On Changing Minds

[Phanta]

However, I understand that synergistic dialogue is not one of Clay's stated goals. Thus it is understandable that Clay is unhappy about my terms; they do not serve his agenda. He isn't interested in living, breathing, persons with whom to participate in a dialogue, but rather arguments to nail up as examples for his fellows in faith.

 

My thoughts, feelings, and ideas are not tools to be used in this way. I am a growing, learning human being who is fresh and curious and alive. Thus, I judge myself wise for having boundaries around discussion with Clay and insisting on sticking to the kind of discussion I find enjoyable and useful--synergistic discussion.

 

Phanta

 

And by having such an agenda, the evangelical apologists who land upon this site from time to time do the species a disservice by placing religious interests above the common humanity we share. The human is overshadowed by service to the "Soul Machine."

 

Hardly, how is love your neighbor a disservice? Secondly, individualism is expressly recognized through Spriritual gifts.....in the Soul Machine.

 

It's not love that is useful to the receiver if the receiver doesn't feel loved.

 

Phanta

[Guest end3]

However, I understand that synergistic dialogue is not one of Clay's stated goals. Thus it is understandable that Clay is unhappy about my terms; they do not serve his agenda. He isn't interested in living, breathing, persons with whom to participate in a dialogue, but rather arguments to nail up as examples for his fellows in faith.

 

My thoughts, feelings, and ideas are not tools to be used in this way. I am a growing, learning human being who is fresh and curious and alive. Thus, I judge myself wise for having boundaries around discussion with Clay and insisting on sticking to the kind of discussion I find enjoyable and useful--synergistic discussion.

 

Phanta

 

And by having such an agenda, the evangelical apologists who land upon this site from time to time do the species a disservice by placing religious interests above the common humanity we share. The human is overshadowed by service to the "Soul Machine."

 

Hardly, how is love your neighbor a disservice? Secondly, individualism is expressly recognized through Spriritual gifts.....in the Soul Machine.

 

It's not love that is useful to the receiver if the receiver doesn't feel loved.

 

Phanta

I agree.

[Phanta]

2Pe 1:5 For this very reason, make every effort to add to your faith goodness; and to goodness, knowledge;

 

2Pe 1:6 and to knowledge, self-control; and to self-control, perseverance; and to perseverance, godliness;

 

2Pe 1:7 and to godliness, brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness, love.

 

End...what's "godliness" mean in this list?

 

Phanta

[Guest end3]

2Pe 1:5 For this very reason, make every effort to add to your faith goodness; and to goodness, knowledge;

 

2Pe 1:6 and to knowledge, self-control; and to self-control, perseverance; and to perseverance, godliness;

 

2Pe 1:7 and to godliness, brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness, love.

 

End...what's "godliness" mean in this list?

 

Phanta

 

Good question P...I put myself between knowledge and self control evidenced by my occasional lack thereof. If it's a linear progression, then I ain't there yet. You might ask an senior Christian if they have a feel for that.

[Shyone]

Pardon the nonsequitur, but I had an interesting thought about "changing minds."

 

Anyone familiar with "dialectic"?

 

Dialectic is rooted in the ordinary practice of a dialogue between two or more people who hold different ideas and wish to persuade each other. The presupposition of a dialectical argument is that the participants, even if they do not agree, share at least some meanings and principles of inference.

 

I had this weird vision of a theist arguing that there is no god while I would argue that there is a god.

 

Like lawyers dispasionately arguing a case, we would have to use the same definitions and understand each other.

 

heh, but that'll never happen.

[Antlerman]

I just had a discussion with the former president of the MN Atheists on Tuesday night about objects of faith and symbolism. He presented the argument that if those symbols don't point to something that is 'verifiable', provable, objective reality, then they won't work, that they are a form of delusion. I countered to him that in fact the very opposite is true. Faith is about reaching forward to some unrealized reality, and in the case of religious faith, to an Ultimate Reality of ones whole existence, their whole being. In order to reach towards that unseen, unrealized hope of reality, it has to be through symbols, since if it were something we could point to here, than it is this reality and not some goal to beyond, or above. They have to point to something beyond themselves, and beyond what is scientifically verifiable (such as proving Jesus walked on water, or God created the earth as in the Genesis story). Literalism robs religion of its symbolic richness, which is for some other end. The whole problem with it is in fact a form of reductionism, draining the life-spirit of the soul of man.

I think what you defined above as Faith is closer to Hope.

