The calling of a Vocation?
SpiceWeasel[ABC]![SpiceWeasel[ABC]](https://forumstest.unknownworlds.com/uploads/ipb/nav-63193.jpg)
Join Date: 2007-12-16 Member: 63193Members
Join Date: 2007-12-16 Member: 63193Members
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">Life of twists and turns</div>I have been a rather strange guy all my life do to a traumatic past that left me bipolar. Added to it i am dyslexic, have ADD and some minor OCD habits. Then look at the fact that I (not bragging or anything) have a rather high IQ was good at sports (had an offer to play for the regina Pitts i think it was, one step down from NHL) it is rather odd i turned out to be a Computer Netwoker who is seriously considering running off to a place like this <a href="http://www.carmelitemonks.org/index.html" target="_blank">http://www.carmelitemonks.org/index.html</a> (literally this place). To become a Carmelite Monk.
Before ya get any preconceptions I will state that
yes i was born and raised Catholic
yes i have a huge love of history (namely medieval history)
no i wasn't always religious (haven't been for years in fact during my depression)
I may not be as bad as Paul was before he converted but i have done some pretty sinful stuff in my day
Finally don't think i haven't gone over this from bother sides of the spectrum. My oldest brother is in a laymans holy order himself and im currently at his place in pittsburgh. He has been urging me forward with it as you can imagine. My older brother who I'm more like to and spend more time with is on the far side of the spectrum to give ya a hint <a href="http://randomcreatureface.com/" target="_blank">http://randomcreatureface.com/</a> is his site.
But anyways what i was hoping to do is to get a feel for what other (lets face it we if we know what MOD means we are) nerds think on this and if I'm the only one this religious on here.
Before ya get any preconceptions I will state that
yes i was born and raised Catholic
yes i have a huge love of history (namely medieval history)
no i wasn't always religious (haven't been for years in fact during my depression)
I may not be as bad as Paul was before he converted but i have done some pretty sinful stuff in my day
Finally don't think i haven't gone over this from bother sides of the spectrum. My oldest brother is in a laymans holy order himself and im currently at his place in pittsburgh. He has been urging me forward with it as you can imagine. My older brother who I'm more like to and spend more time with is on the far side of the spectrum to give ya a hint <a href="http://randomcreatureface.com/" target="_blank">http://randomcreatureface.com/</a> is his site.
But anyways what i was hoping to do is to get a feel for what other (lets face it we if we know what MOD means we are) nerds think on this and if I'm the only one this religious on here.
Comments
You have at best 80-90 years left on this earth, and then you have billions upon billions upon billions of eternity after that. If you believe in God, then you believe that what you do now with the life you have affects what happens during that eternity.
You seem very conscious of sins that you have committed. That's actually a very good start. Paul said:
1 Timothy "12 ¶ And I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who hath enabled me, for that he counted me faithful, putting me into the ministry;
13 Who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief.
14 And the grace of our Lord was exceeding abundant with faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.
15 This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.
When Paul put his faith in Christ, he was saved from his sins and then (as you can see in the first sentence) Christ enabled him and put him into the ministry.
God can enable you for wherever he wants you, and put you into that place. Before that though, you need to know if you are saved.
When I was a child I was raised in a Christian home, but I wasn't saved. I knew Jesus died for my sins in my head, but I didn't receive it into my heart and trust on him fully to save me. Partly this was so I could continue sinning. When I grew up my carnal, unsaved nature came to the fore. I became enslaved to pornography and was very disobedient towards my parents. It says in 1 John 3:
23 ¶ And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment.
24 And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us.
I did not believe on the name of Jesus Christ, and I lived in sin. I was not saved. When I was 21 I finally repented of my sins and put my faith solely in Jesus Christ to pay my debt and save me. It was then that I was able to break the chains of pornography and other addictions through the Holy Spirit - just as it says above. I could now keep Christ's commandments, and I now had his Spirit dwelling within me. I still slipped up from time to time, but gross sin never held me in the same bondage. Since then the Holy Spirit has worked in my life, guiding me to the church I am currently in, the wife I have been blessed with and the work He has called me to.
I don't know if it's been similar for you. If you can identify with the first part of my testimony, then perhaps you have yet to be saved. If you don't know how to be saved, then ask and I'll explain what I can.
If you don't wish to do that, or you are sure that you are saved, then move to part two.
First - pray. There is no point trying to serve God somewhere where he doesn't want you. Pray and ask God to show you what he wants you to do with your life. Ask Him to show you truth and to guide you, then get a Bible and start reading from the Book of John and don't stop until you get to Revelation. Don't stop praying and asking God to guide you and speak to you through his Word. It says in the Bible that God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace to the humble. If you ask Him with a humble, receptive heart to guide you and you keep asking, He will answer.
The Bible actually has a lot to say about what God wants Christians to do. He wants them to be examples. He wants them to love other Christians and look after them. He wants Christians to share the gospel with others. He wants us to love poor people and widows and look after them. It instructs Christians on what to do if they are married, unmarried, with children, leaders in church, employees, employers - not to mention how to carry themselves personally and before God. There is heaps of instruction in Scripture directly from God on how to live and what you should do once you are born again.
That's about the end of any advice I can give you really. I'm not sure that was exactly what you were after, but I hope it helps you.
Marine01
What interests me is why you want to do this. What is your motivation for joining a religious order?
I think religion is a big joke that isn't funny anymore, and that each step away from it works out for the better in the long run, just as each step away from ignorance might begin with some unhappy realizations but in the end result in greater knowledge. I think that for someone to believe in <i>their</i> religion and not in any of the hundreds of other religions out there is a demonstration of either an unconscionable amount of arrogance or a regrettable tendency towards close-mindedness, neither of which are attitudes that I'm very enamored of. I think that at best religion is a crutch relied upon by people who could do as well or better without it, and at worst serves as a justification for whatever base thoughts and actions the religious person wants to justify, regardless of the tenets of the particular religion. It also annoys me that churches get tax breaks.
That's just me though. FDR was a Christian and he wasn't too bad, although his legs lacked dexterity and strength.
edit: also, after reading about these Carmelite monks, I would probably recommend joining some order that does more charity work or something. I'm not 100% sure but it looks like most of the things these guys do is A. Praying, B. Keeping the place they pray in order, or C. Doing manual labor to earn enough money to do A and B. Unless they've got some charity stuff hidden on their website where I haven't found it, their entire life seems to be focused on allowing them to do whatever it is praying lets you do. I think if you're going to bugger off to a be a monk somewhere you might as well be the kind that helps people, not the kind that exists just to earn a modest living and pray a bunch.
edit #2: looks like they don't like ###### people either. Just saying.
edit #3: MEN WHO LIKE OTHER MEN, because the forum censors the word that can also mean "happy" or "joyful."
