I can't imagine questioning my faith every moment. I can't imagine living like that. It would be torture. My faith in God....isn't about me. God is worthy. He is also able to show us when we err. I hope we get past the point of questioning who Jesus is and to the point of trusting who He is.......there is rest and peace in that. That is not to say we don't at times wrestle with our faith or examine if we are on the right path. I believe those times can actually be orchestrated by God to help us grow in faith. It is possible to grieve the Holy Spirit by sin in our lives....if there are questions or issues then examination, confession and restoration is possible. Even the Apostles knew to distinguish when they were "In the spirit" and not every word they spoke was inspired by God.....I bet they even had bad days. If we don't have His witness within us then I can see how we would be questioning every moment. If it all hangs on our ability to believe we are in some deep trouble.
None of that is what the initial post was about......it was an assumption that believers either won't , don't, or are unable to reasonably and intellectually question why they believe what they do about God.
Speaking of related doctrinal discussions, Socrates and philosophical attributions to that sweet ol' owl Soc's, Soren Kierkegaard's "Philosophical Fragments" comes to mind, specifically on the area of projecting one's own reality on others and also reality based thinking as compared to abstract thinking. (one feels doubt, they see more doubt, one feels faith, sees more...hmm, not sure what Loftus would say to that one)
Some of SK's views resonate with me (and I see some strains of thought with the later Henri Bergson, who I enjoy immensely) and his idea that objectivity may not be the correct or only way to evaluate matters of "faith", and the essential components of the spiritual. As in the scientific method of examination, testing, peeling layer after layer to see the internal workings of a thing, that which is "spiritual" may not best reveal itself that way but require a subjective experience and internal view of that which is not specifically rendered externally. SK's way of working is valid IMO, and need not altogether deny either side's approach.
I'm sure Loftus knows all that being the expert he is so I find it interesting that he eliminates that line of thinking. SK was a proponent of the Socratic method, but then Loftus loves to twist Socrates and appears to have it all mixed up into his own " I'mRight " stew. (love not too strong an adjective given that he misquotes Socrates and then says of it that "every educated person" would know what he's misquoted.....uhhh - that's got some love in it alright, some care and feeding, he's been petting that thought for awhile and you can tell just reading it that he likes it. A lot. )......
Back to the topic at hand, supporting a writer who notes that the faith of others probably indicates unfixable needs to have social approval and aren't as intelligent as their atheist counterparts, a nefarious and dastardly position as any I'd daresay except to those who think it's okay.......Yeah, that's cool, so cool. How's that - better?
Any time you'd actually like to "debate" anything Roy, such as the items you posted earlier, please do. If what you want is to post something and get "0" responses or a lot of one-hand clapping, that's fine too. Otherwise continue to make general sweeping statements about what everyone else thinks and should do and whine about everyone else's pride.
Socks Says "actually like to "debate" anything Roy, such as the items you posted earlier, please do. If what you want is to post something and get "0" responses or a lot of one-hand clapping, that's fine too. Otherwise continue to make general sweeping statements about what everyone else thinks and should do and whine about everyone else's pride. " I never said I wanted to debate with anybody I just share this
geisha779 Says "I can't imagine questioning my faith every moment. I can't imagine living like that. It would be torture. My faith in God....isn't about me." you do not have to but Me and Kit Sober may if ok with you - than geisha779 Says "None of that is what the initial post was about." can she not read the Title is "Ten Reasons Why Most Believers Don't Seriously Question Their Faith"
look this one man reason out of why but I never said it was mine and I not going to
Put on the perfect will of God doing God will from your heart do not get caught in religion pride which does you no good. Be willing to debate anything letting nothing mold you with false religion, which is not right. I am going to end now but thank you all with love of God and a holy kiss from Roy.
It sure seemed like you expected something.
Everybody struggles for Kristssake Roy. I prefer not to focus on it and wear it like a hat. Life is a struggle period.
All men are sinners, all fall short, everybody struggles.
God made a way where the was no way - a way to transcend and redeem.
With Christ all can be redeemed, everybody gets paid, it's Christmas for all.
Loftus is putting coal in everybody's stocking when he tries to make Christians out to be basically deluded losers - and that's the tone of what he wrote, when I read it as well as others. I shared that article with another - they felt similar to me, very much the same way.
But the human capacity for faith is universal and the case can be made that without it we wouldn't be able to function at all. ( and I tried with two examples I gave earlier )
Everyone has faith and everyone - and I think this can be proven fairly easily - imagines and relies on outcomes and events that they can not physically and personally guarantee - that requires a trust and faith on their parts.
Loftus (and of course many others) simply don't choose (and faith is a choice) to have towards God.
I don't care. And most of the time nobody cares how or what my beliefs are. However when an authority figure such as he puts forth so strongly on such a vital topic - it warrants at least a nod.
