Any re-converts here?

[The Midge]

I can agree with a metaphorical approach to Genesis and I completely agree with the fact that Genesis was written for nomads, not for astrophysicists. But when in the NT Jesus was telling a parable, it was clearly marked as such. Genesis is referred as historical in the rest of the Bible and I don't only refer to the Creation and Adam and Eve, I also refer to Noach, Abraham, Babel etc. The 'original sin' that everyone inherits and why Jesus was necessary on the cross is an act of Adam. Now if Adam was just metaphorical, wasn't the original sin as well?

I never said I had all the answers for or against.

First off “genesis” means “origins” and by the nature of it’s topic there was no one around to say if something did or did not happen like it said. Then you have to look at the form of literature and the conventions that the authour(s) apply. It would seem that the work is a collection of history and theological myth woven into a narrative. It is the meaning of the stories rather than literal accuracy which is theologically significant IMHO.

The flood- does it mean the “known world” as in the Roman world which ended somewhere around Scotland because that is where the Roman inhabited. In such an event the fertile crescent may have contained all of human life at one time.

Beware: “Original sin” is a doctrine that resulted from the Genesis account of the fall of Adam not a doctrine that originates in the text it’s self. It dates from the early Church Fathers.

About the list:

The day=age metaphore is not enough to explain everything. You're still stuck with items like the global flood, Babel etc. But Genesis as a metaphore is perfectly acceptable.

Genesis contains lots of metaphors.

The creation of an old universe is a scientifically sound, but is has some major theological consequences. In Februari 1987 we could see a supernova in the Large Magellanic Cloud. The distance to this object is 52 kpc, which means that the light has taken 168000 years to reach us, or that God created a universe with the light 'en route'. This would imply that we would see a star exploding with everything it encompasses (like Cobalt-57 decay), while the event never actually happened. Thus, God deceives us. There are appoximately 100 supernovas each year that are seen happening in various galaxies at distances ranging between 600 kpc and 3 Gpc. (one parsec = 3.26 lightyears). Same argument goes here.

No theologically shocks. If Genesis is primarilly about the universe being created by God not what he created. It tells us why He created not how He created.

The God of the Gaps keeps shrinking with the advance of science

They a different topics. The pursuit of scientific evidence for creation is a red herring. I see science telling us that the universe is bigger than we first thought.

I can agree here, but I wonder if you need God or Christianity for this. Atheism does not imply immorality and being a Christian, even a God fearing and abiding Christian does not imply morality. The death sentence in the U.S. is justified mostly by right-wing Christians who claim that in Leviticus it is clearly written that he who kills a man shall surely be put to death. Who don't they defend the same punishment for children who curse their parents? (Lev. 20:9). The intolorance against homosexuals is also often biblically founded, as was slavery during many centuries. So I agree, we must repent for our inherent evilness, but I wonder if we need religion in general or Christianity specifically to do that.

Athiesm does not imply immorality but amorality. There is no reason for morality than enlightened selfinterest or bilogical programming of social animals. There is no reason for existence or meta-narrative for history because it will all crumble to dust some time. Life amounts to nothing more than a freakish series of chemical reactions that will peter out eventually.

One of the problems we gentiles have is that we are outside of the Covenant with Abraham and that we are applying stuff that was written to those within the covenant in very different circumstances. Therefore our application can be subject to some nasty pitfalls. Note that jesus and the apostles specifically cancelled some of the Levitical rules especially in regards to gentile believers. Therefore these books should not be blindly and lierally applied today.

The (mis) application for texts is something that we bring to them. I would argue that most of the examples above were never meant to apply outside of ancient Isreal- they were rules that applied to a specific covenant. (Christianity is the New Covenant that replaces the old and broadens it out to all nations thus completing God’s promise to Abraham). We should be looking at the underlying principles not at the rules themselves. Then we find:
§ Intolerance of certain acts not people of certain orientation. Adultery is a bigger issue in Leviticus.
§ The texts are about good treatment of slaves, prisoners and a social welfare system (when applied to Israelis in need) not if the institution is right.