I actually for the price of $10 picked up a used copy of Men in Sandals which is a book writen by a Carmelite monk about his life from the day he showed up at the steps of the monastery to the day he was ordained a Priest. The fact that he writes not only with truth and contemplation he writes with a great sense of humor it gives a very good idea of all these things. When i arrive i would under go the Novitiate year with temporary vows (consider it the training wheels on a bike) where i learn my duties and the tenets of the order then at the end of the year I would be given the choice of saying the full vows and being welcomed into the order proper (that is where the no return point is). But just being let in to be Novitiate they put you through the paces to make sure you truly and of your own free will want to be there.
Now to MarineOI
It gives me much to think of and some familiarity as well. You can trust me when i say i first and foremost a Bible and as of last week a stack of books that is only getting bigger as i decipher what it is God desires me to do.
Now to MarineOI
It gives me much to think of and some familiarity as well. You can trust me when i say i first and foremost a Bible and as of last week a stack of books that is only getting bigger as i decipher what it is God desires me to do.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Good stuff! A few other tips, recommendations and encouragements if I may:
Books written by men (and ladies) can be very helpful. Often they are funnier and easier to read then the Bible. However, they are written by mere flawed humans who get some things right and some things wrong. The Bible is different in that it is 100% perfect. When I was a kid I had all these impressions about who Jesus was, what it meant to be saved, how the church should be run and it blew my mind when I finally got saved and read what God had to say on all that. The first read through is quite an experience as you start to get your mind around what God is saying - particularly verses that seem to be there just for you!
Second, I've found that God leads one step at a time. He never tells you the whole story at the start. When I got saved, I had no idea what God wanted me to do. Then one day I remembered a friend who I used to talk to about God but who wasn't a Christian. I messaged her and we went to meet up. I was going to give her the gospel but she was already saved. She introduced me to some of her friends and I ended up meeting my wife through her. The Lord then led me to a different church than the one I had been attending. At the start God didn't tell me everything that was going to happen, he just told me step at a time what to do next.
Thirdly, to encourage you - it's an incredible journey once you surrender your life to Christ. Two and a half years ago I didn't want to eat, didn't want to sleep, was failing my uni courses - I just wanted to play World of Warcraft and look at vile things on the internet. God took that wretched sinner, cleansed his iniquity, gave him a beautiful wife and guided him to a new church family. He has blessed us with some wonderful friends, a Pastor who preaches the Word of God faithfully and God has provided for us financially every step of the way. I have absolutely no idea where exactly He wants me and my family over the next few years, but it's been an amazing journey and I wouldn't trade it for anything.
It's a real joy to serve an all powerful God who loves you and cares for you. There has been so many things I've learned, so many things I've seen, but I'll stop now cause my ramblings will bore you in the end <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" />.
Hope something there is helpful to you as well. Just remember God isn't trying to hide what he wants you to do - if you read the Bible and pray asking him to show you - "seek and ye shall find, knock and the door shall be opened unto you". Just don't give up knocking when it gets tough.
God bless,
Marine01
That's just me though. FDR was a Christian and he wasn't too bad, although his legs lacked dexterity and strength.
edit: also, after reading about these Carmelite monks, I would probably recommend joining some order that does more charity work or something. I'm not 100% sure but it looks like most of the things these guys do is A. Praying, B. Keeping the place they pray in order, or C. Doing manual labor to earn enough money to do A and B. Unless they've got some charity stuff hidden on their website where I haven't found it, their entire life seems to be focused on allowing them to do whatever it is praying lets you do. I think if you're going to bugger off to a be a monk somewhere you might as well be the kind that helps people, not the kind that exists just to earn a modest living and pray a bunch.
edit #2: looks like they don't like ###### people either. Just saying.
edit #3: MEN WHO LIKE OTHER MEN, because the forum censors the word that can also mean "happy" or "joyful."<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
so your saying your not religious? so after you die you are nothing? leaves a sour taste in my mouth, call me a fool but i have nothing to lose by being religious, because you and I will both die and go into nothing-ness, Now if there is a god ill be ok and you'll be f!#*'ed . I'll take my chances.
This is not the place for a debate about religion, but in short, I could not care less about the "sour taste in your mouth," because that sour taste is just how life is. Many people have gotten over it without turning to religion. The idea that you're set if there's a god and I'm boned really doesn't hold much water, because out of the thousands of religions, the chances of you getting the right one is miniscule.
[...]When i arrive i would under go the Novitiate year with temporary vows (consider it the training wheels on a bike) where i learn my duties and the tenets of the order then at the end of the year I would be given the choice of saying the full vows and being welcomed into the order proper (that is where the no return point is). But just being let in to be Novitiate they put you through the paces to make sure you truly and of your own free will want to be there.[...]<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is good, a trial period is probably in the best interests of everyone. However, what does the no return point mean? If you reconsider after the no return point, what are the consequences?
<!--quoteo(post=1685281:date=Aug 5 2008, 12:13 AM:name=Marine0I)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Marine0I @ Aug 5 2008, 12:13 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1685281"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Books written by men (and ladies) can be very helpful. Often they are funnier and easier to read then the Bible. However, they are written by mere flawed humans who get some things right and some things wrong. The Bible is different in that it is 100% perfect.[...]<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, no it's not. You have this confused with the muslim belief that the Qur'an is the literal word of God. The general belief among christians is that the Bible is in some manner inspired by the will of God, but is not literally his thoughts brough to paper. Otherwise, how would you explain why the gospels contradict each other?
When did the fig tree keel? (Matthew 21:9) The fig tree withered immediately. and the disciples registered surprise then and there. (Mark 11:12-14 & 20) The morning after Jesus cursed the fig tree, the disciples noticed it had withered and expressed astonishment.
Or even within the gospels themselves:
How many generations were there between Abraham to David? Matthew 1:17 lists fourteen generations. Matthew 1:2 lists thirteen generations.
Surely, if the bible was literally the word of God, he would have provided the proper data. Access to correct data is one of the perks of omniscience.
<!--quoteo(post=1685283:date=Aug 5 2008, 01:46 AM:name=BlackHawk)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(BlackHawk @ Aug 5 2008, 01:46 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1685283"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->so your saying your not religious? so after you die you are nothing? leaves a sour taste in my mouth, call me a fool but i have nothing to lose by being religious, because you and I will both die and go into nothing-ness, Now if there is a god ill be ok and you'll be f!#*'ed . I'll take my chances.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is a thought process called <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_Wager" target="_blank">Pascal's Wager.</a> A problem with it is that even though it seems to be an answer that takes into account both sides of the coin (you're safe both if there is a God and if there isn't a God), it's not a coin but a many-sided die. What if hinduism turns out to be the right belief? Then you're still screwed.
If you want to be a christian, be so with no ulterior motives, not because "it's the safer choice." You can never make a safe choice, so don't argue that you can. Make what you think is the <i>right</i> choice.
