How do you know what you believe?

[Teannika]

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.

 

Sorry, I had missed your comment earlier. I don't come from the viewpoint that the Catholic Church was the first church. I believe that the Catholic Church started at a later time and developed into what we have today. I believe that the "church" started after Jesus death and resurrection and was made up of all those who came to believe on Christ at that time. These people were simply called "Christians" (Acts 11:26) not "Catholics" or otherwise. I also believe that there isn't only Catholics and Protestants. I fit into neither category. I believe that there have been true believers all the way down from Jesus time that are in the true church, no matter if they attend a particular denomination today or not.

 

Regarding the Catholic canon, no I do not see it as the inspired and preserved word of God. I see those extra books as being corruptions. My perspective is that Satan has tried to corrupt, replace, and destroy God's word down throughout the ages. This is also why so many bibles have been burnt and destroyed, and why the Bible has been banned. And it is also why so many different Bible versions saying different things exist today. If you are interested in studying the manuscript evidence, you first need to understand that there are two lines of manuscripts. Then it is a matter of finding out which is the true line.

[Rosie_0801]

 

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. :)

I've heard Muslims say the same about the Quran.

[Teannika]

"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."

 

The Bible does mention it's own importance:

 

15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

 

(2 Timothy 3:15-17)

 

 

It also gives us the example of the Bereans that they tested all that they were learning and understanding by the word of God. And these are people who were living during the time that Jesus had just been crucified etc.

 

'These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.' (Acts 17:11)

[milovany]

The Bible does mention it's own importance:

 

15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

 

(2 Timothy 3:15-17)

 

Oh, sure, I agree that scripture is useful for these things (it might be worth noting that this verse is referring to the Old Testament), but it doesn't say it's the only source of doctrine, reproof, correction and instruction, nor does anything in the Bible say anything about a "book to come" that will some day be the foundation of the faith.  That was my point. 

 

I don't think we'll agree Teannika and that's okay.  I don't want to get into Scripture wars with you.  That wasn't my intent in bringing up the non-evangelical, historical Christian point of view.  I just wanted to point out that historical documents point to one united church (either Catholic or Orthodox, but one of the two) for the first thousand years of Christianity, so these perspectives can't be dismissed.

[Jasperstone]

Can you mention some of these things that are being revealed ? I'm curious.

 

Thanks.

 

 

Me thinks, I would have to open a new thread. As, it's not a light or easy subject. :)

[Teannika]

"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."

 

Luther couldn't reconcile what the book of James said about works because he didn't know how to "rightly divide" the word of God as we are instructed to do. All of the Bible is for us, but not all of the Bible is about us. The book of James is doctrinally for the Jews. It is addressed to the twelve tribes of Israel in verse 1.

 

'Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.' (2 Timothy 2:15)

[milovany]

Teannika, again, we're not going to agree. I don't want to turn this thread into an doctrinal argument between you and me.  Thank you and you're welcome to PM me if you'd like. 

 

To you and everyone else still reading, I apologize for pressing on past my point that the evangelical point of view is not the traditional/ancient/original point of view.  That's all I was trying to say with my longer post on page 3 or so.

 

 

[Elfknitter.#]

Just saw this and thought perhaps it's something for the OP to reflect upon: https://scontent-a-lax.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/t1.0-9/10254991_10152028505017547_232325722290217949_n.jpg?dl=1

[eternalsummer]

http://bookviewcafe.com/blog/2014/02/10/belief-in-belief/  That is interesting too, a blog post by Ursula Le Guin (although I disagree with her, partially)

 

We take a lot of things on the faith of other people; we couldn't function otherwise!  That is the nature of authority, expertise, etc.  Science and religion are, for most people, two of these things.

 

I don't think that is necessarily a bad thing.

[Hoot]

I just wanted to chime in and say that I haven't left the thread; it's been a busy weekend and I'll be back to respond more either today or tomorrow. Thank you all for such an encouraging and enlightening discussion. So far, it has given me a lot to think about.

[DawnM]

It sounds like you have read and heard all the "arguments" so that is not what you are looking for.

I understand that.  I have friends who believe differently than I do and they think if they just explain it one more time, louder this time, or in a different way, that somehow I will be swayed.

 

You are right, this all comes down to faith ultimately and no one can argue you into faith.  It is a relationship between you and God.  

 

You don't believe the Bible can be credible or believed.   One of the reasons I believe the Bible to be true is historical records outside of the Bible that point to the accuracy of the historical time periods.  Another reason is the eye witness testimonies of those who saw Jesus (the gospels).  And the third reason I believe is personal testimony of what I believe God has done in my own life and the lives of those around me who believe.  

 

However, I do want to point out the bolded in your answers........I am of the belief that everyone is "chosen" and that Christ died for all, and that we ultimately have a choice to follow or not.  There are instances where he used people specifically to fulfill his purposes, but he spoke to crowds inviting all to come to Him.  Yes, there are theological differences.  Yes there are differing interpretations of the Bible.  And yes, many use the Bible out of context to suit themselves.  But the message is the same for those with differing theologies within the Christian church.  The message is that Christ crucified and rising again brought us eternal life.  The issues and arguments arise when we major on the minors in these situations.  And many Christians tend to want to do that.  It pains me, and I am a believer.

 

Anyway, this again is not meant to argue or convince, but merely to state some reasons why I believe and to address the issue of the fact that not everyone believes predestination and election mean the same thing.

 

Dawn

 

 

 

 

 

 

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. 

