A Christian with a question/concern

[Lost_more_then_Once]

16 hours ago, Weezer said:

LMTO, I know I said I was going to bow out, but I am very curious and have one more observation and question.  You have a very interesting picture in your logo.   Would you care to comment on it's symbolism?  And where you got it?  It is similar to one I used to have.

 

I have a Pinterest account that I started a while ago looking at art and pictures that made me think "wow."  This one was one of those and it was when I was looking at pictures of street art.  

 

No symbolism from me except that I like the idea of a 2d picture looking like it's 3d.  I also like the idea of a brick wall having a zipper and an ocean from another world poring out.  

 

Doorways to another world are also a picture type that I liked collecting the art in pinerest.  Maybe that's just an idea that I've always liked.  

[Lost_more_then_Once]

20 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

Oh oh, I just had to hit this, because this gets into interesting stuff where we start to see the old Canaanite polytheistic origins of Judaism come through - right @Joshpantera ?

 

God presides in the great assembly;
    he renders judgment among the “gods”:

² “How long will you^[a] defend the unjust
    and show partiality to the wicked?^[b]
3 Defend the weak and the fatherless;
    uphold the cause of the poor and the oppressed.
⁴ Rescue the weak and the needy;
    deliver them from the hand of the wicked.

⁵ “The ‘gods’ know nothing, they understand nothing.
    They walk about in darkness;
    all the foundations of the earth are shaken.

⁶ “I said, ‘You are “gods”;
    you are all sons of the Most High.’
⁷ But you will die like mere mortals;
    you will fall like every other ruler.”

⁸ Rise up, O God, judge the earth,
    for all the nations are your inheritance.

So here we see references to a council of gods, with the big boss at the top. Note the phrase sons of the Most High. Long before Yahweh was considered the Most High, it was El, chief God of the Canaanite pantheon. (El basically meaning God)

 

There are also references in Job about El holding council with other gods.

 

So yes, it appears that the ancients were actually writing about what they considered to be a rel council of gods. Of course that doesn't fit the Christian narrative so it becomes that it's about Israel and the people didn't actually believe in a pantheon of Gods.

 

Sorry, off track, you got me excited on that one as early M/E religion is an interest of mine.

 

Also don't panic about replying - you've a lot to respond to and I know that takes time.

 

That's interesting LocicalFallacy.  I don't have much to comment on it based on a lack of knowledge for it.  But I'll keep it in the back of my mind, perhaps one day I'll find something that can more confirm this idea of early Israel worshiping a pantheon instead of the consistent idea of idol worship is an act of adultery towards God that Israel did some of the time.  As of now I don't have any historical findings to confirm or rebuke this perspective, so it will have to stay on the backburner acknowledging the perspective without agreeing with it yet, nor able to challenge it.

 

Religion as a general topic interests me as well.  I wish we lived in a culture more open to sharing our religious perspectives openly instead of mostly only to like minded individuals.  Lots of reasons why, but an interest in other people's beliefs is one of those reasons.

[Joshpantera]

@Lost_more_then_Once

 

Here's a few simple launching points for inquiry: 

 

 

Psalm 82 is outlined here as well: 

 

 

[LogicalFallacy]

1 hour ago, Lost_more_then_Once said:

 

That's interesting LocicalFallacy.  I don't have much to comment on it based on a lack of knowledge for it.  But I'll keep it in the back of my mind, perhaps one day I'll find something that can more confirm this idea of early Israel worshiping a pantheon instead of the consistent idea of idol worship is an act of adultery towards God that Israel did some of the time.  As of now I don't have any historical findings to confirm or rebuke this perspective, so it will have to stay on the backburner acknowledging the perspective without agreeing with it yet, nor able to challenge it.

 

Religion as a general topic interests me as well.  I wish we lived in a culture more open to sharing our religious perspectives openly instead of mostly only to like minded individuals.  Lots of reasons why, but an interest in other people's beliefs is one of those reasons.

 

If you are interested here are some resources to get you started:

 

Who Wrote the Bible? Richard Friedman which focuses on discovering who actually wrote the first 5 books of the bible (Hint, it wasn't Moses) A good starter on the topic and fairly neutral from a religious perspective.

The Bible Unearthed (Israel Finkelstein et al) which focuses on the archaeological evidence (Or lack thereof) for bible stories and who wrote the bible. More technical than Who wrote the bible so a 2nd level read.

 Mark Smith: The Early History of God which focuses on the development of the religion and gods that were worshiped in early Israel.

[Joshpantera]

7 hours ago, Lost_more_then_Once said:

Religion as a general topic interests me as well.  I wish we lived in a culture more open to sharing our religious perspectives openly instead of mostly only to like minded individuals.  Lots of reasons why, but an interest in other people's beliefs is one of those reasons.

 

Well, that's mainly do to people abusing it. People have been way too over bearing with their religious perspectives. Way too pushy in the public square. But regardless of all of that, we're here to discuss religion and religious views concerning christianity. Whether comparative to other religions or whatever. So you've come to the right place as far as that goes. 

[Lost_more_then_Once]

To LogicalFallacy.

 

If I have straw maned your thoughts let me know which parts have not been discussed.  I've been talking to a lot of you guys so if I missed something or ignored something it wasn't intentional.  

