What do you do when you don't believe any more?

[Mobiosity]

I mean without a scientific method guiding, without a requirement to support assertions, without a peer review process, without a skeptical bias,

Science is constantly evolving, discovering new things, how could that be the sole basis for any decision? How many skeptics over the last several millenia have tried to "disprove" the bible without bias? So far unsuccessfully. More of the bible is being supported archeologically.

Somewhere somebody's making something up.

Originally Posted by gracealone
Also... What exactly would God have to do to get you to believe that He is and that He loves you?

Show up.

He did, you didn't recognize Him.



Quote:
Originally Posted by gracealone
What more could He do than He has already done?

Evidence himself in a way that would be materially different from the characteristics that can be easily explained by human imaginations and myth.

Evidence Himself to you, you mean. He's already evidenced Himself "materially different from the characteristics that can be easily explained by human imaginations and myth" to those who have been healed, physically. There are records out there, research them. You're obviously not afraid of being wrong.


Quote:
Originally Posted by gracealone
If He should come to you undisguised, (instead of God incarnate), in His glorified state, would your belief in Him be based on choice or faith or just a compelled mental assertion?

Huh? You've used a lot of words there that have lots of different means depending upon different Christianities.

Nice non-answer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gracealone
If just a mental assertion then how could that be called a chosen relationship.

A relationship that is only in one's mind would unfortunately have to be classified as a delusion.

How is a friendship not only in one's mind?

 

[IndyEllis]

Science is constantly evolving, discovering new things, how could that be the sole basis for any decision?

Such is the very nature of learning.

Should I brush my teeth this morning?

Should I brush up and down or back and forth?

Should I use a toothpaste with flouride or not?

Should I cut up the veggies first or the meat first with the knife?

Should I put the milk back in the fridge or not?

Should I take my vitamins or prescription drugs or not?

Should I make sure they kids are in their car seats?

Should I buckle my seat belt?

Should I drive on the left side of the road or the right side of the road?

Should I obey the speed limit or not?

And on and on it goes. The list I gave might just be by 8:00AM.

"Science" is the basis of many decisions we make every day.

How many skeptics over the last several millenia have tried to "disprove" the bible without bias?

Many. But that "disprove" word is quite unsuccessfully.

So far unsuccessfully.

Says who? Says you. But your opinion is increasingly becoming the minority opinion and is becoming incrementally an eyeroller for the majority of scientists and ancient literary scholars.

On the other hand, most the folks who would concur with you haven't really studied it and simply take it "on faith" that the Bible is somehow proven true.

More of the bible is being supported archeologically.

Technically this is a true statement but simply because the placement of one word in it.

"More" of the Bible is being supported archaeologically because there is more archaeology being doing.

The wording you've used points to what's referred to as a confirmation bias.

The approach goes...

Here's my conclusion. Now what evidence can I find to support it?

This is inverted from the scientific method which goes...

Here is the evidence. What conclusions can I draw from them?

If you read the Christian scientists [only] and their literature, they'll go through lots and lots of supports. And some can be found. But unfortunately it is a theologically motivated selective reading of selective evidence in many cases.

Now on the otherhand, what most archaeologists would put forth is...

Most archaeology is not supporting the Bible.

I could point out many such examples.

Here's one to get you started.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jericho

The current opinion of many archaeologists is in stark contradiction to the biblical account.

I challenge you to read up on this. And I ask what if, what if the preponderance of the evidence does not support your present presuppositions?

What will you do?

Just ignore it?

You're obviously not afraid of being wrong.

I'm not any more.

But are you?

What if you discovered you were wrong about your archaeological presupposition for instance?

Would you somehow be able to just bury and ignore what you've learned?

Or would you adjust your understanding of things?

And that really brings us back full circle to the top of this post, doesn't it.

About learning and decision making.

 

[gracealone]

HI again Indy,
Something came to mind that I read some time ago which may or may not apply to your questions. The way I read your original post is that you are struggling with this idea of wanting or needing demonstrative proof of Christianity in order to believe it.
I read a book some time ago by a guy named Sheldon Vanauken called a Severe Mercy, he had that same struggle. He wrote to CS. Lewis about it. Here some excerpts from that correspondence. Don't know if they will be of any help to you but thought I'd send them along any way.
Vanauken to Lewis:
"I don't as yet believe; but everyone seems to say: ' You must have faith to believe.' Where do I get it? Or will you tell me something different Is there a proof? Can reason carry one over the gulf..... without faith? Why does God expect so much of us? Why does He require this effort to believe? If He made it clear that He is - as clear as a sunrise of a rock or a baby's cry - wouldn't we be right joyous to choose Him and His Law? Why should the right exercise of our free will contain this fear of intellectual dishonesty?
Lewis to Vanauken:
" I do not think there is a demonstrative proof (like Euclid) of Christianity, nor of the existence of matter, nor of the good will & honesty of my best & oldest friends. I think all three are (except perhaps the second) far more probable than the alternatives. As to why God doesn't make it demonstratively clear; are we sure that He is even interested in the kind of Theism which wd. be a compelled logical assent to a conclusive argument? Are we interested in it in personal matters? I demand from my friend a trust in my good faith which is certain without demonstrative proof. It wouldn't be confidence at all if he waited for rigorous proof. (Othello believed in Desdemona's innocence when it was proved: but that was too late.) 'His praise is lost who stays till all commend". The magnamintity, the generosity which will trust on a resonable probability, is required of us. But supposing one believed and was wrong after all? Why, then you wd. have paid the universe a compliment it doesn't deserve. Your error wd. even so be more interesting and important than the reality. And yet how could that be? How could an idiotic universe have produced creatures whose mere dreams are so much stronger, better, subtler than itself.

