What Is A Personal Relationship With Christ?

[BuddyFerris]

... With similarly irrational intensity, fundamentalists and others will use the bible as the tool of division; to distinguish themselves as 'in' and all others as 'out'. In the process, the tool is bent and mangled, phrases extracted and used for purposes opposite to their author's context. These perhaps sincere if extreme folks hold up the book and their own private interpretation as the dividing line between the sheep and the goats, if you will. Even some here have insisted that these bent ideas are biblically accurate. Literalists, fundamentalists, extremists, straining at a gnat .... They're philosophically more closely aligned with the Pharisees than with Jesus.

 

Be careful, Buddy. You are starting to sound a little like Sam Harris.

 

Not to make it appear as such, but you are sounding like a broken record.

Good morning, MG.

 

The similarities are intentional, having followed similar lines of reasoning through to (only occasionally) similar conclusions. Our ending positions are quite different, of course, but we're not the polar opposites one might expect. I begrudgingly admire his intellectual courage and clarity.

 

A broken record? As in saying the same things repeatedly? Should I change my mind so I could say something more entertaining? OK, I'm old and perhaps broken, but I came by it honestly. It's the best I've been able to manage so far.

 

By the way, does the name derive from your profession? Or perhaps from a favorite pass time?

 

Buddy

It's Children's Day in Africa; I'm off to the party at my friend's elementary school.

[MathGeek]

Good morning, MG.

 

The similarities are intentional, having followed similar lines of reasoning through to (only occasionally) similar conclusions. Our ending positions are quite different, of course, but we're not the polar opposites one might expect. I begrudgingly admire his intellectual courage and clarity.

 

Thank you for admitting that. It goes to show that some folks really know what the other side is thinking in order to understand them. I am glad you have that within your personality. It is rather refreshing.

 

A broken record? As in saying the same things repeatedly? Should I change my mind so I could say something more entertaining? OK, I'm old and perhaps broken, but I came by it honestly. It's the best I've been able to manage so far.

 

It's a joke really. I know from experience that I find myself repeating the same basic tenets over and over again. By no means, am I demeaning your character because you are respectful and honest.

 

By the way, does the name derive from your profession? Or perhaps from a favorite pass time?

 

I am a math teacher, and I do math problems for recreational activity. I have a perverse love for the subject and my spouse finds it maddening. I teach Native American students in grades 9-12. I am swapping positions for a gig in a rural school next school year, and I am looking forward to it. My three years teaching those kids has been daunting labor of love and I need a new challenge.

 

I am not a full-blown atheist, Buddy. Reason why is because human perception still reigns surpreme in matters of metaphysics. There are six billion people on earth, each with a different view on spirituality. That may not seem apparent at the surface level with all the similarities in certain dogmas within different religions, but the divergences that have led to schisms renders this initial assertion void of truth. By and large, every position in regards to metaphysics is a well-informed or misguided opinion that one shares after they make a choice at some point in their life, be it at age 3 or 903.

 

I am comfortably agnostic, with a bent to believe in some type of theism. Christianity is not an option anymore because I only relied on it for emotional fulfillment, never for intellectual satiation. Once my emotional foundation was ripped out from under me, it basically took the idea of a personal relationship with Him along with it. Jesus hasn't been a physical presence on Earth since the Ascension, and I don't see how and why he could have a relationship with me at one time when the likelihood of somebody else praying at that exact same time is that high, is a statistical and corporeal impossibility. Basically, the lack or no lack of scriptural evidence to elaborate a personal relationship with Christ is a moot consequence.

 

Like my argument that underlies my agnosticism, it is your choice based on your perception which makes for a belief in Jesus and Yahweh.

 

So, who really sounds like a broken record now?

[BuddyFerris]

... I am a math teacher, and I do math problems for recreational activity. I have a perverse love for the subject and my spouse finds it maddening. I teach Native American students in grades 9-12. I am swapping positions for a gig in a rural school next school year, and I am looking forward to it. My three years teaching those kids has been daunting labor of love and I need a new challenge.

 

I am not a full-blown atheist, Buddy. Reason why is because human perception still reigns surpreme in matters of metaphysics. There are six billion people on earth, each with a different view on spirituality. That may not seem apparent at the surface level with all the similarities in certain dogmas within different religions, but the divergences that have led to schisms renders this initial assertion void of truth. By and large, every position in regards to metaphysics is a well-informed or misguided opinion that one shares after they make a choice at some point in their life, be it at age 3 or 903.

 

I am comfortably agnostic, with a bent to believe in some type of theism. Christianity is not an option anymore because I only relied on it for emotional fulfillment, never for intellectual satiation. Once my emotional foundation was ripped out from under me, it basically took the idea of a personal relationship with Him along with it. Jesus hasn't been a physical presence on Earth since the Ascension, and I don't see how and why he could have a relationship with me at one time when the likelihood of somebody else praying at that exact same time is that high, is a statistical and corporeal impossibility. Basically, the lack or no lack of scriptural evidence to elaborate a personal relationship with Christ is a moot consequence.

 

Like my argument that underlies my agnosticism, it is your choice based on your perception which makes for a belief in Jesus and Yahweh.

 

So, who really sounds like a broken record now?

You're up early; it's after nine here, but if you're US, the sun ain't even up yet. I share your pleasure in math, but am a half-baked engineer by profession. My daughter, true to genetic form, is a math teacher; likes it enough, loves the kids.

 

As you're comfortably agnostic, I'm comfortably Christian with similar reasons but different conclusions. I probably began in agnosticism as a young man, but after threading my way through Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism, I discovered God genuinely. It's been a bit of a thrill ride since then. Perhaps as you suggest, each has a different view on spirituality. I know that's true among the honest folk with whom I'm intimate. Yet I have no difficulty finding a kindred spirit in the churches I visit around the world (literally). Many have expressed the same thoughts you and I have wrestled with and seem pretty healthy for it. I don't consider the F/E churches to be a reasonable representation of God's message or truth on many issues, maybe even most issues of importance. It's a shame they get the most press.