 

Thanks for the clarification, but to be honest it still sounds like you're stance is the same.  It's just the way you say it is different.  Like when someone has a way of being polite saying "there's so much information, are you sure you looked at it all?" Trying to convey the same message as the next person who would say"you don't know anything do you."  Being polite isn't going to change anything.

 

As for the natural explanation, I'm sorry for being blunt but my issue with that one is that it's a copout.  Before any investigation of a person's state of mind the conclusion is already made.  Think of it this way, if you go to the doctor with symptoms of a stroke, and the doctor already has concluded why your there before talking to you or giving a check up.  Thinking "this is the flue season that's why people are coming in today.  So in that preemptive conclusion the doctor gives you a flue shot when that had nothing to go with the situation.  In the same way the natural explanation is like that with regards to religous and spiritual experiences.  

 

The other reason that it's a copout is that the explaination of delusion and unable to precieve what's real and what isn't is only applied to God moments and spiritual experiences in general.  A person can go hiking and be considered in a right state of mind up till they take a moment to pray in the beautiful scenery.  At that point the person is no longer in the right state of mind, but in excuse territory regardless if they have a spiritual experience or not.  And afterwards, regardless if they had a spiritual moment or not, they go back to hiking and again are considered in a right state of mind.  You see the issue here I hope.

 

On the point of determining the difference between a person who has an experience from God, and a person who doesn't there's a few things to look for, though initially you might not see any difference until you talk a little bit more with them.  For the person who says they experienced something from God, the first question is do they tell you about it freely, or do they ask you to buy their book where they talk all about it.  (People who write books might be writing the truth of their experience, but it is a red flag because they have something to gain if you buy their book).  On the other hand if a person is just telling you their experience, and then later shows signs of being high, that might be a different warning sign.  On and on by actually observing a person you take a measure of how reliable you consider them to be.  If after a while you see no fault in them, then their story has the chance of being true.  At least it should be considered possible, if nothing more.

 

Regarding scientologist, I don't trust the religious higher ups.  They sell psychology tricks and self help things to a population that eats it up.  They then do their best to rob the people blind and find blackmail worthy information about the people.  They also to nothing for the community around them.  In this way they bring those paying money to get the next set of secrets into poverty, while also holding embarrassing things about them in case the individuals want to leave or to report badly on the religion's organization.  The reason I don't trust them has nothing to do with people's positive experiences (if there are any), but because the religion is an organization of crooks.  Nothing more.

[Lost_more_then_Once]

7 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

Well, that's mainly do to people abusing it. People have been way too over bearing with their religious perspectives. Way too pushy in the public square. But regardless of all of that, we're here to discuss religion and religious views concerning christianity. Whether comparative to other religions or whatever. So you've come to the right place as far as that goes. 

 

I can't fault people for being forceful with their religion any more then I can fault people for being forceful with their politics.  If you think it's right, then that is your standard to live by.  That alone is enough to be a bit forceful, regardless of the perspectives.

 

I like religous discussions, however in my experience I've found that the best people to talk to about different religions, are those that are still active in those religions.  You get more out of it that way, and can come away from it with them having the oppurtunity to give the best presentation of their own beliefs.  I say this because I once bought a book on the different religions.  I thought "awesome this'll be an interesting read and I'll understand the world religions better."  In that book they also had a short section about my dad's faith.  The discription had nothing to do with the faith, and I learned my lesson right there.

 

Edited addition:

 

second to to listening to those who actually were in those religions are listening to those who were affected by the people in that religion, and those who once were in the religion but left it.  You all fit that description for Christianity due to once being Christian.  But for any other religion (unless you converted into that other religion) you're in the same position I'm in.  No matter how much knowledge we gain about a different religion we're viewing it from the outside looking in, and are going to make mistakes about it.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

1 hour ago, Lost_more_then_Once said:

As for the natural explanation, I'm sorry for being blunt but my issue with that one is that it's a copout.  Before any investigation of a person's state of mind the conclusion is already made.  Think of it this way, if you go to the doctor with symptoms of a stroke, and the doctor already has concluded why your there before talking to you or giving a check up.  Thinking "this is the flue season that's why people are coming in today.  So in that preemptive conclusion the doctor gives you a flue shot when that had nothing to go with the situation.  In the same way the natural explanation is like that with regards to religous and spiritual experiences.  

I suppose it's different if the conclusions are based on the preconceived notions that 1) a god exists, 2) that god is the christian god, 3) your interpretation of the christian doctrine is correct, and 4) only evidence supporting the foregone conclusion is considered.  You're as confused about us as you are about when to use "than" versus when to use "then".

[Myrkhoos]

        I might have not caught it, but are you part or consider yourself part of any official or less official Christian denomination? If not, what are your main beliefs and, if you can, say, where do you get them from? How did you reach those conclusions? Solely from personal inner experiences? Are there different types? 

       

[◊ crazyguy123 ◊]

On 2/3/2020 at 5:38 PM, Lost_more_then_Once said:

As for considering the reliability of anyone's testimony, I have a general rule of thump.  Watch for the red flags.