When did the fig tree keel? (Matthew 21:9) The fig tree withered immediately. and the disciples registered surprise then and there. (Mark 11:12-14 & 20) The morning after Jesus cursed the fig tree, the disciples noticed it had withered and expressed astonishment.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ah, hello again Lolfighter. No, I'm not confused, Christians have historically held that the Bible is infallible. It's only really in modern times that we've started to see a general trend towards compromise in that area sadly.
As to contradictions, when I was a new Christian I used to find thing after thing that I thought disagreed with something in another area. Sometimes I find out the solution very quickly, other times I wouldn't get it worked out for months. The only thing I have learned is even the toughest of problems eventually get solved, it's up to me to wait patiently and search. Giant Atheist/muslim lists on the net are a bit of a trap though - they are great examples of what happens to folk when they don't actually read the Bible, they just hunt through looking for contradictions. Take that figtree example - in my Bible in Matthew it says
"And when he saw a fig tree in the way, he came to it, and found nothing thereon, but leaves only, and said unto it, Let no fruit grow on thee henceforward for ever. And <b>presently</b> the fig tree withered away. And when the disciples saw it, they marvelled, saying, How soon is the fig tree withered away!"
Presently†means 1.) in a little while, soon; and 2.) at the present time. In this case it means #1. The Disciples would go with Jesus into Jerusalem, then out again to Bethany pretty much every night that week. However, the apostle Matthew had a tendency to group things more according to theme than chronology, but even then he included the proviso "presently". They could easily have seen the tree later in the week and registered their surprise then. Matthew however has no problem with keeping his story self contained - he registers Christ's action, the disciples response, then he gets on with his story. A lot of supposed errors fall into this category - they assume that every Gospel writer prepared an after action police report in a Western mindset where everything had to be chronologically accurate. Luke definitely took a more chronological approach, but not all gospel writers did.
Again, I'm sure you can find a better example that is harder to answer, and there is no guarantee that I'll have a readymade answer to it. It doesn't stress me. I know enough about the Book to know it's flawless, and if I can't currently grasp it, it will reveal itself later - and once again man's wisdom will be proven secondary to God's.
Jesus said in Mark 4:
11 And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:
12 That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.
A little know and little accepted fact about Christ is that he deliberately spoke in parables so that those who had no desire to believe in him could easily dismiss it as gibberish. God resisteth the proud but giveth grace to the humble as it says elsewhere. The Bible is the same - those who take the approach of "I'm going to evaluate this with my own wisdom, find out where it is wrong and prove all those Christian's wrong" will definitely find enough to convince themself of what they already wanted to believe. In fact, God set it up that way. Folks who take the other approach of "God, I'm not sure if you're there or if this Book is any good, but if you are and this is your Word, show me what I need" get something entirely different from God.
You are also correct that historically, biblical inerrancy was taken for granted, and that only in more modern times has this belief been challenged.
Question for you, by the way: Do you believe in biblical infallibility, or biblical inerrancy? You seem to be leaning towards inerrancy, but I am not certain. You also called it infallible, but I assume that was an error on your part.
You made a good example of how the fig tree contradiction could be an error in interpretation, rather than a conflict between the two gospels. What about the inconsistency within the Gospel of Matthew, though? I take it that is one of those better examples that you spoke of.
Well, in your defence that literal, inerrant view is becoming less and less popular these days. It's been practically abandoned by Catholics, Methodists, Anglicans, a lot of Presbyterians, the Uniting Church, the Episcopalian church and a whole heap of others. The only folk that hold to it these days are Fundamentalists like a lot of Baptists, Brethren or fundamentalist strains within the above denominations.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Question for you, by the way: Do you believe in biblical infallibility, or biblical inerrancy? You seem to be leaning towards inerrancy, but I am not certain. You also called it infallible, but I assume that was an error on your part.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I believe it is completely infallible and inerrant. Some folks try and say they believe it to be "infallible" but not inerrant, but that seems to be their way of semantically appearing to be taking the same stance as fundamentalists without fundies realizing what they mean. I used to argue about this a lot on these forums back in the day, but I wasn't even saved then so I can't vouch for my own postings. I wont rehash the old arguments again with ye - but if the Bible is conclusively flawed in any area I'll never be able to trust it completely, God didn't have what it took to keep it inerrant and I can't base my life off that or serve that God.
A bitter pill I had to swallow early on in getting saved was this verse:
Pr 3:5 Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.
I didn't want to do that. I wanted to be able to have an awesome, impregnable rational argument for every little thing that I couldn't understand or every contrary piece of evidence - a perfect piece of reason for any argument against God, a perfectly reasonable explanation for everything God did and how he acted.
Isa 55:9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.
In the end I had to accept that if I honestly believed this Bible, then it spoke of a God who I couldn't fully comprehend. When I worked at a Vet surgery I used to help the vet put dislocated hips back in dogs - often on fully conscious animals. We'd hold it down and yank that leg every which way till it slipped back into the socket. The looks that some of those animals gave me were absolutely traumatic, eyes full of "why are you doing this to me?" All they felt was agony. What could I say to that dog? Was there any way I could explain that we were trained professionals and it was for their own good? There was no way I could make that dog understand me - my ways were higher than it's ways, my thoughts were greater than that animal had the capacity to understand.
Compared to God, I am that dog. Some of those dogs forgot what they knew about the humans who had fed them and cared for them for years, and would turn and attack us. Some of them ended up getting put down because they wouldn't let us help them. Some dogs just trusted us because they had faith that humans were their friends. All the evidence and pain said "no - these guys are hurting me, they are their enemy", but their faith was not misplaced.
Think of children. I've heard kids say "no no explain to me, I'll understand" about concepts way over their head. In their own minds they think they can grasp anything - yet you know that their mind can't come to grips with what you are talking about. Yet the child still remains 100% confident in their ability to understand everything you tell them and come to a rational conclusion about it. How many things were there when you were a kid which you thought you knew but later on found out you were wrong? Yet the gulf between my mind and God's is vastly greater than that between mine and a child's. I think that's why Christ said:
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->15 Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Good kids will trust what their parent's say rather than only obeying when it makes sense to them. They may misjudge their own ability to understand things, but often they will just accept what their parents say as true. Once we hit adulthood we don't want to keep trusting like kids do. The man who will only go to God once everything makes 100% sense to his own flawed and limited mind never will.
That turned out to be quite a sermon sorry :S Hope something in there gave some light into the mind of a fundamentalist...
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You made a good example of how the fig tree contradiction could be an error in interpretation, rather than a conflict between the two gospels. What about the inconsistency within the Gospel of Matthew, though? I take it that is one of those better examples that you spoke of.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think there is a answer I was satisfied with when I read it, but that was a long time ago. <a href="http://www.lifeofchrist.com/life/genealogy/objections.asp" target="_blank">http://www.lifeofchrist.com/life/genealogy/objections.asp</a> has some condensed explanations there, and longer explanations in their other articles. I was thinking more along the lines of some tough numerical problems in the OT. There are ones that I just don't have an answer for... yet <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" /> Maybe I'll never get them in this life.
