An introduction

[Martin]

I'd like to introduce you to a friend of mine from another forum. Less than a year ago, she was a fundamentalist, YEC Christian. Today, after dealing with doubts for some time, she's stepped back from Christianity so that she can examine it more carefully. Her current position is one of generic theism. She finds that it helps to discuss her doubts with both Christians and non-Christians, so I thought this would be the perfect place for her to explore these issues further. Some of the most rational, knowledgeable, generally decent human beings I've ever encountered are here, and I've learned a great deal from you, regardless of faith. I'd name names, but I always leave people out. Suffice to say, you know who you are.

Now that my shamelessly gratuitous flattery has drawn your attention, I'll let Justine explain her position to you in more detail herself. She's smart, honest and willing to learn, and I'm sure that anyone who takes the time to talk to her will find the experience benefits them as much as I know it will her.

[sparklecat]

You make me sound like a Subway success story or the like :p

Yes, I'm a member over at Rapture Ready, and met Martin in apologetics, where we've debated back and forth for around... 6 months or so? I became a Christian two years ago this month- had all the answers and basically pushed my questions aside and took them on faith. Which is not always bad, but as more questions have come up, they have me questioning the entire belief system... Hell, free will, Biblical inspiration, and the system of sacrifice are the main issues. So I feel that I need to step back and really examine my questions from more neutral ground- and not stay away from the nonbelievers, as some have advised!

I think the easiest way to explain this would be to link you to my post over at RR- you need to be a member to get into the forum, but for those who don't have membership, Martin's summary (and mine) aren't too bad- and of course you can ask me any questions you'd like :) Oh, you'll need to see the continuation at the second link, as they locked the first thread.

http://www.rr-bb.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=120181

http://www.rr-bb.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=120357

Justine

[Loki]

sparklecat,

I'm not in a position to register at RR just now - is there an particular question/issue you have that won't require you to recount the entire last 6 months of discussion with Martin?

Which particular variation of christianity are/were you aligned with ? (yes, it sometimes makes a very large difference)

[sparklecat]

Version- as Martin said, rather fundamentalist. Evangelical.

As for my questions... the necessity of Hell (in its torture for eternity form), the doctrines of Biblical inspiration and infallibility, the whole sacrifice Christ for our sins and why exactly that method was necessary- if God had to obey some sort of rule there, and how free will is even possible.

[c4ts]

I was kicked out of Rapture Ready for introducing factual information. I guess they weren't ready for it.

[triadboy]

Welcome sparklecat.

[Loki]

sparklecat,

Sure you don't have any serious questions to ask?!?!

Working backwards...
...and how free will is even possible.
Define "Free Will". Compatibilism says it's entirely possible, if it's understood (and therefore defined) correctly. If it's defined the way most christians do, then I'd say it's not sensible, and therefore not possible.

...the whole sacrifice Christ for our sins and why exactly that method was necessary- if God had to obey some sort of rule there...
Well, they weren't mysins - I'm still unsure why a merciful and loving god would choose to visit the punishment (original sin) upon the children for Adam and Eve's little transgression. And do it for a few thousand generations. Since I can't come to grips with the nature of the alledged problem, I'm afraid I have little to offer as to why god would choose one form of restitution over another.

...the doctrines of Biblical inspiration and infallibility...
Infallible in the sense that if something can be shown to be wrong, then it's the interpretation that failed? Or infallible in the sense that if *you* truly read it right, your conclusions can't be wrong?

...the necessity of Hell (in its torture for eternity form),...
The simplest thought I have is that an infinite punishment for a finite 'crime' is not what I'd expect from a loving god. Of course, Catholicism is moving away from the "torture" concept nowadays, so perhaps this is a conversation that has already been rejected even by the christian mainstream?

[sparklecat]

Originally posted by c4ts
I was kicked out of Rapture Ready for introducing factual information. I guess they weren't ready for it.

lol! Got a link?

[Martin]

Originally posted by sparklecat


lol! Got a link? All of his posts can be found here (http://rr-bb.com/search.php?s=&action=showresults&searchid=179141&sortby=lastpost&sortorder=descending).

Personally, I suspect that the reason he got kicked off was possibly more to do with the fact that he announced both his choesn username and his intention to imitate a Christian on another thread here...

[sparklecat]

Originally posted by Loki
sparklecat,

Sure you don't have any serious questions to ask?!?!

Working backwards...

Define "Free Will". Compatibilism says it's entirely possible, if it's understood (and therefore defined) correctly. If it's defined the way most christians do, then I'd say it's not sensible, and therefore not possible.

Well, they weren't mysins - I'm still unsure why a merciful and loving god would choose to visit the punishment (original sin) upon the children for Adam and Eve's little transgression. And do it for a few thousand generations. Since I can't come to grips with the nature of the alledged problem, I'm afraid I have little to offer as to why god would choose one form of restitution over another.

Infallible in the sense that if something can be shown to be wrong, then it's the interpretation that failed? Or infallible in the sense that if *you* truly read it right, your conclusions can't be wrong?

The simplest thought I have is that an infinite punishment for a finite 'crime' is not what I'd expect from a loving god. Of course, Catholicism is moving away from the "torture" concept nowadays, so perhaps this is a conversation that has already been rejected even by the christian mainstream?

Oh, they're serious enough to me :)

Free will in that we actually can choose or reject God for some reason not predetermined by him... either our personality which is shaped by our upbringing, or the soul which he supposedly designs as well leads us to make that decision- where's the freedom there? And following that, where's the responsbility?

Well, I have no problem with the problem, as I've sinned myself as well :)

Infallible in the sense that it doesn't contain obvious errors would work fine.

Sure, but the torture is rather Biblical... so if I want to accept Christianity, it would probably be necessary for me to accept that as well. But I take your point.

[sparklecat]

Originally posted by Martin
Personally, I suspect that the reason he got kicked off was possibly more to do with the fact that he announced both his choesn username and his intention to imitate a Christian on another thread here...

That would do it, assuming lurkers...

[Some Friggin Guy]

Sparkle, welcome.

As for your questions, I can only tell you how I view things as a former Christian, myself.

Essentially, I determined through a great deal of soul searching and some tremendous personal conflicts with my church that the idea of a rational god made no sense to me. As far as I was able to put together, the concept of god was that he was an all knowing, all-loving, all powerful being who allowed humanity to do things he never intended us to do, couldn't control us except through the fear of eternal punishment.

To me, that meant he was not all knowing, all loving or all powerful.

Also, I found the universe as I had experienced it to be far to chaotic to have been created by any consiousness and too many random and cruel things occured. This meant that god would have been cruel and capriscious.

From there, I began to research histories of religions, including christianity and found major holes in the ohilosophies and traditions, as well as things that science proved totally false.

Finally, I began cross-referencing (no pun intended) christianity with other religions and found that it had little or no original ideas in it. Most traditions in the christian churches I had dealt with were stolen from earlier, pagan religions.

At that point, I decided that there could not, in all probability, actually be a god. During my searching, I found the basic philosophies of Zen Buddhism, which I practice as a way of keeping my mind focussed, but I do not adhere to the "religious" aspects of it.

If you are curious about some of the concepts stolen by christianity, I suggest you search on the net for Mithras, Zoroastrianism, Gilgamesh and Hamurabi for a start. thers in this forum can give you a great deal more to think about and research.

[sparklecat]

Thanks SFG :)

I found your post interesting. I'll look up the groups you named.

[Loki]

sparklecat,

Regarding free will, I'll try to post a bit later on a few of possible theist replies.

It sounds like you've already decided that Free Will to choose/reject Jesus isn't possible given an Evangelical kinda god. Are you here looking for someone to convince you otherwise, or are you hoping to find agreement/validation for your opinion????

[Yahweh]

Hi Sparklecat, welcome to the forum :)!


Just a little about me and my time with RaptureReady...
I registered under the name "Vendyokus". I was banned although I did not violate any rules (I'm assuming someone from the RaptureReady boards alerted the admins that someone from the evil JREF boards had registered...). I probably made 10 or 15 posts, you can search them on RaptureReady and give them a read (I dont know if they've been deleted or edited...). Billiefan2000 sometimes posts here, I worry about the poor kid sometimes.

There was another member by the name of "Funkenstein" who went through the same situation you are going through right now. Here started this thread: A breath of fresh air (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=30648).

In the mean time, I hope you enjoy it here :).

[sparklecat]

Originally posted by Loki
sparklecat,

Regarding free will, I'll try to post a bit later on a few of possible theist replies.

It sounds like you've already decided that Free Will to choose/reject Jesus isn't possible given an Evangelical kinda god. Are you here looking for someone to convince you otherwise, or are you hoping to find agreement/validation for your opinion????

Good question lol

I would like to be convinced otherwise I think. Not necessarily looking for it here... but I would like a solution. Not just an evangelical God... any god.

*is biased towards Christianity*

[sparklecat]

Originally posted by Yahweh
stuff

First off, thanks :)

Yeah, I actually responded to you as Vendyokus a time or two I think ;)

[Loki]

sparklecat,

A little info on Free Will and christian (well, mostly Catholic) theology...

There are (at least) two main Catholic schools of thought on Free Will,and the interaction with god's knowledge/power/desires. Trying to keep it simple, human Free Will is either :

(a) The result of the choices we make *after* god has set our lives on a given course. God choose this course through the knowledge of what your choices will be. Thus the universe proceeds according to god's plan/desires, yet each of us gets to make a genuine choice in each situation we face in life.

or :

(b) The result of the fact that god knows what our will would do in any given situation (that is, he can see the "potential futures"), and that he then brings about the situations that he desires and in which we make our free choice. The choice is still ours, freely made in the given situation - it's just that god gets to pick the situations he wants after viewing all possible alternatives. Again, the universe proceeds according to god's plan/desires, yet each of us gets to make a genuine choice in each situation we find ourselves in.

The protestants (basically) have a history of rejecting Free Will, although it's not really stated in such terms. God is paramount, and you rise to heaven or fall to hell according to god's desire, not your own actions/will.


