How do you know what you believe?

[Quiver0f10]

These were the kinds of answers that really chipped away at my faith. You say this with such sincerity, and yet, how do you know (which is the OP's question)? How do you know that your belief in this "saving work" is a valid belief? How do you that what people did or didn't do doesn't matter in the sense of where they will spend eternity? How do you know that the only thing that will land someone in hell is rejecting Jesus, or that the only way to spend eternity in heaven is to repent of your sins and trust in the finished work (and what does that mean)? The bible says otherwise, other believers say otherwise, and they say so with the same sincerity you show. So... how do you know these beliefs of yours (which contradict the beliefs of poster you are quoting, and other believers in this thread) are right? 

 

I'm not asking you to answer. Ultimately the answer has to come down to faith because there is no way of knowing any of this. I'm just pointing out the problem inherent in offering opinions in response to this kind of topic. Answers like looking to near-death-experiences won't confirm belief unless the information uncovered is biased or lacking pertinent data. Answers like looking to other people's interpretation of the bible appeal to another person's beliefs. None of this is based on knowledge, but based on speculation, assumptions, and ultimately, faith.

 

The OP asked how I know what I believe. My answer is that I came to the my belief after much soul searching and study. I had to ask myself some tough questions, and as I posted in another reply, I had to work backwards from creation to what I found to be the most reasonable conclusion. From there I was able to work through what I do believe.

 

Trusting in the finished work of Christ means trusting that He came, lived and died in my place. He paid the debt that I could never pay for my sins. Believing that I can do nothing to save myself and trusting that Jesus did it all for me. When He said, " It is finished"  He completed what was needed for salvation for anyone who comes to Him.

 

As far as the bolded above, I disagree. The bible clearly shows the only way to be saved is through faith in Jesus Christ. We are called to good works as an act of obedience, but good works will not save anyone. Good works are a natural result of our relationship with Jesus, not a way to earn salvation.

 

To the OP, keep seeking Him. Proverbs 8:17 I love those who love me, and those who seek me find me.

[sbgrace]

Greg Boyd has a book called Benefit of the Doubt. It has helped me a great deal as I reconfigure my faith, including accepting, even welcoming, the doubt. That's always been sticky with me. 

 

Getting fully at center, Christ, and letting go of some previously unquestioned preconceptions has actually made it all much more rich and beautiful. Shattering some of those preconceptions, which felt secure at the time, was painful and even scary.  But my relationship with God is better for it. I misunderstood a lot. I read the bible differently now.

 

I've also been frustrated by the way Christians at large typically engage with (or set themselves against, engage isn't at all the right word) "the world". When I look at Jesus, though, I don't see that same attitude and approach. This is important to me. His people often aren't acting like Jesus. They aren't operating out of love, and they aren't seeing people and issues with spirit led eyes.

 

There are other Christian voices out there, sending a different message. I'm thankful for that.

 

Fear. God is love. He's not two sides (judgement/righteousness/revenge vs. mercy/love/peace). He's love all through. He loves his enemies, just like Christ told us to love our enemies. There is no fear in love, and perfect love drives out fear. I, by personality or upbringing, have always struggled with fear in relation to God. This is where I'm working now, because I see the poison that view has had for me.  I still struggle, but from a firmer foundation. I'm asking God to lead me into truth.

 

 

 

 

[TracyP]

I am not trying to argue with you, just share a different perspective. :)

 

 
 
As far as the bolded above, I disagree. The bible clearly shows the only way to be saved is through faith in Jesus Christ. We are called to good works as an act of obedience, but good works will not save anyone. Good works are a natural result of our relationship with Jesus, not a way to earn salvation.
 

 

This is actually one of the arguments I grew up listening to: does faith save or works? My paternal family leaned one way and maternal side the other. They each would argue vehemently for their side and both had the Bible to back them up. I talked to both as a young adult trying to figure it out for myself. When I expressed to each how confused I still was, I found a place they both agreed - they both had times of confusion, but when they prayed and searched their Bible, God showed them the truth. WHAT?!? How could that be possible when they came to different conclusions?

 

15 years later, I still think both sides have a good argument. I know it is clear to you, and I am not trying to convince you otherwise. I just wanted you to know that other Christians, with just as much faith and sincerity, reading the same Bible, have come to a different conclusion.

 

[Quiver0f10]

I am not trying to argue with you, just share a different perspective. :)

 

 

This is actually one of the arguments I grew up listening to: does faith save or works? My paternal family leaned one way and maternal side the other. They each would argue vehemently for their side and both had the Bible to back them up. I talked to both as a young adult trying to figure it out for myself. When I expressed to each how confused I still was, I found a place they both agreed - they both had times of confusion, but when they prayed and searched their Bible, God showed them the truth. WHAT?!? How could that be possible when they came to different conclusions?

 

15 years later, I still think both sides have a good argument. I know it is clear to you, and I am not trying to convince you otherwise. I just wanted you to know that other Christians, with just as much faith and sincerity, reading the same Bible, have come to a different conclusion.

I understand. I am sorry for those who are struggling and pray you find the answers you are seeking.

[albeto.]

The OP asked how I know what I believe. My answer is that I came to the my belief after much soul searching and study. I had to ask myself some tough questions, and as I posted in another reply, I had to work backwards from creation to what I found to be the most reasonable conclusion. From there I was able to work through what I do believe.

See, I read this and I can't help but wonder, what evidence inspired you to conclude your belief is the most reasonable explanation? Kwim? Otherwise, I read this as an appeal to trust. It's like you're saying, "Trust me, I did all this work and so I can assure you my conclusions are legitimate and credible." For all I know the OP isn't interested in such details. I was, and I was given this kind of response ("trust me") more times than I could count. I figured if I was going to trust someone with knowing how to live my life, I would want to make sure that trust was well placed. Like I said, ultimately it will come down to faith. But if the OP is like I was, and is interested in knowing how someone knows, what information pointed them, a personal testimony doesn't count. At least, it didn't for me, and these appeals to trust based on one's sincerely held belief were more problematic than helpful.

 

Trusting in the finished work of Christ means trusting that He came, lived and died in my place. He paid the debt that I could never pay for my sins. Believing that I can do nothing to save myself and trusting that Jesus did it all for me. When He said, " It is finished"  He completed what was needed for salvation for anyone who comes to Him.

Thanks.

 

As far as the bolded above, I disagree. The bible clearly shows the only way to be saved is through faith in Jesus Christ. We are called to good works as an act of obedience, but good works will not save anyone. Good works are a natural result of our relationship with Jesus, not a way to earn salvation.

But the bible also clearly shows nonbelievers be justified by following their consciences. The bible also clearly states one is elected to righteousness. That's one of the problems I found anyway, with being told to look to the bible for answers. It gives answers, but answers to a number of different theologies (which only raises more questions that don't have answers). How can anyone know which one is the right one? After 2000 years, there is still no consensus. That's a significant clue, imo.

 

To the OP, keep seeking Him. Proverbs 8:17 I love those who love me, and those who seek me find me.

When I loved him (what I thought was him), when I sought him, I didn't find him. These were sincere, deeply felt searches. Instead I found the bible was more problematic than I thought - unlikely stories were simply believed as real, unethical behaviors were ignored or even glorified, awkward rules and expectations were supposed to be simply accepted. So the OP (or anyone who asks this question), wonders how can s/he know this belief is true when there are so many holes in these answers. S/he will ultimately decide to believe or not. But that's not knowledge, that's faith. 

 

Anyway, I don't mean to be picking on you, '10. I just mean to explain how these answers (offered by you this time, by others in the past, and certainly in the future), contribute to opening Pandora's Box of Theological Questions. Please don't think I'm expecting you to answer these, to defend your beliefs to me. If you want to reply, I'll be happy to read, but if you don't want to, I won't think you're being rude or anything like that. 