 

This is a good way to at least determine if someone has a reason to be dishonest about the things that they are claiming for sure. I don't necessarily think that any of these red flags apply to you exactly, so that still leaves us with two options - either you are right, but the rest of us missed something somehow, or you are just incorrect about the things you are believing. How do we determine which of these is the case?

 

On 2/3/2020 at 5:38 PM, Lost_more_then_Once said:

On that point though it's my observation that atheists in general are ready to sweep large populations of people as being delusional and crazy, just because they are religious.  I don't see this as much with nonbelievers that identify themselves with something they do believe (as opposed to identifying with a label for what they don't believe in).  It is nonetheless a convenient label to disregard others by with out ever having a psychology degree to measure sanity.  

 

I have also made the observation that people in general do this very thing once they have adopted some sort of ideology, whether it is religious, political, or something else entirely and will write off people who disagree with them as being delusional, crazy, brainwashed, or any number of things. You probably are aware that there are atheists who recognize that these sort of adjectives don't apply to most religious people, so they don't use them out of respect for others, even though there are some atheists who do the negative labels thing (I've seen quite a few of those in the comment sections of Youtube videos in particular - which might as well be the sewers of the internet), but there are also theists who spew hatred and vitriol at non-believers as well.

 

I think what this tells us is that a lot of people are simply assholes (and these types of people sure do love their negative labels). It would be nice if there weren't so many of them, because it makes it impossible to have a respectful discussion when one or both sides of an argument or debate already think they are right and are unwilling to change their own minds about anything (but will hammer their own ideas into other people's heads without giving it a second thought). Fortunately for us, we don't seem to be having that problem here.

 

On 2/3/2020 at 5:38 PM, Lost_more_then_Once said:

I've met a few people who say they use to be Christian, but then later say they never really believed in it.  Perhaps it was just they were around a Christian environment and consider the Christian culture to be theirs even if the Christian conclusions are not.

 

Ah yes, I have met people like this as well, but the majority of the people on ex-C don't seem to fit into this category of people who were Christian in name only, without actually believing any of the religious stuff that comes with the label.

 

On 2/3/2020 at 5:50 PM, Lost_more_then_Once said:

At the age of two I had a head injury, the physical toll is unfortunately a handicap on my peripheral vision, and a much slower pace in both school and work.  I've dealt with being broken (even if it's just slightly) for most of my life (almost all of it). And this stance might have given me a specific understanding of the brokenness of the world as well.

 

It sounds like you have had a very difficult life. I'm glad that things are going a lot better for you and that you decided to share these things with us, but this "brokenness" of the world that you are describing, brings us to the problem of evil and the question of "why would a benevolent god allow you to have the head injury in the first place?" On the positive side, this experience likely gave you a much stronger sense of empathy with other survivors of brain injuries and mental illness, so from your perspective, I imagine this could seem like a good reason for a benevolent god to allow it.

 

With that in mind, I have to ask: what about those who have suffered through similar experiences to yours, who gave up and ended their own lives? Why would a benevolent god go out of his way to help you, but not them? What do you think you did differently from those other people who went through experiences like yours, but are no longer alive because they could not deal with their problems? If the difference is that you believed and they didn't, how could it be benevolent for a god to ignore people who are suffering, merely because they found it impossible to believe the same things you did?

 

On 2/3/2020 at 5:50 PM, Lost_more_then_Once said:

The second part of it though is as a teen I decided to look for God on my own.  Specifically what religions could be from Him is any of them were.  The logic being that sines God is real, and is personable enough to answer prayers and give love, it would only make sense that He would have had a hand in the sacred texts of at least one religion to have a long standing record for future generations to look to and have a foundation from.  So I started to read the bible.  Those of you who've said you've felt a sense of God being there with you as you read the bible, I can relate to that.  For a lot of it it seemed like God was right there reading the bible with me.  The who's who of the matter of it being God, the Holy Spirit, an angel, or whatnot doesn't matter at this point.  It was a confirmation similar to some of the confirmations I've had in my prayer life about God.  Eventually I became Christian, but I rejected Islam.  With also means I rejected Baha'i Faith.

 

Since you have read the Bible, then you probably know that the god of the Bible is a jealous god who will punish the descendants of people who hate him four generations down the line. According to the scriptures, we see that he is a god who will punish people in the afterlife for committing thought crimes and that is willing to harden the heart of one individual (which is a violation of their free will, if there even is such a thing) just so he can show off by cursing an entire population with plagues, for the actions of one person. Since this is not a benevolent god we are discussing here, it is easy to see how the more positive scriptures could potentially lead to a feeling of peace, if those parts of the Bible are the only ones you pay attention to (which was the case for me at first), then you might not see the skeletons that are hanging in Yahweh's trophy room.

 

It seems like you decided to read the Bible first and found something in there that had a meaningful impact on you when you read it, so you had what you thought was a "god moment" and then rejected every other religious ideology because you "found the right one". If my understanding is wrong about this, please correct me. It seems like your prayer life is the reason that you remained a Christian, but I still am not sure what would lead you to assume that your answered prayers are the doing of the Christian god in particular. One would think that if there was a benevolent god, but thousands of religions and sects, that they would answer the prayers of all people, regardless of which specific deity they were praying to (if they were going to allow so many religions to exist in the first place). I suppose if that was the case, then for you, it probably wouldn't be a problem if you were incorrectly praying to the Christian god; if there is a benevolent god out there, then you would simply discover you were in error once you got to the afterlife, but could just move on and learn new things without being judged as wicked for not following the correct god (but if Christianity is true, then us non-Christians would not be as fortunate).