 

If there is an expectation of achieving some kind of "Ultimate Reality" with nothing supporting it, you can call it faith, but for someone that is not necessarily expecting it, it remains a hope, a goal or a dream.

To be sure it's a difficult thing to define. That also was part of our conversation. The words get used so interchangeably as to make it difficult to use them in a discussion. Faith, hope, trust, etc are used interchangeably, like "society and culture" do as well. What does one mean by culture? But I think for discussion sake we can set a usage rule. And one I think bears out well.

 

For society, I mean all the mechanics, the systems of organization that define and govern rules of interaction. For culture, I mean the experienced interactions, the shared values, the nature of existence within a society, the "being" part of it. And for Faith and hope and trust, I find going with Tillich's "Ultimate Concern" for faith to be a good one. It encompasses the whole person, the existential man, in the process. It's not just trust, like saying you have faith in your dentist, nor just belief which is about a the perceived truth of of thing, on one level or another.

 

I would say it goes beyond just hope too, even though it is an integral part of it. It not emotion either, because emotions may flow from the result of it. Faith itself is not about emotions. The closest I would call it is a worldview that involves the whole person, that you commit yourself to in mind and will, that you place hope in, that you experience emotions from, and that you build beliefs around, that you put your trust in. Faith should not fail if a belief has to change because of more or new information, for instance.

 

This is how I see all religions as an expression of faith, and none defining what faith is. It's something we as humans do. And the rest, are about 'objects of faith'. The symbols express and give language to that faith. In a very secular example, Humanism is in fact this. It is a worldview of hope, commitment, emotions, supporting beliefs, symbols, and objects of faith. So at the ground of all of it, off all systems of faith is that essence of our humanity that 'reaches'. However you want to understand the why of it.

 

Symbols are weird. They are super-concentrated language. Even more than language, they can induce emotions, and that's where they get power. IF there is nothing behind the symbol but emotion, unrealized concepts or impossible claims, then the symbol is just a tool to be wielded against people who can't think for themselves.

The thing about symbols that people imagine is that they are "just symbols", meaning they're "not real". On the contrary. Symbols are not signs, but are objects of faith that people interact with, and with each other though those symbols. Those symbols become a part of that reality, become entwined with that Faith. They become sacred. They become Holy. There are the Door, the Access, the Way, to that Faith - and it's not just personal, but shared socially, and culturally. The whole person. That's what Faith does. It engages the whole person, mind, body, emotion, relationships, culture, etc. This is very different than a belief.

 

This is why sometimes, with respect to End's sincerity, to discuss in terms of faith outside one system can be interpreted as a "denial" of his symbols, a minimizing, a slight to them. But that is not the case. It is a recognition of the power of them in the act of Faith. But it is a recognition of them as a part of Faith, just as they are everywhere. Moving beyond proprietorship over faith, one systems claim to God, to me is not a slight at all. It is an acknowledgment of them as of the same nature, as expressions of Faith. And to me, it is where that comes from, that I could feel comfortable with calling "God", that what we reach toward as part of our Being, that "Omega Point" as it were, can be viewed as "God". It too is a symbolic way of talking about it, but for me one that affords a better language than other systems do for my type of Faith, or all-encompassing worldview.

 

And yes, absolutely, they are powerful weapons that the greedy manipulate to exercise control over others. That's where I see the symbol becoming "God" itself, as an idol to bow before in coerced compliance. Whereas I see it the whole thing coming up from within, like a plant reaching up to the sun. "Just a symbol". Ha! Hardly.

[Phanta]

2Pe 1:5 For this very reason, make every effort to add to your faith goodness; and to goodness, knowledge;

 

2Pe 1:6 and to knowledge, self-control; and to self-control, perseverance; and to perseverance, godliness;

 

2Pe 1:7 and to godliness, brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness, love.

 

End...what's "godliness" mean in this list?

 

Phanta

 

Good question P...I put myself between knowledge and self control evidenced by my occasional lack thereof. If it's a linear progression, then I ain't there yet. You might ask an senior Christian if they have a feel for that.

 

Oh, you see them as progressive! That makes sense.

 

I'll ask LNC. He seems to have self-control, and if that isn't perseverance, I don't know what is! *chuckle*

 

Phanta

[Phanta]

Pardon the nonsequitur, but I had an interesting thought about "changing minds."

 

Anyone familiar with "dialectic"?

 

Dialectic is rooted in the ordinary practice of a dialogue between two or more people who hold different ideas and wish to persuade each other. The presupposition of a dialectical argument is that the participants, even if they do not agree, share at least some meanings and principles of inference.

