Why did Jesus Leave?

[Deidre32]

So, you believed everything that you do without someone making a Christian appeal to you? You just had a feeling one day and you said "Hey believe!"?

I doubt that. Genereally, there's a disclosure of certain information that anchors on to pre-existing familiarity and concepts.

For example, when I was on mission trips to former USSR, these people were the hardest to convert. We've had 0 rate of success at some points of our progress. There's a very good reason for it.

On the other hand, we didn't really have such hard time in South America.

Why do you think it is?

Would you be Christian today if you lived in a Muslim country? I highly doubt it. Would you be Christian today if you lived in post-Soviet Russia? Highly unlikely.

So, it seems to me that geography does come into play.

You're under the impression that people convert people. Mission trips can plant seeds, and provide guidance and open people's minds. But, only the Holy Spirit can convert people's hearts. And if people's hearts are hardened, then...they won't convert. It's not about a mission's 'success' rate. Spirituality isn't a business.

 

[devolved]

My faith isn't the sum total of the Bible. My reason for returning to faith was due to an experience that I'd consider to be from the Holy Spirit. This happened when I was an atheist. I actually don't uphold the Bible as entirely literal, some of it is allegory. Fundamentalists often times, take the Bible literally. If I were deaf and blind, and unable to read or hear the Bible...would I not be able to understand God's love? Would I not feel His presence? My reason for returning to faith, honestly had nothing to do with the Bible. Now, when I read the Bible...I relate to certain areas of it, but not all of it, certainly. There's many areas I don't understand...and many I take as allegory. Not all Christians march to the same drum.

Again, I really don't want to offend you with undue questions, because I'm not really questioning the reality of your experience. In fact, I do know about the feeling you are talking about.

But, when you take parts of the Bible as allegory, why wouldn't the next obvious step be - a God is an allegory for a state of mind that you find positive?

For example, things that you describe like love, positive emotions, and etc... these don't seem to be "God". These are human experiences that you seem to interpret as God.

So, how do you take everything else as allegory, yet this part remains to be real?

 

[devolved]

You're under the impression that people convert people. Mission trips can plant seeds, and provide guidance and open people's minds. But, only the Holy Spirit can convert people's hearts. And if people's hearts are hardened, then...they won't convert. It's not about a mission's 'success' rate. Spirituality isn't a business.

Again, you seem to be allegorizing human activity here

How would Holy Spirit do the conversion? Does it send electrical impulses inside people's brain? Because such would be the implication? How does that work? I mean, people would have to feel or think something. Our thoughts and feelings are derived from our brain physiology.

How do you think that works?

Whenever Christian say something like that, it seems to be detached from the reality of our nervous system.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Would you be Christian today if you lived in a Muslim country? I highly doubt it. Would you be Christian today if you lived in post-Soviet Russia? Highly unlikely.

So, it seems to me that geography does come into play.

Actually, there are more devoted Christians in the communist countries than in the united states.
When it is too easy to be a "christian", or when it is by law be a "christian" or die,
then there are
A lot of actors on the stage of life all over the place !

 

[Deidre32]

Again, I really don't want to offend you with undue questions, because I'm not really questioning the reality of your experience. In fact, I do know about the feeling you are talking about.

But, when you take parts of the Bible as allegory, why wouldn't the next obvious step be - a God is an allegory for a state of mind that you find positive?

For example, things that you describe like love, positive emotions, and etc... these don't seem to be "God". These are human experiences that you seem to interpret as God.

So, how do you take everything else as allegory, yet this part remains to be real?

Because I experienced it.

 

[devolved]

Because I experienced it.

What exactly did you experience? God or a feeling?

I'm curious, because I'm curious as to what exactly you are talking about.

 

[devolved]

Actually, there are more devoted Christians in the communist countries than in the united states.
When it is too easy to be a "christian", or when it is by law be a "christian" or die,
then there are
A lot of actors on the stage of life all over the place !

Where do you get that statistics from? Can you point me to a reference or a survey of some sort?

 

[amariselle]

So, you believed everything that you do without someone making a Christian appeal to you? You just had a feeling one day and you said "Hey believe!"?

I doubt that. Genereally, there's a disclosure of certain information that anchors on to pre-existing familiarity and concepts.

For example, when I was on mission trips to former USSR, these people were the hardest to convert. We've had 0 rate of success at some points of our progress. There's a very good reason for it.

On the other hand, we didn't really have such hard time in South America.

Why do you think it is?

Would you be Christian today if you lived in a Muslim country? I highly doubt it. Would you be Christian today if you lived in post-Soviet Russia? Highly unlikely.

So, it seems to me that geography does come into play.

Geography may come into play regarding the prevalence and access to learning about certain beliefs, I won't deny that. However, it is clear that the amount of exposure to a particular belief does not always mean that the person who is exposed to that belief will accept it.

