Figuring Out Religion

[Mountaineer]

Mountaineer,

I don't mean "feeling" as an emotion per se.  Revelation is an observation of a perceived potential reality that only you experience.  Of course, others may experience something similar at a different time (or the same time), but it is still something that has to work through your confidence in your ability to interpret reality.  You are assuming your revelation isn't just a hallucination.  You're assuming it is God.  And while I don't discount that there COULD be knowledge obtained through revelation, if I "communicate" with God, and I assume it is real, I am assuming my ability to correctly interpret reality.  There are billions of people on this earth that believe that they have had a similar revelation at some point, and that their interpretation is correct.

I can understand how you would think that "revelation" would be fundamentally different than any other sort of sense of reality that we might have (just as I think of it as just another "feeling"), but you must recognize the amount of faith you must have in yourself to claim that the message that you interpreted in your revelation REQUIRED that you interpret it correctly.  It also requires that billions upon billions of other people, in varying degrees, experienced something that they think FELT similar, but wasn't a "real revelation," it was just group think, wishful thinking, tribe mentality, the devil, etc, etc, etc. 

Your revelation, whether it's an emotion, a feeling, or a deep connection to God, is obviously one of the most important things you've ever experienced in your life, so I'm not trying to say that it is NECESSARILY fundamentally no different than when I stubbed my toe or smell roses or hear good music, because IF there is a God, AND he chose to reveal himself to you via revelation, this is truly miraculous.  But it STILL necessitates that you believe in your ability to interpret reality via what you call a revelation, and everything outside you in observable "physical reality" is showing us that billions of people had a VERY different revelation than you did.  So you have to have a LOT of faith in your ability to interpret reality.

Perhaps what people interpret as revelation is simply some sort of hallucination.  Do you think that is possible?

I have apparently misrepresented "revelation".  As I said, I'm not talking about hearing voices or spirits.  I'm talking about the revealed Word of God - in other words, the contents of the Holy Christian Scriptures that were revealed to man by God, a few times directly and a few times through his prophets.  The Holy Sprit comes to us in Baptism, but never operates absent from the Word.  I am not good at explaining this.  Sorry.

... Mountaineer

[Mountaineer]

Anyone besides me see a strong connection between the tiger story in this post by Medium Tex:

Re: The Benghazi Political Circus
« Reply #42 on: May 13, 2013, 04:39:31 PM »

and those who are choking on the true doctrine of Christianity?

... Mountaineer

[moda0306]

Mountaineer,

I didn't really think you were hearing "voices," but I can see how my posts maybe make it sound like that.  I figured it had to be some sort of surging presence inside you that revealed "The Truth."  Not just words from a book, but an actual experience.  A "feeling," in a sense.  And by feeling I don't mean this to imply that it isn't a correct interpretation of reality.  If I had the Holy Spirit surging through me, I'm sure I would be "feeling" something.  However, my natural state must be to question whether my senses (including those involved with interpreting the reality of God) are accurately interpreting reality.

Don't we need some sign, either via personal revelation or empirical evidence that The Gospel is actually the Word of God, and not just someone else's hallucination.  Just reading scripture to you, I'm sure, was not enough.  There actually had to be a FEELING of the Holy Spirit surging through you (or something like this) as God's Word was read.  There has to be something else, does there not?  Obtaining "knowledge" through someone's stories is not knowledge unless those stories are actually true, correct? 

[Mountaineer]

Mountaineer,

I didn't really think you were hearing "voices," but I can see how my posts maybe make it sound like that.  I figured it had to be some sort of surging presence inside you that revealed "The Truth."  Not just words from a book, but an actual experience.  A "feeling," in a sense.  And by feeling I don't mean this to imply that it isn't a correct interpretation of reality.  If I had the Holy Spirit surging through me, I'm sure I would be "feeling" something.  However, my natural state must be to question whether my senses (including those involved with interpreting the reality of God) are accurately interpreting reality.

Don't we need some sign, either via personal revelation or empirical evidence that The Gospel is actually the Word of God, and not just someone else's hallucination.  Just reading scripture to you, I'm sure, was not enough.  There actually had to be a FEELING of the Holy Spirit surging through you (or something like this) as God's Word was read.  There has to be something else, does there not?  Obtaining "knowledge" through someone's stories is not knowledge unless those stories are actually true, correct?

Addressing your questions:
Do we need some sign?  Yes, that is why Jesus did all those "miraculous" things and why they are recorded for us.

Was there some feeling of the HS surging through you?  Not that I'm aware of.

There has to be something else, does there not?  There is but it is hidden for now.  It is called faith.

Obtaining knowledge through someone's stories?  Do you believe George Washington was the first President, that Julius Caesar conquered the Gauls, that Homer wrote the Illiad, that the Egyptians built the pyramids, that man really landed on the moon? - how do you know?  How do you know those stories are true?