[Guest]

To the OP, statistically, it is rare for people to completely abandon one faith system and totally embrace a different one. It is more common (much more) for people to either embrace a faith system after having had none, of abandon a faith system in favor of nothing, or undefined beliefs.

[lavender's green]

Reason.

 

And I'm converting to Catholicism soon.

[Quiver0f10]

See, I read this and I can't help but wonder, what evidence inspired you to conclude your belief is the most reasonable explanation? Kwim? Otherwise, I read this as an appeal to trust. It's like you're saying, "Trust me, I did all this work and so I can assure you my conclusions are legitimate and credible." For all I know the OP isn't interested in such details. I was, and I was given this kind of response ("trust me") more times than I could count. I figured if I was going to trust someone with knowing how to live my life, I would want to make sure that trust was well placed. Like I said, ultimately it will come down to faith. But if the OP is like I was, and is interested in knowing how someone knows, what information pointed them, a personal testimony doesn't count. At least, it didn't for me, and these appeals to trust based on one's sincerely held belief were more problematic than helpful.

 

 

Thanks.

 

 

But the bible also clearly shows nonbelievers be justified by following their consciences. The bible also clearly states one is elected to righteousness. That's one of the problems I found anyway, with being told to look to the bible for answers. It gives answers, but answers to a number of different theologies (which only raises more questions that don't have answers). How can anyone know which one is the right one? After 2000 years, there is still no consensus. That's a significant clue, imo.

 

 

When I loved him (what I thought was him), when I sought him, I didn't find him. These were sincere, deeply felt searches. Instead I found the bible was more problematic than I thought - unlikely stories were simply believed as real, unethical behaviors were ignored or even glorified, awkward rules and expectations were supposed to be simply accepted. So the OP (or anyone who asks this question), wonders how can s/he know this belief is true when there are so many holes in these answers. S/he will ultimately decide to believe or not. But that's not knowledge, that's faith. 

 

Anyway, I don't mean to be picking on you, '10. I just mean to explain how these answers (offered by you this time, by others in the past, and certainly in the future), contribute to opening Pandora's Box of Theological Questions. Please don't think I'm expecting you to answer these, to defend your beliefs to me. If you want to reply, I'll be happy to read, but if you don't want to, I won't think you're being rude or anything like that.

I don't mind answering. I am not a bible scholar or anything so I don't know if I am helpful or not. I do think it comes to faith in the end. Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. I'm not sure anyone can know with 100% absolutely certainty if what they believe is true. It comes down to personally deciding that yes, I believe this to be the most reasonable answer or deciding that it's not. I could be wrong in my beliefs, but I am comfortable in resting in the belief that what I believe is true.

 

I would enjoy looking at scripture to explain the bolded.

[albeto.]

I do think it comes to faith in the end.

Exactly

 

I would enjoy looking at scripture to explain the bolded.

 

One can argue that the bible says all people all will be judged, because all are sinners (Ecclesiastes 7:20). There is nothing in the bible that indicates this is true only of Jews or Christians, but everyone (Romans 3:23). For this reason, presumably, God revealed himself to everyone. He reveals himself in nature (Romans 1:20) and even in the hearts of people (Ecclesiastes 3:11). Romans 2:12-15 talks about how requirements for justification are already ingrained in an individual's heart (conscience, if you will) and so unbelievers are judged against a different standard, one that does not include accepting faith in Jesus as the christ.

 

Granted, you may (and probably do) interpret these verses differently. I'm not trying to suggest I'm right and you're wrong, only that this is a viable theological argument. The Catholic church explains following one's conscience as being an integral part of human dignity (read more here). This includes the argument for hope of salvation regardless of whether or not one is Catholic, or even Christian. Just to say, I'm not making this stuff up. It's out there. 

[Quiver0f10]

Exactly

 

 

One can argue that the bible says all people all will be judged, because all are sinners (Ecclesiastes 7:20). There is nothing in the bible that indicates this is true only of Jews or Christians, but everyone (Romans 3:23). For this reason, presumably, God revealed himself to everyone. He reveals himself in nature (Romans 1:20) and even in the hearts of people (Ecclesiastes 3:11). Romans 2:12-15 talks about how requirements for justification are already ingrained in an individual's heart (conscience, if you will) and so unbelievers are judged against a different standard, one that does not include accepting faith in Jesus as the christ.

 

Granted, you may (and probably do) interpret these verses differently. I'm not trying to suggest I'm right and you're wrong, only that this is a viable theological argument. The Catholic church explains following one's conscience as being an integral part of human dignity (read more here). This includes the argument for hope of salvation regardless of whether or not one is Catholic, or even Christian. Just to say, I'm not making this stuff up. It's out there.

Yes, we are all sinners and we will all one day be judged by Jesus Christ. However, in Romans we see that God has revealed Himself to us and everyone is without excuse. The unbelievers will not be justified because they didn't know, they will have no excuse when they are judged.

 

Romans 1: 18-20 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; 19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse.

 

The quote above of Romans 2:12-15, needs to include 16, which finishes the quote: In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.

 

http://www.gotquestions.org/justification.html This is a good explanation of justification.

[Entropymama]

This is such a great discussion. I'm really enjoying reading everyone's posts! So much to respond to, but here are a few that jumped out to me:

 

While I am completely familiar with the concept of grace-based salvation, the way I understand it is that the grace and the exclusivity work hand-in-hand.  One does not need works to attain salvation, it is freely given to those who choose to believe and accept it (this is the grace part), but ACCEPTING that salvation is a condition of spending eternity with god in heaven as opposed to in hell (this is the exclusivity). 

 

I really didn't grow up in a house or a church where any of this was focused on or discussed frequently, only that it was occasionally taught as truth based on the understanding of a number of scriptures.  As for the bolded, while I agree, I'm not sure I understand your point as it pertains to grace and exclusivity.  Supposing that the Jesus is the only way grace-based salvation is true, it doesn't matter whether you intimidate others into believing it, shout it from the rooftops, believe it quietly in your head, or don't believe it at all.  In the end, truth is truth regardless.  I guess my fear lies in the slim possibility that it IS truth.  What then?  Even if you don't believe in a literal hell, I would venture that if you came to the end of your life only to find that it DID exist, no one would WANT to spend eternity there.       

 

I'm not going to be coy, this is a tough subject. Yes, Christianity is exclusive in the sense that you say. I see it this way: God made people to be in relationship with Him. That relationship gains us access to Him now and after death. It's incredibly inclusive in that He wants all people to come to Him - there are no family, race, gender, age or pedigree requirements. But it's incredibly exclusive because that relationship is the only way to, well, to be in relationship. The relationship is the goal. My earlier point was simply to emphasize that, while exclusive in that sense, it should never be a fearful or intimidating religion. In my eyes, if you choose to reject the idea that relationship with God is valuable, that's your business. I don't think I'm responsible in any way for anyone else's soul, although I have a responsibility to be respectful and kind to others and share my beliefs when opportunities arise - just in case they're interested. 

 

If you do still have a feeling that it could be real, I think it's worth looking into. 

 

 

Perhaps the OP is referring to the idea that this grace is a response to the first claim - eternal damnation as a default until [unless] one finds faith. Even if you focus on the one side of the coin, the other cannot be separated from it. At least, this is how I understand it, and understood it. It was that alternative to grace, the thing grace is understood to save us from that presents the subtle undercurrent of fear and intimidation, even if no person speaks it aloud. But of course, in looking into faith, one cannot help but bump into those preachers who do not shy away from this side of the coin. They are certainly outspoken and rather well known, even among those who don't belong to the same sect. 

 

So true. I can't agree with the scare tactic, but I think they genuinely believe it's true and want to help people avoid it. They're going about it all wrong but they generally have other people's interests at heart. Mostly. There are some obvious, glaring examples of the opposite. 

 

 

I'm curious as to whether this belief is unique to Orthodoxy?  Doesn't every branch of Christianity believe that they're doing it the "right" or "original" way. 

 

Thank you so much for taking the time to respond.  I appreciate everyone's input.