 

[Hoot]

This.I recently went through a crisis of faith and had to work backwards from what I found to be the most reasonable explanation for things such as creation, moral law and other things that I couldn't explain. . Doing this helped me to find out what I really believed. Once I came to the conclusion that the Biblical account of creation was the most reasonable explanation to me, the rest of Christianity fell into place. . I recommend reading Mere Christianity.

 

Okay, this "most reasonable explanation" thing has been mentioned by a few others and I just don't get it.  In reading the Bible, mythology, etc. one sounds just as ridiculous as the other.  So, I really don't understand the idea of choosing the least absurd of them all as the basis of my faith.  It's like choosing the lesser of two evils (not that I'm saying any belief system is evil, it's just a familiar saying) and calling it good.

[Hoot]

I think you are extraordinarily mistaken about this. Many skeptics have *been* Christians - yes, "true" Christians. Many know their Bible better than three-quarters of their former pew-mates. Don't forget, it has been humans who wrote the words that are now Canonized into Scripture. Don't forget it is humans who decided what to canonize. Humans have extrapolated doctrine and have added traditional stories and interpretations to Scripture to give us whatever doctrinal beliefs you happen to hold. You may be absolutely convinced that the interpretation you believe is the one God intended, yet unless Michael descended into your bedroom and verified the Bible sitting on your nightstand, you are actually just one more person certain of their own interpretation. How can you be certain YOU are not the one misquoting or misinterpreting the Scriptures?

 

I really have nothing to say here except that I "liked" this once but didn't feel like that was quite enough.  Just wanted to reiterate that sentiment again.   :hurray:  

[Hoot]

This is just kind of a side note to this thread....

 

I enjoyed Bill Maher's Religulous -- his 'documentary' about religion. He's approaching it more from an agnostic/atheist point of view, but talks with many people of different faiths. I saw it in the theater (which was packed) & would say about half of the people there really enjoyed it, while the other half were deeply offended. (So just be forewarned if you are thin-skinned about religion, you may not even like the trailer....)

 

I thought he had some interesting questions that he posed & many things to say that I agreed with. Perhaps worth a watch while you ponder things...?

 

 

Thanks for this.  I just put it on hold from Netflix so that I could watch the whole thing.

 

[Hoot]

Have you decided if you are disappointed with Christ / God or disappointed with the Christian culture and other Christians? There is a difference.

 

It isn't that I'm disappointed with God.  My mom died when I was young and I've never thought to blame God.  A lot of Christians over the years have found that hard to believe.  Lots of other people close to me have died and I've never blamed him.  I was sexually abused as a child and I never thought that had anything to do with God, just humans being stupid.  My life has been far from roses and jellybeans and still it has never once crossed my mind to blame him.  I am not disappointed with God; I simply don't think I believe that he is there.  Or, if he is there, I have some real issues with some of the things in the Bible that I've read about him.  For instance, if egotism is supposed to be so wrong, why on earth does one follow a God who is SO self-important to have created the entire human race just so that they would worship him.

 

As for being disappointed with Christians and Christian culture, YES!  I love the quote by Gandhi that says, "I like your Christ.  I do not like your Christians.  They are so unlike your Christ."  And I get the teaching that Christians are people who err just like anyone else.  Even if Christianity is true, I still tend to find Christians to be of the most detestable people around for a variety of reasons.  

[unsinkable]

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.

Luther WAS a monk and an ordained priest.

[Hoot]

I don't know, to be honest.  It means I'm not the master of my destiny (I'm not a very good master of my destiny).  It means there's a being that made me and loves me.  I guess I liken it to a mother and child -- I love these children that I created and I didn't create them to just live, then die. How much more with God and us.  With eternity, beauty, love, joy can go on forever.  I think of artists, in this respect.  They create something that's part of them, and they want their works to last forever, in a way. There's something inside us, in my experience, that wants to know, wants to touch forever.

 

I suppose we simply have differing views.  I think that most things are temporal and SHOULD be such but that the circle of life makes us each inherently connected, thus, not lost and forgotten once we die.  I don't care much if I'm personally remembered, if I (or whatever I create in this life) don't live on for eternity.  In fact, I don't think it should.  What is the purpose of a flower or a deer or any other living being?  They live, they serve a purpose while they're here and then they die.  Once they die, they live on only in that they fertilize the earth for the next generation or provide food for another being.  That seems to me the natural order of things. 

 

 

 

My grandmother was an atheist / humanist from early adulthood to about 10 years before her death at 99 (three years ago).  We talked many times via letters about this.  She believed this life was all there was.  Her mantra was to be kind to people, that's the fullness of what we are called to do.  In the last 10 years of her life, faced with impending death (not due to illness, but age), she turned more and more and more toward God. I saw her a year before she passed, and she was in a bit of a fog when I was there.  She kept crying out, "I want to go home! I want to go home!" She said she loved God and wanted to be with him.  I just found it to be an interesting journey.  Not conclusive evidence, I know, but still a picture of "eternity in our hearts."

 

Or simple fear of her own mortality.  Most people don't want to die, are even afraid of it.  Death bed conversions are not uncommon. 

[AimeeM]

Thank you. At the very least, it feels less isolating to know that I'm not the only one. 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. Plus, the Christian school where I work is affiliated with the church and I can't afford to lose my job.

 

I want to gently suggest that it would be devastating to me if my husband were to come to me one day and tell me that he no longer believed, no longer wanted to practice in our Catholic faith. Our desire to marry Catholic partners, and raise our children in a Catholic home, was one of the things that brought us together. It would be deeply troubling for him to suddenly swing in the opposite direction, no matter how supportive I would try to be outwardly. I married a christian/catholic man, and that was one of the things that sealed the deal for us. Your husband is probably experiencing something similar. It would be no different than an atheist marrying a similarly minded person, only for that person to become a born again, fire and brimstone christian. Not an easy situation for the partner, any more than the person going through the change.

