So Um... Why Don't The "devout" Xians Stick It Out?

[Mriana]

We can know reality through our senses - or we can reason through and know reality by a combination of data and inductive reasoning (such that we can predict the existence of 'dark matter' because of all the circumstantial scientific evidence; so though though we cannot see or dertect it yet, we certainly believe in its existence. And we believe by faith that one day we'll develop the technology to detect and define dark matter.)

 

Solid faith in God's existence and character and purposes are more like the circumstantial type of assurance. There is a certain level of faith that we are "seeing Him who is invisible" by seeing the indirect evidence of His impact. And the strength of faith is somewhat related to the strength of the circumstantial evidence. So as I reason through the existence of the universe, humanity, beauty, harmony, balance, love, interdependence in symbiotic relationships, excellence in art & literature & music, complexity, intricacy, etc I am left with the conclusion that there is a God who matches the Biblical description.

 

How can you infer that the christian god exists, and the bible is true, from data and relationships you experience in reality? Inductive reasoning begins with observation of facts. You would have to take the leap of faith in spite of the facts. It's like saying,"since I have a father, god must be like a father in heaven that cares for me". Rather than admitting "I don't know if the christian god really exists", you are inferring analogies from real relationships and connecting them to the supernatural. That's a leap of faith, not reasoning. The things in this world that really fight against your faith are facts.

 

And why does that make all other religious texts false? If the Xian god exists, why doesn't Krishna or the Kami of the Shinto religion exist?

[agnosticator]

I think God and Devil and all these different words and names are just symbols to represent actual things in life, but not that they are those things religion say. I think that words like sin, evil, goodness, etc, are just human definitions on things we have a hard time pin-pointing. Basically, they represent functions in reality, but not beings or supernatural things.

 

 

Perhaps if I put it this way, we have a certain level of understanding, a cultural kind, of what good is, and religion creates a word to represent what good, love, empathy etc is, they call it God. It doesn't mean in my opinion that God as a separate entity exist, but rather that God is a word which collects all those human things (abstractions) in to just one symbol.

 

Rayskidude,

 

Here Hans is inferring from facts and experience without taking the leap of faith. You can have faith, but it isn't circumstantial evidence for literalistic biblical christianity.

[Antlerman]

I certainly do not doubt my own existence or that of any physical phenomenon which I can see, smell, touch, etc. However, I think that these are 2 different types of being 'sure' of something. We can know reality through our senses - or we can reason through and know reality by a combination of data and inductive reasoning (such that we can predict the existence of 'dark matter' because of all the circumstantial scientific evidence; so though though we cannot see or dertect it yet, we certainly believe in its existence. And we believe by faith that one day we'll develop the technology to detect and define dark matter.)

I noticed in both your examples you cited things which can be weighed objectively. Whether it's a perception through the five senses, or through deductive or inductive reasoning, it's still an evaluation of a thing's 'objective' nature; that is it's exterior nature, not its interior reality.

 

None of this has anything to do with faith in a religious sense.

 

Solid faith in God's existence and character and purposes are more like the circumstantial type of assurance.

This is a mistake. You are saying belief in God is about objective proofs. I would say that if that was what was supposed to happen, that we believe until we have sufficient knowledge to confirm God like we will one day with dark-matter, then God is reduced to something natural rather that transcendental.

 

This truly is the error of the modern apologist caught in the post-enlightenment dichotomy of reason and faith. You are reducing everything to the objective. Faith functions outside an evaluation of objective reality - whether that's theoretical or confirmed.

 

There is a certain level of faith that we are "seeing Him who is invisible" by seeing the indirect evidence of His impact.

Why? Why is any of this necessary? Why look for any evidence scientifically, as you are suggesting? Why anchor a faith in the natural world, then in the next breath criticize those who are materialists when this itself is the same thing? There is no difference, other than arguing who has the facts straight. It's the exact same philosophy, the same approach to navigating life. Do you see that? It's about having confidence you have the facts of the natural world straight, whether natural causes made it happen, or a god made it happen. It's the flip side of the same coin, not anything different. You're arguing in the same vein of thought.

 

And the strength of faith is somewhat related to the strength of the circumstantial evidence.

Only if you are trying to make it a competition with a materialistic philosophy. Shouldn't faith be about some non-rational, existential pull to something that is beyond reason? Wow.

 

So as I reason through the existence of the universe, humanity, beauty, harmony, balance, love, interdependence in symbiotic relationships, excellence in art & literature & music, complexity, intricacy, etc I am left with the conclusion that there is a God who matches the Biblical description.

Yes, but your reasoning is on a level that lacks knowledge and fill the gaps with misinformation to support a faith that looks to evidence instead of to the nature of belief in the human factor.

 

I honestly don't mean to offend. I respect you. But I see you as most everyone else in this age looking to make what they feel, fit with the voice of reason and rationality. It's a mistake, IMO. These are non-rational expressions that can't be quantified objectively, but are nonetheless valid on a "non-literal" level. To make them literal, to make them objective, is to destroy their very nature, and their very value and significance. The task of the apologist is an exercise in futility. It seeks to prove something that in the end has no benefit.

 

And as I examine my own life with God - or as we say, 'our walk with God' - I sense the characteristics of a personal realtionship - with all the commensurate joys, disappointments, interactions, seeking to please, thankfulness, forgiveness, discouragements that are characteristic of personal relationships. These cannot be quantified, but they can be of comparative strength (I loved my wife & kids more today - based on my actions and words toward them - than I did yesterday, because I had reminded myself of how important they are and I reminded myself that my love for them is paramount for both the benefit they derive and I receive. Tomorrow I may love them even more, or maybe less (because I have allowed myself to be selfish). So relationships are 'managed' with a different set of rules, so to speak.

A thought to the idea of "loving more". I see love as a state of being, not an emotion. I express love in new ways today than I will tomorrow, because I am constantly moving through life and translating experience through me with that state of love. I don't love more, I express it in new ways, but it's always the same love.

 

In addition to being a different kind of assuredness - belief in God is opposed by various things in the world. My character, my realtionships, my significance - these are not challenged by the flower. But my faith in God is challenged by my own flesh, which wants to pursue its own selfish interests - despite what God or others would encourage me to pursue. Also, there are 'pleasures' in the world that tempt and distract me from faithfulness to God - $$, education, position, power, illicit sex, prestige, athletic achievement, possessions, etc. As one author has said, we live in a world where we 'would rather be envied than admired.' We all sense that temptation. And finally - yes, there is a devil. Satan goes about as a roaring seeking whom he may devour. Seeking to destroy the faith of believers by bringing about situations which could cause them to doubt God's love. Obviously - this would be a 'whole 'nother discussion.'