My question for you is what are you seeking? Do you want to find reasons to disbelieve the Bible? - you can and you will. Are you only looking for something that will fit within your logical boundaries? You've defined your own parameters, that's all you will find. Would you be willing to humble yourself before God if He did exist? Do you even want to know if it's true or not? It would radically alter your entire life and way of thinking - do you really want that if it's the truth? I think if most people examined those questions honestly, they'd be surprised at what they found.
As for logical boundaries, I am indeed looking within them, because I believe that all that exists is contained within them, and looking outside is futile. So yes, my search remains with the boundaries of logic.
As for your last question, I like the way you phrased it, because it allows me to give a very succinct answer: "Would you be willing to humble yourself before God if He did exist?" - Yes.
First off, that's very... well... wise actually. A lot of people choke at that point.
<!--quoteo(post=1685432:date=Aug 8 2008, 08:27 AM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(lolfighter @ Aug 8 2008, 08:27 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1685432"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->What am I seeking? Answers. Regarding the bible, or more broadly the abrahamic faiths, I want to know where they came from, how they came into their modern form and what truly happened back then.
As for logical boundaries, I am indeed looking within them, because I believe that all that exists is contained within them, and looking outside is futile. So yes, my search remains with the boundaries of logic.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Seeking answers is a good way to be. You say you are seeking answers on the Bible and the Abrahamic faiths and what truly happened... how are you going to find out? Will you use your logic to examine all the external and internal evidence and then make a choice? There are thousands of examples of evidences for Christianity and the Bible, yet for every one there will be an atheist with a 10 page rebuttal. Some of his arguments will seem strong in your eyes, yet they might one day be proven fatally flawed. Some of his arguments may seem weak in your eyes, yet they might actually be a lot stronger than you realize. The same applies for evidences against scripture and Christ, and vice versa in every single case.
People are already debating over what really happened in events during WWII - and not just over Jewish related matters. A mere 60 years after and already there are arguments. I believe their was a Holocaust, but if 60 years after is enough time to start the truthwar, imagine after 2000 years? I'm not saying you can't be sure about anything, I believe the evidence will often point in the right direction... but surely you see my point?
Is your logic an inerrant guide? There are men who devoted their lives to studying logic, yet we study their lives and see them make terrible mistakes. They use brilliant logic to make strong arguments to prove a point that is ultimately based on the wrong premise. The peasant a thousand years ago used the best of his logic and judgment (and that of the experts of the day) to confirm the obvious fact that the sun went round the earth. It started at one side of the land, it went down on the opposite side - and anyone who knew anything knew it was so. All those really clever people who designed those magnificent aqueducts and cathedrals and timepieces thought so as well - it all made logical sense.... but it wasn't so.
Don't get me wrong - I'm not against logic. I'm using it (or trying to) right now. Logic is a wonderful tool. I believe if it's used correctly and based off the right premise that it will point powerfully toward the existence of God. But it's going to take more than just you and logic to discover the God of the Bible (if He exists). There is no end to debate and questioning about it, how are you going to make up your mind?
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->because I believe that all that exists is contained within them, and looking outside is futile<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why? When you say everything that exists is contained within logic, I think you mean to say that everything that exists is governed by the law of logic. You've seen the laws of logic (A is not non-A, what is true cannot be both true and false simultaneously) hold true time after time. Yet who made that law? Why do they hold true time after time? If their is a creator God, why can't he operate outside of his creation? An ant may think that nothing can possibly grow taller than 30cm, because I put a glass lid on his box and he saw it cap the growth of a plant. All the evidence points that way for him - yet he's wrong because I am not bound by the laws of the box I made for the ant. I am taller than 30cm.
Now say I speak to these intelligent ants. I say "write this down - things can grow bigger than what you see, your view is very narrow and very limited". The ants believe me, they write it down, and 200 generations later a young ant says "what rubbish, I can't believe folks still believe that! There is absolutely zero evidence that anything can grow taller than 30 cm, those ants back then probably made it up! Saying that it's different out there but I can't see it or test it lets us believe anything - we could very well say that everything outside of this, if it even exists, is a tomato or a dragon or inside out! Pure bunk." But the ant is wrong.
That analogy has its limits, all analogies do - yet it's quite similar to men and God. Of course the ant is right in stating that you can't say much about something that could defy everything you've ever known - but that ignores the possibility that a being from outside your universe could interact with you. It makes sense if I do exist and I can tell them what it's like outside. They won't really get it very well, but that doesnt make it any less true.
It's the same with you and God. Assume God is real for a moment and the Bible is his Word. Then this God has told you that if you want to find him, you have to search for him. As Jesus promised - seek and ye shall find. The first step I'd recommend is praying. Straight up. At worst you're talking into air, at best you're actually getting the attention of this Being. All the hypothesizing of the ants and evidences for "that guy that made our box" is nothing compared to actually having my attention and direct interference in the debate.
Then investigate. Read Scripture trusting that if this God is real, then He'll help you with any flawed presuppositions and actually show you something. If you come up with questions, write them down and look for an answer. Often questions raised in one part of Scripture are answered in another. Use your logic to examine problems, but ask God for his help first. If you have any questions, I'm happy to try and answer them.
Honestly, you have zero to lose. If God isn't real, then your 80-100 years will be up one day and a few wasted hours talking into air and reading an old book wont matter much overall.
Why choose the Christian God to try? Why not the Muslim? Or the JW? Or the Mormon? Well, there was a blind man that Jesus healed once, and the religious leaders of the day were angry that Jesus did so on the Sabbath. In the end they told the blind man that Christ was a sinner. I liked his reply:
25 He answered and said, Whether he be a sinner or no, I know not: one thing I know, that, whereas I was blind, now I see.
I only have my personal testimony to go from. I was once a sinner living a debauched life, and Christ set me free.
Let's assume there's only one religion, though. Just you, 200 generations ago, and a bunch of ants. You're praising the ants who believe what you said because they're the ones who are right and the skeptics are the ones who are wrong. The problem is that 200 generations down the line, the ants who believe in you as their lord and savior have just as much evidence as the skeptical ants.
On one hand you've got history which, like you pointed out, gets twisted around so much within one generation that within a few thousand years nobody has any idea what happened back then, unless we have physical evidence. Other than that all we have is a bunch of written stuff. Your devoted ant believers pretty much have to take it all on faith. This leap of faith happens to be right, but they have no way of knowing it. From our perspective they're totally right, but to the ants, they might as well be wrong.