When you and I are confronted by the ancient mysteries of the Christian faith, our good old-fashioned American pragmatism runs up against a brick wall.  We ask, "What use can I make of this idea?"  But that question doesn't apply.  For Christianity is not an idea.  It is the one Reality by which all other reality is measured.  Christianity is not a way of life; it is life itself.  We ask whether the holy mysteries of the faith are fiction.  But there's nothing more real in all the world.  It's just that these are hidden realities.  The realities of our sin, suffering, and pain and the realities of His forgiveness, comfort, and healing.  Life and death.  These are the two realities in which we live as baptized children of God.  One day, when God brings down the curtain on the entire drama, these hidden realities will be evident to all.  But that is not now.  For now we live by faith.  True, these things are hidden truths, but they are real just the same. 

... Mountaineer

[Mountaineer]

Another story that indicates "I am my own god, I am what I put my trust in, I am what is important" and it seems our culture has made significant progress on this in the last ten years. 

http://newyork.craigslist.org/mnh/rnr/4562386373.html

... Mountaineer

[moda0306]

Mountaineer,

I didn't really think you were hearing "voices," but I can see how my posts maybe make it sound like that.  I figured it had to be some sort of surging presence inside you that revealed "The Truth."  Not just words from a book, but an actual experience.  A "feeling," in a sense.  And by feeling I don't mean this to imply that it isn't a correct interpretation of reality.  If I had the Holy Spirit surging through me, I'm sure I would be "feeling" something.  However, my natural state must be to question whether my senses (including those involved with interpreting the reality of God) are accurately interpreting reality.

Don't we need some sign, either via personal revelation or empirical evidence that The Gospel is actually the Word of God, and not just someone else's hallucination.  Just reading scripture to you, I'm sure, was not enough.  There actually had to be a FEELING of the Holy Spirit surging through you (or something like this) as God's Word was read.  There has to be something else, does there not?  Obtaining "knowledge" through someone's stories is not knowledge unless those stories are actually true, correct?

Addressing your questions:
Do we need some sign?  Yes, that is why Jesus did all those "miraculous" things and why they are recorded for us.

Was there some feeling of the HS surging through you?  Not that I'm aware of.

There has to be something else, does there not?  There is but it is hidden for now.  It is called faith.

Obtaining knowledge through someone's stories?  Do you believe George Washington was the first President, that Julius Caesar conquered the Gauls, that Homer wrote the Illiad, that the Egyptians built the pyramids, that man really landed on the moon? - how do you know?  How do you know those stories are true?

When you and I are confronted by the ancient mysteries of the Christian faith, our good old-fashioned American pragmatism runs up against a brick wall.  We ask, "What use can I make of this idea?"  But that question doesn't apply.  For Christianity is not an idea.  It is the one Reality by which all other reality is measured.  Christianity is not a way of life; it is life itself.  We ask whether the holy mysteries of the faith are fiction.  But there's nothing more real in all the world.  It's just that these are hidden realities.  The realities of our sin, suffering, and pain and the realities of His forgiveness, comfort, and healing.  Life and death.  These are the two realities in which we live as baptized children of God.  One day, when God brings down the curtain on the entire drama, these hidden realities will be evident to all.  But that is not now.  For now we live by faith.  True, these things are hidden truths, but they are real just the same. 

... Mountaineer

Mountaineer,

I believe most of those historical assertions are true.

So you are asserting that there is adequate empirical historical evidence to believe that Jesus was the son of God?  Why don't we hear that more often.  If there's plenty of evidence of that, why even talk about faith?  If people want empirical evidence, and you have it, why not just provide it, rather than talking about your own subjective interpretation of "reality."

If your assertion that Holy mysteries are the most real thing in the world is true, then you are using your own senses of reality to come to that conclusion, and putting ultimate faith in your own ability to interpret reality.  If there are all these truths that are hidden to the rest of us and billions of non-Christians, but obvious to you, then you are simply stating that you ultimately trust YOUR subjective interpretation of reality.  And perhaps you are right!  But it is putting a TON of faith in yourself.  Much more than I would ever put in myself.

God may exist.

We might be in the Matrix.

Jesus might be the son of God.

One of the multitude of sub-sects of Christianity MAY have gotten it all just right.

But I'm putting a TON of faith in my own subjective interpretation of reality if I think I know the details of all of this stuff with certainty.  Perhaps a spiritual experience is one where I WOULD be inclined to put my faith in a bunch of religious reality, but I certainly can't make the assertion that I'm not putting a TON of faith in my own ability to interpret reality.

Perhaps Desert can do a better job of explaining the position... not that I'm trying to push you out of the discussion or anything.  I just find that your discussion of your faith is too self-referential to the Bible & gospel.  You seem to just want to restate what you think "reality" is rather than give a more objective statement of WHY you believe it to be the case with such certainty that doesn't simply sound like it's begging the question (assuming your conclusion).

To me, there are only two possibilities... You either 1) believe what you do because of adequate empirical evidence (even if its others' "revelations" in the presence of Christ), or 2) believe what you do because of a FEELING of faith in something... that God is somehow connected to you in some way that gives you insight to certain Truths about who he is, what he wants, etc.

One demands faith in historical record (and your interpretation of the physical world), and the other involves your interpretation of reality in terms of God's relationship to your soul.