I meant the perfect will of God nothing other than the will of God otherwise not what a person one person says I will put on love for truth the best I can but this my take not bro Loftus view
where your love for your enemy do you know who is your enemy
your enemy is socks and mine is Roy
do you think you can make another believe God's will all we can do is point them in right direction
we battle against ourself our inner self our temple of truth
your believes are not in a vain book called the bible your believes in your heart where the truth lives for you
his view is what I share to open this talk with you
the perfect will God was what I heard from God
in my inner self the seed of Christ inside my spirit
with love and a holy kiss Roy
added to this
God first
thanks David or Star and Morbius and Jezebel and tommii and Magi728
David one be conceive in Christ a new creature
we all sin and short of God's glory should show you
Romans 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
1John.1
[1] That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;
[2] (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;)
[3] That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.
[4] And these things write we unto you, that your joy may be full.
[5] This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.
[6] If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth:
[7] But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.
[8] If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
[9] If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
[10] If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.
we sin the flesh but our spirit stays pure
Joh 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again [from above, spiritually], he cannot see the kingdom of God.
do you know what is to born spiritually
born again = conceive again
Jesus Christ put his image in us
A man puts his image in a woman by making love to her
Christ planted his seed in us by sharing God's love with
in the seed you can not sin but we still in body form
I used to think like Star I was proud I believe I could not wrong
but I did again and again over and over
then I saw the word for Born again was better translated conceive from above
#1080.
γεννα´ω
gennaō; from γε´ννα genna (descent, birth); to beget, to bring forth:—
NASB - bear(1), bearing children(1), became the father of(4), became...father(1), begotten(4), bore(1), born(41), Child(1), conceived(1), father(37), Father(1), gave(1), gives birth(1), produce(1)
Ever seen that old movie with John Candy, Daryl Hannah and Tom Hanks called Splash? There is a scene in it that shows John Candy as a young boy. He drops coins on the ground and stoops down to pick them up. He uses it as a ruse to look up women's skirts. The film then flashes forward to an adult John Candy, doing the exact same thing again. He looks at the camera, grins and says, "Hey, when you find something that works, you keep it." Maybe that's reason number one...If you find something that works, you keep it.
Apparently I have unintentionally antagonized you Roy, pricked your pride somehow by my thoughts on the initial post. I stand by them, but I didn't mean to so bruise your ego. I know sometimes it can be frustrating when people disagree with us. I understand Loftus has a opinion and I respect his right to have an opinion, I simply don't respect his opinion.
I probably should have just ignored this thread, but the truth is..... I don't like to see so many of your threads go unanswered. It hurts my heart for you. I will think twice next time. I certainly don't want to provoke you to anger.......you seem to boast a great deal in your own wisdom.
Just a point here about battling our inner temple of truth? Christians believe.....we WERE children of wrath, disobedient, unholy, and slaves to sin.....but the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set me free. I am free to love God, I am free to have faith, I am free to worship, I am free to believe and trust......I am not bound by the law of sin and death. Christ has made me free. If the Son therefore shall make you free you shall be free indeed.
I don't doubt God because I am set free from that.....and there is no condemnation in Christ Jesus......the struggles of Romans 6&7 are dealt with, but not because I have perfected my flesh or my mind, but because Jesus took my place.
Breaking it down, the Top 10 Reasons - another's view"
1) The lack of critical thinking. I cannot tell you how often believers respond to skeptical arguments with informal fallacies in favor of their faith, which includes special pleading, non-sequiturs, all or nothing thinking (i.e., the "either/or" and "black and white" fallacies), begging the question, the "you too" fallacy, and especially appeals to ignorance. They don't even know that's how they are responding. And this is what I see coming from some Christian scholars I have dealt with, even those who teach critical thinking in the colleges, which nearly stuns me. Their responses are bad, really bad, and they don't/can't see it.
A quick and dirty run down on the meaning of critical thinking, compliments of the Wikipedia: Critical thinking is the process of thinking that questions assumptions. It is a way of deciding whether a claim is true, false; sometimes true, or partly true.
Lofton's arguments are reactive, contingent on a premise he's arguing against - that where some say they believe in God he contends that there is no god to believe in.
If Lofton (or for this discussion anyone) were to say "there is no god", disconnected from the assumption that there is, critical thinking would attempt to go through the process to question his assumption and determine if it be true, false or some incremental value. I would suggest for discussion that that statement would be difficult to prove 100% true without the benefit of reactive criticism to make the case. Lofton seems to indicate that he feels it's the baseline, and requires no proof.
For the sake of discussion and let's say that's the case - does it indicate a lack of critical thinking on (anyone's) part to have come to that conclusion whether in whole or in part? Keep in mind that Lofton appears to be in violation of his own criticism of others, that of an "all or nothing" conclusion, that "there is no god", 100 % true.
If he were to answer "because you can't prove that there IS a god", that would not suffice IMO. An inability to prove that something IS does not conclusively prove that something IS NOT. A thing can be said to exist without the dependency of recognition - in other words for say Lofton himself to be alive isn't dependent on me knowing he is. He either is or isn't. It's like the question If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?..........the first question to be answered might better be, does a tree falling make a sound? and if it does, what is that sound? Whether I hear it or not doesn't have an effect on that.