All of the above work well enough - probably as well as compatibilism - if you're repared to accept the basic premises.

I think the problem with all of them from a 'traditional' Free Will perspective is that they essentially equate to compatibilism, not to "Libertarian Free Will". Each boils down to the fact that given a situation 'X', a human makes a single choice - if we could repeat situation 'X' completely (100%) then we'd make the same choice. This contradicts Libertarian Free Will completely, although it seems to me that this is largely overlooked/ignored by christian writings.

[Tez]

Welcome sparklecat.

I have a long (and ongoing) relationship with christianity - of the evangelical/charismatic/pentecostal varieties. It is "ongoing" because my immediate family are immersed in it, and are basically in denial about my lack of enthusiasm for it (to say the least).

Essentially (for these varieties of christianity) one has to confront two fundamental tenets:

(i) Inspiration of scripture.

(ii) Personal experience/relationship with God (and that related by other believers).

Depending on the church different weighting is given each tenet - but basically one's faith is predicated in certitude regarding one or the other. Rather than examing the surface issues of doctrine and theology, I feel it's best to confront these head on.

I personally had certain religous feelings/experiences, however I always knew that they may ultimately derive from within. The possibility that scripture was only human inspired (and thus church teachings merely human mythology) took much longer for me to confront. There is little point in me addressing the specifics here - such confrontation is best predicated on one's particular level of literal interpretation of the various parts of the bible that are held dearest. Suffice to say that the journey was not easy. And it really is a journey - one that you seem to have begun. I once said to Ruby, another poster here, when she began expressing the faintest of doubts:

Ruby, the road toward apostasy is tortuous to walk, and I suspect you will walk it, as most do, somewhat erratically. People at both ends of the road will look at you and be confused as to why you're not heading toward them - from their perspective you seem to be so close. If you're like me, then at some point your mind will get to the end of the road first; your soul will still be clinging to things lying along the road. Releasing those things may take many, many years - especially where loved ones are concerned. In fact, you may well lead different people to think you're at different points on the road; this is normal. Only you will know approximately where you are.

It sums up my experience.

The only suggestion I have is that you search hard for those "essential beliefs" which, if untrue, would shake the core of your faith. Then have the courage to hold them up to skeptical enquiry. If they really are true they will survive, if not then you are better off without them...

[Diogenes]

My best advice I have at this time, comes from my sig line...

" I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do.
When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. "- Stephen Roberts

Try to really think about this.. Most believers I encounter seem to brush it off, without really considering the implications in choosing a particular God over all the others..

Why do you think the Jewish God commanded:

" Thou shalt have no other God's before me" ?

And please don't fall for the apologetic rationalization about this scripture ' not really talking about ' other God's ', but about worldly affectations, such as wealth, lust, gluttony and etc.. '
Anyone who has studied the bible in it's Hebrew context can tell you it just isn't so.. This includes fundamentalist theologins, who know they are lying if they teach otherwise.



Oh, and welcome to the JREF forums...

[sparklecat]

Wow, its annoying to have your computer crash after you've typed a response... anyhoo...

Loki- thanks for the info. I know which of the two I'd prefer, but my preference hardly has much to do with reality. :D Like I said, its more how free will is anymore possible under Christianity than otherwise... either God picking our personality, or picking our upbringing, and, consequently, our personality in large part.

Originally posted by Tez
The only suggestion I have is that you search hard for those "essential beliefs" which, if untrue, would shake the core of your faith. Then have the courage to hold them up to skeptical enquiry. If they really are true they will survive, if not then you are better off without them...

*nods* Thats all I really can do- and I intend to. I don't much like the idea of apostacy, but finding the truth is better.
Now if my friends over at RR would just realize this! :D

Diogenes- thanks, and I'll think about the quote :)

[arcticpenguin]

Welcome, sparklecat.

For me, it's down to basics. I don't waste time wondering about what God is like, or how free will fits in with a God-based world. The basic question is: is there a God? There simply is no reliable evidence of that. In fact, many of the things I was told about God were wrong. (I am a scientist, and know about the complete lack of evidence for a life force or a soul.) If there is no God, why should I waste my time on corrolaries and dependent clauses?

p.s. "You just have to believe" is not a convincing argument. That's the same reason the former president of Nigeria gives me for why I should give him my bank account info to help him get his holdings out of a foreign bank.

[sparklecat]

Penguin- I agree. But I also believe pretty strongly that there is a God. I left atheism because of the cosmological argument, which has since been invalidated... but I'm starting to find all these evidences of God rather useless anyway- best you can get out of them is probability. However, I have (don't laugh) experienced God in the meantime. Changes in my life and such that I can't discount very easily. And while I could propose a naturalistic explanation for them, they never can quite fit right- do you think a decision to believe some guy rose from the dead 2000 years ago is enough to turn someone's life around? Just doesn't seem very likely to me.

I know, I know, it sounds bad. :D

Oh, and yes, I hate the "have faith" sorts of arguments as well... I'm a bit of a skeptic ;)

[Loki]

sparklecat,

Like I said, its more how free will is anymore possible under Christianity than otherwise...
I don't think it is! Libertarian Free Will - which is what many people "instinctively" mean when they say Free Will - doesn't seem sensible/possible (to me) under an omni-god. I think that the Catholic writings agree with this, yet phrase their responses in a way that seems to indicate otherwise.

Or you could try the Franko (a rather infamous JREF poster) approach - individuals are souls formed outside the universe, the creator ("goddess") has created the universe as a sort of "proving ground" to sort out the defective souls from the good ones. Sort of like quality control. Only the good ones go on to the next level. In this scenario, you aren't making any choices at all while you're here (its a "no Free Will" scenario), but instead your intrinsic 'quality' is being tested. Presumably, once you pass quality control you get to move into an existence where you can choose. But this isn't that existence.

However, I have (don't laugh) experienced God in the meantime.
The only think I can say to this is that "experiencing 'X'" is (a) always going to mean a lot to you, and (b) isn't uncommon. Problem is, when you take a global view it's rarely the same 'X'! See, you've experienced the evangelical god. I've had Hindus try to explain to me the unbelieveable changes that have occurred to them after they have experienced their god(s). Same for Muslims. Same for UFO/alien abductees. Same for mystics with their astral projections and 'higher self auras'. I don't doubt that you have experienced something that was profound, and life changing. I do doubt that the only possible explanation is "the christian god". The event/experience you describe is quite common - the explanation varies wildly.

Imagine for a moment that a few years ago you'd traveled to Indonesia and became interested in Islam. Do you think (a) the experience you refer to would never have happened, or (b) the experience would still have occurred, but you'd have attributed it to Allah rather than Christ? I'd suggest (b) is quite likely.

[the_ignored]

Well, Hi! Welcome indeed. I know it must be tough, but thinking things through on your own time is the way to go.

Except to note that no one here will try to "scare you" (is that the right word?) by saying things like "the devil is attacking you through your doubts". That just sounds like people who are afraid to think...

Even if you were to change your mind, I can assure you that you won't get that kind of treatment.


I should also note that while you're reading stuff here, you'll see a lot of posts/threads that are very hostile to RR. *Most were either started by, or contributed to by, well, me* :bricks: :hit:

That's just us complaining about the mindset over there, and how so many people over there seem to have that "hold on the their beliefs no matter what" and the attacks and censorship of those who don't hold their views.

You won't find near so much of that over here. Pretty much no one has to have their posts deleted or gets banned here in comparison.

You can say what you like without fear of getting booted, or being ragged on.


We're not that bad people! If you don't believe me, you can ask "Ruby". She also used to post on RR!


I don't (and likely never will) have anything deep to say, so I'll just leave it at that.

[the_ignored]

I was going to say: Just take your time, sort through everything, and don't be afraid to ask questions. Others, like "Ruby" and me, have gone through the same thing you have.


Ok, NOW I'll shut up.

[sparklecat]

Loki, I'll answer your posta bit later :)

Ignored- thanks :) I'm a bit upset at RR now myself, as I've had a thread locked, been warned, and been told that I was mocking God... sheesh.

Nice to meet you though anyway... should I be banned over there, you'll see lots more of me! :D

Justine

[Mr Clingford]

Hello sparklecat.

I am a Christian who has only recently joined this forum. The basis of my faith is that to the best of my knowledge and judgement I have experienced God and felt his love. I am also a thinking person.

There are many many different strands of Christianity.
I do not believe that God punished Jesus for our sins.
I do not believe the Bible is infallible.
I do not believe in a hell where people are tortured for eternity.
I do not believe that only Christians 'will be saved'. In heaven will be found atheists too, in my opinion.

Being a Christianity does not mean that you have answers, if anything, it means the opposite. I do not understand most things.

To be true to yourself you must question. Do not be afraid of 'lack of closure'. Of course the responses I might make may be different to those of an atheist!!

[Lord Emsworth]

Oh, hi Justine!

I'm delighted to see you here

[sparklecat]

Mr Clingford- thanks for the input and pm... may I ask what you do believe and why?

Emsworth, hey, nice to see you too :)

*reminds herself not to forget to respond to Loki*

[calladus]

Originally posted by sparklecat
You make me sound like a Subway success story or the like :p

Yes, I'm a member over at Rapture Ready, and met Martin in apologetics, where we've debated back and forth for around... 6 months or so? I became a Christian two years ago this month- had all the answers and basically pushed my questions aside and took them on faith. Which is not always bad, but as more questions have come up, they have me questioning the entire belief system... Hell, free will, Biblical inspiration, and the system of sacrifice are the main issues. So I feel that I need to step back and really examine my questions from more neutral ground- and not stay away from the nonbelievers, as some have advised!

Justine

Welcome to the board Justine.

There may be some on this forum that get a little sticky about what they see as irrational belief, and as Hal has pointed out newbies to the forum sometimes take a lot of static.

Just ignore the noise and concentrate on the signal. And find your own voice.

As a deconverted Christian, I've gone through some of what you are going through. I've been reading your threads on RR - some very nice people there, and some not so nice!!