 

As to whether every branch thinks they're doing it the right way - yes, mostly. Some are more adamant that theirs is the only right way. I don't really think anyone believes they're doing it the original way. My particular flavor ( :laugh: ) would say that it's like this: I have five kids. I love them and they love me and I have a relationship with each one. But those relationships don't all look or feel exactly the same. The way they love me is unique to the child - one is very affectionate, one more reserved, one likes to cuddle, one prefers telling me they love me, etc. I see the churches in this way - we're all trying to love God and follow His ways but we all go about it a little differently. I also see it as God using different styles of church to reach different people. If all my kids ran away from home, I'd pursue them all, but in different ways. For one I might follow him around everywhere, for another I'd send frequent emails and for another I'd just leave the porch light on because I would know that child would understand it to be a signal that he was welcome to come home. God knows us infinitely better that we know our children and I think He uses different traditions and denominations to reach as many people as possible. 

 

Of course, in all this I'm really only referring to style differences. Theological differences are a little more complex, but I see the same premise. We all try our hardest to understand what God wants us to be doing. In the end, I think the Bible is God's way of trying to explain to us things that we can't really comprehend. Like trying to describe a Monet to a blind person. There are going to be plenty of things that just can't be conveyed. 

 

This subject REALLY bothers me. I want to believe everything in the bible so much. I was raised in church and my father used to preach to prisoners and my brother is now a literalist waiting for the rapture like a spiritual prepper but it didn't rub off on me.  When answering my children's spiritual questions sometimes I even feel silly trying to explain subjects like heaven and hell and the holy trinity. Taking a religion class only made it worse.  I can't get past the scripture "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday today and tomorrow"  its what I go back to every time I see the changes that have happened to the Christian faith since its conception. The same the same the same. That means it doesn't change, the books in the bible don't change, the requirements don't change and cultural adaptation should not be changed, Catholic stances on subjects don't change.  Something 500 years ago might have landed you in hell for eternity but now its ok, so in theory there are poor souls burning forever because they were born in the wrong century......or if they do get a pass once its deemed acceptable, do we get passes when 300 years from now the moral Christian compass changes yet again? So if all of it isn't 100% true I cant help but think non of it is.  Also, humans are not as smart as we think we are so why couldn't we be granted the luxury of skipping all the stories that shouldn't be taken literally since we are most easily a literal race. I mean its our eternal souls on the line! He had his son killed for us  but we were not granted a straight to the point way of insuring its not in vain. Just spell it out exactly how we should save it.  Still I believe in a God and still fear hell because it was so ingrained in me growing up even though I'm not sure I believe in it. Such and odd place to be lol  

 

To this I can only say that God never changes but people do, cultures do. I do think that God has grace for that. I need to let this one roll around a little longer, maybe I'll have a better answer. 

[albeto.]

So true. I can't agree with the scare tactic, but I think they genuinely believe it's true and want to help people avoid it. They're going about it all wrong but they generally have other people's interests at heart. Mostly. There are some obvious, glaring examples of the opposite.

 

I suspect most people don't think their approach is a scare tactic. Consider the post directly above yours, where '10 mentions this idea that we are all sinners and we will all be judged. The implication here is that if we are not believers, we will be judged guilty, and sentenced to an eternity of torment and suffering (whatever that means). I don't think for a minute '10 is trying to "scare" me, just pass along what she believes. But it's a scary proposition nevertheless. Gosh, what if I was a believer and thought I was a legitimate believer (a "true Christian" to use saddlemomma's words), but then realized I wasn't trusting Jesus with something. Would that mean I would be judged guilty for not having belief? What if my baptism and that wonder, euphoric feeling I had for days after was really my "flesh" feeling the placebo effect of a highly charged emotionally rewarding event, but my actions revealed a lack of belief? How would I be judged? What if I presumed I was saved when in fact I had just been fooling myself because of the comfort it gave me? My future would be pretty terrible, and when you're talking about eternity, that can be pretty darn frightening. The advice to trust God is no more helpful than the advice to just don't worry. How do you not worry when something terribly worrisome is a real problem? Even the glaring examples of people trying to scare nonbelievers on purpose do so because they think they are ultimately "waking up" the spiritual sleeper. Ever watch two guys from Westboro Baptist Church as guests on Russell Brand's show? If there exists a better example of the Worst Case Scenario Christian than WBC, I'd love to hear it. They're an established church, not one guy. They go straight to the bible for their reasons. And just listen to their message - it's intended to be a message of love. For realz. The "scare" is similar to a child's spank - a painful way to get attention so someone avoids getting hurt. 

[Teannika]

You're new here so you might not realize this, but the argument you just made ("If you were a REAL Christian, you'd understand") is only going to annoy people and reinforce our belief that leaving Christianity was the right choice.  This is the kind of belief that pushes so many reasonable people away from Christianity.  You think that you know, and the rest of us are hugely ignorant because we weren't the right kind of Christian, but that's simply not true.  

 

It's not my intention to insult anyone, only to point to what I believe is the truth.

 

I have been born again, so I know firsthand what happens to you once you are. It is a spiritual change that takes place. I have only wanted to give a small witness to that experience that you can "know" truth. As per the OP "How do you know what you believe?". Not just, "Why do you believe what you do?"

So to repeat, my belief and experience is: You can know for certainty that God exists. And you can find truth on all sorts of matters, and have it confirmed to you - IF - you are humble before God and ask him yourself.

 

I don't have the expectation that people are going to agree with me. I respect others, and want everyone to have the freedom to believe that they know the truth that they know in a safe and non-threatening way. If they have evidence and experiences that back themself up then that is so much better. It means that they aren't just going along with what they have been taught, or what they would like to believe out of convenience.

 

I also admit that there are still many things that I don't know. I don't want to be obnoxious or all-knowing. However, as a Christian I just don't go along with statements like "we can never know" or "God can't reveal himself to us" or "God can't teach us the truth of a matter, the purpose of life, a doctrinal understanding...and so on"

 

If I can encourage those who attend a church but haven't been born again to get saved, I will continue to speak up if I think I have something to offer. I'm not interested in religion and its practices, I'm interested in people's souls being saved. Which is why I'll take the risk in saying something which has the potential to offend. Offending to upset someone isn't my desire though, please understand that.

[Guest]

 

I suspect most people don't think their approach is a scare tactic. Consider the post directly above yours, where '10 mentions this idea that we are all sinners and we will all be judged. The implication here is that if we are not believers, we will be judged guilty, and sentenced to an eternity of torment and suffering (whatever that means). I don't think for a minute '10 is trying to "scare" me, just pass along what she believes. But it's a scary proposition nevertheless. Gosh, what if I was a believer and thought I was a legitimate believer (a "true Christian" to use saddlemomma's words), but then realized I wasn't trusting Jesus with something. Would that mean I would be judged guilty for not having belief? What if my baptism and that wonder, euphoric feeling I had for days after was really my "flesh" feeling the placebo effect of a highly charged emotionally rewarding event, but my actions revealed a lack of belief? How would I be judged? What if I presumed I was saved when in fact I had just been fooling myself because of the comfort it gave me? My future would be pretty terrible, and when you're talking about eternity, that can be pretty darn frightening. The advice to trust God is no more helpful than the advice to just don't worry. How do you not worry when something terribly worrisome is a real problem? Even the glaring examples of people trying to scare nonbelievers on purpose do so because they think they are ultimately "waking up" the spiritual sleeper. Ever watch two guys from Westboro Baptist Church as guests on Russell Brand's show? If there exists a better example of the Worst Case Scenario Christian than WBC, I'd love to hear it. They're an established church, not one guy. They go straight to the bible for their reasons. And just listen to their message - it's intended to be a message of love. For realz. The "scare" is similar to a child's spank - a painful way to get attention so someone avoids getting hurt.