 

Thanks for the thoughtful response.

 

Later,

Buddy

[JernJane]

The last post I made....my comments are in bold letters.

 

Yes, the quote I gave was Antlerman's, to which you replied:

 

I think I just did....

 

Here you're saying, unless your English is a language where the words mean the opposite to what they mean in the English I've learned, that you confirm what you quoted, so my post does in fact apply to you. That was my entire point. He said "This is what I want to see a Christian say," and you said it. My post, if you read it, is in response to what he suggested, and you confirmed.

[Guest end3]

You've just made a very revealing statement.

 

Let me clarify JJ. I don't know that anyone has the complete truth, so each, being a unique indiviual, would probably yield possibly a similar, but different take concerning the truth. Let me also state that I am most certainly concerned with a congruent understanding with God's Truth....accuracy if you wish. And Lord knows, I am trying for precision as well.

 

It may look like humility, but at what a cost! To be concerned with accuracy is to be concerned with what is correct, in other words, the closest one can come to what is actually true. Any person - Christian or otherwise - who claims that accuracy is not important, is saying that truth is not important. What is important for such a person, is subjective experiences. How you arrive there, whether by the way of compromise or simply do not care much about what's true, may differ for person to person, but they all share this one thing: They don't think truth is important.

 

It is not humility at a cost. It is grace as a choice. What good does it do each of us to continue to beat each other down with our respective truths? We only hold tenative glimpses of truth at best. I admit to doing so, but do not wish to continue to beat others with my tenative glimpses. I wail on Antlerman because he is too certain in his truths, much like myself.

 

I, on the other hand, do think truth is important. That is why I am no longer a Christian.

 

That is fine, but I choose the Bible and Holy Spirit a standard for truth, as well as science.

 

Also: if you state that accuracy isn't important, I wonder - where do you draw the line? What makes Muhammed a Muslim and Augustine a Christian if doctrinal accuracy bears no importance? Any Christian would say: "Because Augustine believed in the Trinity, Jesus' divinity, in the atoning sacrifice for sins and the ressurection." But what makes you claim that accuracy is more important for any these doctrines than for, say, the virgin birth or the status for Jesus as a messenger from God?

 

I would assume Augustine was a Christian because he believed in Christ. I am not sure the manifestation of Christ in his life and mine would or should yield a legalistic match. I would assume his gifts would yield different "fruit".

 

(I know near nothing of Muhammed)

 

Sorry, I don't know what you are asking in the last sentence.

[jackbauer]

I agree, emotions and actions are interrelated; intimately. I have a question, though, about feelings leading the way to actions. I think it's a choice, or perhaps should be.

 

You can choose how to act, I do not believe it is normally within a human being's power to choose how to feel (choosing how to feel is not the same as ignoring/suppressing one feeling and exalting/nurturing another). For the Bible-believing Christian though, he or she is still to blame for not loving Jesus more than anyone else in the whole wide world.

 

Doing what's right rather than what's most pleasant is commendable.

 

This is true, and it was the very reason why I decided to sober myself from the theological mind, in order to seek the truth. What you describe is what I would call the virtuous mix of honesty, courage and truth-seeking - values I have always held in high esteem and are also some of the values I wish to live by. What I found demanded that I said farewell to what I believed to be the only constant in my life; my shelter, my Eternal Father, my best friend, my Lord and Savior. In order to seek the truth, one needs a sober mind - that is - one needs to seek the truth with as near to an impartial state of mind as possible. If I seek to prove Christianity true, then I will find what I seek. If I choose to seek arguments against Christianity purely for the sake of debunking it, I will find that also. If I seek support for Islam, Judaism, Hinduism or any other religion, I will find support for it. My point is: Only with an honest heart and with a sober mind will a person have a single chance of finding the truth. Even with it, one may never find it, but that only makes it all the more worth the effort.

 

If I am a Christian, only seeking to reassure myself so that I may preach my beliefs with a good conscience, what honesty have I? None. Though my intentions may be good from the Christian point of view, I have no honesty, no dignity and no honour or self-respect. I have partiality and a subjective opinion for which I seek to find support that I may convince others. In and of itself there is nothing wrong with seeking support for one's opinions, but it is not the path that leads to truth. If Jesus truly is the Truth, as the gospels claim, then surely he cannot blame me; in seeking the truth I would be seeking him! If he is not the truth, then what have I to lose by exposing my faith to scrutiny?

 

There is, as you say, definitely an emotional connection between loving somebody and showing it. Absolutely. But are we primarily responders, feeling our way through life?

 

No, not at all. Anyone who does that would soon either find they need to trust their reason and mind - or go insane. However, the gospels call people to love Jesus so strongly that they - in comparison - hate their family. I think perhaps you are still thinking that I advocate that love is only feelings. It is, of course, not. But we are talking about a relationship between a human being and someone that human being cannot see, cannot feel, cannot hear, and should allegedly never presume to test God as that would be an insult to his existence, and yet - without a shred of evidence - it is ok for God to make insane demands, such as sacrificing one's own child (see the Old Testament, I'm not just talking about Isaac). It would be more justified for me to barge into a chat room on the internet, called myself God or his prophet and demanded that every single member of the chat room put all their possessions and their whole lives at my service. At least they'd know I was real.

 

This describes my very short experience with fundamentalism PERFECTLY. It started out as me fearing hell, then I got more into the guilt and feeling like I deserved to die, and then I read something that said if you're obeying god just to get into heaven, then it won't count because your not doing it out of love for god and only yourself. I mean, nothing you do is good enough, and you should trust in Christ above all else, but even if you COULD see Christ, yyou could go insane. Putting someone you can't see (and for all you know died 2000 years ago) above those you can't see is impossible. And it WAS mental gymnastics trying to explain away things. Out of fear of eternal damnation, I tried to look for signs of god, but then would confuse it with something of the devil, BUT in case it was god, I better not even think that. This was one of many examples of how insane I was making myself with this religious crap.