Now, if we apply this to real life, there's one problem with saying that the nonbelievers have just as much reason to be right as the believers. You'd say that there IS a way of knowing that the leap of faith happens to be right! Divine inspiration or whatever. I'm not sure exactly what it is but it's strong enough, in your case, to take you from praying into the sky and reading the Bible to believing in the Christian god. And I'll be the first to say that if that ever happened to me, I'd convert straightaway to Christianity or whatever religion divinely inspired me.
The problem is, the way these "leap of faiths" work is that you have to want them to happen, pretty much. Your prescription is for me to start praying and reading the Bible, waiting for god to inspire me. For me personally that doesn't do jack; for a while I used to pray without really believing in god at all, and since I was going to Jewish school I was studying a religious text, but I wasn't divinely inspired. My leap of faith didn't make it across the chasm.
Why? Well, the way I see it, I wasn't really looking for god, so I didn't find god. Nothing in my subconscious decided "you know what, all this praying stuff would be pretty awesome if it ended up on god's doorstep." If I had been going through hard times, though, maybe it would have been different. If I had felt incredibly guilty (well, I did, but it was garden variety Jewish guilt), if I had felt like I was at the end of the line and needed something to turn my life around, if I had been looking for something to inspire me, to move me, maybe I would have found god and become Jewish. Heck, maybe if I had just been of a certain disposition, inherently believing instead of inherently given to cynicism, I would have started believing in god.
And this is what these leap of faiths look like to me, from the perspective of someone who took a leap and never got any faith out of it. They'll find you god if you're looking for god. You recommend praying and reading the Bible; if anyone takes you up on that it's reasonable to assume they're at least part of the way towards looking for religion. It's no stretch at all for me to imagine someone going the whole hog and deciding to justify their religious actions by believing in the religion. You don't even have to make an effort to see people deceive themselves every single day in order to make life better or avoid something they don't want to confront. It's exceedingly obvious that the way humans work is that we deceive ourselves. Sometimes it's in small ways (this one donut won't hurt me), sometimes it's in big ways (those scientists talking about global warming are probably wrong, because otherwise I'd have to rethink my life). Some people do it more than others, but I don't know anyone who could claim they're perfectly honest with themselves. Anyone who does claim that is probably deceiving themselves <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":D" border="0" alt="biggrin-fix.gif" />
Religion is a very popular, very effective, government sanctioned, socially sanctioned, traditionally sanctioned way to decieve yourself. It's a way to tell yourself that if you're a good person, everything will be all right. It's a way to tell yourself that one day good people will be happy and bad people will be punished. It's a way to tell yourself that someone, somewhere, is supremely powerful, powerful enough to make sure that everything will turn out all right, in the end. No matter what happens, you can cling to your knowledge that someday it will all be okay.
And nobody except some recalcitrant jerks like myself will ever call you on it. At best it's incredibly impolite to question someone's religious beliefs. At worst it's intolerance of the worst degree (although that hasn't stopped most religions from persecuting some other religion at some point or another). If you deceive yourself into eating that second donut, one of your friends might snap you out of it. "Hey, man, you've put on weight recently." If you deceive yourself into thinking a relationship you're in is healthy when it really isn't, at some point it'll probably be splitsville, and the only difference is you won't be ready for it. If you deceive yourself into believing that god doesn't want you to eat pork, people will bend over backwards to make sure there's kosher food everywhere.
So there's your leap of faith. To a Christian like yourself, this is not self-deception: it's god telling you that he exists. Well, look. All I can say is that I don't see any difference between my grandma refusing to believe that my grandpa is as sick as he really is, and the masses of people refusing to believe that the universe is as random/unplanned/unregulated/unfair/WHATEVER as it really is. Divine inspiration strikes when it would be very convenient for non-divine delusion to strike. I, for one, am convinced that they are one and the same.
tl;dr: God does not exist.
Heh, no no I read it all it wasn't too long.
Tycho, I think you're trying to stretch my ant analogy a little too far. The analogy was only put there to demonstrate the plausibility of there being a God who created logic and is therefore outside it. It was more to show that creators are rarely confined by their creation - and it's illogical to assume they are. That's all it was.
My basic point remains the same, and I believe it applies to your presuppositions. When you start out with "this is all junk that silly people cling on to if they are emotionally traumatized enough", the God of the Christians has made it pretty clear in his Bible that if you wish to believe that, He wont argue with you. You said it yourself:
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Why? Well, the way I see it, I wasn't really looking for god, so I didn't find god.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Whether I'm right about God, or you're right about God, that statement actually holds true. The Bible pretty well says "if you ain't looking, you wont receive this". From your point of view, you have to be looking aka have a superstitious mindset open to that kind of nonsense before you'll actually get anything from a religion.
You have all your bases covered because you've already ruled out in your own mind the possibility it could be real. Therefore anyone who takes a leap of faith and tells you of the experience is automatically discounted. If it actually is true, you'll never, ever find out. That's already been excluded from your mind - because your mind is made up.
That's okay. There are tons of people who think Christians are fools. I can see your logic given your presupposition. What you said makes sense from that point of view. My mind is just as equally made up in the opposite direction, so I don't think you're unreasonable or a jerk. I just think you're mistaken, and I'm sure you feel the same about me.
Just out of curiousity, can I ask you the same question I asked lolfighter: Would you be willing to humble yourself before God if He did exist?
Now, this particular million bucks has a curious attribute: It defies proof. It refuses to be proven, even if it means you would get a hundred grand. Therefore, you will probably never get your hundred grand.
Whether I'm right about God, or you're right about God, that statement actually holds true. The Bible pretty well says "if you ain't looking, you wont receive this". From your point of view, you have to be looking aka have a superstitious mindset open to that kind of nonsense before you'll actually get anything from a religion.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you are not looking for god, you will not find god. If you are looking for god, you will find god. To me, this means one of two things:
1. Seekers of god are divinely inspired and are thereafter saved, whereas those who are not looking will never find him.
2. Seekers of god delude themselves into believing in god, whereas those who are not looking for god have no reason to delude themselves into believing in his existence.
To an outside observer, what do you think seems more reasonable? I could point out countless examples of human beings deluding themselves into thinking that the world matches what would be best for them instead of what it truly is, but I don't need to. I'm sure you have manifest examples of this in your life, as does everyone else. It's an easily observable phenomenon.
Now, you tell me that <b>singular among all these delusions, finding religion is in fact NOT a delusion</b> but is <i>actually</i> evidence of a supreme being who thousands/billions/whatever of years ago created everything there ever is and ever will be, and also wrote down what he thought in a book, and then in another book, and along the way he killed everyone in Sodom and Gomorrah and killed all the firstborn Egyptian kiddies and told Noah to stick two of everyone on an ark while he doused everyone else and gave Mary a kid without any procreation.
And I tell YOU that, well, okay, maybe. But if I assume that the religion you're telling me about is just another one of those many, MANY delusions, it makes a lot more sense.