 

I had this weird vision of a theist arguing that there is no god while I would argue that there is a god.

 

Like lawyers dispasionately arguing a case, we would have to use the same definitions and understand each other.

 

heh, but that'll never happen.

 

Defining terms up front can surely help. I am coming to believe that an attitude of wishing to persuade the other person works against any actual changing of their mind (unless they are openly looking to change in themselves, of course, but that's not the scenario presented).

 

A paradox. *shrug*

 

Phanta

[Ouroboros]

My thoughts, feelings, and ideas are not tools to be used in this way. I am a growing, learning human being who is fresh and curious and alive. Thus, I judge myself wise for having boundaries around discussion with Clay and insisting on sticking to the kind of discussion I find enjoyable and useful--synergistic discussion.

Synergy gives energy.

[Guest end3]

This is why sometimes, with respect to End's sincerity, to discuss in terms of faith outside one system can be interpreted as a "denial" of his symbols, a minimizing, a slight to them. But that is not the case. It is a recognition of the power of them in the act of Faith. But it is a recognition of them as a part of Faith, just as they are everywhere. Moving beyond proprietorship over faith, one systems claim to God, to me is not a slight at all. It is an acknowledgment of them as of the same nature, as expressions of Faith. And to me, it is where that comes from, that I could feel comfortable with calling "God", that what we reach toward as part of our Being, that "Omega Point" as it were, can be viewed as "God". It too is a symbolic way of talking about it, but for me one that affords a better language than other systems do for my type of Faith, or all-encompassing worldview.

 

And yes, absolutely, they are powerful weapons that the greedy manipulate to exercise control over others. That's where I see the symbol becoming "God" itself, as an idol to bow before in coerced compliance. Whereas I see it the whole thing coming up from within, like a plant reaching up to the sun. "Just a symbol". Ha! Hardly.

 

It IS a denial of my God for very specific reasons. I choose Christ for the very reason that you gloss over as lacking understanding. It is a gross misrepresentation of Christianity and my position. My God is not your god, and that is my choice, with all the consequences, but it is certainly not lack of understanding of the positions we profess. Please do not continue to further misrepresent me. It is extremely offensive to me. I believe in Christ as the Lord God. I believe there is a Heaven and certainly a hell.

[Phanta]

My thoughts, feelings, and ideas are not tools to be used in this way. I am a growing, learning human being who is fresh and curious and alive. Thus, I judge myself wise for having boundaries around discussion with Clay and insisting on sticking to the kind of discussion I find enjoyable and useful--synergistic discussion.

Synergy gives energy.

 

Sure does!

 

Phanta

[NotBlinded]

Salvation is being moved into reconciliation, unity, ONENESS.

And that's exactly what I felt after my de-conversion.

Yes, you know, maybe that's what that verse about tearing families apart means. When one understands, the church "family" isn't too happy. If one's family is all about the following doctrines, it makes sense that they wouldn't like people like us anymore. Honestly, who rejects who when we walk away?

[OrdinaryClay]

I do believe that we as free willed creatures would not always choose God with out suffering. It is our nature. So I don't find it surprising that the world chosen by God ended up having suffering in it. Christ suffered on the cross. We would not have salvation with out His suffering.

 

So, why the choice to visit with us here? What interests you about posting on this ex-Christian site? Who invited you?

 

Phanta

An atheist told me about the site. He said I should come here and engage in debate.

 

I've spent a lot of time on many atheist sites. I want to hear why people don't believe. I want to hear what people think about Christianity. I'm compelled to respond when falsehoods are stated about the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob and His Christ.

 

You do NOT know the will and character of god.

 

You do NOT have any objective evidence for ANY of your extraordinary christian/god claims.

 

You do NOT possess any special knowledge of god, his plan or his morals.

 

You simply attributed your own deluded thoughts and stunted imagination to an imaginary deity.

 

My position is IF a living god exists no one knows the will and/or character of god (good or bad).

 

The only way christians think they "know" the will and character of god is by their idiosyncratic and SELECTIVE interpretation of spurious scripture, coupled with stunted speculative imagination.

 

I humbly submit, IF god exists, I do NOT know god; god is unknowable and christians (OC) sure as shit don't know god either!

 

--S.

You should reread your own posts. You made positive and definitive claims about God and me. You did not simply say He was "undefined". You made categorically positive claims Christians were wrong and you were right. I agree I hold a burden of evidence due to my positive claims, but you are shirking our duty by not upholding your claims. You pretend to be objective and rational, but you don't abide by your own rules.