I would also caution you against remaining at the christian school if you decide you aren't christian. Nobody can make that decision for you, and I'm so sorry that you're going through this - but it really isn't fair to the children or the paying families, who are probably paying dearly to send their children to a school to be educated by faithful christians, nor is it fair to YOU to have to preach something you do not believe to be true - that could have a major (negative) impact on you eventually.

 

[Hoot]

"How do you know what you believe?"

 

I have two standouts that were evidence to me, backing up my belief in the God of the Bible. (I came to understand these things after my difficult period.)

 

1. Bible Prophecy. Not regarding the first coming so much, but more specifically to what we seeing going on in our world today. We were told that there was going to be a great falling away, and there is. And we were told that there would be a great division amongst believers and heresies entering in. The confusion of beliefs in today's churches simply confirms what the Bible predicted would happen.

 

Also watching the one world coming together getting set up for the Anti-Christ to arrive. It sounds crazy, but we can see the plan unfolding before our very eyes. Especially as we are told in the Bible that it will come under the guise of "peace and safety".

 

Gently, I think one can "see" almost anything they want if they're looking for it.

 

 

2. The Perfect Design of the Bible. There is evidence that the Bible has been perfectly designed. It is mathematically and structurally perfect. No man by himself could have constructed it. I am talking about the 'design aspect' only here. The way the canon of scripture was chosen and organised could not have been done deliberately by men who did not know each other to collaborate, who lived if not by hundreds of years, but by thousands of years apart.

 

 

I don't know what you mean here.  I've never heard this before.  At the end of the day, the canon as we know it today was organized by men who sat together and debated on what should and shouldn't be included.  I know all about the idea of god working through men, but if men also have free-will, where does one end and the other begin?

[Entropymama]

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.

 

 

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, for one, do not believe in the 'once saved, always saved' doctrine. If you have a chance, "The Screwtape Letters" is a fun and easy read and addresses this very thing in one section - the idea that someone can have a genuine conversion and then have a change of mind or heart. I would never question the validity of someone's spiritual experience just because they decide later they no longer agree with it. 

 

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.)

 

 

I thought this was nice and might help your husband be more supportive of you. What I mean is, he might feel a little better about your doubts and exploring if you're also sitting under Christian teaching. SItting in a pew doesn't make you a believer, you can listen skeptically. Just a guess since I don't know your DH. 

 

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.  

 

I don't know much about Eastern Orthodox, so I can't really speak to that, my experience is with Roman Catholicism. What I meant was that no one really thinks they worship the way the first century Christians did. The Mass wasn't around then, although elements of it were. Genuflection, confession, the priestly order, many things have been developed and built over the years. The colors of advent, the liturgical calendar. Just trying to think of some examples. I think they worship in the same spirit, but it looks different. 

 

 

 

As for being disappointed with Christians and Christian culture, YES!  I love the quote by Gandhi that says, "I like your Christ.  I do not like your Christians.  They are so unlike your Christ."  And I get the teaching that Christians are people who err just like anyone else.  Even if Christianity is true, I still tend to find Christians to be of the most detestable people around for a variety of reasons.  

 

Darn it, I deleted the quote box again! 

 

Anyway, I love this quote by Gandhi. Sadly, Christians can be pretty awful. People can be pretty awful. No matter their belief system. They can also be very good. I think it's a shame to focus on the negative Christians (we all know who they are) and forget that so much good comes from Christians. World Vision, Compassion International, The Salvation Army, Catholic Charities, and Habitat for Humanity are all Christian charities. If you google 'disaster relief' the vast majority of results are Christian based foundations. Doing good is not limited to Christians, of course, I'm just trying to balance the scale a bit. 

[Hoot]

I need to go ALL the way back to the super beginning - before the Big Bang.  What was there to allow for the Big Bang?  It had to be some sort of cosmic "egg" (about to hatch out all the universe) or an Eternal Designer.  Being a science person, I simply can't fathom how something can come from nothing - I really can't. How'd the cosmic egg get there?  It's definitely easier for me to have faith in an Eternal Designer than it is to see something coming from nothing.  Plus, I see how everything else on earth, esp life, but not limited to that, appears to be designed rather than random.  (I'm ok with evolution, but I think it only works due to being a design plan as it really wouldn't work totally randomly.)

 

Christians say that there was absolutely NOTHING in the beginning, right, and that God created it all from nothingness?  That is illogical.  Others say that the world was born randomly of this nothingness.  Again, that is also illogical.  Something does not form from nothing.  But here's the thing for me, what if NEITHER is right?  Isn't it just as (il)logical to say that the world was ALWAYS here?  That there is no beginning.  If you can say that before god created the earth there was nothing and that god himself is eternal and was never created... he just... IS, isn't it just as likely to say that the universe itself has no beginning... that it just... IS?

 

Am I explaining that clearly?

[Hoot]

There are many other reasons why I think Christianity is a reasonable way to view the world, and why I retain my faith in the midst of this increasingly relativistic world where you are ridiculed for not bowing down to the god of naturalism, humanism, atheism or other religions, but this would be way too long of a post.  Is it easy to be a Christian in today's world?  No, definitely not, but I'm not swayed by the other side at all despite the difficulties.

 

There were many other things that I wanted to respond to in your post but then the internet ate it and I don't have time to go back and do it all again.  However, I did want to specifically respond to this.  The first part of the above quote sounds incredibly self-aggrandizing. 