This is something that shouldn't be instantly anathema to you, because I imagine that's about the way you look at every religion except your own. I mean, what would you tell me if instead of saying I'm an atheist I said I worship Thor, Loki, Zeus, Freya, and the rest of them? I'll say I prayed to them for a bit and read some Norse mythology, and one day I realized it all made sense. Thor spoke to me through a thunderbolt or something. You'll probably think I'm rather gravely mistaken, and that far from speaking to me through the clouds, Thor doesn't exist, and I've just hopelessley lead myself astray because I started praying to Norse gods and reading Norse myths and hoping against hope that the Norse pantheon is behind the universe and is giving me a purpose to life.
What you're asking me to accept, really, is that something that matches every other religious and nonreligious delusion in humanity's history, something that serves a perfectly obvious purpose to those who accept it by giving them meaning and purpose in life, something that could be explained 100% by self-delusion, is in fact divine inspiration. And you want me to accept YOUR version of this, when every other religion out there is saying that <b>you're</b> the delusional one and they're the ones who have got it all right.
If you can give me a reason to treat your delusion as inspiration from god but to disregard the delusion of every other religion on earth, I'll convert to Christianity. But I don't see what makes a Christian's ability to convince himself that there's something out there legitimate any more than a Muslim's ability to convince himself there's something out there is legitimate. Clearly, as a Christian, your delusion doesn't feel like it. It feels like god spoke to you, and that's a powerful thing, and it's got to be a million times better than whatever fake "inspiration" those Muslim chaps think they get from studying the Koran. But to me, with no special connection to Christianity, it seems like your divine inspiration only feels like it because that's what you've convinced yourself it is. Like I said, I just need a reason to treat yours as inspiration but those of others as delusions.
<!--quoteo(post=1685458:date=Aug 7 2008, 10:54 PM:name=Marine0I)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Marine0I @ Aug 7 2008, 10:54 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1685458"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You have all your bases covered because you've already ruled out in your own mind the possibility it could be real. Therefore anyone who takes a leap of faith and tells you of the experience is automatically discounted. If it actually is true, you'll never, ever find out. That's already been excluded from your mind - because your mind is made up.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sure, I discount someone who says they took a leap of faith. You do too, in fact. My Norse leap of faith? Completely discounted. Someone's Hindu leap of faith? No way that's real, they're just fooling themselves. From your point of view there is one true god, and any leap of faith that doesn't land in his lap is just a delusion. From my point of view, I'm just adding one extra leap of faith to the "failed leaps" pile. And that leap is yours.
<!--quoteo(post=1685458:date=Aug 7 2008, 10:54 PM:name=Marine0I)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Marine0I @ Aug 7 2008, 10:54 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1685458"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Just out of curiousity, can I ask you the same question I asked lolfighter: Would you be willing to humble yourself before God if He did exist?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well yeah if I order a pizza and the doorbell rings and instead of dinner it's the angel Gabriel holding a flaming sword I'd be willing to humble myself before god. Thus far in life I've humbled myself before everyone from mayors on down to the person working the line at the Department of Motor Vehicles. I humble myself just about every day. If there was a god, or many gods if it turns out the Hindus are right or the Egyptians are right or whatever, I'd be humbler faster than you could say "amen." The supreme creator(s) of the universe would definitely get some respect from me. I don't see what that has to do with anything, though. It only seems like it would be remotely germane if you're thinking of things in terms of there being one religion or zero, when in fact the world is nothing like that.
True, he can, but it does differentiate him from some people I've met. Ones who don't believe in God, but even if He was real they wouldn't serve him anyway. That's all I was trying to see.
As for your post Tycho, I agree with every bit of logic and argument you've presented. If there is no God, then your reasoning is solid and perfectly explains the diversity of religions and the ridiculous nature of any leap of faith. But if your premise of "their is no God" is wrong, and there is a God, then every bit of your reasoning is wrong.
If God and Satan exist, then it explains the diversity of religious experience - there is a spiritual being in the business of saving people, and there is a spiritual being in the business of deceiving people. If God does actually exist, then based upon that premise there is an excellent logical argument to be made against everything you said.
You made use several times of the statement "you want me to believe". That's not actually true - I never asked you to do anything. From the premise you firmly believe in, I'm not going to ask you to do anything I asked Lolfighter to try. He said he was looking, so I told him how to try and find God according to how God instructs man to find him. In order to find Him, if He exists, lolfighter is going to have to try working from the basis of God being real. He doesn't have to completely abandon reason, he just needs to try and work the possibility of God existing into his reasoning for a time.
He might try it, find nothing and feel a little silly, then go back to assuming there is no God - or at least that if there is, it isn't the Christian God. He'll have lost nothing. Or he might ask God to help him, and if God is there and responds then he has everything to gain.
For you it is completely different. You've already ruled out God and religion, so I'm not going to try and reason you around from that point of view to mine. That can't ever happen. If God is real or if He isn't real - you will never find him.
You've made your point. You've proved how ridiculous this looks to a man who believes religion is bogus. You've showed the logical case against religion hinging on the premise that God doesn't exist. You made it really well actually - I found it difficult to fault the flow of your argument, we just critically disagree over the premise. Neither of us can logically disprove the premise of the other, so I think the debate just about ends there with us both understanding each other.
Already did that long ago.
Well, then that's about the limit to which I can help. If there is ever anything you are curious about and want some internet random to bounce it off, feel free to click the PM button.
Exactly. If there were one religion on this earth (in this case let's say Christianity), then I would take your divine inspiration very seriously. I would still be suspicious that you're deluding yourself or something, but given that people would only ever have been divinely inspired to believe in the Christian god, that would be some pretty interesting stuff. I would seriously question my premise of "there is no god" and try to figure out if there is in fact a god.
That's not the case, though. There are thousands of religions and each and every one of them relies on me deciding to believe in their god(s). If you can give me a reason to believe in your Christian god over any of the other gods, then I'll stop treating your specific religion as a delusion (although I'll have to keep treating the other ones like that). You say that I've shown how silly all this looks to someone who doesn't believe in religion. That's really not the way I see it. I'm showing how silly this looks to everyone except Christians. This includes people who believe in Judaism/Islam/Hinduism/whatever strongly enough to kill and die for it. Your point is basically "yes it does look dumb, but only to a nonbeliever, whereas to a believer it makes perfect sense" but that basically disregards all the other religions that would make perfect sense if you only believed in them.
<b>Why are you a Christian</b>, then, is basically the question I'm asking. Why is believing in Christianity right and worshipping Odin wrong? Why should I, someone with no special connection to Christianity, take your word over the word of all the other religions? This is not a case of me looking at your god and saying "from the perspective of a nonbeliever you are deluding yourself." I'm saying "from the perspective of EVERYONE except other Christians" you are deluding yourself. To me, in your position, the only possible evidence I would have that my divine inspiration is actually that and not simply a delusion is the inspiration itself. That, of course, is entirely unteneble. You're in no position to objectively evaluate what you feel is god talking to you, because there's no way anyone could ever objectively evaluate something as powerful as that.