In the end Vanauken gets to this place where he decides that Christianity, (The belief that Jesus was in fact the incarnate God), seemed probable. He says of this: "There was absolutely no proof, no proof possible, that it didn't happen. No absolute proof that it did. It seemed probable. It had a sort of feel of truth. A ring of truth. But was that enough?"
Then later on; "There came a second intellectual breakthrough: it was rather a chilling realisation that I could not go back. In my easy-going theism, I had regarded Christianity as a sort of fairy tale; and I had neither accepted nor rejected Jesus, since I had never, in fact, encountered Him. Now I had. The position was not, as I had been comfortably thinking all these months, merely a question of whether I was to accept the Messiah or not. It was a question of whether I was to accept Him - or reject. My God! There was a gap behind me, too. Pehaps the leap to acceptance was a horrifying gamble - but what of the leap of rejection? There might be no certainty that He was not. If I were to accept, I might and probably would face the thought through the years: 'Perhaps, after all, it's lie; I've been had!" But if I were to reject, I would certainly face the haunting, terrible thought: 'Perhaps it's true - and I have rejected my God!'"

I won't give away the ending, hate to spoil a good read.

But this sums up in a much clearer way what I was attempting, obviously rather poorly, to say in my last posts.
For me, the question, "Whom do you say I am?" has been answered with this affirmation, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." I've chosen Him, by faith, because the alternative offers me nothing but emptiness and meaninglessness. I've chosen Him because of all the personalities in the history of mankind no one save Him, seems to me to fit the bill so perfectly as being more likely than not, the incarnate God. I've chosen Him because to reject Him as the Christ is to reject Him wholly and I cannot do that. Lastly like I said before... I'll cleave to the sunnier side of doubt.
If you've read this far.. I have to say thankyou for your patience at sticking with such a long post.
Respectfully,
Gracealone

 

[IndyEllis]

Indeed they are.
As I have said before, on the deep-seated, inexplicable and, I know, purely subjective knowledge that He is real, and that I know Him.

Criada, wait a minute here.

A post or two ago, you asserted these things as absolute truth.

Now you're saying you know them to be purely subjective?

In combination what could be meant by "purely subjective absolute truth?"

I'm getting really confused here trying to understand exactly what you mean by absolute truth.

And, really, I am sure that you know exactly what I mean by sins.

Actually I don't.

And I'm not too sure anybody does.

I've really many of the best-of-the-best Christian apologists and a decent number of them start off a foundation of moral univeralism. C.S. Lewis is an example.

While many of them start of this foundation of moral universalism, hardly any actually go so far as to articulate what these universal morals are.

The biggest eyeroller was an author named Ben Young.

He actually named two absolutes "wrongs" - slavery and genocide.

And I was thinking, has this guy actually read what the Bible says?

Anyhow, back to the point, I don't know what you mean.

People have very, very different lists of what they consider "sin" and these ideas vary widely by branch of Christianity, geography, and time. (Though I do think gluttony generally never really was preached all that much ever.)

Those things which I do which I know are wrong.

Did you just affirm "those things which you know are wrong?"

Not culturally wrong - though I know that culture does form our consience.

I would suggest that culture is one of the things that influences our conscious with genetics being quite important too.

But anything that cuts off my communion with God.

What's amazing though is that different people have such different lists of things that assertedly do this.

Like yelling at my children because I am feeling tired and irritable....

There are actually lots of good techniques on this.

I've taught a number of parenting classes.

I could go into lots and lots of techniques, but guess I won't.

Anyhow as for parenting I see issues like this more about technique than intention. We can have the best of intentions on how to parent our kids but if we haven't actually learned good parenting techniques to complement those intentions, it is often our very own mothers and fathers who come out of our mouths without us thinking.

Anyhow, one of the better ones to stop the yelling is to "use enforceable statements," and complementarily to "never tell them what to do, tell them what you're going to do."

"I will drive kids who are buckled up."

"I will serve dinner to kids with clean rooms."

"I will take shopping kids who are polite to me."

In many regards, these techniques are about "standing your ground" but in nice, polite ways that you wouldn't mind being treated yourself.