I really don't see a third option.  Perhaps a combination of the two, but then both have to be fleshed out.  Both demand faith in yourself.  Regarding empirical evidence, it's a faith similar to that atheists have in their ability to assess scientific facts.  With the latter (God's connection to you), it requires faith in your ability to interpret the reality of God correctly.  It's really that simple. 

[Mountaineer]

moda,

Once again I thank you for a very civil discussion.  I'll give a couple of more comments, then perhaps Desert can chime in.  I benefit from his posts, and I hope you will as well ... honestly!

1. Please read "What They Need to Hear" by Klemet Preus.  It goes into quite a bit of evidence that may be of interest to you; I think it may be what you are asking for.  Another set of programs that address your quest for evidence is in the podcasts of Dr. John Warwick Montgomery of Patrick Henry College.  Here is a link to one of his episodes on apologetics, there are a few more to hear if you wish to hear more (you can browse the Issues Etc. archives to find them).  http://issuesetc.org/2014/07/21/3-chris ... ery-72214/

2. Some things are too important to be left to the eyes.  Sometimes simple eyesight can't take in all there is to see.  Take a baby, for example.  The sight of an infant delights everyone, at least at first  .  But if that child is our own little son or daughter, we see much more in that baby than a stranger would see.  Deeper realities lie beneath the surface.  Other people might see just another baby, but when we see our very own flesh and blood, we see things you can't detect with simple lenses and retinas - things like love and affection.  Jesus explains that eyesight isn't always reliable when it comes to  the things of God, either (Luke 17:20-21, Luke 10:23-24).

I'd love to provide you with the silver bullet but unfortunately, I don't know what it is.  All I can do is do my best to answer your questions.

... Mountaineer

[doodle]

Good discussion. Thanks Moda for swooping in. Anyways, I'm a fairly open minded and live and let live type of person. The fact that someone believes that Jesus is the son of God doesn't bother me in the slightest. The thing that drives me to really feel a lot of contempt towards Christianity though is the gun to your head ultimatum that you must believe as they do or you are going to hell. That right there just ruins any ability for me to warm up to Christians and have any sort of relationship with them.  I'm willing to acknowledge that I'm not perfect, that I have committed many errors and wrongs in my life. I try to live a moral life and at the end of the day I end up following the Ten Commandments to the best of my ability. I just have no deeper belief in the Christian dogma and remain doubtful about most spiritual topics. I refuse to believe that a just and loving God would condemn me and 80 percent of the rest of the world to eternal damnation because we don't happen to be Christians. If God were to do that then in that case I honestly would rather not go to heaven if that is the type of tyrant who runs the show. I recently recall a speech by the pope where he said that  there is even a place for non believers in heaven.....I  think I'm going to side with  him.

Love this new pope: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 10062.html


Francis explained himself, "The Lord created us in His image and likeness, and we are the image of the Lord, and He does good and all of us have this commandment at heart, do good and do not do evil. All of us. 'But, Father, this is not Catholic! He cannot do good.' Yes, he can... "The Lord has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the Blood of Christ, all of us, not just Catholics. Everyone! 'Father, the atheists?' Even the atheists. Everyone!" We must meet one another doing good. 'But I don't believe, Father, I am an atheist!' But do good: we will meet one another there."

[Tortoise]

Good discussion. Thanks Moda for swooping in. Anyways, I'm a fairly open minded and live and let live type of person. The fact that someone believes that Jesus is the son of God doesn't bother me in the slightest. The thing that drives me to really feel a lot of contempt towards Christianity though is the gun to your head ultimatum that you must believe as they do or you are going to hell. That right there just ruins any ability for me to warm up to Christians and have any sort of relationship with them.

But if what they are saying is in fact the truth (humor me here), then isn't telling you about it the right thing to do? Aren't they doing you a service by telling you about it? And wouldn't it be a very bad thing for them not to tell you?

In other words, your opinion that their fire-and-brimstone warnings are reprehensible is premised on the fact that the warnings are false. If they are true, then they may be the sweetest words you will ever hear, because they wake you up to the truth about your condition and get you thinking about how to overcome it. It all depends on the truth or falsehood of what they are saying, doesn't it?

I'm willing to acknowledge that I'm not perfect, that I have committed many errors and wrongs in my life. I try to live a moral life and at the end of the day I end up following the Ten Commandments to the best of my ability. I just have no deeper belief in the Christian dogma and remain doubtful about most spiritual topics.

May I ask why you feel the urge to live a moral life and follow the Ten Commandments? I'm just curious as to your motivation if you are an atheist.

I refuse to believe that a just and loving God would condemn me and 80 percent of the rest of the world to eternal damnation because we don't happen to be Christians.

Is it still cruel if he condemns you only after bending over backwards to tell you about the way out of this mess and gives you every opportunity to take it?

It sounds like you might be saying that condemnation itself is inherently cruel, independently of anything that comes before it?