For myself, I often felt tortured by the worry of, "How can I believe something that I don't believe?" For a long time, I earnestly searched for ways I could accept some idea that was not logical and did not seem supported by my experience, but in the end, I cannot gloss over the things that I find unworkable. No amount of apologetics can make sense of "problematic" aspects of a faith system.

[Guest]

Sorry, DP

[Quiver0f10]

I suspect most people don't think their approach is a scare tactic. Consider the post directly above yours, where '10 mentions this idea that we are all sinners and we will all be judged. The implication here is that if we are not believers, we will be judged guilty, and sentenced to an eternity of torment and suffering (whatever that means). I don't think for a minute '10 is trying to "scare" me, just pass along what she believes. But it's a scary proposition nevertheless. Gosh, what if I was a believer and thought I was a legitimate believer (a "true Christian" to use saddlemomma's words), but then realized I wasn't trusting Jesus with something. Would that mean I would be judged guilty for not having belief? What if my baptism and that wonder, euphoric feeling I had for days after was really my "flesh" feeling the placebo effect of a highly charged emotionally rewarding event, but my actions revealed a lack of belief? How would I be judged? What if I presumed I was saved when in fact I had just been fooling myself because of the comfort it gave me? My future would be pretty terrible, and when you're talking about eternity, that can be pretty darn frightening. The advice to trust God is no more helpful than the advice to just don't worry. How do you not worry when something terribly worrisome is a real problem? Even the glaring examples of people trying to scare nonbelievers on purpose do so because they think they are ultimately "waking up" the spiritual sleeper. Ever watch two guys from

? If there exists a better example of the Worst Case Scenario Christian than WBC, I'd love to hear it. They're an established church, not one guy. They go straight to the bible for their reasons. And just listen to their message - it's intended to be a message of love. For realz. The "scare" is similar to a child's spank - a painful way to get attention so someone avoids getting hurt.

My intention was not to scare, but to answer questions when asked what I believed and why. Please forgive me if I caused pain and fear in anyone. The judgment part of the conversation is only half of it, the other half is a loving God who gave His son so ALL could be saved. God loves each and everyone of us.

 

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. 17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

 

This article/video really spoke to me and is why I do speak up: http://www.radicallychristian.com/what-atheist-penn-jillette-taught-me-about-evangelism

[LizzyBee]

It's been fascinating reading everyone's posts.

 

For myself, I was raised in a Lutheran home. I believed in an afterlife from a young age; I can remember thinking about my grandparents being able to see me from heaven and I wanted to be "good" so that they would be happy. At some point, I reasoned that since there are no tears in heaven, they could only see me when I was "good" and not when I was "bad," so I could stop thinking that I could make them unhappy if I wasn't "good."

 

As a teenager, I questioned things and decided I didn't want to believe just because I was taught to believe. I called myself an athiest for awhile, but deep down, I wasn't. I still believed, and I went back to church after a few months.

 

As a young adult, I read a lot of apologetics and did a lot of Bible study to try to cement and refine what I believed. I became a Baptist and have been so for 30 years. 

 

Being on these boards for 12 years, I have read a lot of discussions about atheism, and for whatever reason, I still fail to find the arguments convincing. I have tried to empty my mind and really examine what I believe in the core of my being, and it always comes back to belief in the God of the Bible. I still can't not believe even when I try.  However, I have come to question some of the specifics of my faith and I am experiencing a paradigm shift that is scary and exciting at the same time.  I just did the Belief O Matic test this evening.  I'm pretty sure I've done it before and don't remember what answer it gave me.  But this time, it gave me Roman Catholicism. And that's my paradigm shift. Some days, I think to myself that I just love being Catholic, and then I remember that I'm not yet. But I think I am on the inside. I'm just finding so much beauty and consistency there.

 

The Belief O Matic I did on www.beliefnet.com only gave me one answer, and it didn't give me any percentages as some of you mentioned.  So maybe there's more than one?  Please post a link if you have a different one. :-)

 

ETA: I found another site that has the same test but gives the percentages. 

 

100% for Eastern Orthodox and Catholicism,

89% for Mainline Conservative Protestants

84% for Seventh Day Adventist

83% for Orthodox Quaker

68% for Orthodox Judaism

67% for Hinduism

62% for Mormonism

61% for Islam

57% for Mainline Liberal Protestants

53% for Bahai

53% for Sikhism

50% for Jehovah's Witness

 

I'm going to stop there because I'm tired of typing. :-)

 

 

[DawnM]

None of the ones I mentioned would align themselves with the term fundamentalists.  They would consider themselves to be Evangelical Protestant.

 

Can you please link something that explains what you are saying here, I have never heard mainline and standard as terms used in terms of being different explanations for Evangelical Protestants.

 

Dawn

 

 

But "mainline" doesn't mean "mainstream" or "standard." For example, I'm pretty sure that there are many more Southern Baptists than American Baptists, but American Baptist churches are considered to be mainline Protestant, and Southern Baptist churches are not. "Mainline" is the contrasting term to "fundamentalist." Of the churches you list, I think only the United Methodist Church is considered "mainline Protestant."

I think it's pretty common for people raised in fundamentalist cultures to not even really be aware that mainline Christianity exists, which is why I wanted the OP to be aware of them. I don't have a dog in this hunt, myself - I don't consider myself to be a Christian at all anymore, although I was raised as a devout and committed one.

 

[DawnM]

It said Quaker, but I am quite sure I am not a Quaker.  

 

 

I need to retake it. I don't remember seeing the percentages last night. What specific religion did it say you fit in most closely?

 

[Mandylubug]

It said Quaker, but I am quite sure I am not a Quaker.

I laughed at being listed as orthodox quaker and thought no way but after I did some research, I can see how I was grouped there. Very interesting.

[DawnM]

I will have to read some info.  I don't have time tonight, but it will be interesting.

 

 

I laughed at being listed as orthodox quaker and thought no way but after I did some research, I can see how I was grouped there. Very interesting.

 

[Teannika]

Could you further explain what you mean by the Bible being mathematically and structurally perfect? 

 

Sure, I'll try to keep it short and simple as I don't want to derail the thread.

 

The Bible is organised in a very deliberate way. Often people, including Christians, believe that men alone choose the books of the canon and organised them. This did happen, but it was God who ultimately directed their actions and gave us what he wanted us to have today.

For a quick example of the perfect structural design of the OT, please have a look at the following image:

Keep in mind that the men who penned these scriptures mostly did not have contact with one another, lived many years apart, and also did not have contact with those who organised their order. So collaboration is out of the question.

 

[Please see attatchment. I can't remember how to insert an image.]

 

 

 

The second example that I will give, focuses on the mathematical accuracy of the Bible. I will give an example that I hope that you can look into further for yourself. There a many small examples that I can give, but may not be seen or understood at first. This example is at least testable for observation.

 

This example could be called 'The book of Isaiah is a mini-Bible'.

 

The book of Isaiah has 66 chapters that correspond to the 66 books of the Bible. They are proof of God's seal on the canon and it's order.

There is no way that Isaiah could have penned these words thousands of years before the New Testament had been written to fit like they do. (Especially as he did not write with future chapter divisions in mind.)

This example gives proof to the fact that God's hand not only ordered the books, but even the chapters which were added at a later time. The Bible has come down through a progressive process of being formed and polished. We don't have to try to go back in time to discover what the "originals" said, because God without fail kept his word safe.

 

The first way to observe that Isaiah's chapters each correspond with each consequative book of the Bible is to first observe the chapter division in Isaiah that corresponds to the division between the last book of OT, and the first book of the NT. The chapter in Isaiah that corresponds to the last book of the OT is chapter 39 (which corresponds to the 39th book of the Bible 'Malachi'.) The next chapter, chapter 40, corresponds to the book of Matthew. It is well known, and observable, that there is a clear distinction and separtion in Isaiah's book at this point between the 39th and 40th chapter. This is the same distinction between the OT and NT in the whole Bible. Next, read chapter 40 and you will see the gospel which corresponds to the book of Matthew. It is about Jesus coming, and specifically mentions the prophecy about John the Baptist, and about the Lord coming to feed his flock.