Yelling commands just doesn't seem to work as well.

And I suppose that sin and atonement are all related to the perfection of God. And justice. And most of all, mercy - of which I am a recipient. And for which I thank God continually.
And some things cannot be rationalized.

In a naturalistic view that mercy that you feel and that you attribute to God is the mercy that you've granted yourself, from yourself to yourself.

And it is a good thing. Because nobody is perfect. We all do yell at our kids at some point. And feel bad about because we know it's not working and we know we wouldn't like to be treated that way ourselves.

Sometimes we need to just forgive ourselves, learn something new, something better, pick ourselves up, and strives to make better choices.

And incrementally improve who we each are as we pass through this journey of life.

 

[IndyEllis]

Grace, thanks for your post.

Vanauken: "There was absolutely no proof, no proof possible, that it didn't happen. No absolute proof that it did. It seemed probable. It had a sort of feel of truth. A ring of truth..."

Very, very interesting. We've been discussion absolute truth here and Criada's going down a path of absolute truth founded in personal subjectivity.

Now here's this founded in probability.

Makes me wonder, why doesn't anyone write any praise and worship songs with lyrics like this stuff.

I can imagine a chorus going...

Jesus you're probable.
Jesus you're fine.
My unshakeable yet wobble-ble
Jesus you're mine.

Or something like that. OK, so I wouldn't make a contemporary Christian music lyracist, would I. (But I have played guitar lots for praise and worship for various groups over a 25 year period!)

Coming that probability notion with the personal subjectivity notion produces the realization that the probability is assigned by oneself based upon what one does and doesn't know.

Kind of like Mobiosity here. She just hasn't [yet?] been exposed to all that much archaeology.

I asked her what she might do based upon additional evidence she learns of.

Learn some archaeological evidence that supports the Bible and arguably and reasonably one's assignment of that probability should increase.

Learn some evidence that contradicts the presupposition and likewise the assigned probability should decrease.

It greatly depends upon what worldviews, scientific evidence, and personal experiences one has been exposed to.

Anyhow, many modern traditional apologists build off the probable thing.

a horrifying gamble - but what of the leap of rejection? There might be no certainty that He was not. If I were to accept, I might and probably would face the thought through the years: 'Perhaps, after all, it's lie; I've been had!" But if I were to reject, I would certainly face the haunting, terrible thought: 'Perhaps it's true - and I have rejected my God!'"

I won't give away the ending, hate to spoil a good read.

This is what's referred to as Pascal's Wager. Anyone witnessing should be familiar with it and its origins.

As well as familiar with it's logical fallacy that so greatly hinges on what one has been exposed to.

Richard Dawkins is a modern author that does a good job at pointing to the logical absurdity and dishonesty of Pascal's.

But this sums up in a much clearer way what I was attempting, obviously rather poorly, to say in my last posts.

You mean you're in Pascal's Wager?

For me, the question, "Whom do you say I am?" has been answered with this affirmation, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." I've chosen Him, by faith, because the alternative offers me nothing but emptiness and meaninglessness.

Err, that's two different things from Pascal's Wager.

Here you're attesting to belief in belief. You believe that believing is good. It gives you a sense of satisfaction, meaning, and purpose. An all around good feeling.

On such a notion is a George Bernard Shaw quote...

The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact than a drunken man is happier than a sober one. ~ George Bernard Shaw (1856 - 1950)

"If it feels good, believe it!" seems quite self absorbed rather than honest truth seeking.

The other issue is the false delimma which you have asserted. If not JC, then nihilism.

Silly.

The planet has some 6 billion people of which 2 billion are self-professing "Christians" of some sort.

The other 4 billion are not nihilistic. Many live moral, fulfilling, and fulfilled lives.

And it's not just one alternative, there are many.

If it is about that you fear that the "alternative offers me nothing but emptiness and meaninglessness," that could possibly merely point to nothing but a lack of courage to accept the truth should you find it.

I've chosen Him because of all the personalities in the history of mankind no one save Him, seems to me to fit the bill so perfectly as being more likely than not, the incarnate God.

Do you see that you just used "so perfectly" but a few words away from "more likely than not?"

Do you see, just for a flashing moment before your worldview fights for its stability in your own mind, how discongruous those two are?

I've chosen Him because to reject Him as the Christ is to reject Him wholly and I cannot do that.

No, that's not the only other alternative. You're unnecessarily putting yourself in what's called a false dilemma.

Like the question about how fast my grandfather used to be able to run.

If I were to ask you, "how fast could my grandfather run a mile?"

Your honest answer would be neither accepting it or reject it. It would be an honest, I just don't know.

(Go a few pages back if you want to hear of the family legend of my grandfather.)

Lastly like I said before... I'll cleave to the sunnier side of doubt.

How is it "sunny" with the incongruity? With the assignment of perfection to probability?