2) There is an explanation for why believers reason so badly: They have been enculturated, or indoctrinated to believe, a phenomenon that can best be described as being brainwashed. Christians can acknowledge this with others who believe differently in religions they consider bizarre. Why can't they see it in themselves? The reason is the same one for why the others can't see it in themselves. It's because they too are brainwashed. Only the brainwashed do not know it.
Being brainwashed into thinking a certain way is a hot button topic. However he doesn't go into detail as to how this brainwashing occurs in a test group which would have to include billions of people over time, from completely different cultures, countries and eras in time. Christian religion for example has certain basic tenets, common beliefs, but they do in fact vary widely amongst all the various denominations, sects and flavors. This statement "sounds like it could be true" at first blush but is a kind of non sequitur in itself IMO.
3) A very large percentage of believers do not seek out disconfirming evidence for their faith, which can be decisive. They are sure of their faith so they only look for confirming evidence. This can only make them more entrenched in whatever they were raised to believe in their particular culture. But it's an utterly wrongheaded approach to their faith.
Lofton makes a valid point however his attitude trips up his logic - he states "disconfirming evidence.....which can be decisive"............examples of that decisiveness would be helpful.
4) Ignorance is another reason, sometimes willful ignorance. The more we know the more we should doubt. Any educated person will tell you this. Socrates even said he was wise because he knew one thing others didn't, that he didn't know. The more we know the less we claim to know.
I already stated why this is so messy as to be useless - the more we know should not be reason to have more doubt - that's a ridiculous conclusion and not Socratic.I could counter that while I might doubt, I don't doubt that I'm doubting - Descartes. I can't, and therefore I must exist and be sure of that existance and if I must exist and know that surely - does that produce more doubt or more confirmation?
(It's also insulting to imply the lack of education of someone who would not accept his statement - is that evidence of Lofton's own attempt to brainwash his reader by using shame, guilt, fear and peer pressure tactics???)
The more we know, the more we know and can continue to know if we seek to. I believe most would agree that Socrates (and others) realized that knowledge alone isn't the end game, rather learning is and the more one learns, the more I will realize there is to learn. Yet even these statements would have context. I would say that Mozart knew the bulk of what he needed to know about music, in his day. However he didn't know what he didn't know, for instance he might never have envisioned say the harmonic and rhythmic development of modern hip hop - yet that would not have meant he knew less about music because he didn't know that nor would it have caused him to doubt what he did know.
5) This ignorance is due to the fact that believers fear to doubt. It's the very nature of faith in an omniscient mind-reading God that he is displeased when they doubt his promises. So in order not to displease him they do not seriously question their faith. Believers also fear to doubt because they reside in a Christian community of like-minded believers, their friends, who can be counted on when in need, and who would ostracize them if they walked away from the faith. Social pressure among one's main group of friends keeps them in the fold and blissfully ignorant of the need to test their faith.
Fear of God and fear of the judgment of others - sure, people seek acceptance however as many of us find there are communities of thought that will support all and any beliefs and non beliefs. Lofton implies that serious, deep seated and heart felt faith is largely conditional on fear of loss and peer pressure. I don't think I can buy that whole cloth but it could certainly be a factor if accounting for why people believe what they do.
6) The biggest reason believers don't seriously question their faith is because of where it could lead them, to hell. They cannot bring themselves to travel down a road that might eventually lead them to eternal torture (or however they conceive the final judgment). The thought never occurs to Christians that they don't have the slightest fear of Allah's hell, or the many sects within their own faith who claim all others are going to hell.
The comparison to "Allah's hell" isn't sound - there's no reason why a Christian would factor in the blessings or consequences of a faith that's not their own because, well, it's not their own. He makes that point in that very statement - which is why I think he's such a blatherer, at least in this article.
Many Christians do fear hell. I don't, so I'd be a good example of someone who doesn't fit that pattern. Yet he states it's "the biggest reason believers don't seriously question their faith"..........I think I know what he's talking about but as a blanket statement? Doesn't wash. And all of the Christians I know who do believe in a "hell" are more interested in Heaven than hell so it's not a continuous day to day motivator to stay out of hell rather it's a pursuit of being in Heaven (by whatever name)
7) Believers conversely have a hope they cannot bring themselves to do without, living eternally in heaven with their deceased loved ones. This hope is so intense they cannot entertain they might be wrong, otherwise they might have to admit they will never see their dead mothers, fathers, brothers and sisters again. That's simply too painful for them to even consider.
Hmmmm....file this under "huh?".........to say that with such conviction is immature. People can certainly bring themselves to accept that. I don't think that over a lifetime of faith that's the big all time gotta have it or I'll go nuts kind of a motivator. Maybe it's just me.
8) The nature of faith itself. Faith is a parasite on the mysterious. Without mystery faith couldn't exist. Wherever there is mystery there will always be room for faith because as humans we seek an explanation for the mysterious, and for believers their particular God-concept fills in the gaps. This is one of the informal fallacies I mentioned earlier. Believers require nearly all mysteries to be solved before they will consider their faith unreasonable, and that's an unreasonable epistemic standard since there will probably always be mysteries. Faith is therefore an irrational leap over the probabilities, something no thinking person should ever do with the probabilities given the available evidence. One should only conclude what the probabilities show and never assert more than what the evidence leads us to think is probably the case.