Francis explained himself, "The Lord created us in His image and likeness, and we are the image of the Lord, and He does good and all of us have this commandment at heart, do good and do not do evil. All of us. 'But, Father, this is not Catholic! He cannot do good.' Yes, he can... "The Lord has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the Blood of Christ, all of us, not just Catholics. Everyone! 'Father, the atheists?' Even the atheists. Everyone!" We must meet one another doing good. 'But I don't believe, Father, I am an atheist!' But do good: we will meet one another there."

Sounds like a blend of works righteousness and universal reconciliation.

Some of the big evangelical mega-churches (Joel Osteen, etc.) are gradually starting to make public statements of unity with the Roman Catholic church; I suspect one of the reasons for that is because they agree on righteousness by works. Unfortunately, works righteousness is one of the oldest Christian heresies.

[doodle]

Good discussion. Thanks Moda for swooping in. Anyways, I'm a fairly open minded and live and let live type of person. The fact that someone believes that Jesus is the son of God doesn't bother me in the slightest. The thing that drives me to really feel a lot of contempt towards Christianity though is the gun to your head ultimatum that you must believe as they do or you are going to hell. That right there just ruins any ability for me to warm up to Christians and have any sort of relationship with them.

But if what they are saying is in fact the truth (humor me here), then isn't telling you about it the right thing to do? Aren't they doing you a service by telling you about it? And wouldn't it be a very bad thing for them not to tell you?

In other words, your opinion that their fire-and-brimstone warnings are reprehensible is premised on the fact that the warnings are false. If they are true, then they may be the sweetest words you will ever hear, because they wake you up to the truth about your condition and get you thinking about how to overcome it. It all depends on the truth or falsehood of what they are saying, doesn't it?


1. There is no way for me to verify that the Bible is true since it is all coming as second hand information and I am unable to test or prove any of the content in it.  Since God gave me the faculties of reason and doubt when the evidence wasn't overwhelming, a just God would not condemn me for acting in a reasonable manner.

2. As I said before, I would rather not go to a heaven that is ruled by a God that would make such ultimatums.

I'm willing to acknowledge that I'm not perfect, that I have committed many errors and wrongs in my life. I try to live a moral life and at the end of the day I end up following the Ten Commandments to the best of my ability. I just have no deeper belief in the Christian dogma and remain doubtful about most spiritual topics.

May I ask why you feel the urge to live a moral life and follow the Ten Commandments? I'm just curious as to your motivation if you are an atheist.


I'm not an atheist. Atheism is just traditional religion in reverse. I'm agnostic because there is no way for me to KNOW if there is actually a God. Even if  I were to experience a revelation that spoke to me personally about his existence there is no way for me to know whether or not this is a hallucination or to even prove this revelation to another person.

The basic tenets of the Ten Commandments are pretty much universal to any faith. Absent faith, I also believe in the. Golden Rule from a practical perspective as I think it creates a more positive social atmosphere to live in. I don't like to be lied to, cheated on, and murdered....so I don't do it to others.

I refuse to believe that a just and loving God would condemn me and 80 percent of the rest of the world to eternal damnation because we don't happen to be Christians.

Is it still cruel if he condemns you only after bending over backwards to tell you about the way out of this mess and gives you every opportunity to take it?

It sounds like you might be saying that condemnation itself is inherently cruel, independently of anything that comes before it?

If God were to come out of heaven and touch me on the shoulder and speak directly to me then yes. However he has only left me a secondhand account in a vague book that has undergone many translations and whose contents were determined in a political manner by a council of bishops more than 1500 years ago. It has also shown itself to be full of many errors, contradictions, and rules and laws that not even the most ardent Christian today obeys. There is nothing to prove to me that the Bible is the word of God other than the Bible telling me that it is the word of God. This is no different than a man approaching me on the street telling me he is the second coming of Christ and me believing him because he says so.

Francis explained himself, "The Lord created us in His image and likeness, and we are the image of the Lord, and He does good and all of us have this commandment at heart, do good and do not do evil. All of us. 'But, Father, this is not Catholic! He cannot do good.' Yes, he can... "The Lord has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the Blood of Christ, all of us, not just Catholics. Everyone! 'Father, the atheists?' Even the atheists. Everyone!" We must meet one another doing good. 'But I don't believe, Father, I am an atheist!' But do good: we will meet one another there."

Sounds like a blend of works righteousness and universal reconciliation.

Some of the big evangelical mega-churches (Joel Osteen, etc.) are gradually starting to make public statements of unity with the Roman Catholic church; I suspect one of the reasons for that is because they agree on righteousness by works. Unfortunately, works righteousness is one of the oldest Christian heresies.

We'll there you go....who am I to listen to? Should I listen to the Pope and Catholic Church today or the pope and Catholic Church from 10 centuries ago which at that time was still determining someone's  guilt or innocence by burning them at a stake? Since there is no singular interpretation of the bible because it is so vague and contradictory then I would think that God would give me a little leeway.

[doodle]

I also find it a stretch to believe that the same God who created heaven and earth and all the animals on it would only be able to produce a book like the bible. How about something more amazing since we are in the 21st century now....like an updated version. Aren't there video cameras in heaven, how about some amazing special effects like fireworks when you open the cover. I mean, if I popped the cover and Jesus was speaking to me directly using technology that us measly humans hadn't even been able to come up with then that would be one more piece of evidence as to the divine nature of this book.