All these are symbolic expressions of that inner angst between finding that center in ourselves of what is valuable, and the distractions of selfishness that make us think and perceive narrowlly and self-serving. These are very human things, expressed in metaphor, in symbol, in myth. Everything I've been saying all along. The principles may be valid, but it's the principles that are true. They are the reality, not the symbols. As you yourself argued with me to prove. Right?

 

So there are things in this life which fight against faith in God, while there is nothing fighting against my belief in the existence in the flower. Our relationship with God has all the earmarks of any personal relationship. A faith challenged is a faith strengthened. A faith streched is a faith solidified. A close walk with God is a life of meaning, joy, and significance - lived with an eternal perpective - lived for the Glory of God.

Yes, and faith that finds it necessary to shed itself of the religious system in order to find the truth that lives in the heart is better for being a heretic, than an orthodox believer.

 

One day, it may all make sense... It does to me.

[rayskidude]

Rayskidude, what about those who find healing in not being religious though? Those who find they are better off without religion and their health gets better in many ways? They find beauty in the earth/nature and saving faith or whatever has nothing to do with anything?

 

I could understand that >> but I'd have to get more specific info on how their health improved, what made it worse under Christianity, what kind of healing took place, etc. And I confess I do not understand what you're saying in that last sentence - could you please clarify?

[rayskidude]

rayskidude' date='06 September 2009 - 05:51 PM' timestamp='1252277468' post='483055']

Solid faith in God's existence and character and purposes are more like the circumstantial type of assurance. There is a certain level of faith that we are "seeing Him who is invisible" by seeing the indirect evidence of His impact. And the strength of faith is somewhat related to the strength of the circumstantial evidence. So as I reason through the existence of the universe, humanity, beauty, harmony, balance, love, interdependence in symbiotic relationships, excellence in art & literature & music, complexity, intricacy, etc I am left with the conclusion that there is a God who matches the Biblical description.

 

A-cator >> How can you infer that the christian god exists, and the bible is true, from data and relationships you experience in reality? Inductive reasoning begins with observation of facts. You would have to take the leap of faith in spite of the facts. It's like saying,"since I have a father, god must be like a father in heaven that cares for me". Rather than admitting "I don't know if the christian god really exists", you are inferring analogies from real relationships and connecting them to the supernatural. That's a leap of faith, not reasoning. The things in this world that really fight against your faith are facts.

 

Actually, all the phenomena I mentioned above >> in conjunction with the several philosophical proofs on the existence of God (Cosmological, teleological, ontological, anthropological, historical, etc.) provide ample evidence to prove God's existence as far superior to the absence of God. The 'leap of faith' required you refer to is much greater for the atheist - for he/she cannot account for so much of what we know of reality other that to say; "That's just the way Nature is' - or as little kids say "jus cuz." Your father analogy is purely pointless - what are you trying to establish? And my reasoning is inductive, based on reasonable implications from the data and thinking through the ramifications - there is no inference in these thoughts, and certainly no 'leap of faith' as you would understand that term.

 

But maybe your light-years beyond me >> so please explain the existence of the list I have provided above, absent a Sovreign God.

[rayskidude]

rayskidude' date='06 September 2009 - 05:51 PM' timestamp='1252277468' post='483055']

Solid faith in God's existence and character and purposes are more like the circumstantial type of assurance. There is a certain level of faith that we are "seeing Him who is invisible" by seeing the indirect evidence of His impact. And the strength of faith is somewhat related to the strength of the circumstantial evidence. So as I reason through the existence of the universe, humanity, beauty, harmony, balance, love, interdependence in symbiotic relationships, excellence in art & literature & music, complexity, intricacy, etc I am left with the conclusion that there is a God who matches the Biblical description.

 

And why does that make all other religious texts false? If the Xian god exists, why doesn't Krishna or the Kami of the Shinto religion exist?

 

First - let me say that there can be only one Supreme Being in the universe - this follows from logic. If there's more than one, then neither are supreme, they would be co-equal. Agreed?

 

And it is certainly true that not all religions can be right - since most religions make exclusionary claims and also express condemnation of other religions. However, it is possible that all religions (religion = belief in superior entities that control/protect/provide/etc, and to whom we give worship & allegiance) could be wrong.

 

Now - as I have studied to some degree other religions - I do not find their tenets personally compelling, or that their doctrines give satisfactory explanations for reality. My extensive readings of Islam and numerous interactions with devout Muslims, my discussions with devout Hindus (especially Anglo converts to Hinduism) and brief readings of their sacred writings, and my understanding that in Shintoism the people worship their ancestors, so that the ancestors won't come back to haunt them >> in all my investigations of other religions - I do not find satisfactory answers to the big questions.

 

SO, in my opinion - based primarily on the truths revealed by God in His Word, and from my own research thus far (though, admittedly, not extensive in all cases) I believe only Christianity has answers sufficient to the questions.

 

If there's anyone here with a better religion - then please, let's discuss it.

[rayskidude]

rayskidude' date='06 September 2009 - 05:51 PM' timestamp='1252277468' post='483055']

Solid faith in God's existence and character and purposes are more like the circumstantial type of assurance.

 

A-man >> This is a mistake. You are saying belief in God is about objective proofs. I would say that if that was what was supposed to happen, that we believe until we have sufficient knowledge to confirm God like we will one day with dark-matter, then God is reduced to something natural rather that transcendental. This truly is the error of the modern apologist caught in the post-enlightenment dichotomy of reason and faith. You are reducing everything to the objective. Faith functions outside an evaluation of objective reality - whether that's theoretical or confirmed.

 

Where do I begin? God's existence is an objective reality - and therefore, His existence is proven and supported by many other objective realities which He Himself has created. Everything in the universe functions as designed. The fact is "now we see in a mirror dimly, but then we shall see face to face, now I know in part, then I shall know fully (I Cor 13:12) which you have quoted. So we see God indirectly through His work in individual lives, in communiites, in history, in Creation, etc > and believers will one day see Him face-to-face. We will go from one level of faith to another, from current faith to heavenly faith.

 

But faith is not relegated to some non-rational, existentail pull >> faith is based on facts. We start with the objective fact of God's existence and His revealtion in the Bible, we place our faith in these facts and so we believe/speak/think/act accordingly - as best we can. Then our feelings follow as the caboose, so to speak. We are not beholden to the non-rational, the existential, the cosmic vortex, the nebulous meanderings of human reasoning or of humanistic philosophies. You are correct, the Triune God & Christian faith go well beyond all these things.