We do not need Christianity to be penitent. The principle of conscience or natural law does that for us (Romans ?3?) But we do need a means of undoing evil. Good works can mitigate some of the consequences of an evil act but they cannot undo the evil act and restore it to a universe where it never happened. Christianity with the promise of recreation and resurrection does just that (1 Cor 13 IIRC)

My deconversion is pretty recent, and before that I wasn't a born-again Christian so I couldn't say if it is typically American, but I agree, there are a few bitter atheists (as there are a few bitter Christians who equate atheism with immorality, Satanism, evil etc.). It's something I think we'll have to live with. I would sincerely hope that there would be more respect on both sides of the fence.
Regards,
Rob

Of course Christians are in need of salvation because they are just as fallen as everyone else. Yes respect and tolerance is due to all. “Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive others” (Matthew 6).

 

[sheratan]

just wondering if you browsed the forum:
http://www1.christianforums.com/f222-testimonies.html

I took a look at the testimonies, but sadly I didn't find anyone of interest. Most of them are very short and I didn't find anyone who was formerly an informed atheist. What I'm looking for is a testimony, kinda like A.S.A. Jones' who left hardcore skepticism and debate for Christianity (see ex-atheist.com slash from-skepticism-to-worship dot html) but I miss where she debunks her own former arguments. Compare that to the opposite, Joe Holman was a Church of Christ minister but became an atheist. His testimony is at ministerturnsatheist.org slash mydeconversion dot html. What I am looking for are testimonies that are as detailed as Joe's w.r.t. why the atheist arguments stop making sense and why the Christian ones do. Anyone?

 

[sheratan]

I never said I had all the answers for or against.

First off genesis means origins and by the nature of its topic there was no one around to say if something did or did not happen like it said. Then you have to look at the form of literature and the conventions that the authour(s) apply. It would seem that the work is a collection of history and theological myth woven into a narrative. It is the meaning of the stories rather than literal accuracy which is theologically significant IMHO.

The flood- does it mean the known world as in the Roman world which ended somewhere around Scotland because that is where the Roman inhabited. In such an event the fertile crescent may have contained all of human life at one time.

Also the animal life? I am aware that many people consider the Noachian flood to be local but many Christians today believe is was global, e.g. Ken Ham and his people of Answeringenesis.org (see tinyurl.co.uk slash r045 -- if the discussions keep up a little longer I won't have to jump these obnoxious hoops...) IMO it's a myth that's most likely based on a local flood, maybe even on another flood myth of which there were many, but a global flood is just silly.

No theologically shocks. If Genesis is primarilly about the universe being created by God not what he created. It tells us why He created not how He created. [/size]

I think I misunderstood you. I thought you ment a recent creation with an apparent age.

Athiesm does not imply immorality but amorality. There is no reason for morality than enlightened selfinterest or bilogical programming of social animals. There is no reason for existence or meta-narrative for history because it will all crumble to dust some time. Life amounts to nothing more than a freakish series of chemical reactions that will peter out eventually.

I beg to differ here. Morality can even be found in other ape species where amoral behaviour will lead to social exclusion. Morality is no monopoly of humans, let alone of Christians. Even in evolutionary theory morality is a beneficial treat for the species which will enlarge the chance of survival of the species. Also, atheists are not without love for their fellow humans, which is IMO the basis for morality. They only lack an imaginary friend who uses fear as an instrument to keep them within the rules of morality, but that fear tends to limit the scope of where the morality applies, c.f. Christians v.s. Muslims v.s. Jews.
On a sidenote, if you'd like to see how Jews and Muslims can live together, take a look at Paramaribo, Suriname (on the north coast of South America). There's one of the largest mosques of the Caribbean exacly beside a synagog. When the Muslims have their Fitr (end of the Ramadan) they invite the Jews to the party and the Jews attend. Also the Jews seem to need 10 circumcised males to be able to start a chuch meeting. Since the Surinamese Jewish community isn't that large, they don't always meet this demand. The solution is simple, borrow a few neighbours (Muslims are circumcised too) to sit in for the start http://www3.christianforums.com/images/smilies/biggrin.gif Shall we tell this to the Danish cartoonists and Lebanese arsonists?

One of the problems we gentiles have is that we are outside of the Covenant with Abraham and that we are applying stuff that was written to those within the covenant in very different circumstances. Therefore our application can be subject to some nasty pitfalls. Note that jesus and the apostles specifically cancelled some of the Levitical rules especially in regards to gentile believers. Therefore these books should not be blindly and lierally applied today.