 

I agree 100% on being honest with yourself. In fact, when you look at it, it's the only thing you can do. Christianity condemns anything that's not for god or Jesus which means anything we do just for ourself is bad. Perhaps it's not exactly illustrated this way, but it comes across this way in the bible (or atleast the favored verses amoung fundamentalists) which describes our best efforts as filfthy rags. Basically, I realized that everything you do has some selfish motivation, and no one can ever be this super hero type. I mean, I was made to believe that even if one spent days and weeks at a homeless shelter, their heart will never be 100% pure because they may want recognition of some sort or still be thinking of going home to watch TV. I knew that it was logically impossible for any creature with free will to be flawless, and a lot of Christians recognized this too, but a lot of Christianity seemed to push the guilt over not being able to reach a standard that one can not reach anyway, but would condemn those trying to reach it on their own without faith. In other words, the big faith vs works idea, which confused the hell out of me and made everything more complicated than it needed to be.

 

Christians may argue that it's not all that complicated and the church tends to complicate matters, but because the church complicates it is WHY it's complicated in the first place. Unless god is going to intervene directly and give GOOD reason why to believe it's the real god and not some overactive imagination or even satanic deception, we have to rely on contradicting experiences and beliefs which validate god. Though I think Christianity is a crock of shit, I realize I don't have all the answers, which in actually what got me out of 'the one true church'.

[BuddyFerris]

This describes my very short experience with fundamentalism PERFECTLY. It started out as me fearing hell, then I got more into the guilt and feeling like I deserved to die, and then I read something that said if you're obeying god just to get into heaven, then it won't count because your not doing it out of love for god and only yourself. I mean, nothing you do is good enough, and you should trust in Christ above all else, but even if you COULD see Christ, yyou could go insane. Putting someone you can't see (and for all you know died 2000 years ago) above those you can't see is impossible. And it WAS mental gymnastics trying to explain away things. Out of fear of eternal damnation, I tried to look for signs of god, but then would confuse it with something of the devil, BUT in case it was god, I better not even think that. This was one of many examples of how insane I was making myself with this religious crap.

 

I agree 100% on being honest with yourself. In fact, when you look at it, it's the only thing you can do. Christianity condemns anything that's not for god or Jesus which means anything we do just for ourself is bad. Perhaps it's not exactly illustrated this way, but it comes across this way in the bible (or atleast the favored verses amoung fundamentalists) which describes our best efforts as filfthy rags. Basically, I realized that everything you do has some selfish motivation, and no one can ever be this super hero type. I mean, I was made to believe that even if one spent days and weeks at a homeless shelter, their heart will never be 100% pure because they may want recognition of some sort or still be thinking of going home to watch TV. I knew that it was logically impossible for any creature with free will to be flawless, and a lot of Christians recognized this too, but a lot of Christianity seemed to push the guilt over not being able to reach a standard that one can not reach anyway, but would condemn those trying to reach it on their own without faith. In other words, the big faith vs works idea, which confused the hell out of me and made everything more complicated than it needed to be.

 

Christians may argue that it's not all that complicated and the church tends to complicate matters, but because the church complicates it is WHY it's complicated in the first place. Unless god is going to intervene directly and give GOOD reason why to believe it's the real god and not some overactive imagination or even satanic deception, we have to rely on contradicting experiences and beliefs which validate god. Though I think Christianity is a crock of shit, I realize I don't have all the answers, which in actually what got me out of 'the one true church'.

Good morning, Jack.

Your description serves better than most complaints we offer against contemporary churchianity. My unfortunate sister went through the 'fear of hell' stage; it was traumatic at her young age, and may well have done her harm. Guilt and shame heaped upon an individual don't provide much help for daily life, and living at the bottom of the self-esteem ladder is deadly. In reality, I think we all have some level of real need for external approval and appreciation. Your flail with the mental gymnastics may be near-universal among thinking folks exposed to fundamentalism and the like.

 

I'm probably among those who think it's not all that complicated to know God, and even though I'm intimately involved with the church, I'm not particularly pleased with its' track record as an institution. Too much talk, to little doing good, to much fighting to control folks.

 

Buddy

[Antlerman]

We only hold tenative glimpses of truth at best. I admit to doing so, but do not wish to continue to beat others with my tenative glimpses. I wail on Antlerman because he is too certain in his truths, much like myself.

How so? I don't hold anything as absolutely true, let alone speculations about an untestable God. I think you mistake my being able to articulate my position well, with me being rigid in my thinking. That's not true. I would gladly accept that a god exists if presented with persuasive enough reasons for me to do so.

 

But of course it depends on what it is you perceive as being 'too certain'. If you mean the fact that I am as near to certain as one can get that genocide is unjustifiable under any circumstances, be it humans seeking to wipe out an entire ethnic group of humans, or a god supposedly ordering that, then yes I'm pretty certain there's no justification for that. It not only goes against what I mentally assent to, it goes against the essence of my own nature. Even God can't go against his own nature, according to theology. So if God would order that, than he should be judged as having sinned against his own nature. It's unlikely I would ever say it was justified because that being is supposedly supreme. It violates too many rules, even for a supreme God.

 

Can I be persuaded otherwise? Theoretically anyone could. However, I would have to say it would take some pretty radical makeover of my entire personality, such as what might happen through a serious head trauma and a resulting brain injury where the essence of who I am currently am is lost, and I essentially become someone else in my body. Other than that I would probably choose my own death over complying with the ideas of some warmongering political zealot who objectifies other humans as expendable chattel using the name of God to justify himself - such as the story of Joshua portrays.

 

Outside that, I don't see what you say applies to me very well. The fact that I once believed in God quite truthfully and no longer do should be your first clue that I'm not "too certain" about my views. Perhaps you may be projecting?

 

I'll get to my response to your earlier reply to me later on. Not much time this weekend for posting, other than putting up one of my piano songs I wrote on the forum here. (What was that you said about me not understanding what it is to be an artist? You missed the mark totally on that one, so it's very likely you are on this one as well).