I too, pulled back from Christianity. I went to Theism, then to Agnosticism, then finally to non-belief. (I don't consider myself to be truly Atheist because I do not DIS-believe, I just no longer see a need to believe.)

I don't know if you will end up going as far as I, and maybe you will find the arguments you need to return to your faith. Either way, I hope you find what you need, and I will be happy to offer what little advice I have to help you find peace.

[WinAce]

Hi there.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Howdy Sparklecat. Any friend of Martin's is a a friend of this Forum.

(Well, and anyone on RR's poop list is probably a friend of the Forum too, but I digress...)

Make sure and swing by the Community section once in a while and add a recipie to a recipie thread or contribute to the jokes or Top Ten List threads in the Humor section. While some in the fundamentalist camp would suggest isolation from non-believers, I think those that do "go into the lions den" find the lions have many shared hobbies, beliefs (non-religious), political opinions and choice in entertainment as they do.

{shameless self-promotion}
You might also want to check out the Glossary/FAQ in my sig line
{/shameless self-promotion}

[Pyrts]

Hi Sparkle!!! (wave, wave, wave!)

Ah, it's much easier to speak over here.

I began to have my doubts when I realized that if my father did all the things to me that Jehovah did to everyone else, my dad would be hauled off to the mental hospital as being psychotic... and they'd try him for murder. I could just see the scenario: Dad gets offended that kids ate his M&Ms (like he couldn't make/buy more? And why did he leave them out/create it in the first place if he knew what would happen?), Dad decides that kids are evil and when they reach a certain age he locks them into a dark closet and turns on the heat so that they're uncomfortable and sick and never lets them out (dying and hell) until he decides he has a secret word (Jesus) and passes that along to some of the kids and if you've got the secret word with the right pronunciation and gestures then you can come out of the locked room (go to heaven) but if you don't then you stay in the locked room (Earth) until you reach a certain age (die) and then you go into the closet.

That's sick. It's psycho. And I'm supposed to worship THAT? No. No thank you. Not my cup of tea.

I have more of an animistic approach to the world -- or, perhaps it's a Terry Prachett-istic approach. I do believe that the gods exist as long as there are people to give that belief 'power.' I think that the psychological boost of worshippers creates situations (answered prayers.)

So I am free (and so is everyone else) to decide which god to worship (or no god, and that's fine.) But as I said before, the things I hear from the hospice workers suggest that there's an almost universal death experience of seeing loved ones and being called into the light, no matter what your faith is.

There's no way to tell if it's just a comforting hallucination or reality or something even more than that. But it is real.

And the other thing I know is that there are good and moral people all around; people of all faiths and no faith. And all in all, it's a wonderful life.

[sparklecat]

Loki- no, I find myself forced to the conclusion that Calvinism, at least in the weak sense, in a necessary part of Christianity. A concept I always rather hated. Of course, if I wish to keep the Bible, that has to be reconciled with God not being willing that anyone should perish, which would mean limiting his omnipotence. Technically God can't have Libertarian free will anyway though, so it may not be such a problem... just something I'll need to think on.

*nods* The other religions is a good point... but the only thing is, I spent a good number of years religion-hopping and none of them really had much of an affect on me morally. Of course, I'm not sure how much responsibility was involved in most of them either... may be different if there was.

Well now I want to test that! :D

[sparklecat]

Thanks for the welcome Calladus :)

I'm finding this a great experience for discovering who my friends really are actually... you've seen it over at RR you said, and its been quite an eye-opener for me. Of course, they're also scared and worried about me, so I'll cut them some slack there.

Not sure where I'll end up of course. I would like it should Christianity turn out to be true, but if my Christianity does survive, I expect it'll be in a different form at the least.

Oh... and I want answers, not peace ;) Though I'll take peace thrown in, certainly...

[sparklecat]

Originally posted by WinAce
Hi there.

Hi :D Its nice to meet you, my infamous friend. Oh, but I've been meaning to ask- do you remember the little debate we had in your guestbook awhile back?

[sparklecat]

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner
Howdy Sparklecat. Any friend of Martin's is a a friend of this Forum.

(Well, and anyone on RR's poop list is probably a friend of the Forum too, but I digress...)

Make sure and swing by the Community section once in a while and add a recipie to a recipie thread or contribute to the jokes or Top Ten List threads in the Humor section. While some in the fundamentalist camp would suggest isolation from non-believers, I think those that do "go into the lions den" find the lions have many shared hobbies, beliefs (non-religious), political opinions and choice in entertainment as they do.

{shameless self-promotion}
You might also want to check out the Glossary/FAQ in my sig line
{/shameless self-promotion}

Thanks lol

Figured it couldn't hurt to have Martin introduce me ;) But its not quite that bad with RR yet- I'm still working on mending things over there, and they do care about me I believe.

I'll do that perhaps... I can't cook and have precisely one joke I ever repeat, but we'll see. I did notice a limerick thread... I'm not too bad at those, but they're often rather dark and depressing.

Its a shared taste in entertainment (or humor) that got me in trouble over at RR, so I'm not so sure they'd see that as good!

I'll take a look at your FAQ... lol

[sparklecat]

Hey there Pyrts! :)

Wow, and there I was thinking you a liberal Christian :D The things you learn... I see your point though. You've seen my thread over there... if they want to say that God is creator and therefore deal with reality as it as and accept it, fine. But the morality is a bit more in question... seems that things we find totally unjust are fine in God because might makes right. And if thats the way it is, then so be it... but a sense of justice that we supposedly got from God condemning him in our eyes? There's something a bit off there...

You know what though? You're right. It IS a wonderful life... and I'm not gonna spend it moping around or doing things I regret. Well, ok, I probably will, but I can at least try not to.

Justine

[sparklecat]

Triadboy- thanks, and sorry I skipped over you the first time around.

If I skip anyone else, just yell at me. :p

[WinAce]

Originally posted by sparklecat

Hi :D Its nice to meet you, my infamous friend.

You too! ;)

Oh, but I've been meaning to ask- do you remember the little debate we had in your guestbook awhile back?

Yeah, I remember that I argued it was logically impossible for a true omni-god (in the classical sense, at least) to create anything non-deterministic... there are alternative views like open theism (http://www.gregboyd.org/gbfront/index.asp?PageID=257), that the future is indeterminate and God can't know it completely for that reason until it actually happens, but they (IMHO) create more problems than they solve, and while they remove God from being the ultimate cause of our decisions as Calvinism postulates, they still don't solve the question of how libertarian free will can originate.

Still, it's worth looking into, if only because it annoys the RR crowd (which is often a good indication of being onto something)... :D

*Checks time* Gotta go, flight to Florida at 8 AM. Will be back in a few weeks.

[calladus]

Originally posted by sparklecat
I'm finding this a great experience for discovering who my friends really are actually... you've seen it over at RR you said, and its been quite an eye-opener for me. Of course, they're also scared and worried about me, so I'll cut them some slack there.

Not sure where I'll end up of course. I would like it should Christianity turn out to be true, but if my Christianity does survive, I expect it'll be in a different form at the least.

Oh... and I want answers, not peace ;) Though I'll take peace thrown in, certainly...

Answers are good! It would be nice if they made you happy, but no guarantees there. Some answers may be that you're asking the wrong questions!

As for Christian friends - some of mine were very supportive during my deconversion, and are still friends with me.

Others however. . . Well, I've raised birds. You know what happens when one bird gets sick? He's either shunned or attacked by the rest of the flock. (or both!) I think it interesting here that the word flock is used in both avian and religious connotations.

If your Christianity does survive this period of questioning, then you will come out of this with a very strong faith, based on well thought out arguments. It will be a stronger faith than those who just grew up in their religion.

Either way, good luck!

[ehbowen]

Sparklecat--

As the local lurking fundamentalist, I caution you that if you go by the wisdom of this world and its accepted linear thought processes, you will wind up as an atheist or agnostic at best. And in so doing you will play directly into Satan's hands; that is exactly what he has planned.

But I don't say that you must "just have faith"; I encourage you to ask questions and to think--but be prepared to think outside the box!

For me, the situation came into focus when I began to seriously think on the matter in which God experiences time. Consider this: if travel through time is possible, then it is a foregone conclusion that God has that ability. What sort of things might he do with it? Well, for starters, it would mean that he could reach back in time and create a universe which is fifteen billion years old and overlay it on top of an existing six-thousand-year-old universe in such a way that no one need ever notice the transition. He could, in future, do the same with a new universe which is five hundred billion years old, and then five trillion years old, and then... The point being here that I do not believe God is resting on his laurels; I believe he is still working on the universe and that there is nothing to stop him from extending it in all directions and dimensions--including the time dimension--without limits.

You have raised the question of free will and foreknowledge, which I believe is a good one. Look at it from this perspective: assume that for the next week you are free to take any actions you choose and that God has no idea of what decisions and actions you will make and undertake. You are writing on a completely blank canvas and God is doing nothing but watch. Do you agree that, in this circumstance, you do indeed have free will?

Now, when that week is up, let's assume that you're satisfied, with one exception: You really wanted to go to the beach, but the weather did not cooperate, so you went to a movie instead. And it wasn't a very good movie. God saw all this, and he wants you to be happy. Let's assume that he "reaches" back into the past and "tweaks" one thing--the weather at the beach on that one day. Everything else in the week stays the same. You wake up at the same times, you have the same food in the refrigerator, you run into the same people who all say the same things. And you are not conscious that events are "replaying"; this is a different "branch", so to speak, of your consciousness. Do you consider it reasonable to expect that, faced with the exact same stimuli at exactly the same times, that you will make the same decisions that you made during the first iteration down this time track? With one exception, of course. With the weather now perfect, you happily take off for the beach.