If you've read this far.. I have to say thankyou for your patience at sticking with such a long post.
Respectfully,
Gracealone

You are quite welcome and I enjoy the interaction.

May you enjoy the day as you think through these things.

 

[Criada]

Criada, wait a minute here.

A post or two ago, you asserted these things as absolute truth.

Now you're saying you know them to be purely subjective?

In combination what could be meant by "purely subjective absolute truth?"

I'm getting really confused here trying to understand exactly what you mean by absolute truth.

What do you mean by it?
Because if we are talking proof, and evidence - then I have no basis for my absolutes.
It comes down to faith again.
But the fact that something cannot be proved scientifically does not mean that is is not true!
The problem is the distinction between the physical and the spiritual.
AAnd so, my faith is subjective, in that is based on my own experience and relationship with God.
And yet, it is absolute, because God is absolute.

Actually I don't.

And I'm not too sure anybody does.

I've really many of the best-of-the-best Christian apologists and a decent number of them start off a foundation of moral univeralism. C.S. Lewis is an example.

While many of them start of this foundation of moral universalism, hardly any actually go so far as to articulate what these universal morals are.

The biggest eyeroller was an author named Ben Young.

He actually named two absolutes "wrongs" - slavery and genocide.

And I was thinking, has this guy actually read what the Bible says?

Anyhow, back to the point, I don't know what you mean.

People have very, very different lists of what they consider "sin" and these ideas vary widely by branch of Christianity, geography, and time. (Though I do think gluttony generally never really was preached all that much ever.)



Did you just affirm "those things which you know are wrong?"

Yes.
And I stand by that statement. Because if something is wrong in my own view, then I am sinning if I deliberately do what I 'know' to be wrong. Even if it isn't wrong in 'absolute' terms.

I would suggest that culture is one of the things that influences our conscious with genetics being quite important too.

Agreed.
But I said consience, not conscious.
There are actually lots of good techniques on this.

I've taught a number of parenting classes.

I could go into lots and lots of techniques, but guess I won't.

Anyhow as for parenting I see issues like this more about technique than intention. We can have the best of intentions on how to parent our kids but if we haven't actually learned good parenting techniques to complement those intentions, it is often our very own mothers and fathers who come out of our mouths without us thinking.

Anyhow, one of the better ones to stop the yelling is to "use enforceable statements," and complementarily to "never tell them what to do, tell them what you're going to do."

"I will drive kids who are buckled up."

"I will serve dinner to kids with clean rooms."

"I will take shopping kids who are polite to me."

In many regards, these techniques are about "standing your ground" but in nice, polite ways that you wouldn't mind being treated yourself.

Yelling commands just doesn't seem to work as well.

Yes, I know!
And usually I am very calm...
But this morning was a bit fraught, and I was feeling bad about it when I wrote that..
But thnk you for the advise.

In a naturalistic view that mercy that you feel and that you attribute to God is the mercy that you've granted yourself, from yourself to yourself.

And it is a good thing. Because nobody is perfect. We all do yell at our kids at some point. And feel bad about because we know it's not working and we know we wouldn't like to be treated that way ourselves.

Sometimes we need to just forgive ourselves, learn something new, something better, pick ourselves up, and strives to make better choices.

And incrementally improve who we each are as we pass through this journey of life.

Indeed.
But - is it really possible to do it by yourself?
Do you ever feel that you can't?

 

[OldChurchGuy]

Grace, hey, I'm the apostate here. Old Church Guy is a really nice, well-informed guy who if I knew in the real world, would like to have as a friend.

Anyhow, of course, I'm familiar with Zacharias. I've read Lewis, Schaeffer, Strobel, McDowell, Young, and many others. Just finished Schaeffer's seminal work. He does an excellent job of debunking the nihilistic implications of that postmodern worldview I was just discussing with Criada vis-a-vis Christianity using a presuppositional method. However, the gentleman seemed to be unread on the natural sciences (like research on other primates and other social animals for instance) as well as unread in many areas of Biblical scholarship (both higher criticism and textual criticism). What's weird though is that using his presuppositional epistemology across a broader body of knowledge could preduce quite the different results. But that said, even with what he did know, he didn't really well articulate how his presuppositionalism got him to his Protestant evangelical set of doctrines. It would have been good to discuss with him in person. I'm sure he would have been one of the most interesting persons to converse with. Like Old Church Guy.

Right now I'm reading Hugh Ross' The Genesis Question. Talk about between a rock and a hard place! Seem's like he's culturally trying to run the gauntlet between the more common array Christian cosmogonies on one side and the more consistent scientific and naturalistic on the other. Anyhow the exegetical bending he has to do, so far out of cultural context of the authors, so different in interpretation from what church leaders have had in the centuries since, is like an exegetical version of the game Twister. I remember trying to do the same in my own mind for several years prior to my deconversion. In fact, I tried to prop up many of the same reconciliations between science and scripture that Ross evidently holds.