 

I don't want to be long-winded as I could give further examples of the specific verses that correspond to the books, so to cut it short I'll just say that each chapter in Isaiah can be aligned with each corresponding book of the Bible. And you can check it out for yourself.

 

(These types of examples won't be understood by everyone, different things speak to different people. but it has shown me that God is also a 'God of mathematics', not only in nature, but also in his word.)

 

perfect symmetry of 39 books of OT.pdf

[Trilliums]

I grew up going to church. One grandmother was an obnoxiously overzealous Christian who felt that she had a personal line straight to a God who would tell her everything about everyone and it was her job to inform them of God's will in their life. Another was a quiet and dignified Christian who simply loved and prayed. Another grandmother believed in God but, for all intents and purposes, practiced nothing.

 

It really never occurred to me for years to believe anything other than what I was taught. I was zealous in my Bible reading, tried to pray, joined studies etc. but it always felt empty and hollow - like I must be missing what everyone else was experiencing. I do recall thinking many times that I wished there was no God, that life would be so much simpler. I never identified with those Christians who would say things like, "I just don't know how I would get up and face the day if there was no God." To me it seemed like life would be infinitely simpler - you live, you die, you become fertilizer - what's so wrong with that?

 

Anyway, over the last 3 - 4 yrs. I have really struggled to continue believing in God or the bible. I think it started with a disappointment with Christian culture and spread from there. The further away from it I get the sillier it all sounds. I also find myself looking at a lot of things in Christianity and thinking that I really don't want to serve that kind of God. It's scary to jump ship though. Christianity comes with an intense amount of FEAR and intimidation. It's easy to say that you don't really believe but then to fall back into familiar patterns because they're comfortable. There is the fact that I don't know WHAT I believe, too. Maybe I'm agnostic with Buddhist tendencies... or athiest... or... I just don't know. I feel like I need to be able to put myself in a box before jumping ship, to be able to say with certainty THIS is what I believe. THIS is what I am. I mean, how do I defend "I don't know?"

 

My husband is a Christian believer. My son is a die-hard believer. Every single one of my friends is a Christian. I work at a Christian school. My kid goes to a Christian co-op. I literally have no one that I can hash this out with rationally. I feel like I have to hide because I am 100% certain I would be fired and my husband, who knows that SOMETHING is up, has already been a bit of a bully when it comes to me choosing not to go to church.

 

So, how did you come to your current belief (or non-belief) system? I'm particularly interested in those who have left the faith that you grew up with for something entirely different. How do you de-program yourself from all of that dogma and unravel the strands of what YOU believe? I don't know where to go beyond, "I don't think I believe in the Christian God anymore."

 

:grouphug: This sounds like a really tough spot. :grouphug:

 

I have not undergone a strong change in faith or belief systems as you describe. I was raised in a non-religious family and briefly joined a friend's church in high school which I left due to the hypocrisy.  As a young adult I self identified as an agnostic mostly because I felt a degree of uncertainty plus I had not delved into my beliefs or lack of them.  With marriage, children and mostly homeschooling, I often found myself discussing religion and beliefs and I can now happily say I am an atheist.  I believe in the great compost pile in the sky (or ground, but sky sounds better).  :)

 

Anyways, I did not have to over come the fear and intimidation you mention so I can't comment on deprogramming based on any personal experience.  Sounds as though your family and work pressures have you cornered in a bit here.   You are clearly having a mind set shift.  I read your concerns about religion and I agree with them.  But, not believing in a Christian god does not mean that you have to believe in something else.  You do not need to fill it with another belief system or even a label.  Being an atheist does not occupy a lot of my thought or energy (whereas I see following a faith probably does--which is fine for those who choose to do so).  Basically, instead of trying to fill your lack of belief with some other system, I'd try to accept it as it is and not get too hung up on trying to identify yourself as something else.

 

Are there any Unitarian Universalist churches in your area?  Perhaps a leader of a UU church would be a possible sounding board for people undergoing changes in their belief systems. 

 

Sincerely wishing you all the best. 

[albeto.]

It's not my intention to insult anyone, only to point to what I believe is the truth.

I do believe you whe you say this is your intention. I hope you don't mind my reply, as it is not meant to shake you up or challenge your beliefs or to convince you of something. My reply is for the sake of the OP, and the discussion in general.

 

I have been born again, so I know firsthand what happens to you once you are. It is a spiritual change that takes place. I have only wanted to give a small witness to that experience that you can "know" truth. As per the OP "How do you know what you believe?". Not just, "Why do you believe what you do?"

So to repeat, my belief and experience is: You can know for certainty that God exists. And you can find truth on all sorts of matters, and have it confirmed to you - IF - you are humble before God and ask him yourself.

For my part, the sticky-wicket in this solution is the fact that other people identify this same exact scenario - being "born again," undergoing a "spiritual change," a "certainty" of knowledge, humbling oneself and asking in sincerity - and still loose their faith. The only explanation for this is to recognize the possibility this "rebirth" didn't take. They were not, in fact, made into a "new creature," and all those things that they genuinely believed confirmed their experience were in reality misunderstandings. Utlimatley, one can only assume their feelings will not change, even though there does exist the very real chance it will. This can only by confirmed at the end of one's life, and really, only truly confirmed the moment after death. Until then, this is an assumption at best. Again this is belief, not knowledge.

[HRAAB]

Sure, I'll try to keep it short and simple as I don't want to derail the thread.

 

 

 

Thank you for taking the time to give such a detailed answer.

[albeto.]

My intention was not to scare, but to answer questions when asked what I believed and why. Please forgive me if I caused pain and fear in anyone.

I believe you. It is a potentially scary message, even if it doesn't frighten you, it's threat is not lost on others.

 

The judgment part of the conversation is only half of it, the other half is a loving God who gave His son so ALL could be saved.

Which raises the natural question - why? How does sacrificing an innocent victim satisfy some debt that would render one guilty and worthy of eternal torture? It doesn't make any more sense than me suggesting I bumped my toe for your morgtage payment. The two are utterly unrelated logically. So... how do you know this even works? But again, we know one cannot know, they can only believe it does.

 

God loves each and everyone of us.

With notable exceptions in the bible.

 

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. 17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

John 3:18 "He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God."

 

Condemned already. Yikes, kwim?

 

This article/video really spoke to me and is why I do speak up: http://www.radicallychristian.com/what-atheist-penn-jillette-taught-me-about-evangelism

The catch being #3:

3. I must be genuinely kind, look people in the eyes, and tell them the truth.

 

But as we're exploring, this isn't "the truth," this is "my belief." With that in mind, let's rewrite the first two points he learned (and is encouraging you and others):

1. I cannot say I love someone if I will not share with them my belief about eternity.

2. I have to care more about what I believe about souls, than whether or not the conversation is “socially awkward.â€

 

 

 

[Quiver0f10]

I am going to end my part in this conversation. I will be praying for you all.

[Rosie_0801]

I haven't been to church regularly in a couple of years. My husband has been quite a bully about it in the past because he feels that I am being selfish but has gotten a bit better lately. My compromise is that I will attend occasionally on my own terms in order to keep up appearances. This has ended up amounting to holidays and maybe one service a month. I feel like such a hypocrite just being there but it is important to him. 

 

It's not hypocritical to go to church because your husband wants you to. It's a nice, friendly thing to do. :) (Him bullying you is not nice or friendly.)

 

To answer the original question, it was no big deal for me to drop childhood teachings because I'm an opinionated sort. :lol: But it takes time, because life takes time. 

 

Possibly books with study questions will help you untangle your thoughts. This is a pagan book, but the questions are generally useful for people searching, I think. http://www.amazon.com/Paganism-Introduction-Earth--Centered-Religions/dp/0738702226/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1398565247&sr=8-1-fkmr0&keywords=practicing+earth+centered+religion I daresay people could offer more appropriate options. :)

[Lady Florida.]