 

Faith is based in fact, but is not limited to 'objective facts' - because we certainly believe some things which wouldn't be considered as such and that assuredly are couter-intuitive to human wisdom. Faith goes beyond rationality and human logic. Some examples would be God as a Tri-une Being; that suffering is an integral part of the life of God's people >> who are commended for trusting in God when everything around them shouted out against believing in Him; we are commanded to love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us; we are instructed to give sacrificially and trust God to meet our needs; we are told that our faith may separate us from our families and may result in martyrdom; we are taught how to love our neighbors as ourselves; we are commanded to take the Gospel to the remotest parts of Planet Earth with Jesus' promise to be with us; and we are encouraged to loive with an eye to the after-life that God has promised.

 

So our faith is not anchored in this physical world - it is the result of God's work in our hearts to believe Him, His Scriptures, to live according to His revelation, and to afterwards enjoy an eternity in His very Presence. But these beliefs are certainly supported by the physical world we see, which God created for the express purpose of revealing Himself to us through this nature.

 

What exactly is you defintion of religious faith? Because I think this is where some of our disconnect lies.

 

I honestly don't mean to offend. I respect you. But I see you as most everyone else in this age looking to make what they feel, fit with the voice of reason and rationality. It's a mistake, IMO. These are non-rational expressions that can't be quantified objectively, but are nonetheless valid on a "non-literal" level. To make them literal, to make them objective, is to destroy their very nature, and their very value and significance. The task of the apologist is an exercise in futility. It seeks to prove something that in the end has no benefit.

 

I'm not offended - and I do think that the Tri-une God & Christian faith go beyond human rationality, that they cannot be objectively quantified, that they are valid on every level (literal and non-literal). But a God that is not objectively real? A God who cannot be perceived in His Creation, A God whose only recourse to us is some non-rational, existential pull? And then a life lived by faith in that 'God'? >> well, that would be sheer insanity, the ultimate in stupidity, the very reason why the Apostle Paul wrote in effect; that if Jesus Christ is not risen from the dead, then we (the Christians) of all people are the most pitiful. I Cor 15:13-19.

 

A thought to the idea of "loving more". I see love as a state of being, not an emotion. I express love in new ways today than I will tomorrow, because I am constantly moving through life and translating experience through me with that state of love. I don't love more, I express it in new ways, but it's always the same love.

 

As I re-read my statement - I was not clear, 'my bad.' I should have said that I 'display" my love more on some days than others. I agree that the love is always the same love, though I believe I can grow in my love for God & others. I also do not think that love is an emotion >> I think that love is the commitment of my will to the welfare of another. This commitment of love is oftentimes accompanied by feelings of affection >> which feelings we commonly call 'love.' But note; since love is a commitment that can happen apart from feelings, that means I can love people I do not like or do not even know - thus I can make donations of my time & $$ & energy & prayer & whatever to people I've never met, or may not even like. But I can love them.

 

rayskidude' date='06 September 2009 - 05:51 PM' timestamp='1252277468' post='483055']

So there are things in this life which fight against faith in God, while there is nothing fighting against my belief in the existence in the flower. Our relationship with God has all the earmarks of any personal relationship. A faith challenged is a faith strengthened. A faith streched is a faith solidified. A close walk with God is a life of meaning, joy, and significance - lived with an eternal perpective - lived for the Glory of God.

 

A-man >> Yes, and faith that finds it necessary to shed itself of the religious system in order to find the truth that lives in the heart is better for being a heretic, than an orthodox believer.

 

Here I would have to say that I would not trust any human heart - mine nor anyone else's - to be a source of Truth worth living for.

[Kuroikaze]

Now - as I have studied to some degree other religions - I do not find their tenets personally compelling, or that their doctrines give satisfactory explanations for reality.

 

Is is really so hard to understand that this is how we feel towards your religion?

[OnceConvinced]

Why don't Christians stick it out? Because they were never true Christians to begin with. The bible tells us that we will know the Christians because they will exhibit the fruits of the holy spirit. One of the fruits is long-suffering. Those that come and go clearly do not exhibit that fruit. So it is damning evidence that they were never true Christians. If one truly has God on their side, a bunch of ex-Christians on a website should be no big deal. God should be right behind them giving them the words they need. Obviously he is not. Yet another reason why they can't possibly be true Christians.

 

(Hey, if they can insist we were never true Christians, then I'm going to milk that one for all it's worth)

[Mriana]

One day, it may all make sense... It does to me.

 

Antlerman, rayskidude lives in the Twilight Zone. I don't think he is ever going to get it.

 

 

Rayskidude, what about those who find healing in not being religious though? Those who find they are better off without religion and their health gets better in many ways? They find beauty in the earth/nature and saving faith or whatever has nothing to do with anything?

 

I could understand that >> but I'd have to get more specific info on how their health improved, what made it worse under Christianity, what kind of healing took place, etc. And I confess I do not understand what you're saying in that last sentence - could you please clarify?

 

More specific? Well, I left religion and the dr who has seen me for a very long time noticed a vast amount of improvement in my health over the last six years. Humanism is not a religion, but it can be very therapeutic. I have a BS degree in psychology and there is a humanistic approach to therapy (besides many other approaches) in psychology. I combined both the philosophy and the therapeutic strategies to myself- a "doctor heal thyself" sort of thing. Would you like any more specific details? If I were get into more detail, it would probably turn into a Calvinist v. Wesleyan debate, but to make a long story short, there is not such thing as Xian perfection, no such thing as perfection in general and to strive for such non-existent perfection as the expense of the human, only leads to mental and physical illness. Changing from Wesleyan theology to Episcopalian didn't do much to help, because I still had an eating disorder, along with depression... and guess what? Both Wesley and Calvin came out of the Anglican Church. From what I am seeing, both Wesleyan and Calvinistic doctrine have done more harm than good, but both appear to be mixed up in the Anglican doctrine, just not as extreme or bizarre.

 

Anyway, to make a long story short, I spent years in the church sick and when I left, even my physical by a dr. showed marked improvement. However, we humans are not an island to themselves. They are social creatures and there comes a point when they have to reach out to others in order to progress more, but religion and superstition are not the answers. However, unless you have studied both the humanistic psychological approach and the humanist philosophy, you probably don't have a clue as to what I am talking about. It would take a book to explain it in its entirety. The short of it, is one must find what is within themselves in order to better themselves, as well as realize that it is all right here on earth, not something out there. You don't need a fairy tale sky-daddy to hold your hand and heal you, but you do need that which is real and that is other human beings- you just need to find the right human beings to help you. You won't find them in any church though, because most of those people have problems of their own and haven't even begun to take the moat out of their eyes.

 

Like I said, I need to write a book in order to give you a good explanation.