 

Provide objective evidence that God is unknowable.

 

I suspect you don't understand the nature evidence to be honest. Can you explain the evidence you demand from a Christian?

[OrdinaryClay]

2Pe 1:5 For this very reason, make every effort to add to your faith goodness; and to goodness, knowledge;

 

2Pe 1:6 and to knowledge, self-control; and to self-control, perseverance; and to perseverance, godliness;

 

2Pe 1:7 and to godliness, brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness, love.

 

End...what's "godliness" mean in this list?

 

Phanta

Judging from some of the questions you ask I would like to suggest you read the New Testament. It would give you a better ground from which to converse this subject.

[par4dcourse]

It IS a denial of my God for very specific reasons. I choose Christ for the very reason that you gloss over as lacking understanding. It is a gross misrepresentation of Christianity and my position. My God is not your god, and that is my choice, with all the consequences, but it is certainly not lack of understanding of the positions we profess. Please do not continue to further misrepresent me. It is extremely offensive to me. I believe in Christ as the Lord God. I believe there is a Heaven and certainly a hell.

 

And you came to Ex-christian.net expecting what? Is some part of the name still getting past you?

[NotBlinded]

This is why sometimes, with respect to End's sincerity, to discuss in terms of faith outside one system can be interpreted as a "denial" of his symbols, a minimizing, a slight to them. But that is not the case. It is a recognition of the power of them in the act of Faith. But it is a recognition of them as a part of Faith, just as they are everywhere. Moving beyond proprietorship over faith, one systems claim to God, to me is not a slight at all. It is an acknowledgment of them as of the same nature, as expressions of Faith. And to me, it is where that comes from, that I could feel comfortable with calling "God", that what we reach toward as part of our Being, that "Omega Point" as it were, can be viewed as "God". It too is a symbolic way of talking about it, but for me one that affords a better language than other systems do for my type of Faith, or all-encompassing worldview.

 

And yes, absolutely, they are powerful weapons that the greedy manipulate to exercise control over others. That's where I see the symbol becoming "God" itself, as an idol to bow before in coerced compliance. Whereas I see it the whole thing coming up from within, like a plant reaching up to the sun. "Just a symbol". Ha! Hardly.

 

It IS a denial of my God for very specific reasons. I choose Christ for the very reason that you gloss over as lacking understanding. It is a gross misrepresentation of Christianity and my position. My God is not your god, and that is my choice, with all the consequences, but it is certainly not lack of understanding of the positions we profess. Please do not continue to further misrepresent me. It is extremely offensive to me. I believe in Christ as the Lord God. I believe there is a Heaven and certainly a hell.

End, there have been Christian mystics for as long, if not longer, than what was agreed upon. If any of us misrepresent you, it is only because we have seen you understand things on a deeper level. It is hard for me, us, to know this about you and see you then deny it. We will just have to accept it is all. Its just really, really hard.

[Shyone]

2Pe 1:5 For this very reason, make every effort to add to your faith goodness; and to goodness, knowledge;

 

2Pe 1:6 and to knowledge, self-control; and to self-control, perseverance; and to perseverance, godliness;

 

2Pe 1:7 and to godliness, brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness, love.

 

End...what's "godliness" mean in this list?

 

Phanta

Judging from some of the questions you ask I would like to suggest you read the New Testament. It would give you a better ground from which to converse this subject.

Eusebeia, used in the New Testament to express the idea of inner piety, spiritual maturity, or godliness.

 

Nope, still doesn't make sense.

 

Here's one of the problems with godliness as used in the New Testament. It implies that the godly person has something that is more than simply morality, goodness, kindness or generosity. Specifically, something special about Christians:

 

So - how can you tell when true spirituality and maturity are present? Or, how do you know the difference between a godly man and one who is merely well educated and in control of himself? A carnal believer, the novice Christian, can be moral, can use the right vocabulary, can wear a suit and carry a Bible. He can fool some of the people some of the time.

 

But the godly believer is known by "his fruits" - the fruit of the Holy Spirit - things that an unbeliever, or the carnal believer, cannot produce. Godliness is produced in the life of a Christian who is both learning doctrine and growing thereby through edification.

 

There is, however, nothing special about Christians. Nothing. And if the "reason" is that we have never met a "True Christian" then there aren't any true christians. They are just people.

 

I suppose in Titus 2:9-10 the idea is to be a good slave:

 

Servants are to maintain godly lives in their relations to their masters in order that they might "adorn the doctrine of God our Saviour in all things."