The (mis) application for texts is something that we bring to them. I would argue that most of the examples above were never meant to apply outside of ancient Isreal- they were rules that applied to a specific covenant. (Christianity is the New Covenant that replaces the old and broadens it out to all nations thus completing Gods promise to Abraham). We should be looking at the underlying principles not at the rules themselves. Then we find:
§ Intolerance of certain acts not people of certain orientation. Adultery is a bigger issue in Leviticus.
§ The texts are about good treatment of slaves, prisoners and a social welfare system (when applied to Israelis in need) not if the institution is right.

You're right, the texts don't explicitely atone the intitution of slavery, but IMO it does so implicitly. See Exodus 21:20-21. Also in the New Covenant, the institution is not condemned, quite the contrary. There are rules that are made specific for the obedience of slaves (Collossians 3:22, 1 Peter 2:18). Is it so strange that the slavekeepers could justify their actions on biblical texts?

Regards,
Rob

 

[dvd_holc]

I can tell you this...I have not known an aethist who became of faith. And, I don't know if you get exactly what you want will you come onto faith. If you want I would say, read C.S. Lewis who was an aethist and became a strong Christian. He is classical and well respected. If you wish not read through his lengthy amount of leasoning, then it by your own desire not to read, but nonetheless, you have the ability to read it yourself. Therefore, you will not point it off on others but yourself.

 

[The Midge]

Also the animal life? I am aware that many people consider the Noachian flood to be local but many Christians today believe is was global, e.g. Ken Ham and his people of Answeringenesis.org (see tinyurl.co.uk slash r045 -- if the discussions keep up a little longer I won't have to jump these obnoxious hoops...) IMO it's a myth that's most likely based on a local flood, maybe even on another flood myth of which there were many, but a global flood is just silly.

I can't speak for others but most people don't seem to think. You don't have to jump through creationist hoops to find meaning in the Genesis accounts. I think doing so makes you miss the point of the narative.

I think I misunderstood you. I thought you ment a recent creation with an apparent age.

It is a possible explanation but I am not convinced by it.

I beg to differ here. Morality can even be found in other ape species where amoral behaviour will lead to social exclusion. Morality is no monopoly of humans, let alone of Christians. Even in evolutionary theory morality is a beneficial treat for the species which will enlarge the chance of survival of the species. Also, atheists are not without love for their fellow humans, which is IMO the basis for morality. They only lack an imaginary friend who uses fear as an instrument to keep them within the rules of morality, but that fear tends to limit the scope of where the morality applies, c.f. Christians v.s. Muslims v.s. Jews.

We are talking about a most excellent way not just doing things because one is better off for it. The kind of morality esposed by Jesus (turning the cheek etc) is not motivated by self interest but acting because it is right despite the cost. It is modelled on the incarnation of the Servant King. Once again being A-moral is not the same as being Im-moral. Immorality is deliberately braking a code you know to be right.

On a sidenote, if you'd like to see how Jews and Muslims can live together, take a look at Paramaribo, Suriname (on the north coast of South America). There's one of the largest mosques of the Caribbean exacly beside a synagog. When the Muslims have their Fitr (end of the Ramadan) they invite the Jews to the party and the Jews attend. Also the Jews seem to need 10 circumcised males to be able to start a chuch meeting. Since the Surinamese Jewish community isn't that large, they don't always meet this demand. The solution is simple, borrow a few neighbours (Muslims are circumcised too) to sit in for the start http://www3.christianforums.com/images/smilies/biggrin.gif Shall we tell this to the Danish cartoonists and Lebanese arsonists?

Yes that is good- now why don't we do it all the time?

You're right, the texts don't explicitely atone the intitution of slavery, but IMO it does so implicitly. See Exodus 21:20-21. Also in the New Covenant, the institution is not condemned, quite the contrary. There are rules that are made specific for the obedience of slaves (Collossians 3:22, 1 Peter 2:18). Is it so strange that the slavekeepers could justify their actions on biblical texts?

We must not forget that in the time of the ancient far east the ecomomy was run not far above subsistance level. There could be no mass prisons, no resources for peace keeping operations. There were no human rights conventions, yet alon ethe Geneva convention. If you were at war you had to eliminate a threat to prevent it regrouping. You either made people work a slaves or killed them. The revolutionary principle of the laws of Israel is that they had to treat slaves well.