 

 

rayskidude' date='06 September 2009 - 05:51 PM' timestamp='1252277468' post='483055']

Solid faith in God's existence and character and purposes are more like the circumstantial type of assurance. There is a certain level of faith that we are "seeing Him who is invisible" by seeing the indirect evidence of His impact. And the strength of faith is somewhat related to the strength of the circumstantial evidence. So as I reason through the existence of the universe, humanity, beauty, harmony, balance, love, interdependence in symbiotic relationships, excellence in art & literature & music, complexity, intricacy, etc I am left with the conclusion that there is a God who matches the Biblical description.

 

And why does that make all other religious texts false? If the Xian god exists, why doesn't Krishna or the Kami of the Shinto religion exist?

 

First - let me say that there can be only one Supreme Being in the universe - this follows from logic. If there's more than one, then neither are supreme, they would be co-equal. Agreed?

 

No. Have you studied Greek mythology? Norse mythology? Or any other mythology? Even the Jews started out as polytheistic and fought among themselves as to which should be the head deity.

 

And it is certainly true that not all religions can be right - since most religions make exclusionary claims and also express condemnation of other religions. However, it is possible that all religions (religion = belief in superior entities that control/protect/provide/etc, and to whom we give worship & allegiance) could be wrong.

 

Right. I don't think the Buddhist would agree with you. They have not accused anyone of being wrong or condemned other religions, as far as I know. It has to do with right speech, right thinking, right action, etc. However, Buddha is not a god. He is a teacher and IF one were to put Jesus, who is much like the Buddha in some of his teachings, more accurately, Jesus would also be a teacher and not the messiah. "He is NOT the messiah, he is a very naughty boy!" ~ Minority Report, I think.

 

Now - as I have studied to some degree other religions - I do not find their tenets personally compelling, or that their doctrines give satisfactory explanations for reality. My extensive readings of Islam and numerous interactions with devout Muslims, my discussions with devout Hindus (especially Anglo converts to Hinduism) and brief readings of their sacred writings, and my understanding that in Shintoism the people worship their ancestors, so that the ancestors won't come back to haunt them >> in all my investigations of other religions - I do not find satisfactory answers to the big questions.

 

Probably because you started out with the mindset that all other religions are wrong. The Quran is a bastardization of the Bible and the Torah. But have you even read the Gospel of Thomas? That is my question. I realize it is not cannon, but there are some scholars and theologians who are saying it should have been. It is a nice read and two sayings stuck with me:

 

"3) Jesus said, "If those who lead you say, 'See, the Kingdom is

in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they

say to you, 'It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you.

Rather, the Kingdom is inside of you, and it is outside of you.

When you come to know yourselves, then you will become known, and

you will realize that it is you who are the sons of the living

Father. But if you will not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty

and it is you who are that poverty."

 

and

 

77) Jesus said, "It is I who am the light which is above them

all. It is I who am the All. From Me did the All come forth, and

unto Me did the All extend. Split a piece of wood, and I am

there. Lift up the stone, and you will find Me there."

 

IMO, that says a lot and fits very well with my pantheistic mind set and does not conflict with humanism. It is all right here, within you, within everything, even animals, but it is not a god. In reality, it is life. You split a piece of wood and you see life- even when the wood is dead you see life. Lift a stone and you see life. When you degrade and dehumanize yourself by saying you are less than some supernatural being, you are not living life to its fullest, but rather living a psychological death, thus living in a form of poverty, because you do not truly know yourself. Once you realize that it is all within you and you don't need some invisible external force to rely on, that is when you start getting over various maladies.

 

See, I can talk religion, but I prefer not to, because it only gets into a dispute of whose interpretation is correct. The twist to reality or the twist to fantasy. I really don't care to go that route because the twist to fantasy is B.S. However, if one is going to insist their way is the right way and all else is wrong, that is when one become like the blind men and the elephant. BTW, the light above you, is the sun. No, I am not twisting anything. It all started with animism and was anthropomorphasized, which makes it very uninteresting because that was not what it was originally about. It was all in relationship to the earth, the sun, the moon, etc. Even astro-theology comes into play and like all the gods before him, even Samson in the O.T., Jesus is just another symbol for the sun.

 

So, obviously you have not studied it thoroughly enough.

 

SO, in my opinion - based primarily on the truths revealed by God in His Word, and from my own research thus far (though, admittedly, not extensive in all cases) I believe only Christianity has answers sufficient to the questions.

 

If there's anyone here with a better religion - then please, let's discuss it.

 

ROFLMAO! It is not God's word. The Bible was written and inspired by humans, not some invisible deity. Christianity answers nothing. It is full of violence, dehumanization, degradation, and so much more. Almost as bad as Islam, but not as extreme with the violence. It use to be though. There is no "God and His Word" (AKA Logos). It was the humans who did it and if truth be known, the religious worship a form of a demiurge and all too many of them sacrifice themselves mentally and physically to that demiurge. Best to come out of the Twilight Zone and face reality.

[Mriana]

Why don't Christians stick it out? Because they were never true Christians to begin with. The bible tells us that we will know the Christians because they will exhibit the fruits of the holy spirit. One of the fruits is long-suffering. Those that come and go clearly do not exhibit that fruit. So it is damning evidence that they were never true Christians. If one truly has God on their side, a bunch of ex-Christians on a website should be no big deal. God should be right behind them giving them the words they need. Obviously he is not. Yet another reason why they can't possibly be true Christians.

 

(Hey, if they can insist we were never true Christians, then I'm going to milk that one for all it's worth)

 

Go for it. Together we maybe able to do something about the nutters.

[Antlerman]

Hi Ray. I want to say at the outset that I appreciate that your responses show thought, and are genuine to you. You don't just find some pat apologist response, but actually consider what I say. This earns my respect, and is much appreciated by me.

 

But faith is not relegated to some non-rational, existentail pull >> faith is based on facts.

I want to draw your attention to something you say a little later in this response:

"I do think that the Tri-une God & Christian faith go beyond human rationality, that they cannot be objectively quantified, that they are valid on every level (literal and non-literal)."

What you have described here is in fact what Kirkegaard used as an example of the non-rational "leap of faith", so to speak. It is an acknowledgment that 'faith' is not based on reason and rationality, but is a thing in itself - outside reason.

 

What I hear here from you is a conflict. To say it's based on reason, but requires going beyond reason into faith is a contradiction. There is no basis in reason that can make sense of 1+1+1=1, or 1/3= 1. What you are proposing is a bit a 'non-rational' leap itself, that this 'existential leap', of faith has validity rationally because certain "other things" square with reason.

 

IMO, this is a fabrication to try to make religious belief a reasonable proposition on par with the empirical sciences. I'll come back to this.