 

The second part, I take issue with only because I've been a Christian and I've heard this before.  No, it is not hard.  You have a book that tells you what to do.  You have a spiritual advisor (pastor) who tells you how to interpret said book.  Millions of people identify as Christians so you have plenty of support and community if you want it.  In the United States, at least, you are free to believe and worship as you choose.  I fail to see how any of that equals "hard." 

[unsinkable]

 

 

As for being disappointed with Christians and Christian culture, YES! I love the quote by Gandhi that says, "I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ." And I get the teaching that Christians are people who err just like anyone else. Even if Christianity is true, I still tend to find Christians to be of the most detestable people around for a variety of reasons.

Your last sentence...I don't even know what to say. I can't imagine the uproar if you filled in any other class of people.

[Hoot]

 An all powerful God certainly could have written a clearer, more specific user manual had He been so inclined. ;)

 

  :smilielol5:

 

Seriously!

[Hoot]

I could have written this.  Your explanation of your belief between the OT and NT God and the fear and silliness of it all.... that is EXACTLY where I have been. 

 

 

Expanding on my earlier post now that I have more time....

 

One thing that has been helpful is working backwards from what I do know. As far as I can tell :tongue_smilie:  I am here amidst the universe. The universe got here somehow. I am open to the idea that there is a higher power out there. I am also open to the idea that there is not. I suppose that makes me agnostic, although I am not ready to label myself that way.

 

From there, I ask myself what I know about this higher power. Do I believe in Zeus, Baal, or Ra? No, those are rejected immediately.

 

Do I believe in the God of Abraham who creates a perfect world and then allows it to fall apart? Who kills everybody when they use the free will he gave them? Who allows rape, but gets ornery when fabrics are mixed? No, I have to think that stuff is mythology and culture.

 

But maybe it is the Christian God of the New Testament. This is the nicest thought to me. It is the one I want to believe. Believing in a God who loves me and is offering me a life after my death sounds very nice. I have tried to separate this God from the God of the OT, and hope that maybe the NT is where they "got it right." Yet again and again, I find things that don't add up even when I leave the OT out of it. ( :rofl: at the thought that I just don't understand and need to study more) I am stuck right here, where Christianity no longer makes sense, but I don't want to give it up. Plus there is also the flip side of fear. What if all the hell stuff is true? I hate to admit it, but it scares me. I can see it for the silliness it is, yet years of thinking this way cannot be erased.* This also makes me want to get my kids FAR AWAY from this stuff. I don't want them to have that fear.

 

*I was not raised with fire and brimstone preaching, but the idea that believers go to heaven(whatever that looks like) and non-believers go to hell(a worse place - or worse version of the same place - or simply don't make it into heaven) is a belief shared by basically all Christians. It is pretty hard to miss that even if it isn't explicitly taught.

 

So that brings me back to the beginning. I have rejected pretty much every belief. If I am being honest with myself, I have to admit that. I try to find the parts I can hold on to, so I don't feel like a fraud at church. I don't know how much longer I can do this, but I don't see any other way around it.

 

:grouphug: OP, your situation sounds especially difficult. I hope you can find understanding from your husband at the very least.

 

[Hoot]

Thank you for this.  I'm going to look into all of these things.  I've been reading all of the "Ask a..." threads over the past couple of days.  SO much fantastic information.  At first I kind of shied away from the Near-Death Experiences stuff because I wasn't exactly sure what was meant.  Thank you for explaining a little better.  Whenever I heard near-death experience as a Christian it was always the cliche mess that is meant to scare you into avoiding hell or getting in to heaven. 

 

 

 

OP, I've BTDT, too. I raised in a very religious, Baptist home. Like you, I found myself searching for that "fullness of faith." If God, as I understood him from what I'd been taught and what I understood the Bible to say, was God, he wasn't hiding, and I could easily have the connection that I was looking for.

 

I did find the truth that I was looking for, but it wasn't what I was expecting. I had a complete paradigm shift. My faith and beliefs are much more eclectic now. But I came to a point where I had to release nearly everything that I had once believed and start from scratch.

 

Some things that helped me to build my current beliefs (which are still a work in progress) are:

• Edgar Cayce. My brother introduced me to his teachings after I confessed to him that I no longer believed in the Bible like I once had. Edgar Cayce's interpretation of the Bible is very INCLUSIVE. He teaches reincarnation. He teaches mysticism. There is no be-saved-or-die-and-spend-eternity-in-hell dogma. http://www.edgarcayce.org is a good place to start, if you're interested. There's a lot of good articles you can access without becoming a member. If you like to read, you could start with the books There Is A River and then The Story of Jesus. But be forewarned: Edgar Cayce's readings are like reading KJV. They're not that easy to follow!
• Near-Death Experiences. As someone else mentioned, reading about these can be very enlightening. It's amazing how similar these are even though the backgrounds of the people experiencing them can be so incredibly different (i.e. atheist vs. Methodist pastor). http://near-death.com/ is a great place to read about these.
• Ask A Pagan thread.  http://forums.welltrainedmind.com/topic/455100-ask-a-pagan-thread/?hl=ask+pagan For me, this was great. But as others have pointed out, there's also the Ask An Atheist and Ask A Muslim threads, and many others relating to religion and worldviews. The point is that reading about other's beliefs has been a huge help. Reading books is great, too, so I'm not minimizing that, but there's just something special about reading experiences and beliefs from so many different people and different backgrounds and beliefs. It really helped me to see that there are REAL PEOPLE who think and believe this way, not just some random person mentioned in a book. WTM forum posts has been great for that.
• Hell is a Christian Hoax. http://bible-truths.com/23-minutes-in-hell.html This is one article on Bible-truths.com. The way the author interpreted the Bible and different verses was very interesting and definitely not something I had ever heard before. He has several other articles on different doctrines, like the Trinity, but this was the first one I read.