I never believed in hell, even when I was Catholic. I think not having to take the scare factor into account makes leaving a religion much easier.

 

That was true for me too. There was no scare factor for me and that probably made it easier. I also didn't have the issue of someone close to me being devoutly religious. This makes the OP's situation much more difficult, and I'm not sure I know what to say to her about that. You will both have to find a way to respect each other's belief and that won't be easy.

 

Which raises the natural question - why? How does sacrificing an innocent victim satisfy some debt that would render one guilty and worthy of eternal torture? It doesn't make any more sense than me suggesting I bumped my toe for your morgtage payment. The two are utterly unrelated logically. So... how do you know this even works? But again, we know one cannot know, they can only believe it does.

This bothered me as I was losing my faith too. I didn't understand how it mattered. I realized how much it sounded human sacrifice, and that's what it is. I'm not saying that to be mean; I really don't get it. I also don't know why for most of my life I didn't even question it. One can almost say a Christian turned atheist also experiences a born again feeling. My eyes were opened to so many things I previously didn't or wouldn't see. It's as much like "new life" as a religious epiphany. Or it felt that way to me.

 

With notable exceptions in the bible.

Yet another area I didn't or wouldn't see while I still believed and one that troubled me as I was in the process of reevaluating my beliefs. How much did God love all those civilizations he commanded his followers to slaughter?

[Lady Florida.]

The book of Isaiah has 66 chapters that correspond to the 66 books of the Bible. They are proof of God's seal on the canon and it's order.

 

perfect symmetry of 39 books of OT.pdf

How would you explain the difference in the number of books in the Catholic bible? Is that bible mathematically perfect? Do you agree that the Catholic Church existed long before some books were removed for the various Protestant denominations? If you don't recognize the Catholic Church as a legitimate Christian denomination, and the first Christian church, Christianity falls apart. Even Martin Luther agreed with much of the Catholic teachings.

 

While I no longer hold any supernatural belief, I grew up Catholic. I don't understand how non-Catholic Christians seem to ignore the fact that Roman and Orthodox Catholic churches existed long before "modern" Protestant denominations. Without those churches there would be no Christian doctrines of any kind.

[milovany]

I don't really think anyone believes they're doing it the original way....

 

.... God knows us infinitely better that we know our children and I think He uses different traditions and denominations to reach as many people as possible. 

 

 

As to not thinking anyone (any church) believes they're doing it the original way .... more than half the world's Christians (Orthodox and Catholic) believe this very thing.  It's what we looked into as we were converting.  I had no idea there were churches that claimed this (I had been evangelical protestant for 23 or so years). But instead of standing in the myriad of denominations looking backward, we instead began our look-see at Pentecost and moved forward through time, and in so doing we realized that the original church really does still exist -- either Orthodox or Catholic (the Bible even says the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church, the original church must still exist). Its existence is not just a guess or a faith thing, it's also a historical timeline thing as I said above.  (See this timeline, for example). As we looked into it and read the writings of the early church fathers and the lives of the saints, we realized we believe the Orthodox has more claim to being the original church than the Catholic church. It's why we converted to Eastern Orthodoxy.  "If this church still exists, how could we not be a part of it?" There's a lot more detail to all that than I need to type here and now; just wanted to address the thought that no church claims to be the original. 

 

As to God using different traditions and denominations to reach as many people as possible, I differ quite entirely on your thought on this (a thought I used to share wholeheartedly, by the way). Clearly in both practice and in the Bible, God meant for the church to be one and undivided. Denominations are so unfortunate in this regard; they do not show the unity of the Church but a manmade disunity.  (Again, my thoughts/beliefs/opinion -- I know that you don't share them). Denominational splits didn't become widespread until the 15th century -- that's a lot of church (1500 years) prior to a divided church.  I think a unified church speaks more to God's nature than a schizophrenic one, but that might just be me ;) . It's the unity of the all the Orthodox churches around the world that drew us to its arms; I could go to any Orthodox Divine Liturgy in the world and know exactly what the service is going to be like (with a few minor cultural differences/wordings) and what the theology of the church is. As above, there's a lot of detail here I'm not bringing up for brevity's sake.

 

Separately from the quoted above, it's entirely not the Orthodox understanding that the purpose of Christ's death on the cross was for it to be some kind of sin substitution for us (i.e., taking our deserved punishment in our stead). To us, this seems to pit God against God, which of course is untenable. It's always been the Orthodox teaching rather that the reason Christ came was to conquer death, and in doing so, opening the door for us to be reunited with God.  It's not a courtroom drama, but a hospital drama.  We don't need to appease an angry judge (God), but find that our sick souls need life and healing so we go to the hospital (Church where God is the physician).

 

And now a further side note, St. Nikolai Velimirovich included a contemplation in his Prologue for a day this past week something along these lines (I loved it and am trying to internalize it more and more):  Just like when a person goes into the hospital for the treatment of a serious problem they're naturally not focused on the sicknesses of others but almost entirely on their own (they want to get well and spend their efforts and energy on that), so ought we be focused on our selves as God the physician treats our soul dis-ease (anger, greed, gluttony, lack of self-control, unkindness, pride, etc.) in the hospital that is the Church.  I loved this for its message that we're not to look at the sins and shortcomings of others at all but at our own as we seek life and treatment from these things. This is yet another reason we love Orthodoxy -- we were freed from judging others and trying to decide if we think they are "true Christians" or Christians at all, which is exhausting let alone unloving. It's not even part of our life in Christ, we just seek to be united with Him and let Him handle the judgment of others (which we believe is done with love and mercy). 

 

Oh, and the Orthodox do not believe in a literal hell as in it being a place where God "sends" people. Incognito said it so well the other day on a different thread. (This thought is addressed mostly to non-orthodox Christians, not to non-believers since they don't believe in a deity and any kind of heaven).

 

Well, there's an Orthodox jumping in again.  There are so many comments being made about Christians and what the Bible teaches and what the church believes, by both Christians and non-Christians alike, comments that are contrary to what we understand the early church to have taught -- that I thought it worthy of a mention.

[Teannika]

For my part, the sticky-wicket in this solution is the fact that other people identify this same exact scenario - being "born again," undergoing a "spiritual change," a "certainty" of knowledge, humbling oneself and asking in sincerity - and still loose their faith. The only explanation for this is to recognize the possibility this "rebirth" didn't take. They were not, in fact, made into a "new creature," and all those things that they genuinely believed confirmed their experience were in reality misunderstandings. Utlimatley, one can only assume their feelings will not change, even though there does exist the very real chance it will. This can only by confirmed at the end of one's life, and really, only truly confirmed the moment after death. Until then, this is an assumption at best. Again this is belief, not knowledge.

I understand your point. And I know of many Christians who have lost their faith, or fallen away so to speak. I can only give a scriptural answer which is that if that person had been born again the blood of Jesus will still cover them. This is according to 2 Timothy 2:13 'If we believe not, yet he abideth faithful: he cannot deny himself.'

 

I'm not expecting that the spiritual experiences of Christians can be trusted as ultimate evidence for a non-Christian. It can only be evidence for the Christian so that the Christian can "know." I can only be a witness as far as the point of saying that this is what has happened to me. Some Christians are a witness because the joy and peace that they find flows out of them like a river, and people notice the change. The Bible tells us that we must test and prove all things. I wouldn't take another person's experiences as undoubtable proof either.

 

The biggest advice that I would give someone who is seeking God is to lay aside all that they were taught, and everything that they think should be, and go honestly before God to ask him. Some people say that they sought God and that he didn't show up. I can only guess that the person deep down inside either didn't want to believe, or didn't want to acknowledge their sins. God knows the heart, and he will respond to the heart. He also won't show up on demand. Believe me, I have tried that in earnest. He showed up for me when I finally submitted and succumbed in simple trusting faith with no expectations. He may show up years down the track because that person had something else to learn and experience in the meantime. Or because the devil got in their ear and they did not realise they were being led astray from believing and accepting Christ as Saviour.