As for Zacharias, it's been a while. I seem to recall he like to use derrogatory language, liked to use ad hominems, a few straw men, some red herrings, a false dilemma or two, and a lot of guilt by association. Perhaps you might be interested in something like this on Zacharias. While Schaeffer seems like he would have been a wonderful person with which to converse, Zacharias seems someone would have to just, well, kind of sit and listen to 'til he was done.

Anyhow, in aggregate sometimes I wonder if these guys bother to send early copies of their manuscripts to critical reviewers to help them address their gaps. I mean, if one is otherwise relatively unread, the case presented can seem pretty solid.

First, thank you, Gracealone, for the resource. I have not heard of Zacharias but will try to read him sometime.

Second, I don't know if I should feel insulted or flattered to be confused with IndyEllis. I will come down on the side of flattered as I consider Indy to be a very bright, sincere, and brave person. Brave because of his willingness to bare his soul on this website.

Just to add to the list of books on this website, I am reading Hecht's book entitled Doubt: A History. An excellent read and one that indicates Indy is in very impressive company with his questions and quest for truth.

Criada, your faith is most impressive. Keep up the great responses.

Indy, still don't have any solid, objective, measurable evidence on the existense of God and probably never will. Perhaps that makes me unrealistic as one who seems to be relying on a myth, but so be it. Maybe some day I will come to the conclusion that reality must be objective with no room for subjectivity, but I'm not ready to embrace that idea yet.

So, is allowing room for subjectivity to be part of realith an act of faith or cowardice?

As always,

OldChurchGuy

 

[OldChurchGuy]

First, thank you, Gracealone, for the resource. I have not heard of Zacharias but will try to read him sometime.

Second, I don't know if I should feel insulted or flattered to be confused with IndyEllis. I will come down on the side of flattered as I consider Indy to be a very bright, sincere, and brave person. Brave because of his willingness to bare his soul on this website.

Just to add to the list of books on this website, I am reading Hecht's book entitled Doubt: A History. An excellent read and one that indicates Indy is in very impressive company with his questions and quest for truth.

Criada, your faith is most impressive. Keep up the great responses.

Indy, still don't have any solid, objective, measurable evidence on the existense of God and probably never will. Perhaps that makes me unrealistic as one who seems to be relying on a myth, but so be it. Maybe some day I will come to the conclusion that reality must be objective with no room for subjectivity, but I'm not ready to embrace that idea yet.

So, is allowing room for subjectivity to be part of realith an act of faith or cowardice?

As always,

OldChurchGuy

Well, piffle!! Can't type worth a darn.

The last sentence should read as follows:

So, is allowing room for subjectivity to be part of my perception of reality an act of faith or cowardice?

As always,

OldChurchGuy

 

[sammydee]

Indy, I've read some of your posts in this thread. You are searching for scientific evidence of God.

This is a bit of a fool's search. Don't you think that if anybody in the last 2000 years found one shred of scientific evidence that God exists, the authorities would be touting it everywhere as proof of what they had been saying all along.

The reason nobody has found any of this evidence is simply because there isn't any. You can argue and argue with Christians and they will fall back on the bible, then Jesus, then God, and ultimately you will come up against the brick wall of faith. People believe because they believe, not because they looked at the evidence and made a reasoned, logical conclusion from it.

If you want to know why they have faith, its pretty simple. Because:

a) It's comforting, it makes them feel loved and special
b) Lots of other people around them do and people like to fit in
c) Their parents/teacher/pastor hammered it into their minds as truth from day one, and children are very impressionable

Trying to find scientific evidence for it is a waste of time, I've already tried, and it's impossible because there isn't any.

Sam

 

[Criada]

Don't know if you've read Finney - this is an interesting link - he has some ideas on subjectivity/objectivity which are far more clearly expressed than I can manage!

 

[gracealone]