On 2/3/2020 at 5:38 PM, Lost_more_then_Once said:

One point to correct you in though.  I don't have a low value of myself because of the bible, or because of any religious belief.

 

On 2/3/2020 at 5:50 PM, Lost_more_then_Once said:

I've had my run ins with being lost.  The biggest one as an adult after a break up with a girl I though I might merry, that coincided with a realization that I was not going to have an easy time finding work and staying employed.  In a world of efficiency, who would want to hire someone slower then average and make you behind schedule.  The dark world of depression sucks when you can give those moods a reason to validate them, and this was one very dark time for me of thinking I am worthless, a failure, and a few other labels.  If any of you want to know if I relate to depression because of my faith, I can tell you that I don't.  Depression runs in my family, and I realized I had at least a mild case of it when I was younger.  My faith is the bright spot out of many of those moments, not the cause of the dark moments.

 

I am glad that in your case, your religious beliefs were not the cause of your negative self-esteem, but it is difficult to understand how that could be the case, especially when the Bible says that all humans are evil and deserving of being sent to hell (this of course includes you, because we allegedly have a sinful nature that makes it so). It says that if you do good deeds without glorifying the Christian god when you do them, then your actions have the same value as filthy rags. If a person already dealing with depression was to read those passages first, they would feel even worse about themselves if they believed them. Even though they might feel better once they thought they were saved, if such a time ever comes when they no longer have good reasons to believe and their faith dissipates, they would end up inside of a much deeper hole than they were in to begin with (which is what happened to me).

 

I will be honest with you and say that when I was a believer, there were moments when the faith that I had helped me get through bad experiences. I totally relate to feeling worthless because of reasons that are unrelated to religion and suffering through depression as well, but it was also the case for me that the faith I had didn't help for very long once I realized what sort of a god I was praying to. It wasn't because of things that happened to me personally that I left Christianity; it was because of what the Bible said about the god that is described within its pages. Once I got to the point when I could not reconcile the idea of hell with the idea of a benevolent god, my faith collapsed, which left me without a crutch to lean on and my depression worsened as a result of it. Thanks to this site and the members here, I was able to get through that period of my life, but I couldn't have gotten through it on my own (and certainly not by reading more of the Bible or praying to the Christian god - which was the cause of the whole mess).

 

On 2/3/2020 at 5:50 PM, Lost_more_then_Once said:

In the end though after a few years a friend helped me find a job.  It wasn't a job depending on speed or on ability to drive.  Slowly I got into a better position with that depression, until I found my wife and she pulled me the rest of the way out of the darkness.

 

I now work in a manufacturing job (reliable because they need people to stay more then they need the best in efficiency), and am happily married.  The next stage in my life is to do better with my time with the schedule that I have.

 

That's me in a nutshell.  An introduction.

 

I really am glad that you are doing well now, even if I fail to understand why you would be grateful to the Biblical god for any of these improvements in your life. In my opinion, these people in your life who gave you the hand up you needed, did more for you than he ever did, but I hope things continue to go well for you (regardless of our differences) because you seem like a genuine person and a nice guy overall.

 

Thanks for introducing yourself to us, it was nice to meet you.

[Joshpantera]

3 hours ago, Lost_more_then_Once said:

I like religous discussions, however in my experience I've found that the best people to talk to about different religions, are those that are still active in those religions.  You get more out of it that way, and can come away from it with them having the oppurtunity to give the best presentation of their own beliefs.  I say this because I once bought a book on the different religions.  I thought "awesome this'll be an interesting read and I'll understand the world religions better."  In that book they also had a short section about my dad's faith.  The discription had nothing to do with the faith, and I learned my lesson right there.

 

Yes, of course. You should research all aspects of any given religion. But what I have found is that confirmation bias is at the top of the list when it comes to listening to some present their own beliefs. I listen to them with this in mind as I see it happening. For instance, I was adventist. Confirmation bias will lead an adventist to all manor of fallacious reasoning about the churches founder and prophet, EG White. In contrast, her opponents who were once adventist members or clergy who discovered problems and then left can outline where those confirmation biases exist. Believers will tell you that every vision she had was divine, came true or will come true, etc., etc. But the reality is that she prophecied falsely in demonstrable ways which can be easily shown by comparing what she said with history during her time and thereafter. 

 

3 hours ago, Lost_more_then_Once said:

Edited addition:

 

second to to listening to those who actually were in those religions are listening to those who were affected by the people in that religion, and those who once were in the religion but left it.  You all fit that description for Christianity due to once being Christian.  But for any other religion (unless you converted into that other religion) you're in the same position I'm in.  No matter how much knowledge we gain about a different religion we're viewing it from the outside looking in, and are going to make mistakes about it.