 

No one truly knows who is saved but the individual and the Father.

[SemiSweet]

 

This bothered me as I was losing my faith too. I didn't understand how it mattered. I realized how much it sounded human sacrifice, and that's what it is. I'm not saying that to be mean; I really don't get it. I also don't know why for most of my life I didn't even question it. One can almost say a Christian turned atheist also experiences a born again feeling. My eyes were opened to so many things I previously didn't or wouldn't see. It's as much like "new life" as a religious epiphany. Or it felt that way to me.

 

 

Yet another area I didn't or wouldn't see while I still believed and one that troubled me as I was in the process of reevaluating my beliefs. How much did God love all those civilizations he commanded his followers to slaughter?

This. All of it, but specifically the born again, eye-opening feeling. I felt so free and unencumbered and I had to re-evaluate everything I ever thought and believed but I got to do it through eyes that weren't fogged up by preconceived notions. Honestly I feel like every single thing in my life changed for the better when I let go of religion. The peace and freedom is not comparable to anything else I've ever felt.

 

The things written in the bible bother me intensely, condoning rape and slavery and mass murder, I just can't even imagine how I was ever able to reconcile that with the loving god I believed in, but I did and people still do.

[Joker]

 

The biggest advice that I would give someone who is seeking God is to lay aside all that they were taught, and everything that they think should be, and go honestly before God to ask him. Some people say that they sought God and that he didn't show up. I can only guess that the person deep down inside either didn't want to believe, or didn't want to acknowledge their sins. God knows the heart, and he will respond to the heart. He also won't show up on demand. Believe me, I have tried that in earnest. He showed up for me when I finally submitted and succumbed in simple trusting faith with no expectations. He may show up years down the track because that person had something else to learn and experience in the meantime. Or because the devil got in their ear and they did not realise they were being led astray from believing and accepting Christ as Saviour.

 

 

My dh wants to truly believe and does not. His father was a chaplain in the military and a minister. Dh goes to church with us, prays with us, and hopes daily that he will believe but he does not...yet. Dh has helped me hold onto my own faith when I faltered. He is amazing and knows more about religion and the Bible than most Christians I know. He is actively seeking and for someone to say he must not be and that is the reason for his disbelief is ridiculous.

 

I also don't agree that He will not show up on demand because I believe sometimes He does. I saw it happen to my cousin who asked point blank for a sign and was given one. I can only think it very important for my cousin in that moment to finally believe and he did (and still does).

 

[mamaraby]

Well, there's an Orthodox jumping in again. There are so many comments being made about Christians and what the Bible teaches and what the church believes, by both Christians and non-Christians alike, comments that are contrary to what we understand the early church to have taught -- that I thought it worthy of a mention.

I think it's good that you did. :0) While I no longer believe in any gods, I think it's important to remind people that evangelicals do not own the sole definition on what Christianity is. From what I can gather, the conversion to Orthodox from evangelical is not uncommon. A classmate of mine from Moody converted. For her, it saved her faith.

 

All the more reason to try things on so to speak.

[Teannika]

My dh wants to truly believe and does not. His father was a chaplain in the military and a minister. Dh goes to church with us, prays with us, and hopes daily that he will believe but he does not...yet. Dh has helped me hold onto my own faith when I faltered. He is amazing and knows more about religion and the Bible than most Christians I know. He is actively seeking and for someone to say he must not be and that is the reason for his disbelief is ridiculous.

 

I also don't agree that He will not show up on demand because I believe sometimes He does. I saw it happen to my cousin who asked point blank for a sign and was given one. I can only think it very important for my cousin in that moment to finally believe and he did (and still does).

 

Can I ask specifically what he wants to believe in?

And specifically what he does not and cannot believe at this point?

 

Conversion comes when a person understands that they need a Saviour. Does he have a need to be saved from his sins?

 

People can have biblical knowledge and still not get saved. Because they don't choose to. It's a choice to make.

 

What is your understanding on why your husband cannot believe even though he wants to?

It is contrary to what the Bible teaches. It teaches if you seek, then you will find. God hasn't made it impossible to come to him. The opposite, he has made it extremely simple. It is us humans who make it difficult. For whatever reasons.

 

I'm glad your cousin experienced that. But it doesn't always happen. Nowhere does God say that if we demand him to give us a sign that he will. The Bible says that we have enough already to know that he is real and exists. Through what we see in creation, through our conscience, and so forth. Satan believes that God exists, but this doesn't equate to salvation. That is why we are not only to believe, but we must "believe upon." That step that we take is in trusting God.

[milovany]

I think it's good that you did. :0) While I no longer believe in any gods, I think it's important to remind people that evangelicals do not own the sole definition on what Christianity is. From what I can gather, the conversion to Orthodox from evangelical is not uncommon. A classmate of mine from Moody converted. For her, it saved her faith.

 

All the more reason to try things on so to speak.

 

Thank you for your reply.  It was very kind. In addition to the bolded above, I think it's also important to recognize that Orthodoxy is not Catholicism (I'm not saying you personally think that, I just see Orthodoxy aligned with Catholicism -- when describing Christianity as a whole - quite a bit). I used to vaguely think of Orthodoxy as an ethnic version of the Catholic Church and know many still do. But it's completely separate, the two having lost communion a millennium or so ago. Would that we be reunited but either the Orthodox Church would have to accept the Pope as the earthly vicar and leader of the Church, or the Catholic Church would have to let go of that notion.  Neither is likely to happen.

[milovany]

{Gently} Teannika, I appreciate your heart and respect your purpose in posting.  I think it might be good, though, if you might add a few "I think" or "I believe" comments to your posts as you write about what you think Christianity is like and what the Bible means. The Christianity and interpretation of the Bible that you present isn't the traditional, long-standing message. The evangelical understanding of the faith is relatively new to the church, developing in the last 500 years (and parts of it in the last 100-300 years, and even less in some cases). There was a millennium and a half of vibrant Christianity prior to the "simply turn to Christ in faith and be saved," "faith not works," and "once saved, always saved" theologies developing. This can be easily seen by reading the writings of the early church like the Didache and by reading about what the Christianity of the saints and martyrs was like throughout this 1500 year history.  Anyway, just a thought.

[Teannika]

Horton, I should have also added that faith is measured and can increase and grow. We don't all have the same amount of faith. Even once a person gets saved they can still have many doubts. And they can also quench the Holy Spirit and stop hearing his voice altogether.

 

Your husband may not believe that he has enough faith, and maybe that is a stumbling block to him. It doesn't mean that God can't increase his faith and that it will never happen. Keep praying for him.

Katie.

[Rosie_0801]

Do not assume that everyone on the boards shares a particular religious conviction 
These boards are inclusive. You are welcome to ask theological questions, but don't post as though everyone who frequents the boards shares your ideology. Offending posts may be deleted. Don't use inquiries as an excuse to proselytize for anything. Answer questions that are posted but don't use these questions as an excuse to springboard into criticism. For example: If someone asks, "What are your kids dressing up as for Halloween?" don't launch into an explanation of how evil Halloween is. If someone asks, "Is Halloween evil?" have a ball. (Conversely: if someone posts, "We don't do Halloween; what can we substitute?" don't take this as an opportunity to prove to them that Halloween is really just fine.)

[Rosie_0801]

Horton, I should have also added that faith is measured and can increase and grow. We don't all have the same amount of faith. Even once a person gets saved they can still have many doubts. And they can also quench the Holy Spirit and stop hearing his voice altogether.

 

Your husband may not believe that he has enough faith, and maybe that is a stumbling block to him. It doesn't mean that God can't increase his faith and that it will never happen. Keep praying for him.

Katie.

 

Horton hasn't actually asked for advice on managing her husband's spiritual life. Let's leave the poor guy alone.

