Changing beliefs

I'm not asking you to tell me why God doesn't exist. I'm asking you to explain why I ought to realize that God doesn't exist? Especially since I already realize that He does exist.

Nihilism, in the sense I was using it in, is the belief that nothing can be known or communicated--an extreme form of skepticism.

 

That's the thing though, knowing what we know, it would be irrational to believe there are people in the TV. We are not ignorant on the matter like someone living 1500 years ago would be. So for anyone knowing about TV, it would be irrational to believe this.

Likewise with God, for which the main evidence is just an old book. Just like with fairy tales, by the way. I can't make myself believe in the God Christians say I'm "supposed" to; it doesn't ring true to me, and thus I don't believe. The point here is that we can't force ourselves to believe. I have a pretty good understanding of Christianity, so that's not a problem. I know the tales, but I just can't accept them as anything more than that. Why should I be sent to hell because my GOD GIVEN (according to Christians) human nature won't allow me to will my beliefs to change? How can belief be the qualification for salvation if that is not something we have power over?

Good point, but it was just an example to show that you cannot will yourself to believe something you find untrue. I assumed most people don't really believe in leprechauns, the easter bunny, etc so they seemed like good examples to use.

Then why is it the qualifier for entry to heaven? Why must one believe in Jesus as the only son of god and the savior of humanity in order to be saved?

 

Then you see my point. If you don't know that much about Christainity, or worst, if most of what you know is misguided--if you are "ignorant on the matter"--than you'll only draw invalid conclusions (like our little fellow who believes that little men are inside a TV). So again, perhaps your stumbling block is that you know very little about Christainity.

Yes, we Christians believe that the Bible is God's revelation to mankind. At anyrate, I don't see how this book being old has anything to do with anything. If you have a specific argument against the Bible as evidence, than post it.

What's just like fairy tales? The Bible? If this is what you mean to say, than you have very little knowledge of the Bible or literature. And if you're making an simple error like that, than how can I trust what you have to say about other matters, like your whole 'belief in Christianity is irrational' bit?

Does this mean I can dismiss your post because it doesn't ring truth to me? Does this mean I dismiss certain laws because they don't ring to true to me? What does something ringing true have to do with it really being true or not.

Agreed

Oh?

There's much more to Christianity than tales.

Because you haven't accepted Christ.

Mere belief is not the qualification for salvation. Haven't you read James?

First of all, as mentioned above, it's not mere belief, but faith. Second, if you know Christianity, than you should already know the answer to your question. ...and third (since I know this will be your next question) if you know Christianity, than you should know the difference between mere belief, and a saving faith.

 

If you don't want anything to do with God, then why do you care about not entering into Heaven? If the whole point of Heaven is to be with the Lord for eternity, then what does it matter if it takes knowing him to qualify? You wouldn't invite me into your home if I didn't know you and I wanted nothing to do with you right? If one does not know God, and wants nothing to do with him, why do they wish to enter Heaven, being his home? Of course, everyone should want to enter Heaven, but why question getting into a place where the Lord is, when one wants nothing to do with him?

 

Ok, I was raised christian and went to catholic school, and have read quite a bit on my own. Anyways, it's not all the complicated: people tell me my beliefs are wrong because I don't accept Jesus, so I'm going to hell (they back it up with Bible quotes too). Yes, I understand that in your religion there is more to it than mere belief, good works goes into it too, living your faith and all that. But whatever ELSE you have to do/have, you have to at least have faith. This is the point I'm talking about, and you all seem to be trying to avoid that by implying I'm ignorant on the issue or whatever.

Oh, and when I say it's like fairy tales, I just meant it's similar in that neither are provable, really. You either believe or you don't. The Bible can't be proven, it's meant to be taken on faith, I'm told that's sort of the point.

Why would I accept Christ if I don't believe it's true? You don't make any sense. I've been repeating myself endlessly on this thread, you'd think people would at least understand my point.