Did God foreknow your actions, this second time around? You can say so, because he observed them on the first iteration. Did he ever dictate your actions? No, not at all; you carried out your own freely chosen actions both times through. Since your circumstances didn't change (with the one exception), your actions didn't change either. Is this the end of the process? Not necessarily. While at the beach, you may be looking to meet a new friend, but not find anyone suitable. When God sees that, he may well reach back and make another quick tweak to the past to encourage a suitable guy to come your way. Which may lead to another circumstance that yet another tweak can optimize, then another, then another, then another.... And God, I believe, does not quit until he reaches the point at which maximum positive impact is reached, the point at which nothing can be done to make things any better for you. And this, I believe, is how things work in Heaven.

It's a multi-layered process, similar in principle, I believe, to a calculus "integration". Is there free will? Yes, at every stage of the process; it is your own freely chosen actions which form the "layers". Is there foreknowledge? As those freely chosen actions become clear, God can safely assume that if the conditions you experience remain unchanged then the choices you make will remain consistent. At that point at which nothing more can be done to make you happier, the process is complete. And so one can say that free will, while present throughout, is perfect at the beginning of the process, while foreknowledge becomes perfect at the end of it.

I said above that that is the way I believe things work in Heaven. It is intuitively obvious to the casual observer that maximum happiness at all times is not the end result we see on this earth. Why not? I believe that it is because Satan, in his quest to be like God, also has the ability to reach through time and uses that ability to attempt to "sculpt" events in his favor. And so I believe that what we see in this present world are the final results of the ongoing conflict between God and Satan. Satan attempts to reshape events in his favor--but there is a limit to what he can do and how he can work. If Satan intervenes openly and directly in human affairs, I believe that God will respond in like fashion--and if that happens Satan knows that he will lose. So Satan cannot force humans to do his will, he has to tempt and entice. And so humans may undergo "pressure", but their choices and their responsibility for those choices are theirs alone.

[Mr Clingford]

Originally posted by sparklecat
Mr Clingford- thanks for the input and pm... may I ask what you do believe and why?


I believe that Jesus, the supreme revelation of the nature of God on this planet, died and rose again.
I believe that all humans get things wrong and that the life, death and resurrection of Jesus redeems that in some way.
I believe in the reality of redemption, of lives being turned around, of relationships being restored.
I believe that God and faith is fundamentally about relationships; people and relationships are the most important things in the world.
I believe there is truth in the Bible, that there is something of both God and humanity in it.
I believe that scientific theories are the best explanations for scientific issues; the Bible is not a science textbook.

I had a grounding in a more fundamentalist faith but have rejected it as morally and rationally untenable. I am left trying to make sense of my personal experience of a loving God, the fact that people's lives can be turned around and since many things have gone wrong in my life easy answers about just trusting God do not work for me because God lets bad things happen.

[Loki]

Eric,

Well, I was talking about you on another thread just the other day!

You are writing on a completely blank canvas and God is doing nothing but watch. Do you agree that, in this circumstance, you do indeed have free will?

Now, when that week is up, let's assume that you're satisfied, with one exception: You really wanted to go to the beach, but the weather did not cooperate, so you went to a movie instead. And it wasn't a very good movie. God saw all this, and he wants you to be happy. Let's assume that he "reaches" back into the past and "tweaks" one thing--the weather at the beach on that one day. Everything else in the week stays the same.
Let me ask you a question Eric. Lets go with this scenario you've created, with one small change. God "reaches" back into the past and reruns the week *exactly* the same as it was - no tweaks anywhere. Why would he do that? Doesn't matter - it's not the issue. If he *did* rerun the week exactly as is - no tweaks - would sparklecat still got to the movie?

[Diogenes]

Originally posted by sparklecat
Of course, if I wish to keep the Bible, that has to be reconciled with God not being willing that anyone should perish, which would mean limiting his omnipotence. :D


You have just pointed out one of the most obvious enigmas of the Christian philosophy..

If God is not willing that anyone should perish, then how could it possibly happen?

You have to choose:


1. God has the power to end human suffering and chooses not to.


2. God does not have the power to end human suffering .



And pleeeeeease, don't anyone waste my time trying to define some nebulous comprimise between those two, which involves our inabilty to comprehend the nature of God.
Because that premise denies the existance of free will. Without true knowledge about the nature of God, how can we freely choose to accept him?

[Pyrts]

Originally posted by ehbowen
For me, the situation came into focus when I began to seriously think on the matter in which God experiences time. Consider this: if travel through time is possible, then it is a foregone conclusion that God has that ability. What sort of things might he do with it? Well, for starters, it would mean that he could reach back in time and create a universe which is fifteen billion years old and overlay it on top of an existing six-thousand-year-old universe in such a way that no one need ever notice the transition.

That opens an interesting philosophical Can-O-Worms (tm). Now you have a deity who's willing to lie and deceive and you have to ask "to what end?"

The end result (for evangelical Christians and Biblical literalists) is that if you believe the lies God created, you go straight to Hell (do not stop at GO, do not collect $200.) Therefore, God WANTS you in Hell.

Eeew. (to quote somebody or another.)


God saw all this, and he wants you to be happy. Let's assume that he "reaches" back into the past and "tweaks" one thing--the weather at the beach on that one day. Everything else in the week stays the same. You wake up at the same times, you have the same food in the refrigerator, you run into the same people who all say the same things. And you are not conscious that events are "replaying"; this is a different "branch", so to speak, of your consciousness.
And now we get a deity who plays favorites and who would have to make a choice between the strongest requests (your movie or the farmer's crops) or end up with universes fractally shattered and nobody living in the same timelines.

It's a multi-layered process, similar in principle, I believe, to a calculus "integration". Is there free will? Yes, at every stage of the process; it is your own freely chosen actions which form the "layers".
I'd argue that this was "manipulated will." You can offer me a dinner of liver and onions and another one of Thai food, and I will choose the Thai food every single time. Even if it had something in it that wasn't very good for me (because the smell/taste of liver makes me incredibly nauseous.)

Manipulated will isn't quite the same as freedom of choice.

[Diogenes]

Originally posted by Pyrts


..................................

Manipulated will isn't quite the same as freedom of choice.


Believers sedulously avoid this dilemma..


God gave us free will, so we can choose to love him. Of course if we choose not to, we burn in hell forever.. (... acknowledging that this is not a core belief of all believers, but that the choice to not worship this God usually results in some form of punishment... )

[Mr Clingford]

Originally posted by Diogenes

God gave us free will, so we can choose to love him. Of course if we choose not to, we burn in hell forever.. (... acknowledging that this is not a core belief of all believers, but that the choice to not worship this God usually results in some form of punishment... )
A pleasure to read this, Diogenes, as it is not a belief of mine. I am glad that you are very aware that not all Christians are braindead dribbling morons

[Diogenes]

Originally posted by Mr Clingford
.....
I am glad that you are very aware that not all Christians are braindead dribbling morons

Indeed! I certainly was not, when I was a Christian...:D

[uruk]

Welcome sparklecat.

I left catholicism for the same questions. I am now an agnostic.
(in the bet hedging sense)

Noone has ever been able to explain to me how Jesus's execution on the cross absolves me of a sin committed by some people thousands of years ago. That's a long time to hold a grudge. And where's the forgivness?

I don't buy the Satan bit either. According to Mythology, god created satan. So if satan rebeled why couldn't god just snap him out of existance, problem solved. Unless god chose to keep him around for some purpose (scapegoat). Then God had his rebelion expected and planned, So satan is a dupped lackey or puppet.
Anyhoo, if god and satan are competing for souls, then the old addage applies here; "you catch more flies with honey than vinegar". Then satan's bait to lure souls would read exactly like god's, Eternal life and happiness (with seven virgins or raisins or virgin raisins.) :D
That would mean that demons and demonic possessions, which scare the "hell" (pun intented) out of us, would actually be god trying to scare us toward his camp. Or is it satan trying to scare us toward his camp?:hit:

Even without a god, I still don't believe there is really a free will.
We have choices, but internal and external forces usually forces us to make a specific choice. But I maybe taking too broad a view
and missing the trees for the forest.

But enjoy your journey. It is always more interesting than the destination. Skepticisim doesn't always lead us to the answers we wish to see, but it is more liberating and exhilerating.

Hope you become a regular around here. :w2:

[calladus]

Originally posted by ehbowen

I said above that that is the way I believe things work in Heaven. It is intuitively obvious to the casual observer that maximum happiness at all times is not the end result we see on this earth. Why not? I believe that it is because Satan, in his quest to be like God, also has the ability to reach through time and uses that ability to attempt to "sculpt" events in his favor. And so I believe that what we see in this present world are the final results of the ongoing conflict between God and Satan.

God only has absolute power over Heaven? Satan can mess him up in the conflict over Earth? Wait a minute!

Either God is all powerful, and he WANTS satan to screw around so that souls can be lost, or God is NOT all powerful, and satan has a real chance of winning. (No matter how small a chance.)

There seems to be a logical inconsistency here - but maybe that's the point.

[c4ts]

God is not all powerful anyway. Logic and morality are higher than him. God can't turn morality upside-down, and he cannot do anything that defies logic.

[Diogenes]

Originally posted by c4ts
God is not all powerful anyway. Logic and morality are higher than him. God can't turn morality upside-down, and he cannot do anything that defies logic.

Will you make sure God gets your message.. I don't think he knows about this.. He makes it clear in Genesis ( the earliest example we have of God doing his thing... ), that he does not follow the rules of logic.. We have no reason to believe he behaved logically prior to this...

[Mr Clingford]

Originally posted by Diogenes


Will you make sure God gets your message.. I don't think he knows about this.. He makes it clear in Genesis ( the earliest example we have of God doing his thing... ), that he does not follow the rules of logic.. We have no reason to believe he behaved logically prior to this... Diogenes, what if God does not make it clear in Genesis because the Bible was not written by him but by limited, fallible humanity. Surely you can see a distinction here. Anybody?

[Lord Emsworth]

Originally posted by Mr Clingford
Diogenes, what if God does not make it clear in Genesis because the Bible was not written by him but by limited, fallible humanity. Surely you can see a distinction here. Anybody?

Try to defend that position on the RR-Board and see how soon you will be banned. :D

[sparklecat]

Oy... well, it may be a few weeks before I can get caught up and really get into posting here. My computer disappeared out of my bag while on a plane (aka someone stole it).