 

Yes, we do fit that description. And we can be of service in that way. But there's more, having left christianity many members here have gone to Buddhism or Hinduism, for instance. Some to neo-pagan beliefs and practice and others non-theistic or even anti-theistic or new atheists. In this process they have transferred from being like you, not really understanding a lot about other beliefs in the world, to researching and discovering a lot about many other beliefs in the world. That's a very general aspect of a deconverted christian. It's like going from a specialist mindset to a more multidisciplinary mindset spanning a broad range. 

 

Now some non-adventist's may make mistakes about adventist's with some of the details. But if they understand the general points I don't see why it matters very much. I don't understand the details about mormons or jehovah's witness aside from a general overview. But so what? I understand that they are founded on demonstrably false beliefs, like adventist's. How much more do I need to know and for what reason? 

 

Sometimes looking from the outside in is substantial. 

[TruthSeeker0]

 

Quote

I will be honest with you and say that when I was a believer, there were moments when the faith that I had helped me get through bad experiences. I totally relate to feeling worthless because of reasons that are unrelated to religion and suffering through depression as well, but it was also the case for me that the faith I had didn't help for very long once I realized what sort of a god I was praying to. It wasn't because of things that happened to me personally that I left Christianity; it was because of what the Bible said about the god that is described within its pages. Once I got to the point when I could not reconcile the idea of hell with the idea of a benevolent god, my faith collapsed, which left me without a crutch to lean on and my depression worsened as a result of it. Thanks to this site and the members here, I was able to get through that period of my life, but I couldn't have gotten through it on my own (and certainly not by reading more of the Bible or praying to the Christian god - which was the cause of the whole mess).

This right here is an important point. I have heard people make the argument that others are depressed because they are non believers who no longer believe in god(s). As if belief is some miraculous pill you swallow and your depression goes away. Yes I can understand that religious beliefs can offer the believer some sense of comfort and that when they are lost there's the chance that depression gets worse as the comfort has been taken away and the person needs to adapt. But there are also people, several of them on this site, including myself, who have written of how leaving their religious beliefs behind vastly improved their depression and anxiety and gave them a sense of mental clarity and freedom that just wasnt there before. 

@crazyguy123 I hope you are doing well in this respect and I'm glad to hear this community has helped you. 

[SerenelyBlue]

I had God moments that lasted for days.  I even saw God in HD clarity.  The brain can do amazing things.  My bipolar manias were awesome.  But that is what they were bipolar manias.  If you rely on good feelings to tell  you God exists it is sad.  Very sad.

[◊ crazyguy123 ◊]

@TruthSeeker0 If anything, rather than being a magic pill that fixed everything, religious faith, for me, was more like smoking a big fat joint once a week and getting a buzz for a few hours afterwards (without helping much during the week). Depression and anxiety have both been constant things I have had to deal with for most of my life, with periods where they are better and periods where they are worse, but looking back now, I don't think that Christianity necessarily made my problems worse, it just gave me a good high without fixing my issues, since the Bible merely confirmed the negative view of myself I already had as being true. The buzz that I got from the religion mainly came from being at church and singing the worship songs, but usually by the end of the week, it had been a long time since it wore off, so I was ready for that next hit when Sunday came along.

 

Anyway, I appreciate your concern because I am doing a lot better at the moment. I have also been working with professionals for the last few years to deal with these things, since a significant portion of my problems were caused by things outside of religion. Thank you.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Does this cycle relate to drugs or to jesus?  It's hard to tell; and that should be a big red flag.

[Lost_more_then_Once]

7 hours ago, Myrkhoos said:

        I might have not caught it, but are you part or consider yourself part of any official or less official Christian denomination? If not, what are your main beliefs and, if you can, say, where do you get them from? How did you reach those conclusions? Solely from personal inner experiences? Are there different types? 

       

 

I would consider myself Christian.  Without any other qualifier I guess that makes me non denominational.  However that itself has become almost a subset of Christian churches, either for liking a pastor who started his own church up, or because of a rejection of other denominations.  I would consider myself just under the discription of Christian because it's my hope and my view that your salvation is based on Jesus, not on a denomination.  Therefore I'd consider most Christians my brothers and sisters in faith.  Catholic, Protestant, included, as well as hopes for Mormon and Johovah Witnesses.  (Though those last two groups I have reservations about mostly due to warnings I've heard from others that have had more contact with those two groups).

 

Main beliefs?  Hmmm..... I'll try, but be patient with what I say.  There's a lot of beliefs I hold and to name a few as the main ones is well..... I'll try nonetheless.

 

core beliefs...

 

•God is real, He loves you and He loves me.  After all if He can love me, then He most definately loves you as well.

  --building on that belief (or connecting with it) is the idea that if I can do it, so can you.  I've used this perspective while training new people at work.  " if I can do it, so can you."  And I believe this is true.  With regards to my faith, it means I haven't done anything more to deserve it, nor am I more Christian then another person entering into the idea of real Christians, born agains, true believers ... versus fake Christians.  That's in God's hands and His terroritory.  There are more mature Christians, and there are newer Christians, and Christians with a different understanding and different beliefs (both religous and political), but as long as they believe in God and believe in Jesus, regardless of their understanding they are Christian.  The one exception I hold is to a set of beliefs that I've recently discovered.  That being Christianity in name, but have no belief in the bibke, in what Jesus did, or in either miracles or the reserection of Jesus.  At that point I have to ask "are you really Christian, if so how so?"