That seems to leave two options: accept that what seems to you to be divine inspiration is actually divine inspiration, or see what everyone on earth for the entire history of time (except Christians) has ever thought and ever will think. That's an incredibly difficult proposition because your launching off point is "I believe in God and everything that goes along with it" and the end point of a clear-minded evaluation ends up with "I was deluding myself" but I feel like in your position that's the only possible way to go, if I were being honest with myself.
In the end, that's the way I see it: people who stick with one religion are not being honest with themselves. I'm not suprised or anything, seeing as the delusion is of such power and attractiveness that to tear yourself away from it is a hugely difficult, monumental decision that would shake the very foundations of your life to its core, but I have no choice but to regard anyone who doesn't move themselves to take that step as someone who isn't being honest to themselves. It's not easy, but this is pretty serious stuff, and at least from my perspective everyone owes it to not just themselves but to the entire human race to take on the responsibility of owning up to what life really is, even if it means abandoning an ideal as cherished as "I'm going to live forever in Heaven where everything will be awesome."
That's not the case, though. There are thousands of religions and each and every one of them relies on me deciding to believe in their god(s).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, from a Christian point of view the diversity of religions is easily explained by Revelation 12v9
9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.
That's why Christians are comfortable with rejecting other religious systems. I'm sure the Muslims think that Christianity is probably also a demonically spread and enabled lie. To the Jews Christianity is just a false cult, in the same sense in which the Christian thinks the Jehovah's Witness is a cult. It's all predicated on the notion that there are spiritual forces out there with an intent to deceive.
That's when people start talking about their fantastical spiritual journeys where spirit guides speak to them I don't automatically assign it to narcotics. Satan can provide very real spiritual experiences for people. How can I prove to you logically that the Christian God isn't just a anti-Allah demon deceiving me from the truths of Islam? I can't. I can give a few reasons why I don't think I am deceived, but to you it will be like listening two guys discussing whether Chewbacca could beat Batman.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If you can give me a reason to believe in your Christian god over any of the other gods, then I'll stop treating your specific religion as a delusion
<b>Why are you a Christian</b>, then, is basically the question I'm asking.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I can't ever give that to you based off your premise. If you can accept that God might be real, then we can start to compare and contrast the God of the Bible with the Mormon God or the Muslim God or the Buddhist ideas of the spiritual life. I can point out that we've been to the top of mount Olympus, and Zeus wasn't there, so perhaps that should be lower down the list of god's to check out. I can point out the number of prophecies forfilled in Scripture, but then for every one I'm sure you'll be able to find someone who think's that's rubbish.
We have copies of the book of Ezekiel from thousands of years ago, prophesying that the nation of Israel would be scattered but one day reformed. They were scattered in AD70 all over the word, and 1900 years later in 1948 the nation was reformed. Which other people group have been scattered for nearly 2 centuries, yet still retained their identity and restored a nation in the midst of extremely hostile neighbours? Yet mark it down, if you want to ignore that fulfilled prophecy, you'll find ways to do it. I can give example after example like that, but if you don't really want to believe it, there will always be something there that will explain it away for you. And even if you find 3 very convincing, you'll sweep that away with "well maybe those could be plausible.... but Noah's Ark comorn? No way!"
I guess what I'm getting at is that this is not something you will ever be able to get to with your own reason based upon your current premise. There isn't even a guarantee you could get it if you changed your premise - Satan is in the deceiving business. Of course you'll say "oh, how very convenient". I don't expect any different. As has been stated 100 times in 100 different ways - we are both right when we state you can't find God if you aren't looking. I can't be cajoled into trying to convince you with logic - your logic will always exclude God no matter how much evidence there may be to the contrary.
If I say "my daughter is hiding in that bush over there," you may or may not believe me. It may not really matter to you. Or maybe you'll say "o rly?" and go over and look in the bush. But you don't find her, because she is very good at hiding. But trust me, she is in there, she's hiding.
Now, if my daughter jumps out of the bush and yells "peekabo!", or if you manage to find her on your own (she may be good at hiding, but maybe you are just that much better at seeking), then it is now proven to you that my daughter was hiding in that bush.
As for Ezekiel, what about the many jews still living "in exile" to this day? I could argue that since all of God's own people have not yet been reunited in their ancestral homeland, the true nation of Israel has not yet risen, and the prophecy remains unfulfilled. Or I could discount it as vague - even two millenia ago, the jews had a history of being persecuted, conquered and oppressed, and saying "it'll probably happen again" wasn't much of a stretch of imagination. And the phrase "I'll be back" has always been a rallying cry for the defeated, long before the Terminator used it in a different way.
We pick everything apart and try to discredit it because that is how you ascertain the truth. If the prophesy is true and divinely inspired, it will withstand all attempts to disprove it, as that which is true cannot be disproven (except with logical fallacies, which can also in turn be disproven). So the prophesy may be divinely inspired. Or it may be good guesswork. It is too vague to know for certain. So we have two different explanations, both of which may be true, but only one of which can be. Ockham's Razor dictates that the prudent would go with the simpler one.
That is why we continue to disregard examples like this. Not to spite you, not because we refuse to be convinced, but because examples like these aren't good enough.
Well, not exactly. Of course I do believe there is evidence for God, people have written thousands of books compiling it. And people have likewise written thousands of books rejecting it. You have people who have gone through that evidence and it built up to a point where they said "God just has to be real, the evidence proves it for me". You have other people who did the same and it built up to a point where they said "God just can't be real, the evidence is too strong against him". What you want is an impervious argument one way or the other, and I don't think you'll ever get it.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If I say "my daughter is hiding in that bush over there," you may or may not believe me. It may not really matter to you. Or maybe you'll say "o rly?" and go over and look in the bush. But you don't find her, because she is very good at hiding. But trust me, she is in there, she's hiding.
Now, if my daughter jumps out of the bush and yells "peekabo!", or if you manage to find her on your own (she may be good at hiding, but maybe you are just that much better at seeking), then it is now proven to you that my daughter was hiding in that bush.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is a good example of the kind of evidence you want - your daughter popping out and saying peekabo is 100% incontrovertible evidence that she was behind that bush. You will not get that. God has deliberately made it so that those who genuinely seek have enough evidence to convince them, and those who do not have enough evidence to reject.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->As for Ezekiel, what about the many jews still living "in exile" to this day? I could argue that since all of God's own people have not yet been reunited in their ancestral homeland, the true nation of Israel has not yet risen, and the prophecy remains unfulfilled. Or I could discount it as vague - even two millenia ago, the jews had a history of being persecuted, conquered and oppressed, and saying "it'll probably happen again" wasn't much of a stretch of imagination. And the phrase "I'll be back" has always been a rallying cry for the defeated, long before the Terminator used it in a different way.