*frowns unhappily* Along with large amounts of papers due for school in the next few weeks.

[ehbowen]

Originally posted by Loki
Eric,

Well, I was talking about you on another thread just the other day!

Was it printable? :D

Let me ask you a question Eric. Lets go with this scenario you've created, with one small change. God "reaches" back into the past and reruns the week *exactly* the same as it was - no tweaks anywhere. Why would he do that? Doesn't matter - it's not the issue. If he *did* rerun the week exactly as is - no tweaks - would sparklecat still got to the movie?

I believe that this does happen--constantly. It represents the point at which God's foreknowledge becomes perfect. If the week is replayed, with absolutely no changes, then I believe that Sparklecat and everyone else involved would make exactly the same choices. Call it a religious belief, if you will--I believe that personalities react consistently given the same stimuli.

However, I believe that this level of certainty occurs late in the "process." It is quite possible, and even probable, that people will wish to explore alternatives. And I don't think that God has a problem with this. I believe that God allows alternate "tracks" which represent different choices that might be made. Had events unfolded slightly differently, I might have been a career military officer in the U.S. Navy--or, had other doors opened at other times, I might have become a railroad engineer. In actual fact, I believe that both alternate "time tracks" do--or perhaps, depending on your perspective, will--exist. I tend to think that, during some of our dreams, God shows us the essential points of these other time tracks and allows us to choose between them. The oft-repeated story of having one's life "flash before your eyes" at the point of death or near-death may, I think, be the same process: a chance for you to review and confirm the choices you made which led you up to that point. I had a similar experience one night four years ago during a special point in my life--I wasn't near death, but I experienced a vision of all the major events in my life, including the ones which at the time were painful or unpleasant, and how they all had worked together for good to bring me to that point. It was an experience of God's love, care, and acceptance which I never will forget.

Do not think that I am saying that there is "another you" now working as, say (if this is one of your dreams), an astronomer in Hawaii. It is not "another" you, it is you--the same you--living out a different set of circumstances. I believe that, at some point in the future, God plans to converge all of these alternate time tracks, and at that point you will have both those memories of living and working in Hawaii as well as your presumably more mundane memories of your current life. The more "alternate realities" exist for you, the larger the person you will become.

So to sum up, I view the space-time continuum taking shape in a series of "zones", as it were. At its farthest edges it is completely undefined, a blank canvas. Just inside that area is a region where "tracks" are being laid down based upon the free will and free choices of the people--human, angelic, and divine--involved. Inside of that is an area where choices and preferences become clear, and in which God is making "tweaks" to sculpt those freely chosen time tracks for maximum positive impact upon the lives of those who love him. Inside of that is an area which is being "polished," in which every minute detail is being fine-tuned to produce an eventual result which everyone involved agrees--in the long run; in some cases, a very long run--cannot be improved upon. The point of absolute perfection is the moment we experience as "Now". And everything prior to that moment, everything that everyone at a point sufficiently far in the future agrees cannot be improved upon, is the "Past."

I know I've opened up a few cans of worms here. One of them is the question of, if God really does want to make my dreams come true, why am I working the night shift changing light bulbs and plunging toilets instead of, say, being captain of a cruise ship in the South Pacific? How is the choice of which "time track" to follow made? Do I really believe that the past cannot be improved? (Short answer: Both yes and no. I believe that God intends to open up time travel expressly for the purpose of generating new "tracks" in which the suffering and misery of the present and the past is alleviated. But I believe that from a point sufficiently far in the future we will all understand the reasons why every single instance of pain was allowed to happen, and we will agree that the eventual, long-term result was worth it.) How does the ongoing battle with Satan affect the outcome of events? Do the angels have any capability to see the future (I believe they do) and, if so, what do they see? I need to get back to work, but let me know which questions most pique your interest and I'll try to touch on them later.

[Loki]

Eric,

Thanks for the rather detailed reply.

Was it printable?
Yes, definitely. The subject of "alternative worlviews" came up, and I felt compelled to offer yours as one such alternative.

Call it a religious belief, if you will--I believe that personalities react consistently given the same stimuli.
Thanks - that's all I was looking for. So you're essentially a Compatibilist rather than a Libertarian on the question of Free Will? Good for you!

I need to get back to work, but let me know which questions most pique your interest and I'll try to touch on them later.
Gee, you raise so many questions that it hardly seems possible to start. Perhaps I'd better not take up the valuable time of a man chosen to be god's emissary for the changes to come. Don't you have an Angel to catch?

Perhaps one question - where does Islam fit in all this? Surely it's not just a plot of Satan?

[ehbowen]

Originally posted by calladus


God only has absolute power over Heaven? Satan can mess him up in the conflict over Earth? Wait a minute!

Either God is all powerful, and he WANTS satan to screw around so that souls can be lost, or God is NOT all powerful, and satan has a real chance of winning. (No matter how small a chance.)

There seems to be a logical inconsistency here - but maybe that's the point.

A theoretical chance of winning? Probably so. A practical chance of winning? I think not.

I think that the "process" I outlined above, of how the space-time continuum takes shape, applies to Satan also--except in reverse. Whereas God is acting to sculpt events for maximum positive impact, Satan is reaching through time trying to arrange and order events so that (preferably) he wins or, failing that, that he manages to get off without punishment.

I think it's an open question as to whether Satan enjoys evil and misery for evil and misery's sake. I tend to think not; tyrants and dictators like their palaces, servants, and comforts. Rather, I tend to think that the maximum amount of evil and misery provides: a) the maximum amount of opportunity to pressure men to curse God; b) the maximum number of instances in which men rebel against God, which leads to: c) the maximum chance of success with the "all those people" defense ("God, surely you wouldn't condemn all those people...."). And that, I believe, is the reason Satan is actively working to make things as bad as he possibly can.

To really get a feel for how Satan works "behind the scenes," I believe you need to start with the story of Job. God didn't hate Job; he wasn't out to get Job; he was holding Job up as a living example of everything that was good and right in a human being. What did Satan say? "Destroy his wealth and he'll curse you to your face!" So God allowed Satan to reduce Job to poverty, but all Job said was, "Naked I came from my mother's womb, and naked shall I return there. The Lord gave, and the Lord has taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord." Did Satan then say, "Well, God, guess you were right and I was wrong?" No. If you were a poker player, you might say he called and raised: "Touch his bone and his flesh, and he will surely curse you to your face!"

I believe the key to understanding the spiritual conflict and the present state of this world is this: This process has never ended! Satan has never--so far--admitted defeat! I think that this conflict continued all throughout the Old Testament period, right up through the crucifixion of Jesus. With every indignity that was laid upon Jesus, I think Satan was saying, in so many words, "If I do this, I can break him. No?? Well, if only I do this I can break him! What? Well, if I do this, surely I can break him!" I believe that Satan did everything which was within his power to do to Jesus--and Jesus did not break. Satan had lost.

But did Satan admit that he had lost? I think not. Rather, I think that since then, Satan's ongoing refrain has been, "Well, if only this had been different, then I would have won." And that is, I believe, why God rearranged the universe to give rise to what I envision as the multibranched structure of the space-time continuum. Every branch is yet another opportunity for God to show Satan that, even if this or that circumstance was different, Satan still loses.

What is the logical end of this scenario? I believe it ends with Satan saying, in so many words, "If I was God, then I would have won!" If Satan has all the power of almighty God, and still loses--then he has utterly lost. From that point, there is no "up." And that is, I believe, what is happening! Satan has, I believe, in truth been given the chance to be the "god of this world." I believe he has been given--on "loan", as it were; it's not inherently his--the same ability to reach back through time and sculpt events in his favor that God has.

But what circumscribes that ability? The free choices of individuals. I believe that if Satan intervenes directly, then God will respond directly in kind. And in a direct no-holds-barred wrestling match, God wins. And so Satan cannot force individuals to do as he wishes; he must tempt and entice. As an example, I believe that he sincerely wanted nothing more than for Kennedy and Kruschev to push the button back in 1963. And I think he did everything in his power to get those individuals to start World War III. Of their own free will and free choice, they refused--and Satan has now given up trying to change that; it is in the past.

I'm envisioning the space-time continuum as a multibranched, multidimensional structure. And I believe that each individual branch is yet another opportunity for God to demonstrate that, whatever the circumstances, Satan loses. I think that, when it becomes clear to Satan that his position within a branch is hopeless, that he abandons that branch. And so he is trapped within an ever-shrinking region of space and time.

I could be wrong about this, but I believe that Satan will come to his end with a whimper, not a bang. At some point in the future, I believe that someone is going to give him the policeman's tap on the shoulder and say, "You're under arrest." And I believe that it is from that point in the future that Satan is reaching back into the region of the space-time continuum between Now and Then, trying desperately to craft some way of escape. This point which we call Now represents the point at which he despairs of being able to do any more to shift events in his favor. That point which is Then represents the absolute maximum amount of leeway he has been able to beg, borrow, or steal by way of his constant and never-ending appeals. There was, I believe, a point in which that region of time was growing, and Satan was able to convince himself (and many others) that he had won. Now, I am convinced, it is steadily shrinking, at the rate of sixty minutes an hour. At some point in the not-too-distant future, I believe that Now and Then will converge--and Satan's battle will be over.

And so that is why I say that, theoretically, I believe that Satan still has a chance of winning. Now has not yet become then, and there is a chance--theoretically--that he may be able to shift events in his favor, for a time--September 11, 2001 may represent such a shift--or that he may be able to craft yet another "appeal" to win a bit more time. But I am persuaded--call it a religious belief if you will--that all he can do in either case will be temporary, that at some point Now and Then will still converge. Personally, I believe that the key that will seal Satan's fate is new revelation--that if there is direct contact between Heaven and Earth, new and open knowledge of the nature and character and purpose and plan of God, when the "mystery of God" is finished (Rev. 10:7), then Satan can not long endure. And I believe that he knows that and is fighting against that with all his might.