 

We are not beholden to the non-rational, the existential, the cosmic vortex, the nebulous meanderings of human reasoning or of humanistic philosophies. You are correct, the Triune God & Christian faith go well beyond all these things.

Which is precisely what a theistic existentialism teaches. Interesting that you try to hold on to the conservative theology while expressing this.

 

BTW, I hardly consider my philosophies "nebulous" or "meandering". They are quite delineated and systematic, both externally and internally.

 

Faith is based in fact, but is not limited to 'objective facts' - because we certainly believe some things which wouldn't be considered as such and that assuredly are couter-intuitive to human wisdom.

I keep hearing this verse. "The kingdom of God is within you". What does this mean to you? Does this sound like what you are saying?

 

Faith goes beyond rationality and human logic...

 

So our faith is not anchored in this physical world - it is the result of God's work in our hearts to believe Him, His Scriptures, to live according to His revelation, and to afterwards enjoy an eternity in His very Presence.

Again, this sounds of confusion to me. If it's a matter of our hearts, then the revelation is, here it comes - - - not external! It's internal.

 

As internal, then it's about something subjective, not objective. Not external. Not scientific. It's expressed ---- symbolically. What I've been saying. What you see in scripture, for you, is an expression of the Internal, using language to express this that does not fit within an external, objective, scientific reality.

 

But these beliefs are certainly supported by the physical world we see, which God created for the express purpose of revealing Himself to us through this nature.

God created the physical world to make himself known to us? We have a ways to go.

 

I can appreciate seeing "God" in nature. But I think it's deeper, far, far deeper than some extension of ourselves in the nature of the universe. I don't in any way see God as needing the satisfaction of our adoring him. Hardly. Can you honestly belive God is that small??

 

 

I'm out of time... later...

[agnosticator]

Actually, all the phenomena I mentioned above >> in conjunction with the several philosophical proofs on the existence of God (Cosmological, teleological, ontological, anthropological, historical, etc.) provide ample evidence to prove God's existence as far superior to the absence of God.

 

How does all this connect directly to the christian god and not any other type of god (as Mriana commented)? How is this "far superior" to nature?

 

The 'leap of faith' required you refer to is much greater for the atheist - for he/she cannot account for so much of what we know of reality...

 

 

People (mainly scientists past and present) do account for what we know about reality. Science is the tool of man to understand reality. Why would someone (other than religious people) need faith? What would non-religious people be leaping to?

 

 

Your father analogy is purely pointless - what are you trying to establish?

 

It's one example of a leap of faith. It is a fact that fathers exist. They have real relationships with their sons/daughters. A God described as being a heavenly father in a relationship with believers has no basis in fact. It may be an analogy, but it seems to be taken as more than that.

 

And my reasoning is inductive, based on reasonable implications from the data and thinking through the ramifications - there is no inference in these thoughts, and certainly no 'leap of faith' as you would understand that term.

 

So are you saying you don't need faith? You base you're being a christian upon reason?

 

Edited to add:

 

 

When I speak of "faith", I don't mean ordinary, everyday trust. I mean "faith" as in biblical christian faith:

 

Heb.11:1 (NIV)faith is being certain of what we do not see.

 

v3 By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command...

 

Rom10:17 ...faith comes from hearing the message and the message is heard through the word of Christ.

 

It is an acceptance of the word regardless of reason, logic, or proof. You believe by faith that god is the father, son, and holy spirit, and that Jesus saved you, right? That takes faith in the biblical sense.

 

 

 

 

 

...please explain the existence of the list I have provided above, absent a Sovreign God.

 

Describing how nature and all that is in the universe works and is, needs no explanation. Life is a wonderful thing. To add the supernatural to explain anything doesn't make any sense to me. Now if you say nature is "god", that makes sense to me.

[chefranden]

Now - as I have studied to some degree other religions - I do not find their tenets personally compelling, or that their doctrines give satisfactory explanations for reality. My extensive readings of Islam and numerous interactions with devout Muslims, my discussions with devout Hindus (especially Anglo converts to Hinduism) and brief readings of their sacred writings, and my understanding that in Shintoism the people worship their ancestors, so that the ancestors won't come back to haunt them >> in all my investigations of other religions - I do not find satisfactory answers to the big questions.

 

Well you don't find satisfactory answers from these other gods, but millions of others do. There is therefore no reason for me to suppose that your god is the real god. I do not find that your god has any satisfactory answers to the big questions either. Since that is a legitimate excuse for you not to believe in Allah, it is also a legitimate excuse for me not to believe in Yahweh. And it is a legitimate excuse for all non-Yahweh believers.

 

By the way since, if it is true that God is apprehended by faith and if you did not give your faith to any of these other god's, then you didn't really study them.

[Antlerman]

By the way since, if it is true that God is apprehended by faith and if you did not give your faith to any of these other god's, then you didn't really study them.

This is absolutely brilliant!! Very true. They themselves argue that God is apprehended by faith, that you cannot know God through reason. So if they have not put their faith into another belief, then they cannot fairly dismiss it having no subjective experience with it as a person.

 

One other thing, the reason these all seem so foreign and strange to Ray is because it is not his culture, it's not his worldspace where he finds himself in. Clearly these systems were and are functional enough that whole societies adopt them. They are only broken to him because they are out of context for his experience, just as his is out of place to theirs.

 

But the bigger problem is that they are all becoming out of place for the world today. Myth systems are moving into the past as we evolve.

[rayskidude]

rayskidude' date='07 September 2009 - 07:52 PM' timestamp='1252378373' post='483337']

Now - as I have studied to some degree other religions - I do not find their tenets personally compelling, or that their doctrines give satisfactory explanations for reality.

 

Kuroikaze says "Is is really so hard to understand that this is how we feel towards your religion?"

 

No, not at all - but isn't at least partially the reason why we're in this conversation? To determine which of the competing worldviews best answers these questions about reality? What's your worldview - and how does it answer the big questions?

 

Also, by way of clarification - I think were after what worldview BEST explains what we know of the universe - not the PERFECT explanation. None of us would ever get or be able to explain the perfect view.

 

BTW - is it pronounced "koor'-oy-ka-zee?" And what does it mean?

[rayskidude]

I want to draw your attention to something you say a little later in this response:

"I do think that the Tri-une God & Christian faith go beyond human rationality, that they cannot be objectively quantified, that they are valid on every level (literal and non-literal)."

What you have described here is in fact what Kirkegaard used as an example of the non-rational "leap of faith", so to speak. It is an acknowledgment that 'faith' is not based on reason and rationality, but is a thing in itself - outside reason.