 

Peace

[JernJane]

I don't know that anyone has the complete truth, so each, being a unique indiviual, would probably yield possibly a similar, but different take concerning the truth. Let me also state that I am most certainly concerned with a congruent understanding with God's Truth....accuracy if you wish. And Lord knows, I am trying for precision as well.

 

No, nobody has the complete truth, but that doesn't give us an excuse to be lazy and submit to some guy claiming he's had a revelation, no matter if it's today or 2000 years ago. Science, on the other hand, is making progress.

 

And of course you are trying for precision. If you don't, you've got the James' letter looming over you telling you that your faith is dead without works, and if your faith is dead, it's a one-way ticket to hell; unless of course, you are somehow spiritually revived, and when you're sufficiently convinced that you are spiritually dead, you start to seek that renewal. You long for the moments when you rejoiced at the thought of God's grace. "How wonderful that He has revealed himself to me! How wonderful that He, through His Own sacrifice for my sins, has forgiven me everything!" Oh, I remember the "joy of grace", I remember the feeling, I remember the joy, the pleasure, the "hallelujah"s. And I remember the bittersweet taste of it fading when the next passage I met in the Bible was about how I still needed to do this and that in order to be good enough, so I started the long and tiring effort of trying to convince myself that I truly was born again, that I truly was forgiven, that I wasn't going to hell.

 

Hell... Yes, there's another thing. What wretched, evil invention by liars and and greedy men (yes - men), lusting for power and wealth.

 

Where are my parents going when they die? "Jesus, You said, You promised!!! You promised that You would give us everything we asked for (and Paul added "as long as the prayer is according to God's will!" Dead silence.

 

I would start crying at this point, the pain in my chest resembling what I could imagine it must feel like to having surgery while fully awake and aware of the pain. I was desperate for God's comfort, love and reassurance. Dead silence.

 

I would scream, silent screams in the middle of the night because I did not want to wake my house mates. I would search the Bible for comfort, but found none. Only more condemnation. Where was this God who loved me so much? Why didn't he care? Why was he sending my parents to hell? How many times did I have to pray for them for him to care?

 

This would go on for two months. Little did I realize that God simply wasn't there. I hadn't lost my faith. I didn't throw it away in anger. I resubmitted to God. I resubmitted my life - time and time again.

 

Until I realized what I was actually doing... Submitting my will and intellect to a book written by mere men 1900+ years ago.

 

It is not humility at a cost.

 

It costs you your will and your intellect. Nothing is worth submission of those. They are your most precious possessions. Value them, care for them and nurture them. They are your best protection against danger. Heed them when they sound the alarm.

 

It is grace as a choice.

 

Choice? Choice? How dare you call an ultimatum between submission and eternal torment a choice?

 

What good does it do each of us to continue to beat each other down with our respective truths?

 

When reason is listened to, it saves lives. When fundamentalism is listened to, it kills and destroys. There is no such thing as a "respective truth". The answer to the question of whether the Christian God is real can only be "yes" or "no". There is no inbetween, and just because an atheist can't prove the non-existence of God doesn't mean he's there. Likewise, just because you can't prove the existence of God doesn't mean he isn't there, but the truth doesn't necessarily lie at 50%, which would make them equal opinions. Not by a long shot.

 

I admit to doing so, but do not wish to continue to beat others with my tenative glimpses.

 

Let me play with parables for a bit:

 

A man named Eric has been killed by a man named Bob. Eric's apartment is loaded with traces and clues as to who killed him, when he was killed and how he was killed. The police officers arrive at the crime scene after the crime has happened.

 

At the trial, the detectives are called to witness against the prosecuted.

 

They are asked why they believe Bob committed the murder, and in response they give the testimony that they have found very compelling evidence that it was Bob who killed Eric. In fact, all evidence - DNA tests, tracks, the wounds inflicted on Eric's body which seems to have put him to death seem to point in Bob's direction.

 

Now imagine that the detectives had answered with the following statements instead:

 

"A vision from God showed me that it was Bob who killed Eric."

"Due to the teachings of my religion's holy book, which I am positive is the written word of God, I'm convinced that it was Bob who killed Eric."

"A man at my church prophesied over me that a man named Bob killed Eric."

 

In the very same way, science gives us evidence for what has happened, while religion, (which is different all across the world, mind you!!) tells us the myths dreamed up by self-professed people of God.

 

I wail on Antlerman because he is too certain in his truths, much like myself.

 

While there certainly is relativity in some cases with regards to such things as whether "strawberries taste good", or "The Beatles were a fantastic band!", these are only relative because of the fact that they are subjective. They are not truths at all, they are subject to opinion. There is a vast difference between a mere opinion and a truth. Whether God exists or not, or whether the Bible is infallible, in short - whether Christianity is the truth or not, is not a matter of subjective opinion. Whether it is true or false, it is true of false regardless of what we think. Whether it is true or not is worth trying to honestly find out.

 

Believing in something simply because it happens to be the dominant religion in the place where you happened to be born, however, is nothing short of pathetic, and anything but honest. It may be considered patriotic by some, especially if you're an American, but what reason is that to believe in something, especially when whether you believe in it or not has such huge consequences for your life?

 

What if there is such a thing as a divine, personal being, only you've picked the wrong one? What if, when you die, you meet the face of Zeus, Odin or Osiris? If they take themselves as seriously and is as childish as the god of Christianity does, you'd be in some serious trouble.

 

That is fine, but I choose the Bible and Holy Spirit a standard for truth, as well as science.

 

Why do you believe that the Bible is true in the first place? I'll not comment on the Holy Spirit, because your belief in the Holy Spirit is subordinate to and thus caused by your belief in the Bible. Science though - I'm not sure how you pick and choose there. Do you pick out the verses of the Bible which are denied by science, or do you pick away what science has evidence for because it goes against the book that happens to be your particular religion's holy book?

 

I would assume Augustine was a Christian because he believed in Christ.

 

That's my point, "to believe in Christ" demands that certain criteria are met by the belief in order for it to be "belief in Christ". This definition, however, is liquid to say the least.