There's too much in this to address in brief - but if I were to discuss "the nature of faith itself" I would not include that faith itself is primarily useful to explain "the mysterious" or to fill in gaps. I have faith and I still have gaps. I'm not going nuts over it or requiring that my faith be the blanket explanation or answer. Some things I just don't understand. That's fine, if other explanations or probabilities suffice, that's fine too. I don't think I'm alone in thinking that way either.
9) Then too, there is the concept of an omniscient God which is used to solve all problems. I call this the Omnscient God Escape Clause. Because theists believe in an omniscient God skeptics must prove their faith is nearly impossible before they will consider it to be improbable, which is an utterly unreasonable standard of proof, making their faith pretty much unfalsifiable.
It's not that unreasonable, for the reasons I stated earlier. If Lofton were to take away the foil of an argument made against "faith", what would be his proof conclusively that there is no "God"? And would it stand conclusively against all other possibilities?
10) Morality seems to be another issue, that if believers walked away from their faith they would ipso facto have no reason to be a good people who care for the common good of a society. But the overwhelming evidence is against this, best seen in the demographics.
Morality isn't reliant on a specific religion, true. When Lofton references it to faith I think he actually kills his own point - if faith isn't based on any factual evidence which I think he's trying to make the case for - then where does the morality a person falsely credits to their faith come from then? If it's from the individual, the argument becomes a moot point - if the morality exists, it exists, regardless of where it comes from. What does Lofton care then, either way?
Which does beg the question - why does he care anyway? If he feels we're all so lost and dumb, and beyond fixing - have a beer, smartie pants. You got it all figured out.
I wanted to add - file this with the fish wrap, it's not any big deal, I just wanted to get it out of my head and somewhere else.
I've read some of Lofton's stuff and at the expense of sounding uh, prideful, it wasn't worth my time and although he seems to have kicked up a little dust ball in some Christian communities, I'm not sure why as he doesn't have a really grounded, clear or powerful voice of opinion. That opinion of mine has nothing to do with his "atheism".
Richard Dawkins states his positions quite well and his feeling that post-Darwin an atheist has natural selection and evolution to explain through any "intelligent design" beliefs is worth noting.
In fact for me it was Dawkins who put 2 and 2 together for me in regards to understanding natural selection as a nonrandom process and a means to account for diverse, complex life - but - in a universe of possibilities it's still fascinating to consider that that process of natural selection has remained so consistent and that it hasn't broken the boundaries out so far as to develop - over these billions of years involved in evolution - any truly diverse or divergent possibilities. Put another way, why then "natural selection" as a driving force? The known universe that the theory covers is known to be what it is, not what it isn't. There are basic laws, consistencies, strengths, inclinations but not others.
Ultimately the explanation is "because that's the way it is", the way it has become. And I would still ask the question why that way and not others and why not others at the same time, co existing with each other in a universe of laws even broader than our own now? And the answer would still have to be "because that's the way it is" and perhaps even that it couldn't have been any other way once the ball got rolling...... Which is kinda kludgey. But I don't take Dawkins lightly.
Lofton doesn't appear to be rooted in any specific foundation of ideas or thought pattern which is surprising. He's obviously educated, intelligent and has experience, but he does seem inclined to spin off into all sorts of postulations of his own creation. That's fine by me, he's got as much right as anyone. However I don't see a real depth of reasoning, he's all over the road like a pis sed off cow, shot gunning. He seems to be grappling with his own demons. Maybe this is his way of working them out, I don't know but I get the feeling there's more under the hood than what he states. Either way, since I don't get much from his stuff I don't pay much attention to it. This is way too much for me, to be honest but my brain got buzzing and it's a poor effort at best, easlily shot full of holes. (kaboom!)
Agreed Roy, but I'm fuzzy on what you mean by "illusion"...we seem to differ on the definition of "illusion", which may be why I don't quite understand what you mean.........
I rarely venture into "Doctrinal" because I don't relish arguing doctrine. However, I have a simple response to the (IMO) mistaken premise of "Ten Reasons Why Most Believers Don't Seriously Question Their Faith."
For me, and I'd bet for many people, that premise is absolutely false. Although I was raised in the Christian church and believed wholeheartedly in God, Jesus, and the Bible, as a child, I came to "seriously question" my faith when I reached my teen years. I checked out different churches, different religions, and settled for a time on no religion, no faith, no beliefs based on anything I couldn't see, touch, smell, hear, taste.
Then one day in the late sixties I had a life-changing experience, thanks to a hippie Christian neighbor who was walking with God. I silently had prayed one of those desperate "If you really exist, God, I need help!" prayers and within a few minutes, this hippie Christian person knocked on my door and said, "God sent me because He says you need help."
Question? Oh heck yeah. I questioned. I searched. I demanded proof. I doubted. I denied the very existence of God.