Hi Indy,
This is my last post to you, not that I'm ignoring your questions but because I'm involved in another forum thread that I don't want to neglect right now by spending too much time here.
You said I believe because it feels good. You are wrong my friend. Believing in Christ doesn't make me feel good, I don't count on my emotions at all when it comes to my faith. I believe because the life of Christ enables me to believe. My faith is not found in who I am but in all that Christ is, (the great I AM). Something interesting about me is that I have a disorder called OCD, which can cause me to have intrusive unwanted thoughts that when the disorder is active can cause me to doubt my salvation. Being on a forum like this can really cause those thoughts, (spikes), so because of this disorder faith doesn't come easily to me. Yet after all these years, He has kept me. I fall, but never out of His hand only in it.
I believe because of the outworking of the indwelling Holy Spirit in and through my life. This relationship is not something I can cause you to know. It's only known by those who know Him. As to the evidence for the reality of Christianity. It is best evidenced by the changed lives of those who have chosen to place their trust in Him. I've known many, many people who have been instantly released from all sorts of dreadful life situations which had made the whole of their lives one big desparing sigh. The moment they turned to Christ, the healing began. Christ in them, "the hope of glory",transformed their lives. I've seen it evidenced in their faces, their eyes, their entire countenance changes. They move from bitter despair to hope and joy. He is the not only "the hope of all who seek Him" but "the help of all who find."
I know to you I'm speaking nonsense. (This is what the scriptures say your response to these things will be.) In reacting like you do to these things you fulfill scripture.
Probably most startling or bizarre to you will be for me to tell you this, "You ask me how I know He lives, He lives within my heart." To deny His existence in me would be just like me saying to you that I used to have this relationship with this guy, My husband, for over 30 years, but I was mistaken, he was just a delusion. So and so just proved to me that he never was.
"Depart from me..... I never knew you."
The invitation is open for as long as you draw breath. Whoever is thirsty, let him come. (But you have to know you're thirsty), Whoever wishes, let him come. (But one has to wish to come.) "And drink from the water of life freely". (But one has to realize that there is nothing they can do in and of themselves to end the thirst except to receive the water freely by faith because the One offering it is Faithful.)
So.... are you thirsty yet? If not then why are you still here on this forum fighting this mental battle from which as yet have not found release?
Jesus is the "author of and finisher of my faith". He says to me... "Faith is not found in you, Mitzi, but in all that I AM".
INDY, you are focusing on everything else... science, philosophy, etc.. but instead you need to just focus on the person of Jesus Christ.
He was set upon to be crucified for His claim of Diety, I AM. He kept telling His disciples that this would happen, but they being true skeptics from the outset just brushed those comments aside. This is the eyewitness testimony concerning the charge against Him..(His claim of Diety), and He never denied it. I won't either.
I'm praying to Him for you. Tell your wife, (if you don't mind,) that I think of her daily and also pray for her. If she knows the Lord and loves you too, she must be terrified as well as grief stricken during this time. I would be if I was in her shoes.
In Him,
Mitzi

 

[IndyEllis]

Indy, I've read some of your posts in this thread. You are searching for scientific evidence of God.

This is a bit of a fool's search. Don't you think that if anybody in the last 2000 years found one shred of scientific evidence that God exists, the authorities would be touting it everywhere as proof of what they had been saying all along.

The reason nobody has found any of this evidence is simply because there isn't any. You can argue and argue with Christians and they will fall back on the bible, then Jesus, then God, and ultimately you will come up against the brick wall of faith. People believe because they believe, not because they looked at the evidence and made a reasoned, logical conclusion from it.

If you want to know why they have faith, its pretty simple. Because:

a) It's comforting, it makes them feel loved and special
b) Lots of other people around them do and people like to fit in
c) Their parents/teacher/pastor hammered it into their minds as truth from day one, and children are very impressionable

Trying to find scientific evidence for it is a waste of time, I've already tried, and it's impossible because there isn't any.

Sam

Sam, are you really 17? Wow. I'm impressed. It took me half a lifetime to figure this out. It took me reading 100 books to figure this out. A deep four-year pursuit of the truth. And here what did it take you? Just a few months or few years to figure out the obvious?

Sometimes I think I gotta be one of the most dense persons on the planet.

 

[IndyEllis]

Hi Indy,
This is my last post to you, not that I'm ignoring your questions but because I'm involved in another forum thread that I don't want to neglect right now by spending too much time here.
You said I believe because it feels good. You are wrong my friend. Believing in Christ doesn't make me feel good, I don't count on my emotions at all when it comes to my faith. I believe because the life of Christ enables me to believe. My faith is not found in who I am but in all that Christ is, (the great I AM). Something interesting about me is that I have a disorder called OCD, which can cause me to have intrusive unwanted thoughts that when the disorder is active can cause me to doubt my salvation. Being on a forum like this can really cause those thoughts, (spikes), so because of this disorder faith doesn't come easily to me. Yet after all these years, He has kept me. I fall, but never out of His hand only in it.
I believe because of the outworking of the indwelling Holy Spirit in and through my life. This relationship is not something I can cause you to know. It's only known by those who know Him. As to the evidence for the reality of Christianity. It is best evidenced by the changed lives of those who have chosen to place their trust in Him. I've known many, many people who have been instantly released from all sorts of dreadful life situations which had made the whole of their lives one big desparing sigh. The moment they turned to Christ, the healing began. Christ in them, "the hope of glory",transformed their lives. I've seen it evidenced in their faces, their eyes, their entire countenance changes. They move from bitter despair to hope and joy. He is the not only "the hope of all who seek Him" but "the help of all who find."
I know to you I'm speaking nonsense. (This is what the scriptures say your response to these things will be.) In reacting like you do to these things you fulfill scripture.
Probably most startling or bizarre to you will be for me to tell you this, "You ask me how I know He lives, He lives within my heart." To deny His existence in me would be just like me saying to you that I used to have this relationship with this guy, My husband, for over 30 years, but I was mistaken, he was just a delusion. So and so just proved to me that he never was.
"Depart from me..... I never knew you."
The invitation is open for as long as you draw breath. Whoever is thirsty, let him come. (But you have to know you're thirsty), Whoever wishes, let him come. (But one has to wish to come.) "And drink from the water of life freely". (But one has to realize that there is nothing they can do in and of themselves to end the thirst except to receive the water freely by faith because the One offering it is Faithful.)
So.... are you thirsty yet? If not then why are you still here on this forum fighting this mental battle from which as yet have not found release?
Jesus is the "author of and finisher of my faith". He says to me... "Faith is not found in you, Mitzi, but in all that I AM".
INDY, you are focusing on everything else... science, philosophy, etc.. but instead you need to just focus on the person of Jesus Christ.
He was set upon to be crucified for His claim of Diety, I AM. He kept telling His disciples that this would happen, but they being true skeptics from the outset just brushed those comments aside. This is the eyewitness testimony concerning the charge against Him..(His claim of Diety), and He never denied it. I won't either.
I'm praying to Him for you. Tell your wife, (if you don't mind,) that I think of her daily and also pray for her. If she knows the Lord and loves you too, she must be terrified as well as grief stricken during this time. I would be if I was in her shoes.
In Him,
Mitzi