I don't believe in Christ. I can't will myself to believe in Christ. So, as a solution, you say I can make myself believe in Christ by accepting Christ. That makes ZERO sense. It's a sort of catch 22, I can't believe in Christ till I accept him, but I can't accept him because I don't believe it.

Don't you see how (if it were true that one is saved by faith alone) God turns salvation into a crap shoot? Once you hear about Jesus, if you accept it as truth, you win! But if you're one of the many who say "neat story but is this the ONLY truth, the ONLY way? I don't know if I can buy that, and the story seems a bit far fetched anywas" then you're screwed. You can't sit down and go "damn, what if those Christians are right? I better make myself believe their story so I don't have to worry about hell" and end up believing. It can't be done.

By the way, Epiphany, it's not that I don't want to know God. I follow my own path and am happy with it. I'm arguing against this elitist, exclusionary idea most Christians (as well as many other faiths, mainly monotheists) have that goes "my way or the highway". I also would never make God so small as to only accept those who believe in him, and send the rest to an eternal torment, even those who lived good lives.

 

i've always said something similar to this. i know there are texts in the bible that say you will be judged by the bible if you have been exposed to it, but that's just ridiculous to me. if you were raised buddhist your entire life, then someone showed you the bible when you were 80, you're expected to drop everything you heard before that and believe the bible. that is completely unreasonable, and i, for one, don't believe in that kind of god.

 

You can give without loving, but you can't love without giving.


Jesus couldn't slam the pearly gates in the face a warmly smiling, humbly bowing, sincere 80 year old Tibetan Buddist monk without a corrupt cell in his body. ' Especially having studied there in his 20's. '
And even if Campbell or JD4U say he would do so, I am pretty sure I still won't believe that The Lamb of God is going to.

 

Now this is the big objection I always see to Christianity. "How could Christ be the only the way?" "Why should I go to Hell because I don't follow your one religion?" "How could Christians be so arrogant as to claim that they alone are the possessors of Truth?" But this is about as far as the objection ever gets, and in turn, it reveals itself not really to be an objection at all, but a protest-a mere complaint, and nothing more. So perhaps you can see my frustration when I see this over and over again. So we claim Christianity is the only way. So what? Am I supposed to realize the futility of my ways whenever someone utters how disappointed he is in my view? How stupid and intolerant he thinks I sound when I claim that Christ in the only way? Now it wouldn't be a problem if the protest ended there, but it doesn't. Many seem to think that this objection is actually a valid reason for not accepting Christianity, and even expect the Christian to respond with a response that the objector finds pleasing. Well, I would respond if the objection actually had some substance to it. But it doesn't. You're only stating one particular doctrine of Christianity and nothing else. Like stating "well you believe the sky is blue!" Well, so what? Who cares? How about formulating this protest into an actual problem. Is it a contradiction? Does it violate some law of thinking? Let's face it, it's entirely possible for Christ to be the only way, and merely stating that someone believes this doesn't change this.

What have I avoided? In my last post I even said, "First of all, as mentioned above, it's not mere belief, but faith." Yes I agree you have to have faith, but faith is not mere belief. Perhaps you only think I/we am/are avoiding the matter, because you confuse mere belief with faith.

I don't believe anything can be proven 100% since proof is always person relative. But this places the Bible nowhere near a fairy tale. There are many evidences of the truthfulness of the bible. Have you studied the varies methods of literary criticism? What about the historicity of the Bible? What about philosophical proofs? What about archaeological evidences. A fairy tale has nothing like this, and is simply a known fictional story. How much homework have you actually done on Christianity?

Ok, but you didn't ask why you should accept Christ, you asked "Why should I be sent to hell" And my reply was "Because you haven't accepted Christ." Simple question, simple answer.

When did I say this? I did say:

And my repeated diagnoses of your problem has been a lack of understanding of Christianity on your part.