 

•God so loved the world that he sent His only begotten son.

  -- a lot to read into this one, both in Jesus being the way the truth and the light (and therefore study Jesus's life and teachings), as well as Jesus being the final sacrifice as a testimony of our redemption as well as a Testiment of our need to be redeemed.  This act though is a final one where no other person needs to add to it to save us, and all of the old Testiment sacrifice laws and rituals point to Jesus's final act on the cross.  Going past that though is Jesus's reserection and a new hope that I'm not sure was there before.  

 

•Our need for God is HUGE.  

  -- I've already mentioned before about being in a broken world and being a broken people.  There's nothing that we can do on our own to fix ourselves very well, (though there are some inspiring exceptions of people having no outside role models that were good and they step away from the abusive cycle that their parents placed on them, and their grand parents placed on their parents, nonetheless it's my observation that the idea of pulling your self up by your bootstraps is a well wished thought that is untrue.). Mores then not being able to fix the issues in the world on our own, or in our lives without help, is the idea that with God we become better then we were before without Him.  Our need for God is huge.  

 

•the bible is a reliable source from God.  If you want to have a good foundation to build off of, then studying the bible will help tremendously.  This means that it is an authority on morality when it speaks about it; an authority on history, in the contexts that it covers; an authority on science, on the very rare points that the bible and scientific theory over lap, and the only reliable foundation on God.

  --I've mentioned experience trumps philosophy before, well in this perspective God trumps experience as well.  Have patience and wait on the Lord kind of thing.  Each lesson we have in life can be filtered down to the philosophical aspect of "well what now" kind of reasoning.  But experience and God both supersede our understandings, rationale, and philosophies.  From that point on the question is what is from God and what isn't.  It's become my belief that the bible is from God and to be able to hold that as the foundation to test everything else.  (The bibke doesn't talk about everything, but on the things it dies I count it as an authority).

 

•Two greatest laws. Love God with all your heart. And, love your neighbor as you love yourself.

 

There's probabley more to say but I'm out of time and need to get to work.  Hope that was enough for now though.

[older]

 

16 hours ago, Lost_more_then_Once said:

I can't fault people for being forceful with their religion any more then I can fault people for being forceful with their politics.  If you think it's right, then that is your standard to live by.  That alone is enough to be a bit forceful, regardless of the perspectives.

   

I think this needs further definition. When Christians force their beliefs on others through legislation or through social pressure, I think they are over the line. Personally, I have no issue with Christianity if Christians would keep to themselves. But I see proselytization as inherent to Christianity and there are many examples of the religion being forced upon others (and, historically, with much violence). In such cases, I do fault Christians. Here's a cartoon that looks at this from the perspective of someone outside Christianity:

 

[midniterider]

"I can't fault people for being forceful with their religion any more then I can fault people for being forceful with their politics.  If you think it's right, then that is your standard to live by.  That alone is enough to be a bit forceful, regardless of the perspectives."

 

....

 

Maybe we should include some Scientology and Islamic monuments on US government properties like the 10 commandments from the bible. Perhaps have our American children recite passages from the Bhagavad Gita in school right after the Pledge of Allegiance. We could introduce our girls to the burka during "Be a Muslim day". Someone mentioned the Loa recently. Haitian beliefs should be celebrated and learned by the masses, just like Wicca and pagan traditions. These are standards that people live by. 

 

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law - Aleister Crowley. Follow your true path. 

 

/s

 

 

 

[Joshpantera]

10 hours ago, SerenelyBlue said:

I had God moments that lasted for days.  I even saw God in HD clarity.  The brain can do amazing things.  My bipolar manias were awesome.  But that is what they were bipolar manias.  If you rely on good feelings to tell  you God exists it is sad.  Very sad.

 

Nice SB! You're not letting the condition fool you or get the better of your judgement. I've watched the struggle. The struggle is real. You're very correct, basing it on "feelings" is building up a belief system from sand foundations. Easily toppled. Feelings may play a role, but they can not prove anything. 

[◊ Weezer ◊]

1 hour ago, older said:

 

 

 

   

[◊ Weezer ◊]

LMTO, it looks like you have put a lot of thought into your beliefs.  But please remind us again what you want to accomplish here?  Or what you want to get from us?

[Joshpantera]

8 hours ago, Lost_more_then_Once said:

•God is real, He loves you and He loves me.

 

The belief is based on this apriori assumption. God is real is not proven, it's assumed. From the initial assumption everything else follows. I just recently debated a christian last year and tried pointing this out, to no avail. 

 

8 hours ago, Lost_more_then_Once said:

•God so loved the world that he sent His only begotten son.

 

The assumed god was never proven because it's not provable. So what happens is that you have no way of moving forward without logic leaping through a series of further assumptions based on the apriori assumption at the beginning of the belief system. The more that is added on behind the initial assumption is little more than building up a large house from what is essentially a sandy foundation. The whole thing is subject to cave in and fall over in an instant. Which has happened and does happen often to people. It did for me and it has for many others. 

 

8 hours ago, Lost_more_then_Once said:

•Our need for God is HUGE.  