I'll forever be grateful for God's mercy and grace to me, a rebellious, doubting little brat of a sinner, at the height of my refusal to believe in Him. So to those who yammer on and on about how faith is for the weak of mind and the easily fooled brainwashed among us (and I'm not saying that's you, Roy), I say :P and
2. The condition of being deceived by a false perception or belief.
3. Something, such as a fantastic plan or desire, that causes an erroneous belief or perception.
4. Illusionism in art.
5. A fine transparent cloth, used for dresses or trimmings.
[Middle English, from Old French, from Late Latin illsi, illsin-, from Latin, a mocking, irony, from illsus, past participle of illdere, to mock : in-, against; see in-2 + ldere, to play; see leid- in Indo-European roots.]
il·lusion·al, il·lusion·ary (-zh-nr) adj.
il·lusion·less adj.
An perception of reality of a God
seeing water that not there in the sand
otherwise the perception there is the impossible which is real because of my belief in it
God is more than I can Imagine and less I can Imagine
the belief I have and the unbelief have
otherwise God a real spirit and God the illusion of God
Bro Lustus seems to believe there no God while you seem to believe that is a God
how can God be real or on the other hand how God be not real
you we fight our faith by our unfaith or we fight our unfaith by our faith
I don't have any question as to why you posted this Roy. It's a Doctrinal forum for posting things. It's difficult to understand if you think otherwise but you shouldn't equate disagreement with disapproval. For the purposes of this board you can post and you do. Rather than play a guessing game, yes, it's easier when you clarify it but it doesn't matter to me that you do or don't. Since you did, I commented. I can live without reading anymore of this stuff, trust me.
Yeah, illusion. That I don't agree with, not for me anyway.
"diffusion" describes the phrase "see through a glass darkly".
diffusion is not abstraction or distortion.
Christianity is focused on a relationship - the nature of it is intangible compared to say, sitting next to a friend. The friend is there. The relationship is shared between us and is there too but not the same way. Physical, "spiritual", one might use those words.
Christ is "in" me, not sitting next to me in the same way as the friend would be. The presence and the relationship is an internal one.
That relationship is pure and true as is. As I would be a "son of God" the relationship is full and complete. The quality of the relationship can grow, become richer and clearer.
In that the "see through a glass darkly" is not a distortion, nor an illusion. It's not even just a matter of development or a lack of development. It's simply an acceptance in it's purest state.
I might describe this "diffusion" in the relationship as the light that comes from regular lamp in a room, with a regular tungsten bulb - warm, close, inviting, useful, soft.
It's not as bright or illuminating as a full on mercury lamp, 10,000 watts. But no less real or useful, no less meaningful. This is how I see the bible's phrase "we see through a glass darkly".
Outside of that it's not an illusion, either. That's what you seem to want to say, so fine. Go for it.
Everyone has good days and bad days in a relationship but the relationship remains unless it's ended and destroyed. God is faithful and just, and always "here".
It's pretty simple to me if I don't complicate it. I have the problems, that goes with the territory. But there's a consistency in the relationship I can have that isn't governed by those problems, that is strong and stable. I prefer to rely on that, weak or strong, good days bad days. When I do life is good for me. When I don't, it's not as good, sometimes not at all.
God/man/Atheist or unbelief/Jesus/Christ/child of God
What is a person that believes in God?
01-28-2012
I once believe the Truth was the Church that I was raised in and than I believe it was in the Way ministry and I tried Spirit and Truth Fellowship International and others. But I found no truth at all because I was not looking at the Christ inside of me the heart of my spirit God himself. You see God creative everything from himself otherwise I had it all alone the oneness of my inner thought which my inner self of Christ.
The Way Ministry taught me about spirit and that Christ was in me, which is the hope of glory but that only the beginning to discovering the truth that was in a place I never dream. So I give credit to the Way Ministry for the direction they gave and all the others that try to point me in right direction. I am that person that believes a God that in my heart there nothing to prove me right or wrong because I believe by own unbelief.
One thinks why would I say I believe because of my unbelief because if a person does not get honest about him-self how can that have any truth belief in God. I know from my five senses God cannot be real but I know by inner self that is everything and nothing. My heart tells me Christ is real because I see his love in people all around me, which means, God must be real too.
When we get honest about our deep down feeling we know we have unbelief even that we do not want to face it. So God creative d us from what himself making sin a part of God, which is why God had no choice to make a way for making a way for God cleanse his self of our sin. Is God sin no but God has to deal with us a part of him that must return one day as we must return dust that returns to God him-self.
I see myself as the broken Man I am which all the hang up of my past and future I will have some day but for now I am trying to be more honest with everybody. Because with truth I will free myself from this unbelief I must live because everyone that claims they have no unbelief is a lie and there is no truth in them. Otherwise Christ die for them in vain because Christ for us all I do not know if that voids out God gift of Christ but I hope not,
Sin is my unbelief that I hide from most until now just how I lust after sex that I do not want to have but its part of me. The part of me I wish one know but in uncovering the lie I hide from myself I can face it the first step to making it in past or putting my unbelief in the open can make me believe stronger than before or making a invisible God visible. Thank you with Love of truth and a holy kiss of Christ to all from Roy.