 

What I mean is that God is not completely or exhaustively explained by human rationality or reason. There are certainly aspects of God that are, for us, unsearchable, inscrutable, beyond our powers of comprehension,etc. But we can understand about God so much that He has revealed to us in His word and His Creation. And what we can know of God is not irrational, illogical, or non-sensical - but some of God's ways are certainly beyond our capabilities to fully appreciate and understand.

Isa 55:8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the LORD.

Isa 55:9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.

 

Rom 11:33 Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways!

Rom 11:34 "For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counselor?"

 

What I hear here from you is a conflict. To say it's based on reason, but requires going beyond reason into faith is a contradiction. There is no basis in reason that can make sense of 1+1+1=1, or 1/3= 1. What you are proposing is a bit a 'non-rational' leap itself, that this 'existential leap', of faith has validity rationally because certain "other things" square with reason.

 

No, please note what I've stated above. God in His essence and ways are understandable to some degree - but God is not restricted by human rational thought, or human logic. We are the finite seeking to understand and know the infinite God of the universe - we shouldn't be surprised that we fall short in this pursuit. Ergo, if God reveals in His word that He is completely sovereign and in control of all things - and yet He also states that man is a free moral agent, morally responsible to Him for all his actions. Well, that seems contradictory - it's an antinomy. However, God is infinite - and in His mind there is no contradiction, He is able to create & understand this fact. The problem is my inability to understand two truths which seem to me to be mutually exclusive. But I cannot and should not reject either based on my finite reasoning abilities. I am called to trust God that both are true (as He has revealed), and live accordingly.

 

But God is not 1+1+1=1; that truly is illogical and non-sensical. God is more accurately described by this equation; 1cm x 1cm x 1cm = 1cm ³, and this is completely rational, logical, and sensible. No problem here, and that's why there's no 'existential leap' required. You see, we can understand how something can be One and three at the same time;

universe = space, time, matter

matter = gas, liquid, solid

time = past, present, future

space = length, width, height

Man = spirit, soul, body

 

I keep hearing this verse. "The kingdom of God is within you". What does this mean to you? Does this sound like what you are saying?

 

Please tell me where this verse is found in Scripture - I'd like to see it in its Biblical context. Then I'd be happy to explain whether it's what I'm trying to say.

 

rayskidude >> So our faith is not anchored in this physical world - it is the result of God's work in our hearts to believe Him, His Scriptures, to live according to His revelation, and to afterwards enjoy an eternity in His very Presence.

 

Antlerman >> Again, this sounds of confusion to me. If it's a matter of our hearts, then the revelation is, here it comes - - - not external! It's internal.

 

God's word is an objective word - words revealed and then recorded by His prophets in His book, designed to reveal Himself to us. Now read and understood by us - though imperfectly. And God's work in our hearts is by the Holy Spirit - but it is also evident in they way people live >> is there an increased Christlikeness that is evident over time, is the fruit of the Spirit evident, is there a strong desire to love God, follow God's statutes, love people, etc? So these are truths that are objectively seen and experienced - but their source is other-worldly, from heaven. And so our faith is not anchored in this world, but rather in our God in heaven - who reveals Himself in this world in objective ways.

 

As internal, then it's about something subjective, not objective. Not external. Not scientific. It's expressed ---- symbolically. What I've been saying. What you see in scripture, for you, is an expression of the Internal, using language to express this that does not fit within an external, objective, scientific reality.

 

God works in both objective and subjective ways. Are you saying that the internal is limited to subjective - that there cannot be an objective work of God in a human heart? Are you saying that God is limited and cannot work in ways beyong human comprehension, with objective/subjective and internal/external aspects simultaneously? Wouldn't that make us God's equals, His peers?

 

Words are certainly objective - or how could we, or why would we attempt a conversation. Words mean things! Words do indeed convey objective truth re: science, math, relationships, politics, etc >> and subjective aspects of thots, feelings, emotions, relationships, etc. I do not share your opinion that the internal and external cannot both be implemented as true simultaneously in a given situation. That seems very limiting of the human condition.

 

Objective understandings of the universe can move me to subjective thots/feelings and then onto worship of God. So the external facts move the internal heart to emotive expressions of relationship. This is great stuff - and not limited to Creator-creature relations.

 

God created the physical world to make himself known to us? We have a ways to go.

 

I agree whole-heartedly.

 

I can appreciate seeing "God" in nature. But I think it's deeper, far, far deeper than some extension of ourselves in the nature of the universe. I don't in any way see God as needing the satisfaction of our adoring him. Hardly. Can you honestly belive God is that small??

 

There's alot to say here - but have you read any John Piper? I recommend you read "Desiring God" which presents Christian hedonism. But suffice to say for now that everyone receives joy, honor, pleasure, etc in a relationship of mutual love.

 

I'm out of time... later...

[Mriana]

What I mean is that God is not completely or exhaustively explained by human rationality or reason. There are certainly aspects of God that are, for us, unsearchable, inscrutable, beyond our powers of comprehension,etc. But we can understand about God so much that He has revealed to us in His word and His Creation. And what we can know of God is not irrational, illogical, or non-sensical - but some of God's ways are certainly beyond our capabilities to fully appreciate and understand.

 

God's word is an objective word - words revealed and then recorded by His prophets in His book, designed to reveal Himself to us. Now read and understood by us - though imperfectly. And God's work in our hearts is by the Holy Spirit - but it is also evident in they way people live >> is there an increased Christlikeness that is evident over time, is the fruit of the Spirit evident, is there a strong desire to love God, follow God's statutes, love people, etc? So these are truths that are objectively seen and experienced - but their source is other-worldly, from heaven. And so our faith is not anchored in this world, but rather in our God in heaven - who reveals Himself in this world in objective ways.

 

It's NOT any god's words nor is it inerrant. It was written and inspired by human beings, not a deity. At best it gives as a glimpse into primitive thinking before science came along and started destroying superstition.

[Guest marabod]

Actually, all the phenomena I mentioned above >> in conjunction with the several philosophical proofs on the existence of God (Cosmological, teleological, ontological, anthropological, historical, etc.) provide ample evidence to prove God's existence as far superior to the absence of God. The 'leap of faith' required you refer to is much greater for the atheist - for he/she cannot account for so much of what we know of reality other that to say; "That's just the way Nature is' - or as little kids say "jus cuz." Your father analogy is purely pointless - what are you trying to establish? And my reasoning is inductive, based on reasonable implications from the data and thinking through the ramifications - there is no inference in these thoughts, and certainly no 'leap of faith' as you would understand that term.

 

But maybe your light-years beyond me >> so please explain the existence of the list I have provided above, absent a Sovreign God.