Well at this point, any serious seeker of the truth would continue deeper into the matter. Perhaps reading more about it, studying it, talking about it. One who simply says, "Ah neat story, but I don't buy it because I currently possess enough knowledge to come to the right conclusion in the matter" is a bit arrogant in his approach, and probably a bit too comfortable in his ways.

No, but have I ever suggested that one should? Has any Christian ever suggested this? If you "can't" believe, than there's a reason for it. Examine your views, and the views of others critically; don't take the lazy way out and say, "Ah well, it's hopeless. I don't believe it now, so I shouldn't bother researching it, since the problem isn't with me" I mean, God forbid YOU actually missed something crucial in your reasoning!

 

Heres the problem:
Christianity claims to be the only way, just like multitudes of other 'religions'. Christianity is completely ununique in this sense, and it is granted no exception, because we look at the big picture first, and see that your closemindedness comes a dime a dozen.

 

Christ being the only way, yes, but Christianity in modern form holds little truth.

 

But do you see my point? This "objection" is offered in absence of any real argument. I mean merely pointing out that Christianity claims to be the only way doesn't make it a false claim. It doesn't make it true either. In fact, it doesn't say anything at all about the truth or falsehood of Christian claims! The objection is altogether uninterested in whether or not Christianity is true, its only concern is for tolorence (whatever that means), or perhaps for pointing out the obvious, as if merely doing so reveals some inherent flaw in Christianity. And likewise, pointing out that other religions also claim to be the only way, says nothing about the truth or falsehood of any beliefs.

Besides the whole bit is self-defeating. I could point out that, generally speaking, your belief system also claims to be the only way. For example, if one says that there is only one way, I'm sure you will object since it is your belief that no one system has a monopoly on the truth. But in reality, to say that there are multiple "ways" and that any system that claims a monopoly on "the way" is false, is a system in itself. A system of inclusivism; a system that claims a monopoly on the truth, a system that rejects any opposing viewpoints. This cannot be escaped since all truth is by nature exclusive. Your view point just may not seem as 'bad' since it's not as narrow as Christianity, but in the end it's still a view point that claims a monopoly on the truth.

 

Jatom,
You seem to think that all beliefs can (and must?) be known in terms of their 'truth' or 'falsehood'.

Consider this: Humans are incapable with our feeble minds, of clutching the ultimate truth of the universe. We are stuck in this realm of opposites, with the 'knowledge of good and evil'. We simply cannot properly comprehend that which is beyond our minds. The transcendent is far too great for us to grasp at any one time.
What ALL religions offer, then, is suggestion.
Suggestions of the same thing: God as the ultimate mystery of being that is beyond thinking. The human psyche is essentially the same all over the world. We have the same inward experiences of the human body, with the same organs, the same instincts, the same impulses, the same conflicts, the same fears. And out of this common ground we have the concept of God.
But how, then, are we to share with each other our impressions and experiences with something that is beyond the containment of thought? We use metaphor. We formulate myths. Did the human race really begin in a perfect garden where a snake tempted mankind into the knowledge of good and evil; or is this just a metaphor, a way of expressing in understandable terms the same thing that I am attempting to express: that the human plot is our inability to understand the source; eternity?
The biggest barrier between religions, then, are these metaphors, which people of ALL religions tend to interpret literally. This is a human condition. And another thing we do is blend religion with politics, so that we put ourselves that much more in disagreement with those who have developed styles of living that are not our own. But we are not to lose hope, because we have now reached a time where once completely separate cultures and ideologies are being integrated, and to us a deeper realization is thereby revealed, a knowledge not so reached through isolation- that we are all one.

 

Not really. If one is telling me God judges me based on my belief in this 'only way' and will send me to hell if I don't hold said belief (thus making belief the main qualifier for salvation), well, that's garbage. What one believes is not in their power, and a God of love would not use something that we have no control over as a qualification for heaven.