 

(I know near nothing of Muhammed)

 

What religions do you know enough to know why you don't believe in them? And why don't you believe in them?

 

Sorry, I don't know what you are asking in the last sentence.

 

Then I shall rephrase it for you:

 

Most Christians today will claim that the doctrines of Jesus being born by a virgin, being divine (God), his death=atonement for sins and that he was ressurected from the dead are absolutely pivetal to the Christian faith. Why, however? Why are any of these teachings about Jesus most important than Jesus' alleged teachings themselves? Such as "sell all your possessions, then come and follow me"? Or "give freely without expecting anything in return"? Or being a good Samaritan?

[Guest end3]

JernJane,

 

Just wanted to tell you I appreciate the time and sincere comments. Very thought provoking as well.

 

You long for the moments when you rejoiced at the thought of God's grace. "How wonderful that He has revealed himself to me! How wonderful that He, through His Own sacrifice for my sins, has forgiven me everything!" Oh, I remember the "joy of grace", I remember the feeling, I remember the joy, the pleasure, the "hallelujah"s.

 

I have had these times and I too think they are about as good as it gets.

 

Hell... Yes, there's another thing. What wretched, evil invention by liars and and greedy men (yes - men), lusting for power and wealth.

 

Where are my parents going when they die? "Jesus, You said, You promised!!! You promised that You would give us everything we asked for (and Paul added "as long as the prayer is according to God's will!" Dead silence.

 

I would start crying at this point, the pain in my chest resembling what I could imagine it must feel like to having surgery while fully awake and aware of the pain. I was desperate for God's comfort, love and reassurance. Dead silence.

 

I would scream, silent screams in the middle of the night because I did not want to wake my house mates. I would search the Bible for comfort, but found none. Only more condemnation. Where was this God who loved me so much? Why didn't he care? Why was he sending my parents to hell? How many times did I have to pray for them for him to care?

 

This would go on for two months. Little did I realize that God simply wasn't there. I hadn't lost my faith. I didn't throw it away in anger. I resubmitted to God. I resubmitted my life - time and time again.

 

I know you don't need nor probably want my sympathy, but I am sorry this happend to you. I recently went through the same question in my mind with my dad. Write or wrong, the conclusion I came to was: God is sovereign and men are not the judge of what happens when we die.....end of story. Maybe it is rationalization, but on both sides of the fence, I haven't heard of a definite version of "hell" yet.....if there is one.

 

It is not humility at a cost.

 

It costs you your will and your intellect. Nothing is worth submission of those. They are your most precious possessions. Value them, care for them and nurture them. They are your best protection against danger. Heed them when they sound the alarm.

 

I value the advise, but no one says I idle quietly in the pews in my spare time.

 

It is grace as a choice.

 

Choice? Choice? How dare you call an ultimatum between submission and eternal torment a choice?

 

I think this is a conclusion you have drawn by your own experience.

 

What good does it do each of us to continue to beat each other down with our respective truths?

 

When reason is listened to, it saves lives. When fundamentalism is listened to, it kills and destroys. There is no such thing as a "respective truth". The answer to the question of whether the Christian God is real can only be "yes" or "no". There is no inbetween, and just because an atheist can't prove the non-existence of God doesn't mean he's there. Likewise, just because you can't prove the existence of God doesn't mean he isn't there, but the truth doesn't necessarily lie at 50%, which would make them equal opinions. Not by a long shot.

 

All I have are those times of elation you mentioned earlier, truth in love, physical, worldly certainties, and a few more if I thought for a while. But, yeah, fundamentalism, legalism, etc....surely quashes a good thing.

 

Let me play with parables for a bit:

 

I really put a pretty good separation between physical evidence and spiritual evidence. I believe science has a long way to go; and I think from a spiritual standpoint, we won't know, just short of devine intervention, until we die.

 

In the very same way, science gives us evidence for what has happened, while religion, (which is different all across the world, mind you!!) tells us the myths dreamed up by self-professed people of God.

 

I can see your point.

 

While there certainly is relativity in some cases with regards to such things as whether "strawberries taste good", or "The Beatles were a fantastic band!", these are only relative because of the fact that they are subjective. They are not truths at all, they are subject to opinion. There is a vast difference between a mere opinion and a truth. Whether God exists or not, or whether the Bible is infallible, in short - whether Christianity is the truth or not, is not a matter of subjective opinion. Whether it is true or false, it is true of false regardless of what we think. Whether it is true or not is worth trying to honestly find out.

 

I'm not sure I get your point here, because earlier you said there is absolute truth.....I believe that, but don't know that we can know that within this human framework. I am assuming we will be privy to all knowledge in the next. Sure it is subjective, but I think we can approach certainty in both science and religion.

 

"Believing in something simply because it happens to be the dominant religion in the place where you happened to be born, however, is nothing short of pathetic, and anything but honest. It may be considered patriotic by some, especially if you're an American, but what reason is that to believe in something, especially when whether you believe in it or not has such huge consequences for your life?

 

What if there is such a thing as a divine, personal being, only you've picked the wrong one? What if, when you die, you meet the face of Zeus, Odin or Osiris? If they take themselves as seriously and is as childish as the god of Christianity does, you'd be in some serious trouble."

 

I see your point, but you might want to cut some people a little slack. By your writing and obvious "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" demeanor, I would judge you fortunate to have a excellent mind to use. As I was stating to Antlerman, what about all the people who don't have the capacity you are saying to "mobilize". How does you plan work for them? Would you have still searched if you experience would have been a positive one?

 

"Why do you believe that the Bible is true in the first place? I'll not comment on the Holy Spirit, because your belief in the Holy Spirit is subordinate to and thus caused by your belief in the Bible. Science though - I'm not sure how you pick and choose there. Do you pick out the verses of the Bible which are denied by science, or do you pick away what science has evidence for because it goes against the book that happens to be your particular religion's holy book?"