 

Would you just stop for second and clarify which exactly philosophies delivered these proofs of God's Existence? Materialism? - Which exactly? Idealism - Which exactly?

 

Do you realize you are suggesting that something exists, which no one can see? Did you ever hear of hallucinations? I mean it is interesting to read someone who says he can see God in the skies, but when it becomes too serious we usually stop laughing, understand it was not a talk-show and call ambulance.

[chefranden]

... To determine which of the competing worldviews best answers these questions about reality? What's your worldview - and how does it answer the big questions?.

 

Also, by way of clarification - I think were after what worldview BEST explains what we know of the universe - not the PERFECT explanation. None of us would ever get or be able to explain the perfect view.

 

 

As has been argued before you world view does not explain the problem of evil. Were as a materialist world view does including human on human evil. That the material universe is not a very stable platform for human life, that most of the universe will not support human life, that our small niche in it is barely stable enough to support our existence, and that other life forms evolved in conjunction with us as their food, is sufficient to explain natural evil. That humans evolved to live in small groups of individuals that may well be competing with other similar groups for the same set of resources, and that we evolved to be lead by alpha males and females explains human on human evil. It also explains competing moralities between groups. Those who don't do like we do are evil. Osama bin Lauden and I have a mutual regard for each other. We both say, "he is an evil bastard."

[rayskidude]

As has been argued before you world view does not explain the problem of evil. Were as a materialist world view does including human on human evil. That the material universe is not a very stable platform for human life, that most of the universe will not support human life, that our small niche in it is barely stable enough to support our existence, and that other life forms evolved in conjunction with us as their food, is sufficient to explain natural evil. That humans evolved to live in small groups of individuals that may well be competing with other similar groups for the same set of resources, and that we evolved to be lead by alpha males and females explains human on human evil. It also explains competing moralities between groups. Those who don't do like we do are evil. Osama bin Lauden and I have a mutual regard for each other. We both say, "he is an evil bastard."

 

Bible-based religion does have an explanation for evil. Although we admit that the existence of evil is somewhat incompatible with an all-powerful & all loving God (there are mysteries within Christianity); we would state that everthing that exists and occurs does so for God's glory. Now, how exactly does the presence of evil glorify God - that is the conundrum.

 

But we certainly know that our infinitely holy God can use even evil to accomplish His purposes. God's power is not limited by eveil, and God can & will completely defeat evil; but for now, God can use that which is against His will - and turn it around and use it for His will. The unjust execution of Jesus the Messiah is a case in point.

 

Act 2:22 "Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know--

Act 2:23 this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men.

Act 2:24 God raised him up, loosing the pangs of death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it.

 

Act 3:13 The God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, the God of our fathers, glorified his servant Jesus, whom you delivered over and denied in the presence of Pilate, when he had decided to release him.

Act 3:14 But you denied the Holy and Righteous One, and asked for a murderer to be granted to you,

Act 3:15 and you killed the Author of life, whom God raised from the dead. To this we are witnesses.

Act 3:16 And his name--by faith in his name--has made this man strong whom you see and know, and the faith that is through Jesus has given the man this perfect health in the presence of you all.

 

So, God shows His power by conquering and using even sin for His purposes. But also, there are many commendable attributes both of God & Man that we would not have experienced if sin, evil, tragedy, wrong, etc did not exist. Here's a short list;

forgiveness

reconciliation

mercy

courage

grace

perseverance

selflessness

redemption

salvation (shalom)

heroism

[rayskidude]

but to make a long story short, there is not such thing as Xian perfection, no such thing as perfection in general and to strive for such non-existent perfection as the expense of the human, only leads to mental and physical illness. Changing from Wesleyan theology to Episcopalian didn't do much to help, because I still had an eating disorder, along with depression... From what I am seeing, both Wesleyan and Calvinistic doctrine have done more harm than good, but both appear to be mixed up in the Anglican doctrine, just not as extreme or bizarre.

 

I concur that perfectionism is harmful. Though I believe that the Wesleys accomplished much good - their push to perfectionism was unBiblical. There are a number of Scriptures which teach Christian liberty within various aspects of life - so to try to generate 'robots' who all think and act the same is just unBiblical. We all have different personalities given by God, different spiritual gifts given by God, different education, famliy life, aptitudes, interests, etc. We need to celebrate the diversity of peoples.

 

They are social creatures and there comes a point when they have to reach out to others in order to progress more, but religion and superstition are not the answers. The short of it, is one must find what is within themselves in order to better themselves, as well as realize that it is all right here on earth, not something out there. You don't need a fairy tale sky-daddy to hold your hand and heal you, but you do need that which is real and that is other human beings- you just need to find the right human beings to help you. You won't find them in any church though, because most of those people have problems of their own and haven't even begun to take the moat out of their eyes.

 

I am sorry for your experience - and I would have to disagree. I think that a close walk with God, adhering to His word, depending in His Spirit, being encouraged and exhorted by loving brothers & sisters in Christ >> that is the only way to live abundantly in this life. And there is a far better life after our death and separation from this life.

 

Have you studied Greek mythology? Norse mythology? Or any other mythology? Even the Jews started out as polytheistic and fought among themselves as to which should be the head deity.

 

I don't think there's any factual data to indicate any of this.

 

I don't think the Buddhist would agree with you. They have not accused anyone of being wrong or condemned other religions, as far as I know. It has to do with right speech, right thinking, right action, etc. However, Buddha is not a god. He is a teacher and IF one were to put Jesus, who is much like the Buddha in some of his teachings, more accurately, Jesus would also be a teacher and not the messiah.

 

Buddhism is Hinduism on a fast track - using the 8-fold path to achieve Nirvana faster. And they believe all things are emanations from The Ground of Being (from demi-gods, angels, etc down to bugs then to even inanimate matter) - and all this will eventually flow back to the Ground of Being. SO they teach a 'universalist' position of Nirvana - we all get back, just a question of velocity. SO, Yes, I believe you are correct - Hinduism/Buhhhism wouldn't ultimately condemn anyone - but would say that people in other religions will take longer to get to Nirvana.

 

But have you even read the Gospel of Thomas? That is my question. I realize it is not cannon, but there are some scholars and theologians who are saying it should have been. It is a nice read and two sayings stuck with me:

 

"3) Jesus said, "If those who lead you say, 'See, the Kingdom is

in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they

say to you, 'It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you.

Rather, the Kingdom is inside of you, and it is outside of you.

When you come to know yourselves, then you will become known, and

you will realize that it is you who are the sons of the living

Father. But if you will not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty

and it is you who are that poverty."

 

and

 

77) Jesus said, "It is I who am the light which is above them

all. It is I who am the All. From Me did the All come forth, and

unto Me did the All extend. Split a piece of wood, and I am

there. Lift up the stone, and you will find Me there."