When it was their own people it was not true slavery but a form of welfare- you could not have the dole so had to work. At the end of the term the family is to be returned to their inheritance (their land). The commands to feed a clothe the slaves was a serious comitement on the part of the 'owner' (who had to remember that the people were God's all along) when there could be little food for their own familiy during hard times.

Philemon is a short but radical letter. Paul returns the escaped slave as required in Roman law but asks the owner to give him the rights of a Christian brother rather than a beating. The agenda of the apostles was the freeing of humanity from sin not slavery. I would gues Philemon set the salve free otherwise we would not have the letter today.

***
I may disagree with those who take a literalist view of the Bible- but I am just as commited to the teachings it contains. I think there are better and more consitent ways to interpret it.

 

[sheratan]

I can tell you this...I have not known an aethist who became of faith.

Isn't that a little telling? Like I said before, the social consequences for someone stepping out of the faith are far greater than for someone stepping into it. Still I see people who studied the faith and accepted it stepping out, but people who studied it and denied it are not stepping in. Logically this would imply that the arguments for the faith are not as compelling as the arguments against.

And, I don't know if you get exactly what you want will you come onto faith. If you want I would say, read C.S. Lewis who was an aethist and became a strong Christian. He is classical and well respected. If you wish not read through his lengthy amount of leasoning, then it by your own desire not to read, but nonetheless, you have the ability to read it yourself. Therefore, you will not point it off on others but yourself.

What I want is to get a picture that is as complete as possible. I still consider myself agnostic though I lean more toward an atheistic point of view than a theistic or deistic poiunt of view. But since my deconversion is very recent I would want to know that I'm not overlooking anything. If you want to know my considerations for deconverting, my deconversion testimony is at exchristian.net (tinyurl.co.uk slash a1ga).
I have been told of C.S. Lewis' writing before. I'll get "Surprised by Joy" at the library RSN, but I don't expect too much of it. A Christian friend of mine had read it a couple of times and it seems that he isn't really very explicit about his conversion. Still it promises to be an interresting read.

Regards,
Rob

 

[sheratan]

I can't speak for others but most people don't seem to think. You don't have to jump through creationist hoops to find meaning in the Genesis accounts. I think doing so makes you miss the point of the narative.

Well, we agree there Still I see many people referring to Adam and Eve as if they were historical people. BTW, you also referred to God's covenant with Abraham. Do you consider him to be historical (having lived 175 years and the like) or is he also part of the mythical/metaphorical stories? If you consider him historical, where do you draw the line?

We are talking about a most excellent way not just doing things because one is better off for it. The kind of morality esposed by Jesus (turning the cheek etc) is not motivated by self interest but acting because it is right despite the cost. It is modelled on the incarnation of the Servant King. Once again being A-moral is not the same as being Im-moral. Immorality is deliberately braking a code you know to be right.

And A-morality is not knowing or caring what is right? I still vehemently disagree with the assumption that atheism implies amorality. I am an agnost but I lean towards atheism. Still I consider myself a moral, caring and loving human being. Even though I'm not sure is Jesus was a historical figure, or given him being a historical figure if he was of supernatural nature, I still appreciate many of the teachings that are attributed to him, as I appreciate many of the teachings that are attributed to Siddharta Gautama, but don't expect me to become a Buddhist monk anytime soon. I think you have a pretty distorted view of atheism in general. There's this nice testimony of someone who deconverted from Christianity mostly due to the care and love of the atheist mother of a friend. You can find it via tinyurl.co.uk slash alkd.

Yes that is good- now why don't we do it all the time?

If it's up to me we started yesterday. I consider religion such a core item of one's values that I think everyone should be entitles to the religion of his choosing. This is also the reason why I am against some of the Danish cartoons. They were made to deliberately hurt Muslims and making fun of someone's religion is hurting him in the deepest possible way. Let's respect each other regardless of religion, race, education or wealth and the world will be a far better place.

I may disagree with those who take a literalist view of the Bible- but I am just as commited to the teachings it contains. I think there are better and more consitent ways to interpret it.

There are many more like you and I can appcreciate your POV a lot more than the pure creationists way of thinking. You leave quite some space for reason but also feel the love/precense of Jesus. I just don't. There are a few paradigms of Christianity that I can't come into agreement with (as I have described before) but I don't consider any religion 'bad' per se. Sadly it is so that lots of bad things happened and still happen thanks to Christianity (think e.g. of medical treatments that are refused for followers of Jehovah's Witnesses and a law that was passed in the U.S. by request of the Christian Right Wing that forbids stem cell research) but most Christians I know filter the good parts of their religion to form their values.