Also, how do Christians determine which parts of the bible to follow and which to ignore if it is all the word of God? I mean if God says that you shouldn't eat shrimp or shellfish or wear clothing of mixed materials like he does in Leviticus then who are you to ignore this? And if you are going to ignore these rules in Leviticus, then why do most Christians continue to follow other rules in Leviticus that talk about homosexuality.

No, no , no....it is all to capricious and nonsensical for me.

[Mountaineer]

I also find it a stretch to believe that the same God who created heaven and earth and all the animals on it would only be able to produce a book like the bible. How about something more amazing since we are in the 21st century now....like an updated version. Aren't there video cameras in heaven, how about some amazing special effects like fireworks when you open the cover. I mean, if I popped the cover and Jesus was speaking to me directly using technology that us measly humans hadn't even been able to come up with then that would be one more piece of evidence as to the divine nature of this book.

Also, how do Christians determine which parts of the bible to follow and which to ignore if it is all the word of God? I mean if God says that you shouldn't eat shrimp or shellfish or wear clothing of mixed materials like he does in Leviticus then who are you to ignore this? And if you are going to ignore these rules in Leviticus, then why do most Christians continue to follow other rules in Leviticus that talk about homosexuality.

No, no , no....it is all to capricious and nonsensical for me.

Well doodle, the good news is that you are forgiven because of what Christ did for you on the cross - He took all of your sins to the grave forever, a remarkable outrageous gift for someone who can do absolutely nothing to deserve it (just like me).  Hopefully, you will not die refusing the gift. 

... Mountaineer

[moda0306]

I also find it a stretch to believe that the same God who created heaven and earth and all the animals on it would only be able to produce a book like the bible. How about something more amazing since we are in the 21st century now....like an updated version. Aren't there video cameras in heaven, how about some amazing special effects like fireworks when you open the cover. I mean, if I popped the cover and Jesus was speaking to me directly using technology that us measly humans hadn't even been able to come up with then that would be one more piece of evidence as to the divine nature of this book.

Also, how do Christians determine which parts of the bible to follow and which to ignore if it is all the word of God? I mean if God says that you shouldn't eat shrimp or shellfish or wear clothing of mixed materials like he does in Leviticus then who are you to ignore this? And if you are going to ignore these rules in Leviticus, then why do most Christians continue to follow other rules in Leviticus that talk about homosexuality.

No, no , no....it is all to capricious and nonsensical for me.

Well doodle, the good news is that you are forgiven because of what Christ did for you on the cross - He took all of your sins to the grave forever, a remarkable outrageous gift for someone who can do absolutely nothing to deserve it (just like me).  Hopefully, you will not die refusing the gift. 

... Mountaineer

Mountaineer,

I still have to read your book you suggested, but this is the kind of debate style we are talking about. We are questioning reality of religion and/or Christianity, and you come back with statements of belief rather than reasons for that belief. It's always so circular. It always begs the question. I can appreciate the positive affect belief has in your life. However, it makes it difficult to understand when you always beg the question in religious discussions. Assuming your conclusion in a debate trying to establish the validity of that conclusion isn't ever going to work.

[Mountaineer]

I also find it a stretch to believe that the same God who created heaven and earth and all the animals on it would only be able to produce a book like the bible. How about something more amazing since we are in the 21st century now....like an updated version. Aren't there video cameras in heaven, how about some amazing special effects like fireworks when you open the cover. I mean, if I popped the cover and Jesus was speaking to me directly using technology that us measly humans hadn't even been able to come up with then that would be one more piece of evidence as to the divine nature of this book.

Also, how do Christians determine which parts of the bible to follow and which to ignore if it is all the word of God? I mean if God says that you shouldn't eat shrimp or shellfish or wear clothing of mixed materials like he does in Leviticus then who are you to ignore this? And if you are going to ignore these rules in Leviticus, then why do most Christians continue to follow other rules in Leviticus that talk about homosexuality.

No, no , no....it is all to capricious and nonsensical for me.

Well doodle, the good news is that you are forgiven because of what Christ did for you on the cross - He took all of your sins to the grave forever, a remarkable outrageous gift for someone who can do absolutely nothing to deserve it (just like me).  Hopefully, you will not die refusing the gift. 

... Mountaineer

Mountaineer,

I still have to read your book you suggested, but this is the kind of debate style we are talking about. We are questioning reality of religion and/or Christianity, and you come back with statements of belief rather than reasons for that belief. It's always so circular. It always begs the question. I can appreciate the positive affect belief has in your life. However, it makes it difficult to understand when you always beg the question in religious discussions. Assuming your conclusion in a debate trying to establish the validity of that conclusion isn't ever going to work.