If that were always the case, then I would be an Atheist, or, at the very least, an Agnostic. I have been exposed to far more secular viewpoints and arguments than religious (or Christian) ones.

Which is my point; the "indoctrination" argument falls far short in the western world today.

 

[amariselle]

Actually, there are more devoted Christians in the communist countries than in the united states.
When it is too easy to be a "christian", or when it is by law be a "christian" or die,
then there are
A lot of actors on the stage of life all over the place !

This is a good point. Christianity has flourished and grown in times of harsh persecution, even more than in times of relative ease.

 

[Deidre32]

What exactly did you experience? God or a feeling?

I'm curious, because I'm curious as to what exactly you are talking about.

I've shared it here, and I'm reluctant to share it anymore with skeptics. I had a witness to what I believed, as it happened at work. One of the occurrences. The first time, could be categorized as a feeling, but in reading the stories about how people have responded or reacted to the presence of the Holy Spirit, it fell in line with that. For me, it changed my life for the better. I had grown completely indifferent to faith, Jesus, etc...it wasn't a part of my life at all, at the time. I wasn't actively seeking God, and had given up on a deity existing, so this is why it rang true for me when it happened. More than a feeling. But, I've shared some details before, and just not willing to share with someone who no offense to you, isn't interested in just hearing it, but is rather more interested in telling me not to believe in God. If you choose to not believe, that is your choice. But, you should let others have their choices, too.

 

[devolved]

However, it is clear that the amount of exposure to a particular belief does not always mean that the person who is exposed to that belief will accept it.

If that were always the case, then I would be an Atheist, or, at the very least, an Agnostic. I have been exposed to far more secular viewpoints and arguments than religious (or Christian) ones.

Which is my point; the "indoctrination" argument falls far short in the western world today.

"Indoctrination" only works in context of any situational environment. Remember that countries and environments are not Monolithic. My guess is that you didn't just pick up the Bible, read and then believed, and then felt the Holy Spirit overcome you with a sense of conviction. I don't know what your experience is, but it's likely related to some form of Christian-depended environment that got you injected into a cycle of certain thought patterns.

I don't dismiss that people can pick up the Bible and read it and then Believe, but that's generally not the Christian experience you hear about.

 

[devolved]

I've shared it here, and I'm reluctant to share it anymore with skeptics. I had a witness to what I believed, as it happened at work. One of the occurrences. The first time, could be categorized as a feeling, but in reading the stories about how people have responded or reacted to the presence of the Holy Spirit, it fell in line with that. For me, it changed my life for the better. I had grown completely indifferent to faith, Jesus, etc...it wasn't a part of my life at all, at the time. I wasn't actively seeking God, and had given up on a deity existing, so this is why it rang true for me when it happened. More than a feeling. But, I've shared some details before, and just not willing to share with someone who no offense to you, isn't interested in just hearing it, but is rather more interested in telling me not to believe in God. If you choose to not believe, that is your choice. But, you should let others have their choices, too.

I'm not actually interested to persuade you not to believe in God. In fact, I'm raising more questions than I'm making statements if you notice.

I have some respect for religious experience, primarily it was a large part of my life. I think eventually I recognized that I've merely labeled experience as God, or certain ideology as God, or certain feelings as God...and I really eventually felt that such equivocation isn't warranted.

I have no problem with you disagreeing, and I certainly don't fault you for believing certain things. I could perhaps say where I don't believe that certain things reflect reality of the concept or idea, but your experience and your belief is entirely your business and none of mine... of course unless you attempt to impose these, and I think you are far from it.

 

[devolved]

This is a good point. Christianity has flourished and grown in times of harsh persecution, even more than in times of relative ease.

I didn't say that there are no exceptions, but exceptions validate the rule of thumb, these don't disprove the rule of thumb. These are called exceptions for a reason.

Again, a culture isn't a monolithic entity. You will have pockets of micro-culture that follow entirely different paradigm.

 

[SteveB28]

That is a highly inaccurate statement. Truth is in fact very important to me.

You clearly said we can change our beliefs, and when I asked how that idea is in agreement with your previous statement that we don't choose our beliefs at all, your response was to insult my intelligence. As I said, such a response undermines everything else you might say. Attacking someone else's intelligence is not adequate support for your particular position or perspective on an issue.

But, since you seem to think that truth isn't important to me, I will quote Pontius Pilate: "What is truth?"

You seem to think you know what ultimate truth is, because you apparently think I'm not interested in it. So, what would be your answer to that question?

You claimed that I said that we can "choose to change our beliefs". Show me where I said that, or admit that you were uttering a mistruth.

 

[Deidre32]

I'm not actually interested to persuade you not to believe in God. In fact, I'm raising more questions than I'm making statements if you notice.