Regards,
Rob

 

[dvd_holc]

Hi Rob,

Isn't that a little telling? Like I said before, the social consequences for someone stepping out of the faith are far greater than for someone stepping into it. Still I see people who studied the faith and accepted it stepping out, but people who studied it and denied it are not stepping in. Logically this would imply that the arguments for the faith are not as compelling as the arguments against.

Telling of what though? Yet, you have been limited in whom you have interacted with as I have been. I have not sat down with an atheist to know all of what troubles them of the faith and relationship that we of Christ have. I have not sat down and went about finding all the arguments that are involved. Nor, has most of the other Christians I know. Those I have come across don’t all trouble themselves with every argument to they encounter. Is that wrong? Moreover, our weakness is the failure to fully engage you where you are. Still, our concerns to logical claims are a devotion of life. Our devotion is yet to participate in life in a loving way as it is the original purpose God created us for. If you say that you are a searcher of something that might be out there…, does it have to fit within your predetermined wishful thinking? Is the best things of life the best arguments? Do you look back on all of your life and say, the argument from 1981 with X was complete, or do you look back at your birthday on 1981 and whom you shared it with? I would be willing to bet that love is a function within your life though not necessarily the foremost. Yet, our argument to you is that what is at the core of your being, love that gives or things that ultimately gratify yourself?

There are many people who choice to go against the grain of the social political scheme of things. You can say it would be against the grain for us to break from a church or religion, but I will point to you that Jesus and the Church first went against the grain. Since that time, the Church has become like many of the things that Jesus had subverted; however, the core being of the faith and relationship to God is subversive of the human condition of power, greed, lust, and all other self gratifying things. And, this is not just a physiological form of control, but we deeply believe that our faith and hope is in a revealed God who has and will provide our sustaining needs to the end of completeness that he created us for.

What I want is to get a picture that is as complete as possible. I still consider myself agnostic though I lean more toward an atheistic point of view than a theistic or deistic poiunt of view. But since my deconversion is very recent I would want to know that I'm not overlooking anything. If you want to know my considerations for deconverting, my deconversion testimony is at exchristian.net (tinyurl.co.uk slash a1ga).

I have been told of C.S. Lewis' writing before. I'll get "Surprised by Joy" at the library RSN, but I don't expect too much of it. A Christian friend of mine had read it a couple of times and it seems that he isn't really very explicit about his conversion. Still it promises to be an interresting read.

Regards,
Rob

Who gave you that drive to be complete and seek the revealed truth within creation? Who gave you the hope to be complete? Who gave your life? Who maintains your existence? Who maintains the universe?

The universe itself functions in a way of machine. Yet, all machines have a failure. Why does the universe with an uncountable number of dynamic things still yet function with a effect way of sustaining life here? If yet the universe with all of its dynamic particulars yet continue to bring about a harmony of life, why then does that not reflect a sustain force that maintains it? That is the law is it not? How is it with complexity of forces still yet bring just the right amount of force to create the seasons with it the fruit of life?

Further, I just going to point to the dynamic of the food chain and how the nature of living organisms yet have a harmonic pattern that still is fruitful and multiples. Even still the natural disasters that we witness have a pattern for harmony of the system. We believe there is a natural law of life that is maintained and created by God because the basic pirciple is that harmony is not a result of disharmony or random chaotic events don’t bring about a lasting sustain lawful existence. Above all the living beings that witness this, it is the human who asks why? It is the humans who are yet the image bearers of God and not forced puppets of his authority because we are a reflection of his being.

David

 

[dvd_holc]

I looked for your website but did not find your testimony

 

[sheratan]

I looked for your website but did not find your testimony

I need one more post to overcome the obnoxious URL limitation. This is it. I'll post the URL on the next one.

Regards,
Rob

 

[sheratan]

I looked for your website but did not find your testimony

Here you go: http://www.exchristian.net/testimonies/2006/02/my-road-to-reason.html

Regards,
Rob

 

[dvd_holc]

This is not exactly what you are looking for but here is a thread I was a part of awhile back:

http://www.christianforums.com/t2087284-for-those-who-converted-to-christianity-in-your-adulthood.html

 

[dvd_holc]

Here you go: http://www.exchristian.net/testimonies/2006/02/my-road-to-reason.html

Regards,
Rob

thanks for the link....I am reading it now.