Mitzi, as I was reading your post I started singing along and thinking...

Andy walks me; Andy talks with me; Andy tells me I am his own.

Anyhow, why do you think you are doubting your salvation. Is it a matter of pre-destination/selection? A matter of a lack of grace? A matter of a lack of faith? A matter of a lack of works? I am familiar with the soteriologies of various Christian denominations as well as various Biblical passages and I am sure that I could offer you a set that would bring you comfort. I possibly could also help you with a set of verses, church fathers, and denominations to avoid.

 

[IndyEllis]

So, is allowing room for subjectivity to be part of my perception of reality an act of faith or cowardice?

No, but not being truly honest to oneself would be an act of cowardice one might think.

 

[IndyEllis]

Criada, after I typed those parenting techniques I reminded myself... It sure is easy to know how to parent somebody else's kids; it's just parenting one's own kids that's the hard part.

But back to deeper stuff...

But - is it really possible to do it by yourself?
Do you ever feel that you can't?

Most excellent questions.

Honestly, sometimes I have wondered if I can't. This has been one of the scariest processes of my life. I will not lie to you.

But really, how much comfort is there provided by belief so riddled with doubt? Doctrine so indefensible. Arguments so shallow.

Every morning the sun does come up, and the birds do sing, and I go for my daily morning run.

Day by day, it is feeling better and feeling really good actually. Not at a simplistic level, we're talking at an "it is well" level.

To be honest to myself and with myself.

To be accountable to myself.

To not hold false hopes on a mythical sky daddy.

To discover what got me through all along was me.

And know that if this life is the only one I get, I want to live it to the fullest, in a profoundly fulfilling, reciprocal, generous way.

Criada, you're right. It is very hard to chart this course.

But you know what... In most regards, I am more profoundly at peace with myself and with the world than ever before.

 

[Criada]

Most excellent questions.

Honestly, sometimes I have wondered if I can't. This has been one of the scariest processes of my life. I will not lie to you.

But really, how much comfort is there provided by belief so riddled with doubt? Doctrine so indefensible. Arguments so shallow.

Every morning the sun does come up, and the birds do sing, and I go for my daily morning run.

Day by day, it is feeling better and feeling really good actually. Not at a simplistic level, we're talking at an "it is well" level.

To be honest to myself and with myself.

To be accountable to myself.

To not hold false hopes on a mythical sky daddy.

To discover what got me through all along was me.

And know that if this life is the only one I get, I want to live it to the fullest, in a profoundly fulfilling, reciprocal, generous way.

Criada, you're right. It is very hard to chart this course.

But you know what... In most regards, I am more profoundly at peace with myself and with the world than ever before.

I am glad that you are finding peace.
And, as always, I admire your honesty.
Because being honest with oneself is so very difficult! And yet necessary.

But - why are you here, posing these questions, if you do not have any doubts about the course you are taking?

 

[IndyEllis]

A very good question.

I had come to this site a few months ago just kind of as a due diligence. To see if I had missed anything. At this point, I don't think I have.

I think Sam's post addressed it well.

I repost...

Indy, I've read some of your posts in this thread. You are searching for scientific evidence of God.

This is a bit of a fool's search. Don't you think that if anybody in the last 2000 years found one shred of scientific evidence that God exists, the authorities would be touting it everywhere as proof of what they had been saying all along.

The reason nobody has found any of this evidence is simply because there isn't any. You can argue and argue with Christians and they will fall back on the bible, then Jesus, then God, and ultimately you will come up against the brick wall of faith. People believe because they believe, not because they looked at the evidence and made a reasoned, logical conclusion from it.