We pick everything apart and try to discredit it because that is how you ascertain the truth. If the prophesy is true and divinely inspired, it will withstand all attempts to disprove it, as that which is true cannot be disproven (except with logical fallacies, which can also in turn be disproven). So the prophesy may be divinely inspired. Or it may be good guesswork. It is too vague to know for certain. So we have two different explanations, both of which may be true, but only one of which can be. Ockham's Razor dictates that the prudent would go with the simpler one.
That is why we continue to disregard examples like this. Not to spite you, not because we refuse to be convinced, but because examples like these aren't good enough.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Of course you don't do it to spite me, I understand that. See how easy it was though? You said it would withstand all attempts to disprove it if it was true, yet you dub it not good enough - not because you disproved it, but because you found enough to not be seriously worried by it. <b>You can do that to tons of things that are true</b>, and people do it every day. The skeptical approach of picking everything to pieces is no unfailing system, and it relies heavily on a person's preconceptions, or faith if you will. The man who is convinced that Bush dropped the Twin Towers will go through the 9/11 Commission report and find holes everywhere - and if not enough to entirely disprove it, at least enough to be satisfied in his own mind that he shouldn't be seriously worried by it. All the logical and skeptical ability he has to tear holes will be employed in the undertaking as well.
What you are looking for is a killer argument that simply cannot be answered and conclusively proves for you that God is real. Anything short of that and you can knock em down one by one as they come. You won't get that. You've got enough to investigate, and your current faith will dictate to a large degree what you do with what you find out.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It just seems like you're deciding Christianity is right and the other religions are wrong on the basis of Christianity being right. That's circular reasoning to me.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ultimately, when someone is convinced of something, their belief in the truth of it becomes foundational. You're exactly the same yet with a different foundation, and through that you interpret what you see. From what I can tell, you have a basis of secular rationalism and skepticism, and through that you evaluate everything else and Christianity comes up short. You work off the basis that that approach is the right one and my approach is the wrong one.
I see the same evidence you see, and that convinced me of the truth of Christianity. If Christianity is true, the the rest are at best only part right. You see the benefits of science, rationalism and skepticism and that convinced you of the truth of that way. If that's true, then that foundation provides you with a great platform for tearing holes and explaining away stuff in other systems of belief.
Why is God so loath to show himself anyway? The old testament is replete with direct divine intervention. Abraham is directly involved with God numerous times. Abraham's nephew Lot has to flee the destruction of his city by angels. Direct divine intervention. Why the change of heart? Why does God prove his existence time and time again to the people of old, only to suddenly cease to interact with the world in any detectable manner?
This is a rewording of what is called Pascal's Wager. It is a fundamentally flawed though experiment for a number of reasons, then main ones being that a) it assumes you pick the correct god. If you take the wager and worship the Christian god, might you not be angering Flying Spaghetti Monster, the one true source of all things? b) It assumes that god rewards belief and acts on requests for help, which is circular thinking.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You have people who have gone through that evidence and it built up to a point where they said "God just has to be real, the evidence proves it for me".<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually you don't. Arguably the most well researched theists are the Jesuits and they state absolutely clearly that gnostic faith is unattainable. They make it quite clear that Faith with knowledge is not really Faith at all.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Well, not exactly. Of course I do believe there is evidence for God, people have written thousands of books compiling it. And people have likewise written thousands of books rejecting it. You have people who have gone through that evidence and it built up to a point where they said "God just has to be real, the evidence proves it for me". You have other people who did the same and it built up to a point where they said "God just can't be real, the evidence is too strong against him". What you want is an impervious argument one way or the other, and I don't think you'll ever get it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It isn't a movement of people trying to prove that God does not exist, but a movement of people who will not believe in God without proof. There is nothing even approaching a satisfactory proof for a rational mind of god's existence.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->What you want is an impervious argument one way or the other, and I don't think you'll ever get it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, what you want is proof that god exists. Atheists are under no expectation to prove he doesn't exist. The Atheist position is the defacto position.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The Bible is different in that it is 100% perfect.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Which version of the bible is 100% perfect?
Now THAT is interesting and makes me want to investigate the Jesuits, as that nearly describes my approach to religion in general:
Faith is NOT rational, it does NOT rely on proof, it can NOT be explained.
That being said, I have no faith, but I can understand and accept it in others.
To bring this back on topic (a bit), wouldn't the answer to "Should I join a vocation?" be "Does your faith tell you too?". Isn't that the entire point of faith? To guide you by the word of god (and its earthly interpretation)?
However, if we want to argue over something, I think my favorite point has always been puzl's last one. Do we take the KJ bible (first legal translation to English by the CoE), the Wycliffe bible (first one), the old Latin one? New different Latin ones? Or do we just go back to Aramaic?
which one is correct?
Translation errors and discrepancies come up fairly regularly amongst them, which states they CAN'T all be 100% correct.
Admittedly, the only answer I would accept for this would be "XYZ" "why?" "Because my faith says so".
/me wanders off pondering looking up stuff on the Jesuits.
BTW, if you do join that order, tell us about it (assuming you are allowed to), should be interesting.
I see the same evidence you see, and that convinced me of the truth of Christianity. If Christianity is true, the the rest are at best only part right. You see the benefits of science, rationalism and skepticism and that convinced you of the truth of that way. If that's true, then that foundation provides you with a great platform for tearing holes and explaining away stuff in other systems of belief.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, I would agree that looking at the world through the foundation that, for whatever reason, I have grown up with would lead to atheism, and looking at the world through your perspective, Christianity ends up being the right choice.
The problem for me though is that I'd be perfectly willing to swap my perspective, because mine is willing to admit its own fallibility, whereas your entire mindset is built up on the idea of it being 100% correct, and it leads you AWAY, rather than TOWARDS, a reasoned examination of your own beliefs. If I was wrong, the idea is that I would evaluate this rationally and swap my views until I'm right. If you're wrong, you'll never know, because each wrong step you take leads you down a path of belief rather than the questioning of your belief.
What I mean to say is that my "basis of secular rationalism and skepticism" would in a microsecond convert itself to faith in whatever religion if I found any reason to have such faith, whereas your faith in Christianity is by its nature designed to be unshakeable and for most people is never dislodged, or if it is it's only by some sort of great tragedy or something.
Regardless of whose beliefs lead to what conclusions, I still see no reason to look at the world from your mindset instead of mine. Yours would have me become a Christian, and mine would have me remain an atheist, which is more or less a coin flip until you consider all the many other religions of the world. All that they have to offer me is identical to all that you have to offer me: "Look at the world as I do, and faith is the only logical result." If there is even one reason to look at the world as YOU do, and not as they do or as I do, I would be glad to hear it. I know this is the route you've chosen; the question is, why?