[Teannika]

{Gently} Teannika, I appreciate your heart and respect your purpose in posting. I think it might be good, though, if you might add a few "I think" or "I believe" comments to your posts as you write about what you think Christianity is like and what the Bible means. The Christianity and interpretation of the Bible that you present isn't the traditional, long-standing message. The evangelical understanding of the faith is relatively new to the church, developing in the last 500 years (and parts of it in the last 100-300 years, and even less in some cases). There was a millennium and a half of vibrant Christianity prior to the "simply turn to Christ in faith and be saved," "faith not works," and "once saved, always saved" theologies developing. This can be easily seen by reading the writings of the early church like the Didache and by reading about what the Christianity of the saints and martyrs was like throughout this 1500 year history. Anyway, just a thought.

 

Thankyou, I accept your kindly given advice. I am coming from the perspective of the Bible as the final authority. And do realise that there are different understandings on true church history. Sorry if I state everything as fact because it's what I believe. I think it is understood that we all write from that perspective. When I was taught to write essays, I wasn't taught too much, but I do remember being taught that we didn't have to write "I think" because it was understood.

 

It is similar to how you stated as fact: "The Christianity and interpretation of the Bible that you present isn't the traditional, long-standing message."

[Teannika]

Horton hasn't actually asked for advice on managing her husband's spiritual life. Let's leave the poor guy alone.

Okay, didn't mean any harm. I just like giving thought to these subjects and exploring them. I didn't bring him up. Was just trying to help if I could. Sincerely.

[milovany]

Thankyou, I accept your kindly given advice. I am coming from the perspective of the Bible as the final authority. And do realise that there are different understandings on true church history. Sorry if I state everything as fact because it's what I believe. I think it is understood that we all write from that perspective. When I was taught to write essays, I wasn't taught too much, but I do remember being taught that we didn't have to write "I think" because it was understood.

 

 

You're welcome. I am a writer by training, and know what you mean about saying "I think" in your text.  However in this context, when people are stating differences of opinion on theological matters, it's probably good to admit/state that what you're writing is your interpretation/understanding. I think also perhaps that you don't quite realize that the comment "I'm coming from the perspective of the Bible" is problematic.  People have different opinions and interpretations of what the Bible means. For example, in your understanding, I'm guessing that being "born again" means praying a prayer of commitment to Christ (or something similar).  For most Christians throughout time, being "born again" was being baptized.  When I was still evangelical (which, for background's sake, was for 23 years up until about five years ago), one of the last straws for me was the issue of women wearing headcoverings.  I spent months and months researching this solely based on the Bible. I used Strong's Concordance to define every single word of the passage, and came to the conclusion that women ought to wear a physical cloth headcovering in church based on that very detailed study of the passage in Corinthians.  Slowly I began to realize that others did just as detailed a study and came to the exact opposite conclusion.  We couldn't both be right!  And yet we both got our understanding from the Bible.  There are myriads of issues like this:  Infant baptism, speaking in tongues, health/wealth doctrine, what marriage is supposed to look like, even whether or not homosexuality is okay.  On and on and on.  This is why we have so many denominations.

 

 

It is similar to how you stated as fact: "The Christianity and interpretation of the Bible that you present isn't the traditional, long-standing message."

 

Well, that IS a historical -- not a theological -- fact so it can be stated.  It's not hard to see that this is true with just a little bit of reading of historical church documents. As a side note, the men through whom the Holy Spirit worked to give us the Bible (which actually is a bit different from the Protestant version of the Bible; reformers removed many books that had been there for centuries) believed as I described. They were Orthodox.  They weren't known by the word "Orthodox" at the time because there was just one united church, but the faith they held to and lived was the original Orthodox faith.  They participated in Divine Liturgy, they received the Eucharist, they believed the Eucharist to be the actual body and blood of Christ, they baptized their infants, they were bishops and priests, etc.

 

My intent isn't to argue with you or to try and change your mind.  I would truthfully like it it if you realized that there are other forms of Christianity out there that aren't evangelical and that just might have more of a claim to orthodoxy than the current evangelical understanding. 

[Teannika]

Thankyou milovany. I think what's hard can be writing in a thread like this where so many topics come up, and so many different people are coming from different perspectives that to mention them all, and acknowledge all the differences whilst stating ones own belief, and trying to answer the question or respond to the person who quoted you can be hard!

 

I have been known for being really long-winded in the past in my online communication, so I'm consciously trying to say "just enough." :-)

[Jasperstone]

How would you explain the difference in the number of books in the Catholic bible? Is that bible mathematically perfect? Do you agree that the Catholic Church existed long before some books were removed for the various Protestant denominations? If you don't recognize the Catholic Church as a legitimate Christian denomination, and the first Christian church, Christianity falls apart. Even Martin Luther agreed with much of the Catholic teachings.

 

While I no longer hold any supernatural belief, I grew up Catholic. I don't understand how non-Catholic Christians seem to ignore the fact that Roman and Orthodox Catholic churches existed long before "modern" Protestant denominations. Without those churches there would be no Christian doctrines of any kind.

 

 

Martin Luther was planning to become a monk, when he realized that what the Catholic Church taught was corrupt, as they were selling “indulgences†to absolve/ cover-up sin. That was not in the Bible.

 

What he found in the Bible was that we may reach salvation only by faith and not by our deeds/ works, and that is what sparked the Protestant Reformation/ Revolution.

 

Luther then went on to translate the New Testament into the German language, giving ordinary lay people (who couldn't afford Bibles before) the opportunity to read God's Word for themselves.

 

So it comes down to whom you trust with your history. As a lot of history has been rewritten to deceive and mislead.

[Teannika]

Milovany, just letting you know that I'm slowing down to go back up and read through your posts carefully. (I'm just worried if I reply to the things that you brought up on this thread I would be derailing it.)

[milovany]

If you have specific questions that you don't want to post here, you're more than welcome to PM me or to come on over to the Exploring Orthodox Christianity social group here at WTM -- a bunch of us Orthodox, and some with questions about the ancient faith, hang out over there.

[milovany]

Martin Luther was planning to become a monk, when he realized that what the Catholic Church taught was corrupt, as they were selling “indulgences†to absolve/ cover-up sin. That was not in the Bible.

 

What he found in the Bible is that we may reach salvation only by faith and not by their deeds/ works, and that is what sparked the Protestant Reformation/ Revolution.

 

Luther then went on to translate the New Testament into the German language, giving ordinary lay people (how couldn't afford Bibles before) the opportunity to read God's Word for themselves.

 

So it comes down to whom you trust with history, as a lot of history has been rewritten.

 

I'm wary of posting because I don't want to keep rehashing this, but the Bible wasn't the sole authority of faith for most of church history. The church the Holy Spirit established at Pentecost was not Bible-only. It couldn't be -- the Bible didn't exist for almost 400 years and even then I think it was more to correct heresy popping up than to be a complete catechism of the Christian life. If the Bible was going to be so foundational, you'd think it'd kind of mention its own importance (it doesn't).  The Bible actually calls the Church "the pillar and foundation of truth." 

 

Luther, if I understand correctly, wanted to do away with the book of James because of his belief that salvation was by faith alone and that works played no part. How could a man redo the Bible 1000 years after it was canonized?  It was an unfortunate development and the church has suffered much since then (in my opinion).  I'm writing as an Eastern Orthodox Christian with no "dog" in the Catholic/Reformation fight.  The eastern church hadn't made the same changes to the faith the Catholic Church did, and the reformation happened outside its walls, so to speak. It just continued on as it had for 1500 years. 

 

[Jasperstone]

How do you know what you believe?

 

It is a great question! And when one says you need faith, that then doesn't cut it for those that don't, so it's tricky. ;)

 

But like what Teannika mentioned earlier in her postings, is that the Bible is revealing stuff *now* that couldn't have been known to man more than 2000 years ago, and that *proves* it without a shadow of doubt. :)