 

I don't know the HS is subordinate....I have felt like He has been with me since before I was participating in organized religion. I believe in the bible because somehow it has an answer for a myriad of questions and remarkable agreement, and mostly from my prospective, a good model to draw from.

 

I think science presents confirmation often of what is in "types" in the bible. And by default nature.

 

"That's my point, "to believe in Christ" demands that certain criteria are met by the belief in order for it to be "belief in Christ". This definition, however, is liquid to say the least."

 

yes, just like water, just like the Spirit of God, living. Why does it have to dictate a legalistic match in your mind. Sure, some "truths" are more certain than are others, but isn't that how it is in natural science as well? Did not science have early "doctrines"?

 

"What religions do you know enough to know why you don't believe in them? And why don't you believe in them?"

 

You have me on this one, but at least I am not camped in a pew listening to some guy tell me what I need to believe about God.

 

"Most Christians today will claim that the doctrines of Jesus being born by a virgin, being divine (God), his death=atonement for sins and that he was ressurected from the dead are absolutely pivetal to the Christian faith. Why, however? Why are any of these teachings about Jesus most important than Jesus' alleged teachings themselves? Such as "sell all your possessions, then come and follow me"? Or "give freely without expecting anything in return"? Or being a good Samaritan?"

 

I don't know that I have a wonderful answer here. Why doctrine maybe? That's a good question. It would be interesting to see how my life would have played out without introduction to Christian doctrine. Matter of fact, for many years I despised organized religion and tel-evangelists.

 

Again, I am sorry for what you had to endure.....and fortunately for me, I have had a pretty easy go of life. I have thought many times would my faith hold up under severe pressure.

 

Thanks again

[Deva]

I think science presents confirmation often of what is in "types" in the bible. And by default nature.

 

End, how do you find scientific confirmation in the Bible? What does the term "types" mean to you? How does nature by default confirm the Bible?

[Guest end3]

Hey Deva,

 

To give you an idea of my remedial thinking.....take water...I believe it is in John that it compares water to the Spirit. Water has a two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. In my way of thinking that would be in type, the Father, Son, and HS. Same way with the phases of water... Just a brief example. ( the properties of water are actually very complex to the casual observer like myself)

 

Plant leaves working as a group to form a whole....

 

a few others, but they get corny...

[par4dcourse]

A personal relationship with kryastt: Dinner, a movie, some foreplay, at least 15 minutes, a cigarette, and leaving a toothbrush at my place. Any other questions?

[Deva]

Hey Deva,

 

To give you an idea of my remedial thinking.....take water...I believe it is in John that it compares water to the Spirit. Water has a two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. In my way of thinking that would be in type, the Father, Son, and HS. Same way with the phases of water... Just a brief example. ( the properties of water are actually very complex to the casual observer like myself)

 

Plant leaves working as a group to form a whole....

 

a few others, but they get corny...

 

Wow End, you always surprise me. Not at all the response I was expecting. Don't you think most people understand the "water" in John figuratively and not literally? Anyway, interesting answer. I don't really understand it, but interesting.

[JernJane]

PART 1

 

Just wanted to tell you I appreciate the time and sincere comments. Very thought provoking as well.

You are most welcome. I'm glad you think so. I also appreciate a good debate.

I have had these times and I too think they are about as good as it gets.

 

Have you also tasted the bittersweet guilt-motivated good works afterwards?

 

I know you don't need nor probably want my sympathy, but I am sorry this happend to you.

 

It's not that I don't appreciate compassion, but it's not why I wrote those experiences down for you to read. The reason why I did so is to try to show you that God, if he is there and if he made the promises the God of the Bible makes in those particular scriptures, is not to be trusted. He does not keep his promises.

 

I recently went through the same question in my mind with my dad. Write or wrong, the conclusion I came to was: God is sovereign and men are not the judge of what happens when we die.....end of story.

 

One question begs to be asked: Why do you believe your father is unworthy of heaven in the eyes of your God? If you're an even remotely «orthodox» (I don't mean the denomination ) as a Christian, you believe it is so because he has not believed in/trusted in/surrendered his life, intellect and will to Jesus.

 

Now, let's have a look at this (lack of) reasoning in its essence:

 

According to the Bible, Adam and Eve were the two first human beings on Earth.

They are forbidden to eat of a certain tree of knowledge, but do so anyway.

Eating the fruit of the tree, which brings knowledge of good and evil, brings death. (I'll be understanding and take into account that the «death» is a spiritual one (i.e. Separation from God according to Christian theology)

 

Result: Humanity is separated from God.

 

Many have asked «Why didn't God just create Adam and Eve with a divine nature instead of a «neutral» nature?» Theology answers: Because God loves human beings and wants them to have the choice of choosing whether to follow him – according to their free will.

 

This raises a great many problems. I'll go through the ones I can think of here and now:

 

1: How can you say that stating: «Obey me or die» is a choice of free will? It's a threat from an almighty being to a created being with incredibly limited powers. It's like saying to a child: «Obey me or there will be no food for the rest of the week!» Is this to present a choice of free will? Of course not. It's forcing by threats from a relatively powerful individual to a relatively powerless individual.

 

2: Since the Tree of Knowledge gives knowledge of good and evil, it is logical to believe that Adam and Eve had no knowledge of what was right or wrong in the first place. How can they be blamed, when even the Bible testifies that they didn't know the difference between good and evil?

 

3: They didn't know what death was, since death had not yet entered the world, since sin had not yet entered the world. How would they know what God meant when he said «If you disobey me, you will die.»?

 

Maybe it is rationalization, but on both sides of the fence, I haven't heard of a definite version of "hell" yet.....if there is one.

 

It's not my intention to be pedantic, but it's not a rationalization, it's a de-rationalization. It's refusal to rationalize anything at all. What you're doing by saying «God's sovereign, he knows better than I,» is the same thing as what I would presume you do when something happens that you do not possess the knowledge to explain; you say «God did it!» In other words, you're refusing to continue down the path of using your head in order to submit your intellect to God, and I should think that you do so out of fear of him. Whether you label that fear as «respect» or «terror».