I don't believe everything that these people and sites say, but they were very helpful for me when I was searching. I am still searching, though I am doing so through a place of peace, a peace that I NEVER had as a "Christian," not the kind of Christian I was brought up to be, anyway.

 

My dh is like yours, and still follows the more traditional Christian belief system. This is a bit of conflict, but we are working through it. I only go to church on Sunday mornings, and whenever there's something special (like the kids singing) going on. But this is getting tiresome for me, so I'm not sure how much longer I can continue with this. Also, the co-op that we go to is Christian. They're much more relaxed, but still, so often I feel like a hypocrite because I just don't believe like people think I do. (I live the Bible belt, too, so there's a very strong Christian presence around here, and it permeates into EVERYTHING!) I don't have much advice for you in this area. Just letting you know that there's someone else out there going through something similar.  :grouphug:

 

I am going to go back and see if I can link to websites for you...but last time I did that, I lost my whole post. :crying: So, if it doesn't work, you'll have to befriend Google. And if you search for the Ask A ... threads here on WTM, sort by title, ascending. That helps to find them easier.

 

edited to add: I had to add the links by typing them in manually because if I didn't, the page would freeze. :glare: Hopefully, they work.

 

[Hoot]

 

Nor is the idea that God has already predestined people to heaven and hell.  

 

 

 

I am right there with you on this in particular (the rest of your post, too, but this especially).  I can't wrap my mind around a god who knew ahead of time that the majority of the people he created were going to reject him AND HE STILL CHOSE TO CREATE THEM ALL ANYWAY.  Seriously?  That makes no logical sense to me.  If he was so compassionate, I would think that in order to save the heartache of those many, MANY people, he would simply not create the human race to begin with.   

[marbel]

Your last sentence...I don't even know what to say. I can't imagine the uproar if you filled in any other class of people.

 

This is why I really should stay away from these threads. They start out as a sincere request for help/advice, but always seem to turn into an opportunity to bash Christians.  As if there are not detestable people of all sorts, believers of various faiths and unbelievers as well.    I always get sucked in, though.  Maybe someday I'll learn to stay away.  

[mamaraby]

This is why I really should stay away from these threads. They start out as a sincere request for help/advice, but always seem to turn into an opportunity to bash Christians. As if there are not detestable people of all sorts, believers of various faiths and unbelievers as well. I always get sucked in, though. Maybe someday I'll learn to stay away.

I think it's disingenuous to characterize this thread that way. No one has said that all Christians are a certain way or even that all bad people are Christians. Some people have shared their personal experience based perspective. Should they not be allowed to share?

[swellmomma]

I took the belief-o-matic quiz just to see since my beliefs are so mixed, I got Orthodox quakerism, which is funny because I am so not a pacifist lol.  I am surprised that quiz did not have a question about the charismatic stuff like speaking in tongues

[Joker]

I believe the bolded is what she is reacting to. After I read that from the OP I wish I had not posted at all in this thread as well.

 

I think it's disingenuous to characterize this thread that way. No one has said that all Christians are a certain way or even that all bad people are Christians. Some people have shared their personal experience based perspective. Should they not be allowed to share?

 

 

It isn't that I'm disappointed with God.  My mom died when I was young and I've never thought to blame God.  A lot of Christians over the years have found that hard to believe.  Lots of other people close to me have died and I've never blamed him.  I was sexually abused as a child and I never thought that had anything to do with God, just humans being stupid.  My life has been far from roses and jellybeans and still it has never once crossed my mind to blame him.  I am not disappointed with God; I simply don't think I believe that he is there.  Or, if he is there, I have some real issues with some of the things in the Bible that I've read about him.  For instance, if egotism is supposed to be so wrong, why on earth does one follow a God who is SO self-important to have created the entire human race just so that they would worship him.

 

As for being disappointed with Christians and Christian culture, YES!  I love the quote by Gandhi that says, "I like your Christ.  I do not like your Christians.  They are so unlike your Christ."  And I get the teaching that Christians are people who err just like anyone else.  Even if Christianity is true, I still tend to find Christians to be of the most detestable people around for a variety of reasons.  

 

[Word Nerd]

I think it's disingenuous to characterize this thread that way. No one has said that all Christians are a certain way or even that all bad people are Christians. Some people have shared their personal experience based perspective. Should they not be allowed to share?

She wasn't characterizing the whole thread but this conclusion by the OP:

"Even if Christianity is true, I still tend to find Christians to be of the most detestable people around for a variety of reasons."

 

If you don't consider that "bashing Christians," then what would qualify?

[Mergath]

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. :)

 

But nearly every world religion can claim a list of prophecies that "came true."  Why doesn't it prove the truth of all of them?

 

I think it has more to do with the fact that, if you make enough vague predictions, at least a few of them are bound to line up with actual events over the span of thousands of years.

[Mergath]

She wasn't characterizing the whole thread but this conclusion by the OP:

"Even if Christianity is true, I still tend to find Christians to be of the most detestable people around for a variety of reasons."

 

If you don't consider that "bashing Christians," then what would qualify?

 

Most people who question or leave mainstream Christianity (or any other religion, for that matter) end up with quite a bit of anger.  I would assume that by now people would know to expect some of that in this kind of thread.  I don't think the OP is trying to intentionally hurt anyone, just working out her own emotions.

 

You should have heard some of the things I said about Christians when I left it all behind as a teen. ;)  I've mellowed quite a bit with time.

[Unicorn.]