I was speaking of questioning myself in light of what the Bible says and what the Lord says and what the devil says
I remember a dear friend, towards the end of his active ministry saying "I don't even need to think about speaking in tongues any more, it just comes naturally." And that statement filled me with dread for his life. Acts 17:11 gives us the key to nobility in God's eyes, to daily search the scriptures whether those things are so. Daily we must decide whether to believe the Lord or go with the flow (downhill).
when I was much younger and surrounded by the cheer leaders of friends it was easier to choose right from wrong, but now it's a bit more challenging because my body (including my mind) is falling apart, I'm pretty much alone day by day, the company I work for is in final stages of closing of sale to another company and I have only hope I will find another job due to having become deaf, etc. etc. Life is minute by minute deciding how and what I will do.
It's easy for me to know that God is love, that Jesus Christ is Everything, but the decision is whether or not He is truly my Lord in the minutes of my life.
The hypocricy of the twi led us down the road of hypocricy whereby it was no problem to say "Jesus is Lord" with our mouths, but the minutes of our lives were not required to be in subjection to Him. Therefore instead of using the fleeting days of the exuberance of youth to firm up the muscles of our faith, we were left with flabby hypocricy in daily life, which eventually must be dealt with if one wants to stand before the Lord and have Him say, "Well done, beloved and faithful servant."
This all reminds me of that Great Question of Life, and my own personal favorite answer:
Question: Why did the chicken cross the road?
Answer: What chicken?
Other screeds floating in the temporal lobe paste:
If Lofton is a "man of God" I'm a hat pin in a pepper mill.
I loathe the modern use of the term "man of God". There are men, there's a God. No need to get them mixed up.
I only know one way - call 'em like you see 'em. There's never any lack of people to inform me of how wrong or right I am and with that kind of help, how can I lose?
If Lofton is a "man of God" I'm a hat pin in a pepper mill.
I loathe the modern use of the term "man of God". There are men, there's a God. No need to get them mixed up.
I only know one way - call 'em like you see 'em. There's never any lack of people to inform me of how wrong or right I am and with that kind of help, how can I lose?
If Lofton is a follower of Christ I too am a hat pin.....but hey, I sometimes call the cashiers at Wal-mart "Sister". Girl power.
I hope the irony is not lost on you.....you use a little critical thinking to evaluate a post that basically says you are incapable of critical thinking....and the judgements fly. I guess one can interpret critical thinking as bitter and speaking words against your brother......it is silly, but one is free to assume. Lofton has no problem with it.
Loving your enemy doesn't include agreeing with or easily putting up with apostasy. We are kept by God Almighty for Jesus Christ. Jude speaks a great deal about contending and defending the faith. It would be a great topic discussion.
Then again sometimes you just have to shake your head in wonder ....
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
21
30
11
3
Popular Days
Jan 24
11
Jan 26
9
Jan 23
9
Jan 27
8
Top Posters In This Topic
socks 21 posts
year2027 30 posts
geisha779 11 posts
waysider 3 posts
Popular Days
Jan 24 2012
11 posts
Jan 26 2012
9 posts
Jan 23 2012
9 posts
Jan 27 2012
8 posts
Popular Posts
socks
"We don't live in a vacuum and some of us are familiar with at least one of the men whose student he claims to have been. Dr. William Lane Craig is pretty well known in Christian circles....he is an
geisha779
I can't imagine questioning my faith every moment. I can't imagine living like that. It would be torture. My faith in God....isn't about me. God is worthy. He is also able to show us when we err. I hope we get past the point of questioning who Jesus is and to the point of trusting who He is.......there is rest and peace in that. That is not to say we don't at times wrestle with our faith or examine if we are on the right path. I believe those times can actually be orchestrated by God to help us grow in faith. It is possible to grieve the Holy Spirit by sin in our lives....if there are questions or issues then examination, confession and restoration is possible. Even the Apostles knew to distinguish when they were "In the spirit" and not every word they spoke was inspired by God.....I bet they even had bad days. If we don't have His witness within us then I can see how we would be questioning every moment. If it all hangs on our ability to believe we are in some deep trouble.
None of that is what the initial post was about......it was an assumption that believers either won't , don't, or are unable to reasonably and intellectually question why they believe what they do about God.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
Hmmm, yeah.
Speaking of related doctrinal discussions, Socrates and philosophical attributions to that sweet ol' owl Soc's, Soren Kierkegaard's "Philosophical Fragments" comes to mind, specifically on the area of projecting one's own reality on others and also reality based thinking as compared to abstract thinking. (one feels doubt, they see more doubt, one feels faith, sees more...hmm, not sure what Loftus would say to that one)
Some of SK's views resonate with me (and I see some strains of thought with the later Henri Bergson, who I enjoy immensely) and his idea that objectivity may not be the correct or only way to evaluate matters of "faith", and the essential components of the spiritual. As in the scientific method of examination, testing, peeling layer after layer to see the internal workings of a thing, that which is "spiritual" may not best reveal itself that way but require a subjective experience and internal view of that which is not specifically rendered externally. SK's way of working is valid IMO, and need not altogether deny either side's approach.