 

[dvd_holc]

So in what way were you a Christian other than a name?

 

[sheratan]

Hi David,

Telling of what though? Yet, you have been limited in whom you have interacted with as I have been. I have not sat down with an atheist to know all of what troubles them of the faith and relationship that we of Christ have. I have not sat down and went about finding all the arguments that are involved. Nor, has most of the other Christians I know. Those I have come across dont all trouble themselves with every argument to they encounter. Is that wrong?

If you read my testimony you'll see that I haven't been that limited in my interactions. On my second to last vacation (more like family visit) in Suriname I had a lengthy discussion with my brother (who is chairman of the Agapé foundation in Suriname) and a few mutual friends, but that discussion was limited to the historicity of the Genesis creation. They also showed me a movie and I think Danny Faulkner of I.C.R. was in it, but I might be mistaken (he is an astronomy professor and creationist, but I respect his thinking. He is honest about the fact that he lacks many answers). Then I had an email discussion with my brother. Last years-end I was in Suriname again and once again I had a discussion with my brother and the others at Agapé, this time on the validity of Christianity. This also led to a very lengthy email discussion with someone from Agapé Netherlands, who went to Suriname for 6 months (due to come back to Holland soon). This discussion is ongoing and is a nice discussion to have. High level, lots of philosophy and sociology, lots of pointers to think about. The more I discuss the faith with people, the more I get strengthened in my deconversion, but I still want to have a complete as possible picture.

Moreover, our weakness is the failure to fully engage you where you are. Still, our concerns to logical claims are a devotion of life. Our devotion is yet to participate in life in a loving way as it is the original purpose God created us for. If you say that you are a searcher of something that might be out there&, does it have to fit within your predetermined wishful thinking? Is the best things of life the best arguments? Do you look back on all of your life and say, the argument from 1981 with X was complete, or do you look back at your birthday on 1981 and whom you shared it with?

Funny, I do both

I would be willing to bet that love is a function within your life though not necessarily the foremost. Yet, our argument to you is that what is at the core of your being, love that gives or things that ultimately gratify yourself?

You made a wrong bet. Love is by far the formost function of my life, but it isn't love for some supreme being. I never really felt that. It's love for my family, especially love for my children. On August 10th 1990 I was in a situation that I didn't think I'd survive. There was only one singlle thing on my mind the whole time and that was my then 1.5 year old son. Not thoughts of ''what's going to become of him without a father'', but thoughts of how we spent time playing together, how he recognized me from across the street and more of those. That was IMO the most intense love I have ever felt. Witnissing the birth of my two sons is a good second. I missed the birth of my daughter and I'm still extremely mad about that. But when it comes to a deity, I am not convinced about his/her/its existence so I cannot feel any love there.

There are many people who choice to go against the grain of the social political scheme of things. You can say it would be against the grain for us to break from a church or religion, but I will point to you that Jesus and the Church first went against the grain. Since that time, the Church has become like many of the things that Jesus had subverted; however, the core being of the faith and relationship to God is subversive of the human condition of power, greed, lust, and all other self gratifying things. And, this is not just a physiological form of control, but we deeply believe that our faith and hope is in a revealed God who has and will provide our sustaining needs to the end of completeness that he created us for.

I am aware of the deepness of that believe, I've been told this before. I can even relate to such believe, but I do not share it, I never really have. My calling myself a Christian up until maybe 2 years ago was purely dogmatic, it wasn't a statement of the heart. Also power, greed, lust etc. are not a monopoly of non-Christians and human compassion, loving and helping your neighbor etc. are not a monopoly of Christians. Both can be found on both sides of the fence. Take note of the fact that I wouldn't say Christianity is a bad thing. It has helped a lot of people coping with their lives and without it they wouldn't. But this fact does not imply that the lack of Christianity is bad. Many people who lack faith, especially people who lack faith based on reasoning, can be very happy and live a good live both for themselves and for others.

Who gave you that drive to be complete and seek the revealed truth within creation? Who gave you the hope to be complete? Who gave your life? Who maintains your existence? Who maintains the universe?