Christians claim God loves everyone, but leaves the choice up to us whether to be saved or not. Well, the choice isn't up to us; we can't choose our beliefs. So your loving god set the rules against us and turned salvation into a crap shoot. That's a contradiction in my book.

 

Well, on what basis should one believe something? Because it's convenient for him to do so? Because he likes the outcome? Because it makes him feel warm and fuzzy?

And how would you know this? If the "ultimate truth" really was unknowable, then you could not know it was unknowable since to say that would be to communicate something about the nature of the "ultimate truth". But if ultimate truth is unknowable, than to say what you've said above would be a contradiction.

Again, you keep labeling things as unknowable, then you proceed to tell us about these things which are unknowable. If the transcendent were too great for us to grasp, than you could not know it was since to know that would mean you've grasped something about the nature of "the transcendent."

Is it 'suggestion' then that all religions offer suggestion? What about " Humans are incapable with our feeble minds, of clutching the ultimate truth of the universe"? Or how about: "We are stuck in this realm of opposites, with the 'knowledge of good and evi"? Or: "The transcendent is far too great for us to grasp at any one time"?

I don't believe this since to do so would be self-defeating.

That's all fine and dandy, but I could just as easily assert something different.

You seem to be suggesting that since knowledge of God, and perhaps ultimate reality, can't be understood univocally all things in the bible(?) must be a metaphor. But this leap is unwarrented since knowledge about God can be known analogically without use of a metaphor.

 

In order for one to believe, they must first experience. Never knowing who he is, and not experiencing his power, will always result in unbelief. Many people accuse Christians of blind faith, but unless there was something tangible, no one would believe. I was raised in a religious home, so I always knew he was there. Yet, I didn't feel a complete connection with him until I experienced him. I do not mean standing there and tempting him to perform miraculous wonders.

 

Personal experience is one of the strongest evidences.

 

The point to get across is that 'truth' and 'falsehood' do not pertain to religious beliefs, because there is no way to verify either. And all assertions have their counterpart, i.e.- Christian believes he has the truth and Islam is false, Muslim believes he has the truth and Christianity is false.

The ultimate truth is God. Can you, Jatom, think God's thoughts? Of course not. But can you still believe that God exists? Sure. Why? Because you feel God. Can you comprehend eternity? Not with a brain. Does that mean that eternity does not exist and that it is 'self-defeating' to even bring it up?
Human beings have always been seeking inner fulfilment, and material satisfaction is always fleeting. The absence of atonement (at-one-ment) leads us to believe that there is something more. Something beyond. Something bigger than us. We cannot 'think the same thoughts' as this thing, but we can feel it, and we hint at it with words and concepts, because we want to express this 'thing' that touches us so deeply (you call it 'Jesus').
My feeling of God and your feeling of God are one in the same, we simply have different means of quanitifying and communicating this. It really is a shame that we should not be able to share such a beautiful and important part of existing with each other.

Yes, I am saying that ALL religions and ALL human definitions of God are metaphor since God is an experience.
When you commune with God, does information race through your mind as you become overwhelmed by thought? Likely the opposite happens; you feel tremendous emotion and experience a deep peace within. God manifests as an experience, not as facts and data. Perhaps you associate 'facts' with God. Indeed this is the function of religion. This is religion. But these 'facts' merely suggest the experience. Religions offer differing 'facts', but the experience is the same. No set of 'facts' has a monopoly on the experience of God. This demonstrates it all.

Please elaborate.

 

To be honest, at times, it does. When I feel his Holy Spirit working through me, giving me a messsage, I have to start writing just to gather it all. There have been instances when others have been woken up from a deep sleep with a message from God. They must turn the light on and find paper.

 

There are times when we are struck with profound realization through communion with God, I definitely agree. But could we also agree that it is more usual of the experience to leave simply feeling humbled and heart-filled?

 

If you are filled with his Spirit, there are more times you should leave with profound realization than just a warm and fuzzy feeling.