 

You've been a good sport so far. If you're able to stay objective then just take in some of this critique for a moment. I'm not telling you anything that I haven't told myself. You and I are equally guilty of overlooking these points. Do you see the chain of assumptions (entitled beliefs) stacking up higher and higher without ever having first established a firm foundation at the base of it all? Take an honest and objective look at this house of cards as it builds up higher and higher. 

 

How could our need for something that you never even substantiated in the first place be huge? Consider that question for a moment. 

 

8 hours ago, Lost_more_then_Once said:

•the bible is a reliable source from God.

 

We've given you ample direction and links to studies that detail it's pagan origins and revealing features which call into question the claim of reliability. You mentioned that you're not familiar with any of it. Granted. If you do become familiar, then it's possible that your perspective may change over time. It just depends on how you process the information.

 

But all that aside, look at each consecutive stage of logic leaping going from the initial apriori assumption at the foundation higher and higher. These beliefs are not based on strong points building up from a strong foundation. And they are easily challenged every step of the way. With no clear way out of the challenges. My debating christians is aimed at demonstrating the strength or weakness in these christian based beliefs. 

 

8 hours ago, Lost_more_then_Once said:

--I've mentioned experience trumps philosophy before, well in this perspective God trumps experience as well.

 

What you are essentially saying here is that an apriori assumption on your part (god), trumps experience. But then again, you were previously reaching for experience as proof of god. It isn't, but you were reaching that way. The point being, this is a big long series of assumption with no factual basis at the beginning. When many of us finally realized this, our belief discontinued in phases or even all at once.....

 

And now here we are. Reading through your posts from our own perspectives of having been there, done that. 

 

 

[Myrkhoos]

10 hours ago, Lost_more_then_Once said:

 

I would consider myself Christian.  Without any other qualifier I guess that makes me non denominational.  However that itself has become almost a subset of Christian churches, either for liking a pastor who started his own church up, or because of a rejection of other denominations.  I would consider myself just under the discription of Christian because it's my hope and my view that your salvation is based on Jesus, not on a denomination.  Therefore I'd consider most Christians my brothers and sisters in faith.  Catholic, Protestant, included, as well as hopes for Mormon and Johovah Witnesses.  (Though those last two groups I have reservations about mostly due to warnings I've heard from others that have had more contact with those two groups).

 

Main beliefs?  Hmmm..... I'll try, but be patient with what I say.  There's a lot of beliefs I hold and to name a few as the main ones is well..... I'll try nonetheless.

 

core beliefs...

 

•God is real, He loves you and He loves me.  After all if He can love me, then He most definately loves you as well.

  --building on that belief (or connecting with it) is the idea that if I can do it, so can you.  I've used this perspective while training new people at work.  " if I can do it, so can you."  And I believe this is true.  With regards to my faith, it means I haven't done anything more to deserve it, nor am I more Christian then another person entering into the idea of real Christians, born agains, true believers ... versus fake Christians.  That's in God's hands and His terroritory.  There are more mature Christians, and there are newer Christians, and Christians with a different understanding and different beliefs (both religous and political), but as long as they believe in God and believe in Jesus, regardless of their understanding they are Christian.  The one exception I hold is to a set of beliefs that I've recently discovered.  That being Christianity in name, but have no belief in the bibke, in what Jesus did, or in either miracles or the reserection of Jesus.  At that point I have to ask "are you really Christian, if so how so?"

 

•God so loved the world that he sent His only begotten son.

  -- a lot to read into this one, both in Jesus being the way the truth and the light (and therefore study Jesus's life and teachings), as well as Jesus being the final sacrifice as a testimony of our redemption as well as a Testiment of our need to be redeemed.  This act though is a final one where no other person needs to add to it to save us, and all of the old Testiment sacrifice laws and rituals point to Jesus's final act on the cross.  Going past that though is Jesus's reserection and a new hope that I'm not sure was there before.  

 

 

1

 Are you aware that the main christian denominations - catholic and eastern orthodox, but also this could apply to others, would consider your position heretical and actually they consider one another heretical ? Are you aware of the vision of the these churches on heresy ? They consider sin against the Holy spirit. Are you aware that is forbidden for an orthodox to pray with heretics or to participate in heretical worship services even ? 

          Are you aware that there are multiple cotradictory understandings of the  trinity and how salvation works inside the christian circles? 

          About the Bible. Are you aware about the history of the text and about the huge history of its interpretation? Are you aware in general about the history of theological explanations, the seven ecumenical councils and so forth, the reformation, etc ? 

      If so, why do you trust your interpretation better than hundreds of bishops from the early centuries of the church that would say your interpretation is demonic and heretical ? Do you believe in the concept of heresy as a distortion of christian doctrine? If so, how do you draw the line between a truthful and a false interpretation? 

     Are you aware of Jewish interpretations of Scripture. There is a very outspoken and educated critic called tovias singer on it that says christian interpretations are a distortion.

    Are you aware that Mohamed had a clearly different idea of Jesus? Why do you not believe that? 

        About experience and philosophy. I recommed a christian bishop and polecimist who argued for the truth of the experience of mystical monks in the 14 century, Gregorios Palama, a huge character in EasternOrthodox theology.