 

IMO, that says a lot and fits very well with my pantheistic mind set and does not conflict with humanism. It is all right here, within you, within everything, even animals, but it is not a god. In reality, it is life. You split a piece of wood and you see life- even when the wood is dead you see life. Lift a stone and you see life. When you degrade and dehumanize yourself by saying you are less than some supernatural being, you are not living life to its fullest, but rather living a psychological death, thus living in a form of poverty, because you do not truly know yourself. Once you realize that it is all within you and you don't need some invisible external force to rely on, that is when you start getting over various maladies.

 

I will get back to you on this when it's not so late at night.

[agnosticator]

So, God shows His power by conquering and using even sin for His purposes. But also, there are many commendable attributes both of God & Man that we would not have experienced if sin, evil, tragedy, wrong, etc did not exist. Here's a short list;

forgiveness

reconciliation

mercy

courage

grace

perseverance

selflessness

redemption

salvation (shalom)

heroism

 

 

Here's a short list of things that are artificial that people need not experience:

mercy

grace

sin

redemption

salvation

forgiving a murderer

 

Natural "evil", i.e. tragedy resulting from nature's fury and disease, and accidents are a part of life, but religion is extraneous to it.

[rayskidude]

But have you even read the Gospel of Thomas? That is my question. I realize it is not cannon, but there are some scholars and theologians who are saying it should have been. It is a nice read and two sayings stuck with me:

 

"3) Jesus said, "If those who lead you say, 'See, the Kingdom is

in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they

say to you, 'It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you.

Rather, the Kingdom is inside of you, and it is outside of you.

When you come to know yourselves, then you will become known, and

you will realize that it is you who are the sons of the living

Father. But if you will not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty

and it is you who are that poverty."

 

and

 

77) Jesus said, "It is I who am the light which is above them

all. It is I who am the All. From Me did the All come forth, and

unto Me did the All extend. Split a piece of wood, and I am

there. Lift up the stone, and you will find Me there."

 

IMO, that says a lot and fits very well with my pantheistic mind set and does not conflict with humanism. It is all right here, within you, within everything, even animals, but it is not a god. In reality, it is life. You split a piece of wood and you see life- even when the wood is dead you see life. Lift a stone and you see life. When you degrade and dehumanize yourself by saying you are less than some supernatural being, you are not living life to its fullest, but rather living a psychological death, thus living in a form of poverty, because you do not truly know yourself. Once you realize that it is all within you and you don't need some invisible external force to rely on, that is when you start getting over various maladies.

 

There is a reason that the Gospel of Thomas was rejected from the Bible - because pantheism is not correct, true religion. The believers of the first few centuries were knowledgable of alternate religious beliefs being promulgated to 'piggyback' on Christianity, or to draw people away from Jesus the Messiah as He is truly.

 

The Bible teaches that God is omni-present; you cannot get away from the presence of God. But this does not mean that God is All - God is separate from His Creation, He is exalted above His Creation. He created all things a "very good" - and God enjoys and glories in His Creation. Yet, His Creation has been marred and ruined by sin - and God will one Day completely conquer all sin and evil. And in the New Heavens and Earth, all believers will live in the very Presence of the Triune God!

 

Jer 23:23 "Am I a God at hand, declares the LORD, and not a God far away?

Jer 23:24 Can a man hide himself in secret places so that I cannot see him? declares the LORD. Do I not fill heaven and earth? declares the LORD.

 

Psa 139:1 A Psalm of David. O LORD, you have searched me and known me!

Psa 139:2 You know when I sit down and when I rise up; you discern my thoughts from afar.

Psa 139:3 You search out my path and my lying down and are acquainted with all my ways.

Psa 139:4 Even before a word is on my tongue, behold, O LORD, you know it altogether.

Psa 139:5 You hem me in, behind and before, and lay your hand upon me.

Psa 139:6 Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is high; I cannot attain it.

Psa 139:7 Where shall I go from your Spirit? Or where shall I flee from your presence?

Psa 139:8 If I ascend to heaven, you are there! If I make my bed in Sheol, you are there!

Psa 139:9 If I take the wings of the morning and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea,

Psa 139:10 even there your hand shall lead me, and your right hand shall hold me.

Psa 139:11 If I say, "Surely the darkness shall cover me, and the light about me be night,"

Psa 139:12 even the darkness is not dark to you; the night is bright as the day, for darkness is as light with you.

 

I am thankful that God has created me in His own image & likeness, and that as I live in accordance with His Bible - then I can be close to Him, living to please Him, living with an eternal perspective, involved in areas of life that have eternal significance. To look within myself for any deliverance from worldly foibles or to find "life" would only disappoint. Abundant life is possible only in Jesus the Messiah. All other pursuits cannot deliver on their promises of a great life.

 

However, if one is going to insist their way is the right way and all else is wrong, that is when one become like the blind men and the elephant. BTW, the light above you, is the sun. No, I am not twisting anything. It all started with animism and was anthropomorphasized, which makes it very uninteresting because that was not what it was originally about. It was all in relationship to the earth, the sun, the moon, etc. Even astro-theology comes into play and like all the gods before him, even Samson in the O.T., Jesus is just another symbol for the sun.

 

The first religion was Adam & Eve - and their descendants - worshipping the God of the Bible. But it took only 7 generations for a departure from true religion. Why? Because Man wants to live his own way, do his own thing, be his own god, etc. And the result of this turning away from the Biblical God? Just look at human history - Man's continual inhumanity & cruelty to other men, seeking to establish themselves as the ultimate authority - to rule & reign & promote themsleves.

 

But look at Jesus the Messiah & Christianity - living in humility, living in love, living in generosity to others, living in submission to their God. Have Christians been always been faithful to God & others - NO, we have not. So Christains must repent of our own sin, confess our own sin to God & others, and dedicate ourselves to live sacrificially for God's glory and the benefit of Man.

[agnosticator]

I am thankful that God has created me in His own image & likeness, and that as I live in accordance with His Bible - then I can be close to Him, living to please Him,...

 

 

But look at Jesus the Messiah & Christianity - living in humility, living in love, living in generosity to others, living in submission to their God. Have Christians been always been faithful to God & others - NO, we have not. So Christains must repent of our own sin, confess our own sin to God & others, and dedicate ourselves to live sacrificially for God's glory and the benefit of Man.

 

 

So Ray, are you living in a Christian commune, having sold all you own to give the proceeds to the commune? Are you living off the welfare and benevolence of others? Are you going town-to-town to preach and outdo the Mormons? Are you turning the other cheek and giving your cloak away? Are you truly separate from "the world"?