I have some respect for religious experience, primarily it was a large part of my life. I think eventually I recognized that I've merely labeled experience as God, or certain ideology as God, or certain feelings as God...and I really eventually felt that such equivocation isn't warranted.

I have no problem with you disagreeing, and I certainly don't fault you for believing certain things. I could perhaps say where I don't believe that certain things reflect reality of the concept or idea, but your experience and your belief is entirely your business and none of mine... of course unless you attempt to impose these, and I think you are far from it.

But, here you go again...saying ''I have no problem with...'' and ''I have some respect for...'' lol You seem to think that your opinion of my faith is necessary in order for us to discuss faith, at all. It's a great thing when two people, one a believer and one a non-believer, can have a conversation about faith, but this doesn't feel like a mutually respectful conversation, is all I'm saying.

 

[devolved]

But, here you go again...saying ''I have no problem with...'' and ''I have some respect for...'' lol You seem to think that your opinion of my faith is necessary in order for us to discuss faith, at all. It's a great thing when two people, one a believer and one a non-believer, can have a conversation about faith, but this doesn't feel like a mutually respectful conversation, is all I'm saying.

Well, respect is not a monolithic concept IMO.

For example I simply don't have much respect for poor logic, although I may respect a person. These are two mutually exclusive concepts. I think it's a tendency in the religious community to lump belief and personal identity together. We believe as a function, and we may do stupid things as a function, but I've seen plenty of smart people do stupid things. Likewise, I've seen generally caring people do harmful things.

I don't think any single thing should define our whole being. I forgot who said it, but it was something akin to "I am complex, because I am a multitude".

 

[Deidre32]

Well, respect is not a monolithic concept IMO.

For example I simply don't have much respect for poor logic, although I may respect a person. These are two mutually exclusive concepts. I think it's a tendency in the religious community to lump belief and personal identity together. We believe as a function, and we may do stupid things as a function, but I've seen plenty of smart people do stupid things. Likewise, I've seen generally caring people do harmful things.

I don't think any single thing should define our whole being. I forgot who said it, but it was something akin to "I am complex, because I am a multitude".

I agree, one single thing doesn't define a human being. I never said it did, though. lol

I'm still a member of two atheist message forums, as I joined them when I was an atheist. I understand atheism, and don't feel the need to probe my friends who are atheists, or those online who are atheists. It's their life to live. I joined this site when I was an atheist, and I had debates back then, and so some of these circular arguments are very familiar to me. lol Maybe it's karma for when I probed believers, when I was a non believer.

 

[devolved]

I agree, one single thing doesn't define a human being. I never said it did, though. lol

So, you'd agree that I wouldn't naturally have the same level of respect for everything that you believe, right?

For example, when I say that I don't respect faulty logic, I mean that I don't really find the process to be admirable.

When I say that I somewhat respect Christian belief, by that I mean the same thing. I don't respect all aspects of that belief equally. It has some traits that I see admirable. Other attributes... not so much.

I'm not sure why you'd find it objectionable.

 

[amariselle]

"Indoctrination" only works in context of any situational environment. Remember that countries and environments are not Monolithic. My guess is that you didn't just pick up the Bible, read and then believed, and then felt the Holy Spirit overcome you with a sense of conviction. I don't know what your experience is, but it's likely related to some form of Christian-depended environment that got you injected into a cycle of certain thought patterns.

I don't dismiss that people can pick up the Bible and read it and then Believe, but that's generally not the Christian experience you hear about.

Well, true Christian faith cannot exist apart from the Bible (the word of God) but just because I read the Bible, does not mean I'm "indoctrinated." As I said, for true indoctrination to occur, a person can only be exposed to one viewpoint (or belief) and taught that they should never consider any others. I've read many many secular books as well as the Bible, and as I also said, the majority of what I've been exposed to in my life has been secular, not Christian. So how is it that I've been "indoctrinated" into the Christian faith?

 

[Deidre32]

So, you'd agree that I wouldn't naturally have the same level of respect for everything that you believe, right?

I imagine so.

For example, when I say that I don't respect faulty logic, I mean that I don't really find the process to be admirable.

Well, it's understandable that a non-believer would think that a believer is using faulty logic in order to 'believe' in a deity's existence. Is this what you mean?

When I say that I somewhat respect Christian belief, by that I mean the same thing. I don't respect all aspects of that belief equally. It has some traits that I see admirable. Other attributes... not so much.

I agree. I just love God, and want to follow Him. There are thousands of denominations for Christianity, which is why I'm non-denominational. I identify as a Christian for simplistic labeling purposes, but I don't identify with one particular sect, or dogma.

I'm not sure why you'd find it objectionable.

Put this way, I don't.