If you want to know why they have faith, its pretty simple. Because:

a) It's comforting, it makes them feel loved and special
b) Lots of other people around them do and people like to fit in
c) Their parents/teacher/pastor hammered it into their minds as truth from day one, and children are very impressionable

Trying to find scientific evidence for it is a waste of time, I've already tried, and it's impossible because there isn't any.

I wish you each well.

 

[Criada]

I have much enjoyed our conversation, and am saddened that you appear to have given up on this!
But you have my admiration and friendship.
And I will, despite your protests, continue to pray for you and your family.

And to hope that you will return.

Because, when all is said and done - "I know that my Redeemer lives"!
Absolutely.

God bless you.

 

[gracealone]

OK.. so this is my last post. Answering INDY's question. The only time I have doubt about my salvation is when my OCD flares. It is after all called the "doubting disease". It causes irrational, intrusive, or unsettling thoughts.. that don't want to go away, cause the OCD brain hangs on to them and obsesses over them, even though deep down I know the thoughts aren't true. It isn't just my faith that OCD attacks but it can attack nearly anything that is very important to me. Just wanted to clarify. I don't doubt because of a lack of information, the doubting is a response to the intrusive thoughts. It would be hard for you to understand what I'm saying unless you had OCD or had read up on it. I only brought it up because you mentioned my feelings. Living with OCD has taught me not to rely on my feelings. "If our heart condemns us.. God is greater than our heart."
Goodnight Buddy.

 

[sammydee]

Indy, I've read some of your posts in this thread. You are searching for scientific evidence of God.

This is a bit of a fool's search. Don't you think that if anybody in the last 2000 years found one shred of scientific evidence that God exists, the authorities would be touting it everywhere as proof of what they had been saying all along.

The reason nobody has found any of this evidence is simply because there isn't any. You can argue and argue with Christians and they will fall back on the bible, then Jesus, then God, and ultimately you will come up against the brick wall of faith. People believe because they believe, not because they looked at the evidence and made a reasoned, logical conclusion from it.

If you want to know why they have faith, its pretty simple. Because:

a) It's comforting, it makes them feel loved and special
b) Lots of other people around them do and people like to fit in
c) Their parents/teacher/pastor hammered it into their minds as truth from day one, and children are very impressionable

Trying to find scientific evidence for it is a waste of time, I've already tried, and it's impossible because there isn't any.

Sam

Sam, are you really 17? Wow. I'm impressed. It took me half a lifetime to figure this out. It took me reading 100 books to figure this out. A deep four-year pursuit of the truth. And here what did it take you? Just a few months or few years to figure out the obvious?

Sometimes I think I gotta be one of the most dense persons on the planet.

Nope not dense at all. As a matter of fact I truly admire you, because you were brought up believing this, and have been indoctrinated for years since you were a child, and you were still able to overcome dogma and analyse your faith rationally. Thousands of other extremely intelligent people completely fail to do this in their whole lifetime. They apply rational thinking to every part of their lives EXCEPT the part that says "XXX is the true religion".

I am actually a bit envious of you because I had it easy being brought up in a family with no strong beliefs. I wonder if I was brought up in a God-fearing family and threatened with the fire and pain of Hell since day one whether I would be able to apply rational and scientific thinking like you have and realise that it is all just self-delusion.

I was lucky not to have been brought up in a christian family. I was sent to a christian primary school, so I have had a bit of indoctrination imposed on me I suppose, but it was never a "believe this without question or go to hell!" kind of thing. And I guess I just saw too many holes in it for it to hold true, like "what about other faiths? How can christians be so arrogant as to think their's is right and everybody else's is wrong" and the problem of evil that just convinved me it was all just a load of baloney.

I am definately on the side of Richard Dawkins in the issue of "christian children". He says we should hear that phrase and find it ridiculous, just like if comebody said thay had a "conservative child" or "rebublican child". Children are of course far too young to be able to make their mind up about the origins of the cosmos, how we got here and what our ultimate purpose is.

Children between about 3 and 12 are at a very impressionable age where they pretty much believe what is told to them by any authority figure. After all it wouldn't be a very good survival trait evolutionary speaking if children questioned everything they were told: "don't play in the road" - "well I'm going to test this out scientifically and see if I get hit by a car - DOH!".

The problem comes when children are brought up from an early age, taught to believe blindly in this imaginary being, and so they never learn to question their faith. They can never get over that mental block because they have been indoctrinated from such a young age. Then they grow up and do the same to their children, it spreads a bit like a virus.

I personally think that children should never be labelled by the beliefs of their parents, and that taking children to church or preaching to them at such a young impressionable age should be strongly discouraged or even classed as child abuse. The problem is, christian parents really, actually believe that their children are going to hell if they don't believe, so they try as hard as possible to spread the faith and it goes on and on... see the problem?

If I ever have children I will encourage them right from the outset to have an open mind and question everything. Only then can we avoid dogma and have a rational and thoughtful view of the world around us.

Sam