I have seen events that convince me that God does indeed intend to reveal himself; in fact, I believe that this will happen within my lifetime. Based on those events, I conclude that the highest and best direction for my life is to pursue that direct contact with God. And so I believe that the "tracks" which lead to Satan's downfall are already in place; if there was an alternate possibility in which God did not reveal himself, then I believe that I wouldn't have experienced what I did in fact experience. I believe that if I pursue contact with God with all my heart, I will in fact receive that contact, in this world and in this life--as long as I do not give up. And I am resolved to never give up. Even if I did give up, I believe that God would be (and probably is) seeking out someone else to make that contact with, and so Satan would still lose.

And this is why I say that I do not believe there is a practical possibility that Satan will win. For Satan to win, I would have to give up, God would have to give up, every Christian who is out there would have to give up, every angel who is fighting Satan would have to give up, et cetera and et cetera. Possible? In theory, I suppose. Is it going to happen? I don't think so. And at some point, I'm convinced, Satan himself is going to agree--kicking and screaming--that there is nothing more he can do to keep Heaven and Earth apart. When the day finally comes when man and God can walk and talk together in this world, in this life, then from that point on the game is a lay-down. Maranatha.

[ehbowen]

I've got a lot more that I'd like to say, to Diogenes and Pyrts and uruk and others, but I think I've done enough to hijack this thread already. It was, of course, supposed to be about sparklecat's questions.

Sparklecat, if you want me to address some of the points these others have brought up, then say so. Otherwise, I'll try to shut up.

If any of the rest of you (Loki, Diogenes, uruk, etc.) want to go on to discuss my rather bizarre (I'm well aware!) ideas, then start a new thread and invite me to it. You may want to send a PM.

[Diogenes]

Originally posted by ehbowen


To really get a feel for how Satan works "behind the scenes," I believe you need to start with the story of Job. God didn't hate Job; he wasn't out to get Job; he was holding Job up as a living example of everything that was good and right in a human being. What did Satan say? "Destroy his wealth and he'll curse you to your face!" So God allowed Satan to reduce Job to poverty, but all Job said was, "Naked I came from my mother's womb, and naked shall I return there. The Lord gave, and the Lord has taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord." Did Satan then say, "Well, God, guess you were right and I was wrong?" No. If you were a poker player, you might say he called and raised: "Touch his bone and his flesh, and he will surely curse you to your face!"


It never ceases to amaze me how people offer up the story of Job as an example of Job's wonderful faith and the failure of Satan to have his way..


It is a horror story about a parent ( God ), abandoning a child to the whims of a sadistic
abuser, and standing by with their hands in their pockets, while waiting to see which
if any atrocious act by the abuser, will cause the child to curse the parent.

This really rubs me the wrong way this morning, because there is a local story about
an 11 year old who has been beaten to death by her parents. I realize the correllation
is not complete in this case, since they didn't farm the job out, but the message is still
the same.

The story of Job is not about faith, it is about child abuse.

[sparklecat]

Eric- go ahead, keep on. I'm enjoying reading and can't use the thread that much anyway.

[sparklecat]

Originally posted by Diogenes
My best advice I have at this time, comes from my sig line...

" I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do.
When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. "- Stephen Roberts

Try to really think about this.. Most believers I encounter seem to brush it off, without really considering the implications in choosing a particular God over all the others..


Do you mean choosing that specific or choosing one over many?

[sparklecat]

Originally posted by WinAce
Yeah, I remember that I argued it was logically impossible for a true omni-god ...

A true omni-god would be logically impossible anyway, so why not have it doing logically impossible things?

[Pyrts]

Originally posted by sparklecat
Oy... well, it may be a few weeks before I can get caught up and really get into posting here. My computer disappeared out of my bag while on a plane (aka someone stole it).

*frowns unhappily* Along with large amounts of papers due for school in the next few weeks.
Eeeew, and double-eew! I'm so sorry to hear that. I had a final last night, and it was no fun. I hope you've filed a claim.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Martin
Some of the most rational, knowledgeable, generally decent human beings I've ever encountered are here, and I've learned a great deal from you, regardless of faith. I'd name names, but I always leave people out. Suffice to say, you know who you are.



Yes I suppose I do. Thanks Martin :p

[sparklecat]

Claim filed... they said they'll get back to me within two weeks. Meanwhile, I have a 20 page paper due in exactly one week.

All believers here... pray! :D

*has to go talk to her professor in about an hour and try to explain the situation and why she won't have her paper done*

Of course, its not backed up either, as I don't have a disk drive in that machine...

[Diogenes]

Originally posted by sparklecat


Do you mean choosing that specific or choosing one over many?


For me, the point is that most people dismiss all other Gods without bothering to investigate them.. This is largely due to cultural exposure.. i.e. If you are born into a Catholic home, you grow up accepting Catholic dogma in the same unquestioning way that you accept other things you are taught. Other Gods and religions are as incomprehensible as dirt floors and life without television.


If you (anyone) have actually explored many other religions and rejected their God(s) based on understanding ( why the other religions, in your opinion are flawed ), then you will understand why I reject yours.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Loki
sparklecat,

Regarding free will, I'll try to post a bit later on a few of possible theist replies.



Is there a problem with the notion of free will that I'm not aware of?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Loki
[B]sparklecat,

A little info on Free Will and christian (well, mostly Catholic) theology...

There are (at least) two main Catholic schools of thought on Free Will,and the interaction with god's knowledge/power/desires. Trying to keep it simple, human Free Will is either :

(a) The result of the choices we make *after* god has set our lives on a given course. God choose this course through the knowledge of what your choices will be. Thus the universe proceeds according to god's plan/desires, yet each of us gets to make a genuine choice in each situation we face in life.

or :

(b) The result of the fact that god knows what our will would do in any given situation (that is, he can see the "potential futures"), and that he then brings about the situations that he desires and in which we make our free choice. The choice is still ours, freely made in the given situation - it's just that god gets to pick the situations he wants after viewing all possible alternatives. Again, the universe proceeds according to god's plan/desires, yet each of us gets to make a genuine choice in each situation we find ourselves in.

The protestants (basically) have a history of rejecting Free Will, although it's not really stated in such terms. God is paramount, and you rise to heaven or fall to hell according to god's desire, not your own actions/will.


All of the above work well enough - probably as well as compatibilism - if you're repared to accept the basic premises.

I think the problem with all of them from a 'traditional' Free Will perspective is that they essentially equate to compatibilism, not to "Libertarian Free Will". Each boils down to the fact that given a situation 'X', a human makes a single choice - if we could repeat situation 'X' completely (100%) then we'd make the same choice. This contradicts Libertarian Free Will completely,



Of course it doesn't :rolleyes: What on earth makes you think that??

[sparklecat]

Diogenes- aye, I have investigated others and was not born into any sort of Christian belief myself. At that, I can even understand at times why you reject God too.

Ian- just free will in the sense that we're free to choose or reject God. The way I see it, we don't have that choice... its dependent upon how God makes us and where he places us in life; thus, Christianity has a problem.

*Does not like Calvinism really, but thinks that Christianity really does have to teach it*

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Diogenes
My best advice I have at this time, comes from my sig line...

[b]" I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do.
When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. "- Stephen Roberts



WOW! How breathtakingly stupid can you get?? :eek: This Roberts guy is less than clueless at what a certain conceptualization of God means. This is the problem. The atheist has the most crass idea of God imaginable. No wonder they are atheists!

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin
(I am a scientist, and know about the complete lack of evidence for a life force or a soul.) [/B]

Apparently not since you're so completely hopelessly wrong.

[Diogenes]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


WOW! How breathtakingly stupid can you get?? :eek: This Roberts guy is less than clueless at what a certain conceptualization of God means. This is the problem. The atheist has the most crass idea of God imaginable. No wonder they are atheists!

How would you know what that idea might be?

[Loki]

Ian

(loki wrote) : if we could repeat situation 'X' completely (100%) then we'd make the same choice. This contradicts Libertarian Free Will completely,

(Ian wrote) : Of course it doesn't What on earth makes you think that??
Perhaps we have different understandings of Libertarian Free Will? Would you agree with something like this :

A person exercises Free Will in a given circumstance with respect to a given action A only if there is a genuine possibility that the person will do A and a genuine possibility that the person will not do A.

If you agree, then explain why there is no contradition. If you disagree, then please offer your definition so I can try to comprehend where you start from on this.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Loki
Ian


Perhaps we have different understandings of Libertarian Free Will? Would you agree with something like this :

A person exercises Free Will in a given circumstance with respect to a given action A only if there is a genuine possibility that the person will do A and a genuine possibility that the person will not do A.

If you agree, then explain why there is no contradition. If you disagree, then please offer your definition so I can try to comprehend where you start from on this.

Yes I agree with that. But as a compatibilist you cannot.

Why should there be a contradiction? Why should one choose to act differently if everything is absolutely the same? You would no more choose differently than historical figures would behave differently if you could go back in time and covertly watch them.

[Loki]

Ian,

I'm confused by your reply.

Yes I agree with that.
Okay, then just to be clear, you agree that Libertarian Free Will *requires* that in a given scenario where you choose "A", there was a genuine possibility you could have chosen "Not A"?

But as a compatibilist you cannot.
Well, of course not! And I don't - I think Libertarian Free Will is irrational.

Why should one choose to act differently if everything is absolutely the same?
But that's my question for you! I believe you won't choose differently - ever. Replay a scenario 1000 times, and get 1,000 identical results. According to the definition of Libertarian Free Will I posted above (that you say you agree with) then in each of the 1,000 repetitions there is a "possibility" that "not-A" will be chosen instead of "A". Why? That's a question that a Libertarian needs to answer. You seem to be ridiculing the idea that on a second, third, or n-th repetition that the choice might change. Sure your're not a closet compatibilist?

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by sparklecat
Diogenes- aye, I have investigated others and was not born into any sort of Christian belief myself. At that, I can even understand at times why you reject God too.

I dont think "rejecting" and "being unable to accept" god(s) are equivelant. For instance, myself, I am simply unable to accept the existence of a deity.