I am not sure my existence and the universe are maintained by a consious entity. At least the possibility exists that they are self-maintaining. I have the drive to be complete, but not the expectation. Who gave me the drive? I think it's part of my personality and that has developed over 43 years.

The universe itself functions in a way of machine. Yet, all machines have a failure. Why does the universe with an uncountable number of dynamic things still yet function with a effect way of sustaining life here? If yet the universe with all of its dynamic particulars yet continue to bring about a harmony of life, why then does that not reflect a sustain force that maintains it? That is the law is it not? How is it with complexity of forces still yet bring just the right amount of force to create the seasons with it the fruit of life?

Why would you think the universe has no failures? If a gas cloud collapses (like what is happening in the famous picture of the Eagle Nebula) and the resulting protostar is too small to develop nuclear fusion, I'd call it a failure. But you sound like the situation of earth is so very unique for life and I don't think that's the case. If you consider that Sol, our sun, is but one star in 100 billion in our galaxy alone, and that the visible universe has approximately 100 billion gallxies, that is a terribly big number of stars. Also many of them have planets orbiting them (last I heard there are already more than 160 exoplanets discovered and they are starting to discover rocky planets, not just Jupiters) then the likeliness of having a couple of million planets that have similar environments to earth (stable sun, correct distance, fluid water etc) is conservative. Take also in account that the building blocks of life, namely aminoacids, have been discovered in various nebulae than it would sound extremely unlikely to me that we are the only planet in the Universe with life. Also, according to the latest hypotheses the real size of the universe is vastly larger than the visible universe (with a radius of 14 Gly). Professor Filippenko of Berekeley said that it's likely that the size of the total universe compared to the visible universe is like the size of the visible universe compared to a proton.
Bottomline is, there seem to be more than enough placeswhere life can develop. We just happen to be on one of them. No special force nesessary. We can't make the same observation from Alpha Centauri since that being a triple starsystem it's unlikely that a planet can have a regular enough environment to develop life, but here we do have that environment.

Further, I just going to point to the dynamic of the food chain and how the nature of living organisms yet have a harmonic pattern that still is fruitful and multiples. Even still the natural disasters that we witness have a pattern for harmony of the system. We believe there is a natural law of life that is maintained and created by God because the basic pirciple is that harmony is not a result of disharmony or random chaotic events dont bring about a lasting sustain lawful existence. Above all the living beings that witness this, it is the human who asks why? It is the humans who are yet the image bearers of God and not forced puppets of his authority because we are a reflection of his being.

That sounds like the infamous 'second law of Thermodynamics' claim, which only works on a closed system. The earth most definately isn't. The workings of life, including the food chain, including biochemistry etc. can be explained without a God to great lengths. No, we cannot explain everything and we most likely never will, but given everything that we do know it is not a far cry from concluding that there is no God necessary to keep everything running just fine. Are we humans so special that we can ask why? Yes, now we are, but when we were cavemen we weren't! We likely couldn't even speak back then. Note that there is no significant genetical difference between modern humans and cavemen, the difference is just the cummulation of knowledge. I really don't think humans are special in relation to other animals. We just eveolved a larger brain.

Regards,
Rob

 

[sheratan]

So in what way were you a Christian other than a name?

In no way I think. I believed that Christ was the son of God and that he died for our sins, but I didn't have a relationship so to speak.

Regards,
Rob

 

[dvd_holc]

In no way I think. I believed that Christ was the son of God and that he died for our sins, but I didn't have a relationship so to speak.

Regards,
Rob

Why would you believe that Jesus is the Son of God and he died for our sins? Why would you say that you had that believe and not have it revealed to you by the Father? You said, ''what's going to become of him without a father'' yet is this not a reflection of God's heart for you and you have said yourself?

You have missed the point I tried to say...though the dynamic of the universe is great it results in a sustain life here. And, if you have not missed it...the closed system is what humans have called nature so then it is without God. But, I say that it is God who adds in the force to sustain and maintain life.

Now, I don't say that Christianity has a monoply on anything. I don't tag Christianity to anything. However, what I have gotten at is here is God and what is nature and purpose. I believe God is the one who maintains dynamic lawful life that reflects his nature. I believe that humans are image bearers that are to be completed by faith and being his image bearers. But, we can't un-make what he first made. Our nature of being will reflect his creation; therefore, when we live in his harmony of being which include love, persuit of truth, and develop a life reflecting truth for his glory we are the complete humans. Each person who is a Christian lives a life with knowledge and active participation in his way for his glory. When we step away from him, we lose ourselves and treat the symptoms of this disconnection with things that will never replace that relationship.