Can you have a debate when one party is not debating?  I see no need to debate truth.  The truth is that Jesus came to earth, lived, died, rose again.  If there is something you would like to debate, debate the fact that Jesus was resurrected - present your case, argue with God, not me.  For me, it is almost completely irrevelant for you what my belief is, or yours for me; it just does not matter.  It may be fun, just like a good action or sci-fi movie, but it really is insignificant.  I am not trying to win a debate.  I am only sharing the truth of the Gospel.   

Perhaps you will have a chance to read the book, you may be surprised, and I don't even need to know the outcome; you have no "face" that needs saving from my perspective.  That will be between you and God. 

... Mountaineer

[Xan]

Moda,

I believe this thread was started when MediumTex wanted to find out where religious people were coming from, which isn't really the same as having a debate and trying to settle on exactly one viewpoint.

Also, I agree with you that the reasoning is circular.  It is.  It can't be proven from a materialistic starting point, any more than materialism can be proven from a theistic starting point.  I don't have any expectation of "winning a debate" about it.  We're to spread the good news, which Mountaineer is doing, and let whoever has ears hear it. 

[moda0306]

Mountaineer,

You're 100% sure about the "rose again" part?

I know you're not trying to win a debate so much as "help us understand." But what we are having trouble understanding is "how can you be so sure?"

You then refer to scripture, which is circular. We aren't wondering exactly what you believe per se... We are wondering how you are so damn sure you've got it right?  And it sounds weird when you use religious books as your personal proof that what is in them is true.



Xan,

You're right. This wasn't really a debate, but trying to develop a deeper understanding why people believe what they do. I guess as part of that, doodle and I tend to want to ask "how can you be so sure," which, then, in our minds, we are waiting to hear a logical argument... Hence the "debate" aspect to what I was saying. But you are correct. This is about obtaining a deeper understanding of why people believe what they do.

[moda0306]

Moda,

I believe this thread was started when MediumTex wanted to find out where religious people were coming from, which isn't really the same as having a debate and trying to settle on exactly one viewpoint.

Also, I agree with you that the reasoning is circular.  It is.  It can't be proven from a materialistic starting point, any more than materialism can be proven from a theistic starting point.  I don't have any expectation of "winning a debate" about it.  We're to spread the good news, which Mountaineer is doing, and let whoever has ears hear it.

Is logic and reason "materialistic?" Is trusting your senses materialistic?

It seems to me, all religious and non-religious folks use their senses to understand reality. If you didn't have the ability to "sense" some theistic truth, you wouldn't be able to assert it. So you are, effectively, arguing from a materialist base. Your ability to interpret reality vs other people's, religious and non religious.

Though it may not be provable, and this certainly doesn't mean that there is no god, your faith in some theistic reality is a trait of your soul.  It is a feeling you have (though, as mountaineer mentioned, likely on a different plane than just seeing a "cute baby.").  You have to TRUST that trait in your soul, not just to tell you that there is a God, but to trust a whole bunch of details about what He wants from us, that Jesus is His son, etc.  It's one thing to have general "faith."  But where do all the details and interpretations come from?  Is it just your faith accepting certain interpretations and not others?  If so, that is fine.

I'm thinking I should read mountaineer's suggested book .

[doodle]

Well doodle, the good news is that you are forgiven because of what Christ did for you on the cross - He took all of your sins to the grave forever, a remarkable outrageous gift for someone who can do absolutely nothing to deserve it (just like me).  Hopefully, you will not die refusing the gift. 

... Mountaineer

Mountaineer,

I still have to read your book you suggested, but this is the kind of debate style we are talking about. We are questioning reality of religion and/or Christianity, and you come back with statements of belief rather than reasons for that belief. It's always so circular. It always begs the question. I can appreciate the positive affect belief has in your life. However, it makes it difficult to understand when you always beg the question in religious discussions. Assuming your conclusion in a debate trying to establish the validity of that conclusion isn't ever going to work.

Can you have a debate when one party is not debating?  I see no need to debate truth.  The truth is that Jesus came to earth, lived, died, rose again.  If there is something you would like to debate, debate the fact that Jesus was resurrected - present your case, argue with God, not me.  For me, it is almost completely irrevelant for you what my belief is, or yours for me; it just does not matter.


Except that I'm not saying you are going to burn in eternal hellfire for your beliefs like you do for mine. Can you see why that might irritate some people?


  It may be fun, just like a good action or sci-fi movie, but it really is insignificant.  I am not trying to win a debate.  I am only sharing the truth of the Gospel.   

Perhaps you will have a chance to read the book, you may be surprised, and I don't even need to know the outcome; you have no "face" that needs saving from my perspective.  That will be between you and God. 

... Mountaineer

[moda0306]

Mountaineer,

I still have to read your book you suggested, but this is the kind of debate style we are talking about. We are questioning reality of religion and/or Christianity, and you come back with statements of belief rather than reasons for that belief. It's always so circular. It always begs the question. I can appreciate the positive affect belief has in your life. However, it makes it difficult to understand when you always beg the question in religious discussions. Assuming your conclusion in a debate trying to establish the validity of that conclusion isn't ever going to work.