OP- after reading all of your replies to people, and your agreeing with or disputing of other's posts, I just want to say I think you already know how you feel, and where you are. I just think you are afraid to admit it, even to yourself.

 

You don't have to put it in a box with a label. But if you need a label, it's okay to say "I'm agnostic". It's okay to question the existence of a god, or to not believe in one at all" It's even okay to believe in a god that doesn't fit any criteria of a specific religion. Believe in your own god if you want.

 

I currently refer to myself as a free thinking agnostic. I don't believe in the Christian God. I tried, but the more I learned, the more I realized (for myself) it was all a fallacy.

 

Admitting it to dh, was difficult, but by the time I did, he already knew I felt that way and was okay. He is still very much a believer, but at the same time, he is so far (more open and accepting of different thoughts/beliefs) from his stiff CoC upbringing. He's changed his mind over the years, and realized things he was taught, aren't the absolute truth.

 

Hugs. I've been on your journey, and as others have said, there is such a peaceful feeling when you reach your own acceptance.

[Laurie4b]

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."

 

I grew up in a mixed household. The men in my father's family were proud atheists. The family patriarch, who was a contemporary of Darwin, named one of his kids after Darwin and wrote an epitaph for his gravestone about his atheism. The men in his family held to his "free thinking" tradition. My mother had books about multiple pagan, New Age, Edgar Cayce, and occult practices. She dabbled in many and was an astrologer and would "get" information that turned out to be true but that she had no way of knowing while doing charts. When I was growing up, going to church was still culturally what was done, so I was occasionally taken to Sunday school. There were a couple of childhood books with a bit of Christian content --one Tasha Tudor book of childhood prayers (but we didn't pray at the table or before bed. My dad read fairy tales to me before bed! ) There was absolutely no other Christian teaching in my home that I recall. The actual religion in our home was the eclectic mix my mother followed.

 

As a child I remember praying and asking God if he was a god I should be afraid of or whether he loved me. I happened to pick up a book called A Man Called Peter at a bookstore in middle school and read it. That was the first time I realized God loved me. My road to a solid Christian belief system was bumpy. Sometime in college, I left the church because I didn't think Christianity 'worked." (I honestly can't recall what I meant by that.) I do recall that inside the myself (it was not preached by the church I attended) was fear and guilt associated with Christianity and outside the church was sex, drugs, and rock and roll. So I left the church. I still would read CS Lewis' fiction on occasion.

 

In the midst of leading a happy and hedonistic lifestyle as a young adult, I began to have dreams which caused me to re-evaluate Christianity. Since it claims to be based on the resurrection of Christ, I went back to that. Similar to what a jury does when they try to reconstruct what happened in the past based on the evidence, I sifted through it and decided that the best explanation was that Jesus really had risen from the dead. I thought the Bible had contradictions in it but that wasn't really germane to deciding about the resurrection. One of the things that I found convincing was that the gospel stories all have women being the first witnesses of the resurrection during a time in which women's testimony was considered highly unreliable, and iirc, wasn't even allowed in court. I found that to be very odd if someone were constructing stories to be believed. Why wouldn't the male disciples have been the ones to first witness it? Anyway, for me, this was a dry, intellectual and unwelcome conclusion, since I knew it would mess with some of my current lifestyle choices. There was no moment of joy, etc. just a decision about what I thought was true.

 

It has been many years since, and my beliefs have been reinforced by many experiences . Now, there would be so very many experiences I would have to discard that I just couldn't. It's far too overwhelming an amount of experience to disregard. But in the beginning, that's all it was: dry, intellectual, devoid of emotion, unwelcome. But since I believed it was true, I moved forward into it. The rest came later.

[mamaraby]

She wasn't characterizing the whole thread but this conclusion by the OP:

"Even if Christianity is true, I still tend to find Christians to be of the most detestable people around for a variety of reasons."

 

If you don't consider that "bashing Christians," then what would qualify?

Perhaps that's true for her experience? Maybe for the christians she's met that's true. She used an "I" statement. Two people maybe in an entire thread which is hardly the sum total of the discussion.

 

And yes, as Mergath has pointed out, it could be very well part of one's processing through a difficult experience that mellows with time.

[HRAAB]

One other thing that has stood out for me in my own personal journey and that this thread has reminded me of is Peace.  Reading through this thread with the disagreements between differing Christians, each one so sure that their Biblical interpretation is the correct, arguments over church history, etc. has made me remember that the one thing I longed for in Christianity, I never found until I walked away from religion.  That is peace.  Just reading through this thread makes me feel anxious and reminds me of what I left behind.  I don't know if it's an answer to your question: 'how do you know what you believe', but for me, the biggest indicator that I was on the right road was when I started to feel peace.  I felt peace from no longer trying to force myself into beliefs I could not give an honest yes to, but I also felt great peace in leaving behind these arguments.  You might ask yourself when do you feel the most peace or what is it that causes you the most angst.

 

Also, my dh still attends church, the same church we were married in, as do my 3 younger children.  He has always respected my individual needs, including my need to be authentic in my beliefs.  On the other hand, I don't do anything to interfere in his religious practices.  I still frequently attend church with them out of the love and respect I feel for my family.  In an odd way, our marriage improved and became stronger when I took that first step forward and was honest about my disbelief.  False living just doesn't lead to peace, it also doesn't make one a very happy person.  Maybe that's why my marriage has improved, because I've become a more peaceful, happy person.

 

I'm sorry for what you're going through right now.

[Unicorn.]

Contessa, have you considered Deist? Maybe you believe in a god, but not a Christian God? You could also consider referring to yourself as a non-specific monotheist.