 

I value the advise, but no one says I idle quietly in the pews in my spare time.

 

I don't think you do. Otherwise I strongly doubt you would be here. I can easily see that you are a sincere person. You probably pray for people on this forum, believing that it may somehow help the Holy Spirit re-convert us that we «might be saved». If that's the case, I'd like to ask you: Why does God want you to pray for people? Does prayer in itself have the power to do good?

 

If yes, then what is God's function?

 

If prayer does not have power in itself, then why does God want you to pray?

 

Is he not omniscient so he knows what everyone needs?

 

Is he not omnipotent so he does not need your prayers?

 

Is he not all-loving and omnipresent so he doesn't need reminding in order to bless any single one human being, who Christians always seem to claim that he loves so much?

 

I think this is a conclusion you have drawn by your own experience.

 

That is a huge injustice. Not only to me, but to yourself and to the Bible. In the Bible, which you've said is your standard of truth, there are only two possible outcomes of death: Heaven or hell. Hell is eternal torment. Whether with physical flames or not makes no difference. It's torment, and it goes on forever. Remember Jesus in the gospels - talking about the «gnashing of teeth» and «wailing»? Remember when he mentions the place where «the fire is never quenched» and «the worm which does not die»? I'm Norwegian and as such I don't have the word-for-word English Bible quotes, but I would expect their differences to be minimal in this case.

 

 

I really put a pretty good separation between physical evidence and spiritual evidence. I believe science has a long way to go; and I think from a spiritual standpoint, we won't know, just short of devine intervention, until we die.

 

Tell me, what exactly is spiritual evidence? A feeling? A feeling isn't evidence of anything. Hindus feel at one with their gods when they perform puja, a devotional ritual (which has much in common with some Christian traditions by the way). Sufi Muslims experience ecstacy after dancing around and around for a time. I, an atheist, feel extra-ordinarily happy (and to a greater extent than I ever did in my «hallelujah»-moments as a Christian) when I see, from the scientific point of view, what a fantastic thing life is, how amazingly improbable it is that you and I actually exist, when the potential persons that human DNA can create outnumber the sand grains of the Sahara desert (check out Unweaving The Rainbow by Richard Dawkins for more elaborate explanations of how improbable you are as an existing person).

[JernJane]

PART 2

 

I'm not sure I get your point here, because earlier you said there is absolute truth.....

 

There most certainly is on questions where the answer to the question is a “yes†or a “noâ€, which the answer to the question “Does the Christian God exist†needs to be. Arriving at “yes†or “no†as conclusions however, is a different deal entirely. Let me explain:

 

If the Christian God exists, he exists whether we believe in him or not. If the Christian religion is true, it is the true religion whether it is followed and believed by all or by no one. In the same way, if the Christian religion is untrue, it is untrue whether you believe in it or not. You believing in it doesn't make it true, neither for you nor for anyone else. You can say that you live your life having made the assumption that it is true or untrue, but if it is or isn't is completely unaffected by whether you believe it or not.

 

What a thinking and honest person tries to do is to find out whether it is probable that a religion is true. Whatever their conclusion, the reality of the fact of whether it is true or not, remains unchanged.

 

Let's take another and possibly more down-to-earth example: If I have a dog and I tell you that I have a dog, let's say that you don't believe me when I tell you. The fact that I have a dog remains completely unaffected by the fact that you don't believe what I'm telling you. It cannot be “true to you†that I don't have a dog, now can it? You can live your life based on the assumption that I do not have a dog, but what you think has no effect on reality, because the fact of the matter is an objective truth.

 

In the same way – whether the Christian God exists or not – is completely unaffected by whether he is believed in or not. To say that the existence or reality of a person or being is relative is completely absurd. Opinions, which are subjective to personal feelings, such as a matter of taste, are not absolute in any way because they are determined by the individual. They are, in a way, not truths at all, but mere opinions.

 

Now, because the question “Is the Bible infallible?†requires a “yes†or “no†answer (the only two possible answers are direct opposites), whether it is or not is unaffected by whether you and I believe it is infallible, and because we cannot look to the Bible to answer those questions for us, it makes no sense to have the Bible as a “standard of truthâ€. You end up in a circular argument, saying “The Bible is true because it says it's true because it says it's true because it says it's true.â€

 

In order to determine whether the Bible is true or not, you need to look upon it critically and ask questions, and the Bible itself cannot the standard by which you judge all things. I am also willing to bet that the claim that you truly do believe the Bible to be infallible isn't even true, although I have no doubts that you wouldn't believe it. If you're interested in hearing why I think so, I'll share it with you in my next post.

 

Sure it is subjective, but I think we can approach certainty in both science and religion.

 

I think this is the very heart of our discussion. It has been said that science has evidence, but not certainty, while religion has certainty without evidence. What do you think of such a statement?

 

Also, since you say that certainty, by which I assume you mean certainty about what is true and what is not, I assume you refer to something outside yourself. As you said earlier, the Bible is your standard of truth.

 

Now, my question to you is: Why is the Bible your standard of truth? What in it, compared to all the other religions on the planet, compels you to believe in its certainty, when you know full well that (despite your lack of knowledge - dare I say ignorance - of other religions beliefs) there are human being out there who believe in a religion which is opposite to yours, just as strongly as you believe in yours. If what you end up coming down to is “It's just my faith... There's no other real explanation for it†then it might be worth to consider asking yourself just “why†it is your faith.

 

I'm sure you (somebody you know) played the incredibly annoying “whyâ€-game with somebody. “Mommy, why is your hair wet?â€

“Because I've washed it dear.â€

“Why did you wash it, mommy?â€

“...Because it was dirty, dear.â€

“Why was it dirty, mommy?â€

“uhm... it takes a long time to explain, hun, I don't know.â€

“Why don't you know, mommy?â€

“...â€

 

I don't mean to be condescending or patronising or anything like that, but playing that “whyâ€-game inside your own head is a natural part of us. Curiosity killed the cat, some say. Well, obviously there are limits to how curious one should be in practice. For instance, being curious about the current looks of the Tjernobyl explosion site might not have the best effect on your life if you decide to go have a peek for yourself.