 

[Exhort] servants to be obedient unto their own masters, [and] to please [them] well in all [things]; not answering again; Not purloining, but shewing all good fidelity; that they may adorn the doctrine of God our Saviour in all things.

 

That must be it. Good slaves are godly.

[Antlerman]

This is why sometimes, with respect to End's sincerity, to discuss in terms of faith outside one system can be interpreted as a "denial" of his symbols, a minimizing, a slight to them. But that is not the case. It is a recognition of the power of them in the act of Faith. But it is a recognition of them as a part of Faith, just as they are everywhere. Moving beyond proprietorship over faith, one systems claim to God, to me is not a slight at all. It is an acknowledgment of them as of the same nature, as expressions of Faith. And to me, it is where that comes from, that I could feel comfortable with calling "God", that what we reach toward as part of our Being, that "Omega Point" as it were, can be viewed as "God". It too is a symbolic way of talking about it, but for me one that affords a better language than other systems do for my type of Faith, or all-encompassing worldview.

 

And yes, absolutely, they are powerful weapons that the greedy manipulate to exercise control over others. That's where I see the symbol becoming "God" itself, as an idol to bow before in coerced compliance. Whereas I see it the whole thing coming up from within, like a plant reaching up to the sun. "Just a symbol". Ha! Hardly.

It IS a denial of my God for very specific reasons. I choose Christ for the very reason that you gloss over as lacking understanding. It is a gross misrepresentation of Christianity and my position. My God is not your god, and that is my choice, with all the consequences, but it is certainly not lack of understanding of the positions we profess. Please do not continue to further misrepresent me. It is extremely offensive to me. I believe in Christ as the Lord God. I believe there is a Heaven and certainly a hell.

 

You know that you misrepresent me in 99% of the cases in you saying that I believe this, or am saying that. How many times have I come back after one of those to correct you? I can't count it's been so many.

 

My saying that what I am saying about it not denying your beliefs or minimizing them is my opinion about me and my feelings about how I see it. It's not a misrepresentation of your beliefs. I never said above that "YOU" believe this. Show me where, and if you can't it would be respectful of you to retract your accusation of me doing so. What I did say you do is that you take what I say as a rejection and minimization of your beliefs. You have just proved that statement true. Haven't you?

 

All that crap about "my God is not your god" is frankly beneath the level of discussion I'm willing to have with you now. Go ahead and continue with your exclusivist "My God is bigger than your god" crap. It suits you and the fruits you bear from them...

 

Idiot, where did you read someone has to deserve grace.

 

 

Fuck you. You have no clue about the grace I show to others. You were absent during the part of the Love of Jesus thread where we finally found common ground with each other, a truly rejoiceful moment....me and Sandy...Rev. Words like "you rock End!". And I think she later said that it was because I tried so hard to reach her understanding. I even had a prominent atheist PM me and say that I shouldn't have relinquished my position as far as I did in order to achieve understanding.

 

And then, in walks fathead again...that would be you...with your profession of how, if I understood better, like you, that I could get past the symbology that is the Bible. You are a wandering baffoon.

 

Etc, etc. "You shall know them by their fruits".

[OrdinaryClay]

You DO NOT know god or his ways.

 

You can't have a relationship with your god-man because he is NOT there. He ONLY exists in your confines of your stunted imagination.

You make a lot of positive claims you can not back up. Why? Judging from your words you seem to be an atheist in the truest sense - meaning you assert there is no God. So show me evidence to support your positive claim, i.e the non-existence of God. Perhaps you would like to start a thread specifically for this subject? I'll respond to your purported evidence.

 

You do realize, don't you that you're in a forum where the most of the participants:

 

1-Don't believe in gods

2-Don't believe the bible is holy or inspired in any way and

3-Don't believe in a seperate and eternal soul

 

so the above is about the most ridiculous question (statement?) that could be asked.

Given your 3 points it seems my post was very reasonable, and that your last sentence was a non-sequitur.

[bdp]

2Pe 1:5 For this very reason, make every effort to add to your faith goodness; and to goodness, knowledge;

 

2Pe 1:6 and to knowledge, self-control; and to self-control, perseverance; and to perseverance, godliness;

 

2Pe 1:7 and to godliness, brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness, love.

 

End...what's "godliness" mean in this list?

 

Phanta

Judging from some of the questions you ask I would like to suggest you read the New Testament. It would give you a better ground from which to converse this subject.

 

...arrogant condescending prick...

[bdp]

 

 

I suspect you don't understand the nature evidence to be honest. Can you explain the evidence you demand from a Christian?