 

How do you know what to believe.. listen to your heart, and let it lead you. As Ishki pointed out, Peace. Maybe take a step or two away, and figure out what brings you peace.

[Laurie4b]

How can you be certain YOU are not the one misquoting or misinterpreting the Scriptures?

 

 

I think this is a truly excellent question that all Christians should ask ourselves. If another believer, also filled with the Spirit, also diligently seeking to know God and understand his word, comes to a different conclusion than I about a passage of Scripture, who I am to be sure I'm the one who is right? It's why humility, rather than certainty, is required, I think. And, personally, I think "being right" isn't the goal anyway.

 

Having said this, I don't think the baby needs to be thrown out with the bathwater. The creeds are central to the Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Protestant Christian churches. There is so much we believe in common that in the arguments over the things we see differently, we can lose sight of this. It's very sad.

 

While the church I have spent most of my life in is evangelical, I was very fortunate that the founding pastor was a person who welcomed questions of all types, eschewed pat answers, could admit when he didn't know something, and was respectful of other Christians' points of view. He visioned a church that "majored on majors and minored on minors" so there was not an official church position on many things outside the creeds  and people were free to differ, and still become members, and even be elders. We had leaders who were "Reformed" and leaders who were "Arminian" etc. and it worked .

 

It's possible that there is one right interpretation of each passage of Scripture; if so, I believe that God is the one who knows it. If the broad church, across several denominations and down through the ages doesn't agree on something, then humility in interpretation seems called for. The core that is agreed to , we can all affirm and hold onto. 

 

In reading through church history, and in the people I know from various denominations, it seems clear that He has given His Spirit across denominations so it appears to me that God is not as concerned that we ace some exam on  beliefs as He is that we continue to seek him and grow in  love for him and for one another. If He wanted us to ace an exam, He could have had Scripture written like a math text, one right answer, no ambiguity, nothing to interpret. He didn't.  We're not asked to have a relationship with a book, but with a Being. In my tradition of evangelicalism, which has high respect for the authority of Scripture as God's word, I think there is a temptation to make a life with God about right ideas and knowledge. Love can get lost--quite ironically, since the book says loving God and each other are the greatest commandments, and warns against knowledge "puffing up".  I think having the Scripture have some mystery in it augments the journey of relationship. But I could be wrong about that. ;)

 

I am very comfortable with different interpretations of stuff outside the creeds because to me, it doesn't affect the core beliefs. What is more dangerous than being wrong when we disagree is if we get all "puffed up" with our "knowledge" and care more about being right than about loving one another.

[albeto.]

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 get that, but my point is if your only answer is scriptural, then your answer isn't based on knowledge but on faith.

 

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.

 

I know. I felt the same way when I was "born again."

 

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.

 

So again, no one can truly know. As you explain, the individual who "knew" may have been wrong the whole time. Who's to say deep down inside either they didn't want to believe, or didn't want to acknowledge their sins? They can't know at the time they were lacking all these things when they went to lay all things aside and "go honestly before God to ask him." I thought I was truly born again of a loving god. You think you are. I was wrong, even though at the time I honestly thought I knew. You could be wrong too, and you wouldn't know it. And that's really my only point - you cannot know. You can only believe. 

[albeto.]

Me thinks, I would have to open a new thread. As, it's not a light or easy subject. :)

 

Would you be interested in doing so? I'd be interested in reading.

 

:)

[Guest]

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.]

What in the world? I confess, this is a new one for me in the world of apologetics.

 

First, as you said, the writer of Isaiah did not write into Chapters, so how can the coincidental number of chapters relative to books be proof of anything? I'm not sure who, historically, segmented chapters, but how can you assume their chapter-separating is divinely directed to give some interesting type of pattern?

 

Secondly, though I have never before heard about chapters being topically unified with books, I do know that once upon a time, I went looking in Isaiah for fulfillment of prophesies. (I was a big-time Christian at the time, so I went looking, expecting to be amazed.) i was wholly disappointed. It was no more remarkable than reading a Sunday-paper horoscope prediction that "comes true". "You will be faced with a decision between two equally-good options." Hmmm. So when I chose the Strawberry milkshake, instead of vanilla, did my horoscope come true? Very few of the supposed prophesies I read about were even mildly interesting.

 

Another time, I was looking for info about the history of Satan. I was very shocked to discover that the teachings about Satan's origin and purpose had very close to zero scriptural basis. We have a few poetic verses in Isaiah that church tradition interprets to mean Lucifer was an angel, became proud and was chucked out of heaven with a third of the angels. Again, despite being an intense Christian, I was almost embarrassed that THIS is how Christian tradition teaches Satan's origins. The supposedly relevant scriptures could mean practically anything, or might mean nothing whatsoever.

 

If I wasn't limited by being on an ipad, I would make some nice links and quotes to demonstrate this better.

 

Anyway, I heard so many times about how the Bible is so perfectly cohesive, and how that is so miraculous, given the span of years and geography represented, but I couldn't find it amazing even when it was in my best interest to do so. All I see are the many INconsistencies of the Bible. Does the God of the Old Testament seem remotely like Jesus? In the OT, God was always chastizing his disobedient nations, but after Jesus came, God is for both Jews and Gentiles. Check out the website Religious Tolerance . Org. I couldn't disagree with many things on that site, even when I wanted to.

 

 

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

[Catwoman]

As for being disappointed with Christians and Christian culture, YES! I love the quote by Gandhi that says, "I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ." And I get the teaching that Christians are people who err just like anyone else. Even if Christianity is true, I still tend to find Christians to be of the most detestable people around for a variety of reasons.

 

Whenever I read a comment like that, it makes me wonder how you could possibly identify all of the Christians you meet on a daily basis. It's not like most of them are wearing big signs around their necks.