[sparklecat]

Originally posted by Yahweh


I dont think "rejecting" and "being unable to accept" god(s) are equivelant. For instance, myself, I am simply unable to accept the existence of a deity.

I agree about the difference, but Diogenes used "reject." :)

[ehbowen]

Originally posted by uruk

I don't buy the Satan bit either. According to Mythology, god created satan. So if satan rebeled why couldn't god just snap him out of existance, problem solved. Unless god chose to keep him around for some purpose (scapegoat). Then God had his rebelion expected and planned, So satan is a dupped lackey or puppet.


I believe that God didn't "snap Satan out of existence" because God has come to the conclusion that the ultimate evil is to irrecoverably destroy a personality. And so he has designed this universe in such a way as to make that impossible. Satan still exists. The people in Hell still exist. They can, if circumstances change to make it possible, be recovered and rescued. And I believe they will be, at some point in the future.

[triadboy]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
The atheist has the most crass idea of God imaginable. No wonder they are atheists!

I would be very interested in finding out your idea of what 'God' is.

[triadboy]

Originally posted by ehbowen
I believe that God didn't "snap Satan out of existence" because God has come to the conclusion that the ultimate evil is to irrecoverably destroy a personality.

Did Neanderthals have personalities? They're gone.

Satan still exists.

Satan didn't exist in the Jewish religion until around the first century BC. They started associating the serpent in Genesis with Satan. But of course the J author didn't imply that at all. The J serpent was simply one of the 'helpmates' God created for Adam. It just so happens that the serpent was the smoothest talking of all the helpmates.

The people in Hell still exist. They can, if circumstances change to make it possible, be recovered and rescued. And I believe they will be, at some point in the future.

You would have been hanged for that statement a hundred or so years ago. Hell (if you believe in it) is infernal and eternal. I certainly wouldn't want to share my harp-whanging cloud with some recently 'rescued', burnt-up, smelly hell-monkey. Those people should just stay with their own kind.

[Darat]

I often use this as a working definition if someone here uses the word "God":

"Of all the divine attributes, only God's omnipotence is named in the Creed: to confess this power has great bearing on our lives. We believe that his might is universal, for God who created everything also rules everything and can do everything. God's power is loving, for he is our Father, and mysterious, for only faith can discern it when it "is made perfect in weakness".103"

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p3.htm#268

[calladus]

Originally posted by ehbowen
I believe that God didn't "snap Satan out of existence" because God has come to the conclusion that the ultimate evil is to irrecoverably destroy a personality.
Hmm. . . Somehow I just can't bring myself to believe anyone who claims to know the mind of God. (Assuming that such a being exists. )

And so he has designed this universe in such a way as to make that impossible. Satan still exists. The people in Hell still exist. They can, if circumstances change to make it possible, be recovered and rescued. And I believe they will be, at some point in the future.

So Hell is a sort of 'waiting room' like in the movie Beetlejuice? We just wait for our ticket number to be called and we're out? Or is it more like the Betty Ford clinic, where we have to work toward our recovery? You said rescued, like a disaster site? Angels in fire suits with high pressure hoses?

Sorry, I know this is irreverent, but I can't help being amused. Your idea is so much like all of the Science Fiction novels I've read about Hell. Larry Niven, Jerry Pournel; "Inferno", "Heros in Hell" to name a couple books and authors.

The problem that I see here is that nothing you say is Christian, it isn't any religion I've ever heard of. As far as I can tell it is nothing but your own made up religious ideas. There is no basis for traditional writing here except that the main characters have the same names.

I have no problem with people making up their own religions - it won't make them any more credible to me than any other religion. Just do me a favor and don't re-invent the E-Meter.

edited to add:
I just realized the problem I have with your religious theory - there is no way to test its validity. Puts it right up there with all the other religions in the world I guess.

[the_ignored]

Martinm "mocks god"-->scott free

Sparklecat "defends" him-->gets a warning.

I defend Sparklecat-->banned.

WT??!!:confused: :rs:

[sparklecat]

I saw that :(

*hugs the_ignored* Thanks for defending me though :)

Justine

[plindboe]

I love that avatar of yours Justine. So cute! :D

Welcome aboard. I hope you will enjoy it here, and stay a while.

*Sneezes* (Allergic to cats)

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

Hi Sparklecat!:th:

[sparklecat]

Hey plindboe, thanks. :) Martin found it for me actually.


Hey Lucifuge! :D

[Loki]

Lucifuge,

Hey, good to see you again. Where have you been? Or have I simply been looking in the wrong threads ?

[Fun2BFree]

sparklecat-

Welcome and good luck. I think the key statement in your posts is that you WANT something to be true...that is a very hard thing to ignore and prevent from influencing your interpretation of things..poor ebowen or whatever eric calls himself has done so many twists and logical backflips that his philosophy is more twisted than a supercoiled DNA string --all to make sure that the worldview fits into what he WANTS to believe --that the Bible is the answer...anything that does not fit the Bible is wrong...the Bible cannot be wrong by definition--that is not an approach based on evidence it is based on faith in the Bible being right...Ian and others will then try solipsistic arguemnts ath believing anything is real is an act of faith but it is not true and don't fall for their nonsense...one need only assume things are true and then test the evidence against them ---so far the idea that the world is real and not a dream someone is having fits all the evidence best..for now it is far to accept that---

I did not understand your claims about cosmology disproving atheism or whatever...maybe you could expand on that...I have never any convincing evidence to the contrary...finally I would encourage you to look at this
OPTICAL ILLUSION (http://www-bcs.mit.edu/people/adelson/checkershadow_illusion.html)

It was posted by Randi last year and shows that no matter what we think we see and know we see sometimes our hard wiring and the way we see things is just wrong no matter what -to see things clearly you have to eliminate the biases and noise and distractions that fool you into thinking that you see what you think you see..in other words--your experiences that convinced you that God was somehow acting in your life are just as likely (I would say more than likely) you seeing things to fit into a certain way not what an independent observer would conclude given the same circumstances....

the scientific method pretty much says that our observations and interpretations on our own stink--they can only be trusted insofar as they would be seen and concluded to be the exact same by lots of others who would not have our own biases coloring the perception...If the Bible and all knowledge of it were wiped from the planet would we come to the same conclusions in it? I am confident that the conclusions of science would come out the same everytime...as for whether we would make women second-class citizens and all the rest of the garbage in the MAN made Bible if we started over---I see no evidence to suggest we would come to the same ideas.

Cheers

[Diogenes]

Fun2BFree,
Some good stuff you just said..

I don't know how original it is, but your philosophy of " throw it all out, and see if the same conclusions can be reached without it.. " ( whatever " it " may be ... ) seems to be a very sound one.

It reminds me of the suggestion; that the foundations of quantum physics could be refuted without the need for physicists to find a new line of work; whereas the revelation, that the core beliefs of " -- insert brand of religion here -- " are unfounded, would send many scurrying for the unemployment lines...

[sparklecat]

Originally posted by Fun2BFree
Welcome and good luck. I think the key statement in your posts is that you WANT something to be true...that is a very hard thing to ignore and prevent from influencing your interpretation of things..poor ebowen or whatever eric calls himself has done so many twists and logical backflips that his philosophy is more twisted than a supercoiled DNA string --all to make sure that the worldview fits into what he WANTS to believe --that the Bible is the answer...anything that does not fit the Bible is wrong...the Bible cannot be wrong by definition--that is not an approach based on evidence it is based on faith in the Bible being right...

I did not understand your claims about cosmology disproving atheism or whatever...maybe you could expand on that...I have never any convincing evidence to the contrary...

your experiences that convinced you that God was somehow acting in your life are just as likely (I would say more than likely) you seeing things to fit into a certain way not what an independent observer would conclude given the same circumstances....

If the Bible and all knowledge of it were wiped from the planet would we come to the same conclusions in it? I am confident that the conclusions of science would come out the same everytime...

First, thank you :)

Yes, I want Christianity to be true, but I won't twist the evidence to make it be. Mainly because I would know I was doing so and not be able to live with myself for it. But I certainly don't think the Bible completely true... I'm very much against the inspired/infallible position.

Cosmological argument and atheism- the whole "there must be a first uncaused cause" thing.

Hmm... well, after becoming a Christian, I had people notice a difference about me before they knew that I had converted. So in that at least I wasn't the only one.

By definition (assuming the Bible is inspired or whatever), no we wouldn't come to the same conclusions- its a revelation. Moral principles, certainly, perhaps even some knowledge about God. And yes, science would come out the same.

[c4ts]

At some point I think our universe had a first cause. This would have to be an acasual event. If something caused it, then it couldn't be a first cause.

[calladus]

Originally posted by sparklecat
Hmm... well, after becoming a Christian, I had people notice a difference about me before they knew that I had converted. So in that at least I wasn't the only one.

I would suggest that people would also have noticed a difference if you had instead taken a class in philosophy and ethics, and decided to concentrate in acting in a cheerful, polite, and moral manner.

Atheists that act in this way get astonished responses when they tell Christians about what they believe in.

"You're not an Atheist! You're too NICE!" (or something like that.)

[sparklecat]

Originally posted by calladus


I would suggest that people would also have noticed a difference if you had instead taken a class in philosophy and ethics, and decided to concentrate in acting in a cheerful, polite, and moral manner.

Atheists that act in this way get astonished responses when they tell Christians about what they believe in.

"You're not an Atheist! You're too NICE!" (or something like that.)

I would agree if it wasn't quite such a rapid change and if there had been much effort on my part in controlling my temper and such.

But who knows, not something I can go back and try :)

[calladus]

Originally posted by sparklecat


I would agree if it wasn't quite such a rapid change and if there had been much effort on my part in controlling my temper and such.

But who knows, not something I can go back and try :)

The threat of punishment, or the promise of a reward is a strong motivator. So is the loving interest of a parent figure.

The motivation is there if a person believes in the threat or reward, whether or not there actually is a threat or reward.