I'm sure Loftus knows all that being the expert he is so I find it interesting that he eliminates that line of thinking. SK was a proponent of the Socratic method, but then Loftus loves to twist Socrates and appears to have it all mixed up into his own " I'mRight " stew. (love not too strong an adjective given that he misquotes Socrates and then says of it that "every educated person" would know what he's misquoted.....uhhh - that's got some love in it alright, some care and feeding, he's been petting that thought for awhile and you can tell just reading it that he likes it. A lot. )......
Back to the topic at hand, supporting a writer who notes that the faith of others probably indicates unfixable needs to have social approval and aren't as intelligent as their atheist counterparts, a nefarious and dastardly position as any I'd daresay except to those who think it's okay.......Yeah, that's cool, so cool. How's that - better?
Any time you'd actually like to "debate" anything Roy, such as the items you posted earlier, please do. If what you want is to post something and get "0" responses or a lot of one-hand clapping, that's fine too. Otherwise continue to make general sweeping statements about what everyone else thinks and should do and whine about everyone else's pride.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God first
thanks socks and geisha779
Socks Says "actually like to "debate" anything Roy, such as the items you posted earlier, please do. If what you want is to post something and get "0" responses or a lot of one-hand clapping, that's fine too. Otherwise continue to make general sweeping statements about what everyone else thinks and should do and whine about everyone else's pride. " I never said I wanted to debate with anybody I just share this
geisha779 Says "I can't imagine questioning my faith every moment. I can't imagine living like that. It would be torture. My faith in God....isn't about me." you do not have to but Me and Kit Sober may if ok with you - than geisha779 Says "None of that is what the initial post was about." can she not read the Title is "Ten Reasons Why Most Believers Don't Seriously Question Their Faith"
look this one man reason out of why but I never said it was mine and I not going to
but I can respect a Man reasons
with love and a holy kiss Roy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
I guess I misunderstood when you wrote:
Put on the perfect will of God doing God will from your heart do not get caught in religion pride which does you no good. Be willing to debate anything letting nothing mold you with false religion, which is not right. I am going to end now but thank you all with love of God and a holy kiss from Roy.
It sure seemed like you expected something.
Everybody struggles for Kristssake Roy. I prefer not to focus on it and wear it like a hat. Life is a struggle period.
All men are sinners, all fall short, everybody struggles.
God made a way where the was no way - a way to transcend and redeem.
With Christ all can be redeemed, everybody gets paid, it's Christmas for all.
Loftus is putting coal in everybody's stocking when he tries to make Christians out to be basically deluded losers - and that's the tone of what he wrote, when I read it as well as others. I shared that article with another - they felt similar to me, very much the same way.
But the human capacity for faith is universal and the case can be made that without it we wouldn't be able to function at all. ( and I tried with two examples I gave earlier )
Everyone has faith and everyone - and I think this can be proven fairly easily - imagines and relies on outcomes and events that they can not physically and personally guarantee - that requires a trust and faith on their parts.
Loftus (and of course many others) simply don't choose (and faith is a choice) to have towards God.
I don't care. And most of the time nobody cares how or what my beliefs are. However when an authority figure such as he puts forth so strongly on such a vital topic - it warrants at least a nod.
See ya!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God first
thanks Socks
I meant the perfect will of God nothing other than the will of God otherwise not what a person one person says I will put on love for truth the best I can but this my take not bro Loftus view
where your love for your enemy do you know who is your enemy
your enemy is socks and mine is Roy
do you think you can make another believe God's will all we can do is point them in right direction
we battle against ourself our inner self our temple of truth
your believes are not in a vain book called the bible your believes in your heart where the truth lives for you
his view is what I share to open this talk with you
the perfect will God was what I heard from God
in my inner self the seed of Christ inside my spirit
with love and a holy kiss Roy
added to this
God first
thanks David or Star and Morbius and Jezebel and tommii and Magi728
David one be conceive in Christ a new creature
we all sin and short of God's glory should show you
Romans 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
1John.1
[1] That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;
[2] (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;)
[3] That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.
[4] And these things write we unto you, that your joy may be full.
[5] This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.
[6] If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth:
[7] But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.
[8] If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
[9] If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
[10] If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.
we sin the flesh but our spirit stays pure
Joh 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again [from above, spiritually], he cannot see the kingdom of God.
do you know what is to born spiritually
born again = conceive again
Jesus Christ put his image in us
A man puts his image in a woman by making love to her
Christ planted his seed in us by sharing God's love with
in the seed you can not sin but we still in body form
I used to think like Star I was proud I believe I could not wrong
but I did again and again over and over
then I saw the word for Born again was better translated conceive from above
#1080.
γεννα´ω
gennaō; from γε´ννα genna (descent, birth); to beget, to bring forth:—
NASB - bear(1), bearing children(1), became the father of(4), became...father(1), begotten(4), bore(1), born(41), Child(1), conceived(1), father(37), Father(1), gave(1), gives birth(1), produce(1)
Look at the word conceived its there
became a father its there
produce a child its there too
begotten is there to
this could any these words
while we have been taught what
because a man taught us
think think think
with love and a holy kiss Roy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Ever seen that old movie with John Candy, Daryl Hannah and Tom Hanks called Splash? There is a scene in it that shows John Candy as a young boy. He drops coins on the ground and stoops down to pick them up. He uses it as a ruse to look up women's skirts. The film then flashes forward to an adult John Candy, doing the exact same thing again. He looks at the camera, grins and says, "Hey, when you find something that works, you keep it." Maybe that's reason number one...If you find something that works, you keep it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Apparently I have unintentionally antagonized you Roy, pricked your pride somehow by my thoughts on the initial post. I stand by them, but I didn't mean to so bruise your ego. I know sometimes it can be frustrating when people disagree with us. I understand Loftus has a opinion and I respect his right to have an opinion, I simply don't respect his opinion.