It is love that is present in our life time that we know more fully than what another planet millions of light years away. What do you persue, the things that are so distant that only do good as a thought in the head or do you want the knowledge that is apart of your active participation?

I won't save. I won't convince you. But if you should also read my story from my blog you might understand me and my story a little more. Then you might see how God was active in it. I don't believe in accidents. It was not chance that I wrote about the planets and such. I had other routes to take...but I did that one without knowing anything more about you.

Here is my story read 8 then 9:
http://www.christianforums.com/t2431267-my-thoughts.html&page=2

 

[sheratan]

This is not exactly what you are looking for but here is a thread I was a part of awhile back:

http://www.christianforums.com/t2087284-for-those-who-converted-to-christianity-in-your-adulthood.html

Interresting thread, especially the post of XfacTor. I think I'll drop him a PM.

Thanks,
Rob

 

[dvd_holc]

Interresting thread, especially the post of XfacTor. I think I'll drop him a PM.

Thanks,
Rob

your welcome Rob

 

[The Midge]

Well, we agree there Still I see many people referring to Adam and Eve as if they were historical people. BTW, you also referred to God's covenant with Abraham. Do you consider him to be historical (having lived 175 years and the like) or is he also part of the mythical/metaphorical stories? If you consider him historical, where do you draw the line?

I think there is a definite change in the style of the account after the story of the tower of Babel. The narrative is set in a historical context of Sodom, Godom and Salam, with real kings and places. Job OTOH is seems to be more a fiction whichis used as a divice to discuss the nature of suffering.

And A-morality is not knowing or caring what is right? I still vehemently disagree with the assumption that atheism implies amorality. I am an agnost but I lean towards atheism. Still I consider myself a moral, caring and loving human being. Even though I'm not sure is Jesus was a historical figure, or given him being a historical figure if he was of supernatural nature, I still appreciate many of the teachings that are attributed to him, as I appreciate many of the teachings that are attributed to Siddharta Gautama, but don't expect me to become a Buddhist monk anytime soon. I think you have a pretty distorted view of atheism in general. There's this nice testimony of someone who deconverted from Christianity mostly due to the care and love of the atheist mother of a friend. You can find it via tinyurl.co.uk slash alkd.

Please let me be very clear- it is the system/ worldview of atheism that I consider to be amoral not atheists. It is a contradiction that I feel undermines the argument that there is not God / spiritual realm.

If it's up to me we started yesterday. I consider religion such a core item of one's values that I think everyone should be entitles to the religion of his choosing. This is also the reason why I am against some of the Danish cartoons. They were made to deliberately hurt Muslims and making fun of someone's religion is hurting him in the deepest possible way. Let's respect each other regardless of religion, race, education or wealth and the world will be a far better place.

I agree with you wholeheartedly.

There are many more like you and I can appcreciate your POV a lot more than the pure creationists way of thinking. You leave quite some space for reason but also feel the love/precense of Jesus. I just don't. There are a few paradigms of Christianity that I can't come into agreement with (as I have described before) but I don't consider any religion 'bad' per se. Sadly it is so that lots of bad things happened and still happen thanks to Christianity (think e.g. of medical treatments that are refused for followers of Jehovah's Witnesses and a law that was passed in the U.S. by request of the Christian Right Wing that forbids stem cell research) but most Christians I know filter the good parts of their religion to form their values.

I think I have made my point. I have not de-converted from my zeel-of-a-convert-fundamentalist-evanglicalism, with which I returned to Christianity form my nominal background, but journeyed through it or from it. There is something beyond that and a deeper level of intimacy with God that cannot be found with a literalist interpretation, which obscures the account of compassion and mercy of God, and application of a system of laws out of their context. Christianity cannot be rejected just because certain Christians hold to positions that are untenable. If you take the extreme examples of any believe system then you make anything sound unbelievable. We are a broad church. We may have to except the extreme Christina right as part of it, but exclude others (JWs deny Christ). The filter we should pass is the character of the God we encounter as revealed through the person of Jesus.

Anyone who claims to have all the answers e.g. “The bible says it, I believe it, that does it” is not asking enough of the right questions.