Feelings are real. Feeling loved by God is a real feeling that can be created if you can be convinced to believe you are loved by God.

Convincing becomes a LOT harder once you begin to question the basic premise.

[sparklecat]

Hmm, I'd agree. But its also possible to believe it and not feel it.

Course, the whole 'feeling loved' thing by anyone is just... a feeling. :)

[Fun2BFree]

So many things-

the cosmological argument as proof of God really fails with very little scratching of the surface--So if there had to be a first uncaused cause--why can't the Universe just be an uncaused thing in it's entirety? at some point you accept the existence of an uncaused first cause otherwise it becomes a series of "okay, what caused God?" Since there is no significant evidence that a God or Gods exist I would rather just stick with the essentially proven things like the Universe does exist now and I can live with it being the one thing that has always existed (or you can take the Ian approach and say none of it ever existed....)

more to folllow....will add later by editing (done)

now where was I...

God pretty much becomes the answer for questions when the answer is actually "I don't know" It's God's ways that are unknowable to us but we are to take comfort that it IS God's will, or whatever..well as Ayn Rand has written (I mention her to give credit for the words not to cite her as an authority on anything) Taking ignorance and giving it a name, God, does not turn it into knowledge...it is still ignorance...

What the God belief does for some is not much different than what talisman do for some people... the little leaguer who pitches better with his rabbit's foot in his pocket...nobody would seriously claim the rabbit's foot ahs any power whatsoever over the actual physical world BUT the belief that it does allows the pitcher to perform to his best...but ultimately that power comes from within the person...and I think the same can be said for the beneficial things that God cops the credit for...the power is not coming from Casper the Mighty Ghost in the sky but from us...and the reason not to just say- oh even if that is true why mess around if it works is that it does not work as well as it should...just the same as if someone said they took a bark of a tree that made them stronger we would not just take it--we would study WHICH part of the bark is having the effect...how does it work? Can we do it better? Especially if something has some unpleasant common side effects like people flying airplanes into buildings and killing thousands because their beliefs made them feel better about themselves and their lives....and don't think for a minute that destructive behaviors are limited to Islamic zealots, please--it is a common side effect of a thought process that subordinates the primacy of REASON...that we are even exchanging ideas and arguments shows that you do accept Reason as the highest value--that faith is not enough---you talk about not completely believing the Bible as infallible--so what do you use to weed out the good from the bad? The same thing an atheist uses everyday--what Dr Seuss might call your Thinkthunkerer--it is the best thing we have going for us--the more we use it and the less we rely on our own unproveable, untestable faith based beliefs the better off we all will be--that is a testable hypothesis...getting into Heaven and and God's good graces or going to hell is not testable -so it is not worth discussing.

[calladus]

Originally posted by sparklecat
Hmm, I'd agree. But its also possible to believe it and not feel it.

True. But it doesn't negate what I pointed out. It is possible to believe you are loved by a fictional character. It is possible to 'feel' that love.

Humans are animals that tell stories. We live vicariously though the lives of fictional characters. That's why books, movies and television are so popular - because we can so easily suspend our disbelief and get caught up in the emotion.

Is it any wonder that some people tend to blur the line between fiction and reality, and borrow a very old story to get caught up in? Fans often feel that the character on the screen or the character in a book is speaking directly to THEM. It just isn't socially acceptable to believe that Harry Potter or Huckleberry Finn are real people.

But give the public a story, and convince them that it is socially acceptable to believe in the premise of this interesting, and often beautiful story. Then is is not surprising that people feel like the characters of the story care about THEM. For a time, disbelief is suspended, and love is felt.

[frisian]

Originally posted by the_ignored
Martinm "mocks god"-->scott free

Sparklecat "defends" him-->gets a warning.

I defend Sparklecat-->banned.

WT??!!:confused: :rs:


?

I didn't even get warned.

:p

and who are you?

[frisian]

Originally posted by Lucifuge Rofocale
Hi Sparklecat!:th:

Lucifuge... greetings.

[sparklecat]

Fine fris, don't say hi to me on MY thread :p

Maybe if Neoplato gets warned for defending Buddy, you can defend him and get banned?

[frisian]

Originally posted by sparklecat
Fine fris, don't say hi to me on MY thread :p

Maybe if Neoplato gets warned for defending Buddy, you can defend him and get banned?

Well hi there young lady.

Ha.

Perhaps I am a secret mod there. A sheep in wolves clothing?

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

Originally posted by Loki
Lucifuge,

Hey, good to see you again. Where have you been? Or have I simply been looking in the wrong threads ?

Hello Loki...I always see you all....but I have to refrain to post. It became an addiction to me....and I have lots of stuff to do.


Best regards

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

Originally posted by frisian


Lucifuge... greetings.


Hi Fris!

Welcome to the Randiture Ready Forums :D

Regards

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by Martin
She's smart, honest and willing to learn,

Screw that!!! What does she look like? :D

[Mr Clingford]

Originally posted by calladus


True. But it doesn't negate what I pointed out. It is possible to believe you are loved by a fictional character. It is possible to 'feel' that love.

Humans are animals that tell stories. We live vicariously though the lives of fictional characters. That's why books, movies and television are so popular - because we can so easily suspend our disbelief and get caught up in the emotion.

Is it any wonder that some people tend to blur the line between fiction and reality, and borrow a very old story to get caught up in? Fans often feel that the character on the screen or the character in a book is speaking directly to THEM. It just isn't socially acceptable to believe that Harry Potter or Huckleberry Finn are real people.

But give the public a story, and convince them that it is socially acceptable to believe in the premise of this interesting, and often beautiful story. Then is is not surprising that people feel like the characters of the story care about THEM. For a time, disbelief is suspended, and love is felt. The thing is, calladus, what you are describing does not fit what I have experienced. To the best of my knowledge and self-honesty I have not been deluding myself. It is not just the love of God that I have felt but also his 'presence'. My experience of God is far removed from any childish engagement with a film character, which behaviour I did not indulge in as a child either.

The above is written because I consider your explanation to be unsatisfactory.

[Garrette]

Mr. Clingford:

The thing is, calladus, what you are describing does not fit what I have experienced. To the best of my knowledge and self-honesty I have not been deluding myself. It is not just the love of God that I have felt but also his 'presence'. My experience of God is far removed from any childish engagement with a film character, which behaviour I did not indulge in as a child either.


I know this wasn't directed at me, but I'm nosy.

I have several christian friends who have had a 'god experience.' Some were spoken to by god, others had a prayer answered, others felt his presence as you say.

There are at least two questions/problems:

1) Most are not of the same christian sect, and none of them can tell me anything specific about the god.

2) I have other non-christian friends who claim also to have had a god experience. One is jewish. Three are islamic. All are as credible as my christian friends.

How do you know your experience really was one of god?

What of other christians whose beliefs do not match yours but have had similar experiences?

What of non-christians with similar experiences?

They (at least the non-christians) will say either that your experience was not actually of god or it was of god but not the one you belief it be of.

Whom to believe?

If you respond that it's an act of faith, then you have given no answer at all. The others are exhibiting an act of faith and reached differing conclusions from you.

Must we accept that honest faith can lead to incorrect conclusions?

[Mr Clingford]

Originally posted by Garrette
How do you know your experience really was one of god?

What of other christians whose beliefs do not match yours but have had similar experiences?

What of non-christians with similar experiences?

They (at least the non-christians) will say either that your experience was not actually of god or it was of god but not the one you belief it be of.

Whom to believe?

If you respond that it's an act of faith, then you have given no answer at all. The others are exhibiting an act of faith and reached differing conclusions from you.

Must we accept that honest faith can lead to incorrect conclusions? Thanks for the civil reply - at times a rarity here. I said that I did not know it was of God, but that God was the least implausible possibilty. I am puzzled/amuzed at your differentiating between different types of Xtians! Perhaps non-Xtians experience God too. I'm not sure what you mean by honest faith, but everyone is human and therefore able to be wrong.

Edited to add that perhaps I have been deceived by some other entity - that is a possibilty, but to me not as plausible as the God hypothesis

[Loki]

Mr Clingford,

I am puzzled/amuzed at your differentiating between different types of Xtians!
VERY important! I had a conversation with a Pentecostal christian 3 years a go who said something similar to yourself - after years of being "without faith", simply attending his family's church out of duty/boredom, he has "experienced god" at a Pentecostal sermon, and was 'changed'. The significance is that he is utterly, 100% convinced (and quite strident in putting this forward) that 99.9% of peole who call themselves christians are NOT. He believes that only a few million people on all the earth will be called up during the rapture. His reason for being so utterly sure of this *fact*? His personal experience of god.

I have no doubt if you were to talk to him, he'd explain why you *aren't* actually a christian (despite your experience) and he'd put considerable pressure on you to conform to his set of rules.

Edited to add that perhaps I have been deceived by some other entity...
I think the option being put to you is that you've experienced a very common "cross-culture/cross-religion/cross-genre" behaviour, and are attributing it to 'god' when it's probably just human nature. I hear similar "life changing" experiences from UFO devotees and New Age mystics as well. I don't doubt that people have "an experience" and undergo "profound change", but the cause is highly subjective it would seem.

[Mr Clingford]

Loki,He believes that only a few million people on all the earth will be called up during the rapture. His reason for being so utterly sure of this *fact*? His personal experience of god. I do not claim to know who is a Xtian and who isn't or who will 'go to heaven' or who won't, which are 2 different questions for me.I think the option being put to you is that you've experienced a very common "cross-culture/cross-religion/cross-genre" behaviour, and are attributing it to 'god' when it's probably just human nature. I hear similar "life changing" experiences from UFO devotees and New Age mystics as well. I don't doubt that people have "an experience" and undergo "profound change", but the cause is highly subjective it would seem. My understanding of God is very vague and how he might relate to the world even more so. I think that human experiences can be very complicated matters. But knowing myself to some extent and reflecting on my experiences which have extended beyond an initial conversion experience, the God hypothesis holds more water

[Garrette]

Mr. Clingford:

Thanks for the civil reply