 

Here's MY answer - SHOW ME GOD.

 

When I used to work in the Jackson National warehouse, if I wanted to know if my boss was in, I'd go to his office and look in the door. If his light was out, his computer off, and the chair pushed in, I knew he was, in fact, not there. You can't show me god seated at his desk - by the same token I can't show you god's office with the light out, computer off, and chair pushed in- i.e. a void where we would expect 'god' to be if 'he' were there. Okay? If you can't show me 'god' and not what you take to be 'evidence' of it then drop demands for anyone here to show you a void where 'god' should be. The burden is on you to begin with, and this whole tack is just evasion on your part.

 

oh, and btw Phanta is just trying to engage you in discussion, one human to another, to try to come to an understanding - she is NOT playing tit for tat/check-checkmate/one-up on you. Why do you find it so difficult to just talk to someone who is so open to it?

[bdp]

You DO NOT know god or his ways.

 

You can't have a relationship with your god-man because he is NOT there. He ONLY exists in your confines of your stunted imagination.

You make a lot of positive claims you can not back up. Why? Judging from your words you seem to be an atheist in the truest sense - meaning you assert there is no God. So show me evidence to support your positive claim, i.e the non-existence of God. Perhaps you would like to start a thread specifically for this subject? I'll respond to your purported evidence.

 

You do realize, don't you that you're in a forum where the most of the participants:

 

1-Don't believe in gods

2-Don't believe the bible is holy or inspired in any way and

3-Don't believe in a seperate and eternal soul

 

so the above is about the most ridiculous question (statement?) that could be asked.

Given your 3 points it seems my post was very reasonable, and that your last sentence was a non-sequitur.

 

Non-sequiturs have to do with formal logic - nobody was postulating a formal logical statement here. You try awfully hard to seem more educated than us, but I can play your 'pin them to strict definitions' game too.

 

And burden of proof is still on you.

[agnosticator]

Judging from some of the questions you ask I would like to suggest you read the New Testament. It would give you a better ground from which to converse this subject.

Eusebeia, used in the New Testament to express the idea of inner piety, spiritual maturity, or godliness.

 

Nope, still doesn't make sense.

 

Here's one of the problems with godliness as used in the New Testament. It implies that the godly person has something that is more than simply morality, goodness, kindness or generosity. Specifically, something special about Christians:

 

So - how can you tell when true spirituality and maturity are present? Or, how do you know the difference between a godly man and one who is merely well educated and in control of himself? A carnal believer, the novice Christian, can be moral, can use the right vocabulary, can wear a suit and carry a Bible. He can fool some of the people some of the time.

 

But the godly believer is known by "his fruits" - the fruit of the Holy Spirit - things that an unbeliever, or the carnal believer, cannot produce. Godliness is produced in the life of a Christian who is both learning doctrine and growing thereby through edification.

 

There is, however, nothing special about Christians. Nothing. And if the "reason" is that we have never met a "True Christian" then there aren't any true christians. They are just people.

 

I suppose in Titus 2:9-10 the idea is to be a good slave:

 

Servants are to maintain godly lives in their relations to their masters in order that they might "adorn the doctrine of God our Saviour in all things."

 

[Exhort] servants to be obedient unto their own masters, [and] to please [them] well in all [things]; not answering again; Not purloining, but shewing all good fidelity; that they may adorn the doctrine of God our Saviour in all things.

 

That must be it. Good slaves are godly.

 

Right, Shyone. They are slaves of God, surrendering their independent minds to dependence upon God's Will. They are holy vessels, set apart for God's purposes. Too bad it's about the supernatural. With no evidence, there is no knowledge. Only faith. They can only guess as to what God is and expects.

 

Godliness is about indoctrination. Fools for Christ, unite!

[NotBlinded]

Fools for Christ, untie!

There, I fixed it to sound better.

[agnosticator]

Salvation is being moved into reconciliation, unity, ONENESS.

And that's exactly what I felt after my de-conversion.

 

 

I have had many such experiences since my deconversion as well. My "soul" has felt unburdened and free!

 

Hallelujah?

 

 

I have thought about what was wrong with me as a believer, and cognitive dissonance played a large role. But more than that, my mind was fractionated. Clashing thoughts and different worlds (biblical and real time) would ping pong back and forth within my mind. I felt disjointed. It wasn't until I realized I was free from the religion's grip, that I felt unity within and unified without. Finally harmonized within, and in harmony and at One with Nature and reality. I don't find many people who experience this.