 

I don't even know the religious standing of at least three quarters of the people I know. It doesn't come up in conversation. I assume some of them are Christian, some have different beliefs, and others are agnostic or atheist. I don't care one way or the other.

 

I would never generalize to the point of saying that any group is "the most detestable people around," but if you really include all Christians in that group, that's a massive number of people to find detestable. I mean, you're talking about a couple billion people. :eek:

[albeto.]

You don't believe the Bible can be credible or believed.   One of the reasons I believe the Bible to be true is historical records outside of the Bible that point to the accuracy of the historical time periods.  Another reason is the eye witness testimonies of those who saw Jesus (the gospels).  And the third reason I believe is personal testimony of what I believe God has done in my own life and the lives of those around me who believe.

 

The first two are the kinds of things that would apply towards knowledge - these things can be confirmed by objective sources. They can be explored and falsified. In reality, they have been falsified. The third is an example of not knowing but believing.

 

However, I do want to point out the bolded in your answers........I am of the belief that everyone is "chosen" and that Christ died for all, and that we ultimately have a choice to follow or not.  There are instances where he used people specifically to fulfill his purposes, but he spoke to crowds inviting all to come to Him.  Yes, there are theological differences.  Yes there are differing interpretations of the Bible.  And yes, many use the Bible out of context to suit themselves.  But the message is the same for those with differing theologies within the Christian church.  The message is that Christ crucified and rising again brought us eternal life.  The issues and arguments arise when we major on the minors in these situations.  And many Christians tend to want to do that.  It pains me, and I am a believer.

 

The meta-message is the same, sure. It's what separates the Christian faith from other faiths. The mechanics of it is where the OP is getting hung up on this. If it's true that "Christ crucified and rising again brought us eternal life," how do you know it? The facts don't support it, and logical arguments do support it.

 

Anyway, this again is not meant to argue or convince, but merely to state some reasons why I believe and to address the issue of the fact that not everyone believes predestination and election mean the same thing.

 

Dawn

 

That's a pretty cool way to think about it, imo.

[albeto.]

It isn't that I'm disappointed with God.  My mom died when I was young and I've never thought to blame God.  A lot of Christians over the years have found that hard to believe.  Lots of other people close to me have died and I've never blamed him.  I was sexually abused as a child and I never thought that had anything to do with God, just humans being stupid.  My life has been far from roses and jellybeans and still it has never once crossed my mind to blame him.  I am not disappointed with God; I simply don't think I believe that he is there.  Or, if he is there, I have some real issues with some of the things in the Bible that I've read about him.  For instance, if egotism is supposed to be so wrong, why on earth does one follow a God who is SO self-important to have created the entire human race just so that they would worship him.

 

As for being disappointed with Christians and Christian culture, YES!  I love the quote by Gandhi that says, "I like your Christ.  I do not like your Christians.  They are so unlike your Christ."  And I get the teaching that Christians are people who err just like anyone else.  Even if Christianity is true, I still tend to find Christians to be of the most detestable people around for a variety of reasons.  

 

You might be interested in Sam Harris' The End Of Faith, or Christopher Hitchen's God is Not Great. The first is a logical argument against "reasons to believe." They follow much of what you're articulating here in this thread. The second is example after example of how the bolded has affected the human race. 

[albeto.]

http://bookviewcafe.com/blog/2014/02/10/belief-in-belief/  That is interesting too, a blog post by Ursula Le Guin (although I disagree with her, partially)

 

We take a lot of things on the faith of other people; we couldn't function otherwise!  That is the nature of authority, expertise, etc.  Science and religion are, for most people, two of these things.

 

I don't think that is necessarily a bad thing.

 

Science doesn't work via belief. It is a methodology of knowledge by way of observation, data collection, experimentation, falsification, etc. Religion is a methodology of knowledge by way of divine revelation. The first requires no faith, the second cannot operate without it. 

[Joanne]

FYI, the myriad of versions of "one way to be a Christian" is one of the many reasons I left the faith. I am sure that is not the intention of the "one way" ilk; I am equally sure many would attribute it to "the devil" or more likely that I was never Christian to begin with.

[Hoot]

^{My Belief O Matic results showed:}

 

^{Christian/Protestant- 98%}

^{Catholic- 81%}

^{Adventist- 75%}

^{Orthodox- 75%}

^{Muslim- 62%}

^{Universalist- 42%}

 

^{Some of the questions didn't really have the choice I would actually believe, which threw me off a bit.}

 

The bolded is what I had trouble with.  I remember taking that test a few years ago and I think I remember it giving me Quaker, but I had to really stretch a lot of my answers because they just didn't fit any of the choices.  This time around, I didn't even finish it.

 

ETA: I decided to go back and do it again, this time using the closest approximation of my current belief or disbelief and it gave me Secular Humanist.  Apparently, I am all over the map depending on which day of the week it is.  :lol:

[LizzyBee]

The first two are the kinds of things that would apply towards knowledge - these things can be confirmed by objective sources. They can be explored and falsified. In reality, they have been falsified. The third is an example of not knowing but believing.

 

 

Albeto, Do you have a source you can point me to regarding the historical accuracy of the Bible having been falsified?  A number of years ago, there was a book that was highly recommended on the boards.  The author was an athiest historian, but one of the things that I remember from the book was his premise that the Bible has largely been shown to be an accurate historical record. Therefore, even though he doesn't believe it theologically, he accepts it as an historical document.  (I wish I could remember the title and author so I could finish reading it, but alas, I can't. I borrowed it from the library and had to return it before I finished it.)

 

Thank you.