 

But why, logically speaking, would it be dangerous to seek the truth and attempting to do so without being biased? If God truly is truth, and your religion is true, surely it can only be supported by evidence – nothing can ever challenge it without a massive loss. Please, do yourself the favour of questioning your faith. Compare it to other religions. Try to find out how the Bible came into existence – you do, after all, trust it as your standard of truth – don't you think it's time you found out whether it lives up to your expectations? You owe it to yourself, and certainly, any deity or church demanding that you lay down your life and all you hold valuable and dear in the name of that standard of truth (however they interpret it), ought either to live up to their demands, or be discarded as not only false, but dangerous, greedy and mentally imprisoning.

 

I see your point, but you might want to cut some people a little slack.

 

People? I am speaking to you, and individual, and one who has science and knowledge at his fingertips, ready to be consumed, understood and digested. Don't throw it away. So many people never get that opportunity.

 

As I was stating to Antlerman, what about all the people who don't have the capacity you are saying to "mobilize".

 

I don't blame people for being believers. I blame them for not, when given the opportunity, the time and the criteria for it, question their faith.

 

How does you plan work for them? Would you have still searched if you experience would have been a positive one?

 

This is a question with a rather obvious twin in the biblical world. What would you say to all of those who, according to the Bible, are lost – not because they never accepted Jesus as their lord and saviour – but because they never even knew there was such a religion as Christianity. What about those who grew up as Hindus, Muslims or Jews, and stay “loyal†to their religion for the same reasons as you stay true to Christianity?

[JernJane]

PART 3

 

I don't know the HS is subordinate....

 

The Holy Spirit isn't subordinate to the Bible according to the teachings of the Bible. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that your belief is subordinate to your faith in the Bible because the Bible requires that you believe in the Holy Spirit.

 

I have felt like He has been with me since before I was participating in organized religion.

 

Lots of people feel the same way about their gods all around the world. What reasons do you have to claim that their experience is false while yours is not?

 

I believe in the bible because somehow it has an answer for a myriad of questions and remarkable agreement

 

How do you explain then, the great diversity of Christian denominations?

 

and mostly from my prospective, a good model to draw from.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by “modelâ€, but I suppose that you mean a moral model. Are you sure about what you have said here? Do you believe, for instance, that gay people or those who have sex before or outside of wedlock should be stoned? Would you murder a family member or a friend if they were to suggest that you might want to consider following a different religion?

 

I think science presents confirmation often of what is in "types" in the bible. And by default nature.

 

What is more backed by scientific evidence: The biblical account(s) of creation, or evolution by natural selection?

 

"That's my point, "to believe in Christ" demands that certain criteria are met by the belief in order for it to be "belief in Christ". This definition, however, is liquid to say the least."

 

yes, just like water, just like the Spirit of God, living.

 

That wasn't my point. My point was that the concept of “belief in Christ†has so many different interpretations that it is confusing.

 

Why does it have to dictate a legalistic match in your mind. Sure, some "truths" are more certain than are others, but isn't that how it is in natural science as well? Did not science have early "doctrines"?

 

You, a chemist, should know above anyone else here who is not a scientist, like myself, that science puts forth a hypotheses, attempts to disprove it and if it is disproved, it is also discarded. If, however, evidence is found to support the hypotheses, it is interpreted as likely to be true, proportionally with the amount and credibility of the evidence presented.

[JernJane]

You have me on this one, but at least I am not camped in a pew listening to some guy tell me what I need to believe about God.

 

What evidence do you have which backs and supports your view of the Bible as credible enough to be – not just true – but your standard of truth?

 

I don't know that I have a wonderful answer here. Why doctrine maybe? That's a good question. It would be interesting to see how my life would have played out without introduction to Christian doctrine. Matter of fact, for many years I despised organized religion and tel-evangelists.

 

Why doctrine is indeed a good question. As a Christian, I think you will find (if you ask questions carefully enough) that you have taken a lot of things about the Bible and the Christian faith for granted.

 

Why did you despise televangelists? And has Christian doctrine changed your view on televangelists? If so, why?

 

Again, I am sorry for what you had to endure.....

 

Why do you feel the need to apologize in your God's stead? I think it is because you know that God, by his own promises in the Bible – if he was real and even remotely resembling your image of him – as a loving and faithful God, he not only should, but would have been there.

 

Please don't apologize for your God. I don't hold Christians accountable for what happened to me. I am accountable to that, because I chose that faith. Now that I know better, I want others to experience what I did, and not be afraid, because there is no god to fear. “No hell below us, Above us only sky†(John Lennon - Imagine).

 

Well, there is nothing to fear if you can ignore the fact that we are living on a tiny planet in a tiny solar system in the very peripherals of our relatively small galaxy, somewhere far away from the centre of the universe. Now that's one wild thought!

 

and fortunately for me, I have had a pretty easy go of life. I have thought many times would my faith hold up under severe pressure.

 

Why should it? What makes you think that an omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient creator God would have any interest, or indeed, a need to test your loyalty? Why did God allow Satan to test Job? It seems to me from the story that God let Satan torture Job by robbing him of his family, his health and his possessions, only to prove a point to Satan. If you do that to your most faithful and righteous servant (“there is no one like him on earthâ€) only to prove your worst enemy wrong... doesn't that deserve the label “childishâ€?

[Guest end3]

I haven't forgotten JJ...

[JernJane]

I haven't forgotten JJ...

 

Lol, no problem. By the way, don't feel that you need to write as long a post as I did. The only reason why I write long posts is because I need many words to express my thoughts. You know how some people are capable of capturing the essence of what they want to say and then use one or two sentences? I don't have that talent.

[Antlerman]

The only reason why I write long posts is because I need many words to express my thoughts. You know how some people are capable of capturing the essence of what they want to say and then use one or two sentences? I don't have that talent.

I just had to say, hey! Nice I'm not the only one around here!