Can you have a debate when one party is not debating?  I see no need to debate truth.  The truth is that Jesus came to earth, lived, died, rose again.  If there is something you would like to debate, debate the fact that Jesus was resurrected - present your case, argue with God, not me.  For me, it is almost completely irrevelant for you what my belief is, or yours for me; it just does not matter.


Except that I'm not saying you are going to burn in eternal hellfire for your beliefs like you do for mine. Can you see why that might irritate some people?


  It may be fun, just like a good action or sci-fi movie, but it really is insignificant.  I am not trying to win a debate.  I am only sharing the truth of the Gospel.   

Perhaps you will have a chance to read the book, you may be surprised, and I don't even need to know the outcome; you have no "face" that needs saving from my perspective.  That will be between you and God. 

... Mountaineer

Doodle,

He is just stating what he deems to be reality. Not necessarily condoning it.

I don't like it either. But perhaps that's reality. I don't know how we can really know. But I agree I don't like an all-powerful God who would sent a 5-year old Buddhist boy to hell because he didn't accept Jesus, and some inmate in prison for mass murder and rape in Texas gets in because accepted Jesus as his savior.  Let's make this clear, IF God is all powerful, HE made these rules. If he's not all powerful and is fallible, I see for a much more interesting, realistic, believable, lovable version of God.

[doodle]

Moda,

I believe this thread was started when MediumTex wanted to find out where religious people were coming from, which isn't really the same as having a debate and trying to settle on exactly one viewpoint.

Also, I agree with you that the reasoning is circular.  It is.  It can't be proven from a materialistic starting point, any more than materialism can be proven from a theistic starting point.  I don't have any expectation of "winning a debate" about it.  We're to spread the good news, which Mountaineer is doing, and let whoever has ears hear it.

Is logic and reason "materialistic?" Is trusting your senses materialistic?

It seems to me, all religious and non-religious folks use their senses to understand reality. If you didn't have the ability to "sense" some theistic truth, you wouldn't be able to assert it. So you are, effectively, arguing from a materialist base. Your ability to interpret reality vs other people's, religious and non religious.

Though it may not be provable, and this certainly doesn't mean that there is no god, your faith in some theistic reality is a trait of your soul.  It is a feeling you have (though, as mountaineer mentioned, likely on a different plane than just seeing a "cute baby.").  You have to TRUST that trait in your soul, not just to tell you that there is a God, but to trust a whole bunch of details about what He wants from us, that Jesus is His son, etc.  It's one thing to have general "faith."  But where do all the details and interpretations come from?  Is it just your faith accepting certain interpretations and not others?  If so, that is fine.

I'm thinking I should read mountaineer's suggested book .

What I don't understand is why God would write a book proving his existence that is so unconvincing that I have to read another human beings interpretation of Gods book in order to understand it. I mean, this is the God who created heaven and earth. If Newton can convincingly explain calculus in a book, I would think that God could at least create a work that an intelligent human being would immediately see the truth in....especially a book which would at least overwhelm the sense of rational logic that he hard wired into me.

[moda0306]

Moda,

I believe this thread was started when MediumTex wanted to find out where religious people were coming from, which isn't really the same as having a debate and trying to settle on exactly one viewpoint.

Also, I agree with you that the reasoning is circular.  It is.  It can't be proven from a materialistic starting point, any more than materialism can be proven from a theistic starting point.  I don't have any expectation of "winning a debate" about it.  We're to spread the good news, which Mountaineer is doing, and let whoever has ears hear it.

Is logic and reason "materialistic?" Is trusting your senses materialistic?

It seems to me, all religious and non-religious folks use their senses to understand reality. If you didn't have the ability to "sense" some theistic truth, you wouldn't be able to assert it. So you are, effectively, arguing from a materialist base. Your ability to interpret reality vs other people's, religious and non religious.

Though it may not be provable, and this certainly doesn't mean that there is no god, your faith in some theistic reality is a trait of your soul.  It is a feeling you have (though, as mountaineer mentioned, likely on a different plane than just seeing a "cute baby.").  You have to TRUST that trait in your soul, not just to tell you that there is a God, but to trust a whole bunch of details about what He wants from us, that Jesus is His son, etc.  It's one thing to have general "faith."  But where do all the details and interpretations come from?  Is it just your faith accepting certain interpretations and not others?  If so, that is fine.

I'm thinking I should read mountaineer's suggested book .

What I don't understand is why God would write a book proving his existence that is so unconvincing that I have to read another human beings interpretation of Gods book in order to understand it. I mean, this is the God who created heaven and earth. If Newton can convincingly explain calculus in a book, I would think that God could at least create a work that an intelligent human being would immediately see the truth in....especially a book which would at least overwhelm the sense of rational logic that he hard wired into me.

Doodle,

So would I.

That's why I consider How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World my Bible. )

[Xan]

Xan,

You're right. This wasn't really a debate, but trying to develop a deeper understanding why people believe what they do. I guess as part of that, doodle and I tend to want to ask "how can you be so sure," which, then, in our minds, we are waiting to hear a logical argument... Hence the "debate" aspect to what I was saying. But you are correct. This is about obtaining a deeper understanding of why people believe what they do.