        I am curious to your answers to these. My previous church had some of course,  but I am curious on where you stand on these issues. All these questions are just things about general christian culture, i am not trying to refute them or your position. 

       Have a nice day! 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

@Lost_more_then_Once, do you hate your father and mother; or do you honor them?

[Lost_more_then_Once]

To ficino.

 

The point I was trying to make I think I stated in a fuller amount to LogicalFallacy on February 5th at 3:03 am.  The point being that the generalization of delusion or that people don't know what's real and what isn't is a copout excuse for religious experiences.  It's it's still unclear or you want me to say more on that point, let me know.  

 

As for the Angels of Mons, I think I had heard of it, but not to the degree of details as the article you referenced gave.  So thank you for that.  I don't know why you automatically assume that it was mass hysteria though.  The bias you all say .i am showing for acknowledging God in the experiences I've shared where he made an infukence is nothing compared to the bias to automatically assume a hysteria and delusion by too many witnesses to disregard.  I assure you the bias is not on my account if there are historical records of solders on both sides of the war accounting to the sights and events of the Angels of Mons.

 

Regarding Catholic miracles and catholic traditions, ?I am not that knowledgeable about them.  But if there are many witnesses that attest to the same event, then there is the possibility that it occurred.  Or at the very least that they all say the same thing and whatever explanation there is it isn't delusion (because it was seen by multiple people.

 

To LogicalFallacy

 

Looking at the prayers sent up for Loa compared to the experiences ?I gave , you asked which ones would be true.  My answer is simple.  Did you send up prayers to Loa and get a response back?  If so then let's compare those experiences and hear what they were.  If on the other hand it is a hypothetical (as it seems to be the way it's stated) then the answer is even simpler.  My experiences were not hypothetical.  The hypothetical situation is the fake one.

 

To JoshPantera.  

 

You might be suprised but I've wondered on what level the world around is is aware and at least somewhat conscience.  Have you ever heard of the double slit experiment with light photons?  It's a fairly wearied quant on physics experiment testing light photons, to see if light acts as a wave or as a particle.  The strange thing is that when observed with a camera detector next to one of the slits, the light acts like a particle would, but remove the camera and the photons form a wave pattern on the test paper behind the slits.  The experiment shows a very weird phenomena that has led to a stranger conclusion.  That 1) light might be both a wave and a particle, and 2) (the strange conclusion) the act of observing can change the result.  

 

What is the obvious issue here is observing the physical world around up can change the result.  That perhaps the world around up being observed is aware of it being observed and reacted differently.  As for the idea of a mass consciousness.  Do the ideas of a conscience world mean anything of a shared conscience?  Not necessarily, but also who knows.  In the bible, at least once, a prophet made declarations to Israel saying that the mountains are a witness to what God has said this day.  In sone interpretations I've heard this is suppose to mean the long lasting testament of what God has said, and that Israel should pay attention.  On the other hand though at least that prophet said the Mountains were a witness, and Jesus rebuked a storm (which listened and calmed).  Does that mean the world around us is literally aware and conscience?  It's a thought I've had but I have no answer.  It could be possible though.

 

Regarding the experience in the drive home that I shared earlier, it is a very large stretch that I willed myself to have more energy when I was tired.  I can push myself to keep my eyes open when I'm tired.  But willing more energy on command?  That wasn't from me.  It was an answer to the prayer.  From there the question can be asked "who answered it?" Or the question can be asked if I am a lier.  In either case I have my own conclusion.  This was one of a few times the confirms that God is real and that He listens to and responds to prayers.  I've had other confirmations in my life.  Each one just makes the case stronger that God is real.  In a later reply you challenge my beliefs on the sole point that God hasn't been proven and it's a presupposition.  But I am telling you now in the same way that I know that bees sting because I've felt them sting me, I also know that God is real.  It's not a presupposition, it's an established truth of the world we live in.

 

Going back to the previous comment on consciousness, I do hope that the God moments I was asking you guys about aren't as rare as they are sounding.  But from talking to you guys here there are a few here that seem to have never had them.  Making those experiences at least that rare.  It's an unfortunate answer but I asked because I wanted to know.

 

Regardless though of if there's such a thing as a group consciousness that is going on, I highly doubt that is what God is.  God answers prayers, and punishes sins, He performs miracles as well as sets our paths in a more natural looking way.  In each of these God has been able to perform as if He is part of us or as if He is interfering in the world around us and responding to us.  In these ways He defies being a collective consciousness.

 

I think that's all I'm going to respond to tonight except to Weezer asking about my purpose for being here.  I'll try to get to the others when ?I can.

 

To Weezer.

 

My initial reason for being here was the question/concern I laid out earlier.  I think that question has been answered to the degree that it can be answered, and right now I'm just enjoying the conversation.

 

On a side note, I get from my initial reactions from you guys that you've got a bad taste for Christians, so perhaps it's a good thing for this conversation to last at least a little longer for the sake of being able to talk civilly to Christians.  (I saw you guys had another Christian visit recently and the conversation went pear shaped fairly quickly.  So think on whether that's how you want to act like or not.  Perhaps a void conversation might break up the habit of preemptive anger at Christians.

 

that's all.  Have a good night ya'all.