thought a little bit.

 

Now, can I assume that you think God is for those that think they need meaning and purpose? OK. How about one who believes that EVERYTHING is God? Wonder if someone thought that there is this evolutionary process of everything and ALL things eventually evolving into one 'being', God? Have you ever studied in biology the evolution of an organism as it combines with other organisms to make ONE orgnism?  Now what? If I didn't believe in God, I wouldn't believe in anything... I see, like you guys... go figure.  You got me that time... 

I think the concept to believe in a higher being of any kind springs out from our emotions and a subconscious need to have an explanation for the things we don’t understand. It’s just like how hard it is for a lot of people to conceive or understand infinite space or infinite time. Most people have a need to have a solid foundation for their life, so yes; some people need God to give life a meaning. I have a meaning in my life too, but it comes out from my inner person instead, who I am, and the identity I have as a person. I have reduced the need to project the meaning of life to an external object, and keep it simple and introverted to my own being. Life is, therefore it is.

 

I have an open mind to any kind of description of idea of God, Pantheism, Deism, Naturalism even Wicca and so on. I see faith as a medium for you to find yourself.

 

Actually from some recent readings I have seen that the possibilities to the universe as an organism is becoming more likely, but still not something I trust or believe, but rather play with as a though.

 

If you didn’t believe in God, you would have to start believing in yourself, which is not a bad thing at all. It requires a bit of self confidence, which you can see displayed on this site rather often, and you need to search yourself for answers. It is actually a rather nice feeling of freedom.

[♦ ficino ♦]

How about one who believes that EVERYTHING is God? Wonder if someone thought that there is this evolutionary process of everything and ALL things eventually evolving into one 'being', God? Have you ever studied in biology the evolution of an organism as it combines with other organisms to make ONE orgnism?  Now what? If I didn't believe in God, I wouldn't believe in anything...

 

Hi, Amanda. I think you're pretty cool and I like your posts. You're a breath of fresh air, in fact.

 

I don't think you can be a Christian if you include yourself among those who "believe that everything is God." That's OK with me! There just isn't any way Christianity can be consistent with pantheism.

 

Just to chime in my two cents, if I did believe in God, I wouldn't want to identify everything with God because it matters a lot to me to think that I and the people I love are separate beings, not manifestations of God acting on other manifestations of God. But that's my take.

 

Keep hanging around here!

[Panther]

I appreciate your post too, TAP.  I felt the same when I was a Christian; hold every thought captive, become christlike, etc. 

 

Also, I agree with Thomas, IMO, it is manipulation, not freewill.  God is glorified, then a person is made to feel so unworthy (full music playing in the background) that they break down and are so thankful that Jesus died for them to "save" them from something that MOST Christians believe that God created.... hell.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Kinda funny huh, that old circular reasoning.......

 

[Panther]

Uhm Xtians are automatons. Have you ever heard of Jesus of Borg?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

WHOO!! This cracked me up!