That's fair enough, but I don't think we're going to have an answer that would really satisfy you.  We can list a lot of reasons that it makes sense, but probably none of them are 100.00% bulletproof in a logical argument.

Scripture is quite clear that faith is a gift of the Spirit.  My perspective on these discussions is that the faithful are sharing knowledge of the God that they know, in the hope that our words will be the means the Spirit uses to generate the same faith in the listener.  It's not on me to guarantee that happens.  Proving the existence of a creator God from first principles isn't really part of that.

Others might have a different take, but that's how I see it, anyway.

[moda0306]

Xan,

You're right. This wasn't really a debate, but trying to develop a deeper understanding why people believe what they do. I guess as part of that, doodle and I tend to want to ask "how can you be so sure," which, then, in our minds, we are waiting to hear a logical argument... Hence the "debate" aspect to what I was saying. But you are correct. This is about obtaining a deeper understanding of why people believe what they do.

That's fair enough, but I don't think we're going to have an answer that would really satisfy you.  We can list a lot of reasons that it makes sense, but probably none of them are 100.00% bulletproof in a logical argument.

Scripture is quite clear that faith is a gift of the Spirit.  My perspective on these discussions is that the faithful are sharing knowledge of the God that they know, in the hope that our words will be the means the Spirit uses to generate the same faith in the listener.  It's not on me to guarantee that happens.  Proving the existence of a creator God from first principles isn't really part of that.

Others might have a different take, but that's how I see it, anyway.

Xan,

That's all really fair and clear.  Thanks for your input/perspective.

I guess where my mind would go now is that this Faith now has to "pick a team," and most teams have very specific interpretations of God.  How does your Spirit tell you which interpretation to pick between Catholic, Lutheran, etc?

I mean I think I can understand a vague-but-very-powerful force guiding you towards a belief, but I don't see how the details get established.  I realize there is a book out there (The Bible), but often it is either vague or contradictory, and various sub-sets of Christianity seem to interpret it very differently.  Can you help me understand how you chose the specifics of your belief & what denomination you picked (or how it picked you)?

Thank you.

[Xan]

Sure, Moda.  I've posted about that here:
http://gyroscopicinvesting.com/forum/ot ... /#msg90936
Much of that is devoted to the difference between Roman Catholic and Lutheran doctrine, which made more sense in that thread, but the part of it that addresses your question is:

In coming to accept Christianity, I realized two things:
a) What's unique about, and central to, Christianity is the forgiveness of sins for Christ's sake.
b) The best Christian tradition is one which puts a) at its very center.
That's how I ended up where I am.

[Mountaineer]

Xan,

You're right. This wasn't really a debate, but trying to develop a deeper understanding why people believe what they do. I guess as part of that, doodle and I tend to want to ask "how can you be so sure," which, then, in our minds, we are waiting to hear a logical argument... Hence the "debate" aspect to what I was saying. But you are correct. This is about obtaining a deeper understanding of why people believe what they do.

That's fair enough, but I don't think we're going to have an answer that would really satisfy you.  We can list a lot of reasons that it makes sense, but probably none of them are 100.00% bulletproof in a logical argument.

Scripture is quite clear that faith is a gift of the Spirit.  My perspective on these discussions is that the faithful are sharing knowledge of the God that they know, in the hope that our words will be the means the Spirit uses to generate the same faith in the listener.  It's not on me to guarantee that happens.  Proving the existence of a creator God from first principles isn't really part of that.

Others might have a different take, but that's how I see it, anyway.

Xan,

That's all really fair and clear.  Thanks for your input/perspective.

I guess where my mind would go now is that this Faith now has to "pick a team," and most teams have very specific interpretations of God.  How does your Spirit tell you which interpretation to pick between Catholic, Lutheran, etc?

I mean I think I can understand a vague-but-very-powerful force guiding you towards a belief, but I don't see how the details get established.  I realize there is a book out there (The Bible), but often it is either vague or contradictory, and various sub-sets of Christianity seem to interpret it very differently.  Can you help me understand how you chose the specifics of your belief & what denomination you picked (or how it picked you)?

Thank you.

Xan, your take is my take as well.

moda, to comment on your "vague or contradictory" comment.  The LCMS Lutheran principle for Scripture interpretation is "Scripture interprets Scripture with the more straightforward passages interpreting the more complex".  We try to let the Word of God interpret the Word of God instead of inserting man into the process (such as the historical-critical or new-age methods of interpretation frequently do).  I used to think Scripture was contradictory and difficult to understand too.  After much more study, I came to realize Scripture is actually very clear, at least as clear as any other "deep" text I've studied, and all the confusion was due to me, not the text.  The more I studied the clearer things became, just as with any other subject that one is interested in trying to master.  One key thing that helped my understanding was the blessing of a Pastor that is fluent in Hebrew and Greek so he could share what the original languages say and the various ways those original languages can be stated in English (as with all translations, religious or otherwise, an exact match with the original language is rare).  And, yes, I realize that is opinion and not a proof 

... Mountaineer