I probably should have just ignored this thread, but the truth is..... I don't like to see so many of your threads go unanswered. It hurts my heart for you. I will think twice next time. I certainly don't want to provoke you to anger.......you seem to boast a great deal in your own wisdom.
Just a point here about battling our inner temple of truth? Christians believe.....we WERE children of wrath, disobedient, unholy, and slaves to sin.....but the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set me free. I am free to love God, I am free to have faith, I am free to worship, I am free to believe and trust......I am not bound by the law of sin and death. Christ has made me free. If the Son therefore shall make you free you shall be free indeed.
I don't doubt God because I am set free from that.....and there is no condemnation in Christ Jesus......the struggles of Romans 6&7 are dealt with, but not because I have perfected my flesh or my mind, but because Jesus took my place.
Free from sin...no longer BOUND to sin.
Take Care!
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God first
thanks waysider
yes that make me smile
with love and a holy kiss Roy
God first
thanks geisha779
you have not have unintentionally antagonized me or you have not intentionally antagonized me
I trying to teach to look at yourself as a temple of God
I just share not looking for anything
I share what bro Loftus thought
but you took as a attacked on your religion
I never attacked you
I just share with you
so I share my thought on what bro Loftus inspired me to hear from God
with love and a holy kiss Roy
Edited by year2027Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
Breaking it down, the Top 10 Reasons - another's view"
1) The lack of critical thinking. I cannot tell you how often believers respond to skeptical arguments with informal fallacies in favor of their faith, which includes special pleading, non-sequiturs, all or nothing thinking (i.e., the "either/or" and "black and white" fallacies), begging the question, the "you too" fallacy, and especially appeals to ignorance. They don't even know that's how they are responding. And this is what I see coming from some Christian scholars I have dealt with, even those who teach critical thinking in the colleges, which nearly stuns me. Their responses are bad, really bad, and they don't/can't see it.
A quick and dirty run down on the meaning of critical thinking, compliments of the Wikipedia: Critical thinking is the process of thinking that questions assumptions. It is a way of deciding whether a claim is true, false; sometimes true, or partly true.
Lofton's arguments are reactive, contingent on a premise he's arguing against - that where some say they believe in God he contends that there is no god to believe in.
If Lofton (or for this discussion anyone) were to say "there is no god", disconnected from the assumption that there is, critical thinking would attempt to go through the process to question his assumption and determine if it be true, false or some incremental value. I would suggest for discussion that that statement would be difficult to prove 100% true without the benefit of reactive criticism to make the case. Lofton seems to indicate that he feels it's the baseline, and requires no proof.
For the sake of discussion and let's say that's the case - does it indicate a lack of critical thinking on (anyone's) part to have come to that conclusion whether in whole or in part? Keep in mind that Lofton appears to be in violation of his own criticism of others, that of an "all or nothing" conclusion, that "there is no god", 100 % true.
If he were to answer "because you can't prove that there IS a god", that would not suffice IMO. An inability to prove that something IS does not conclusively prove that something IS NOT. A thing can be said to exist without the dependency of recognition - in other words for say Lofton himself to be alive isn't dependent on me knowing he is. He either is or isn't. It's like the question If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?..........the first question to be answered might better be, does a tree falling make a sound? and if it does, what is that sound? Whether I hear it or not doesn't have an effect on that.
2) There is an explanation for why believers reason so badly: They have been enculturated, or indoctrinated to believe, a phenomenon that can best be described as being brainwashed. Christians can acknowledge this with others who believe differently in religions they consider bizarre. Why can't they see it in themselves? The reason is the same one for why the others can't see it in themselves. It's because they too are brainwashed. Only the brainwashed do not know it.
Being brainwashed into thinking a certain way is a hot button topic. However he doesn't go into detail as to how this brainwashing occurs in a test group which would have to include billions of people over time, from completely different cultures, countries and eras in time. Christian religion for example has certain basic tenets, common beliefs, but they do in fact vary widely amongst all the various denominations, sects and flavors. This statement "sounds like it could be true" at first blush but is a kind of non sequitur in itself IMO.
3) A very large percentage of believers do not seek out disconfirming evidence for their faith, which can be decisive. They are sure of their faith so they only look for confirming evidence. This can only make them more entrenched in whatever they were raised to believe in their particular culture. But it's an utterly wrongheaded approach to their faith.
Lofton makes a valid point however his attitude trips up his logic - he states "disconfirming evidence.....which can be decisive"............examples of that decisiveness would be helpful.
4) Ignorance is another reason, sometimes willful ignorance. The more we know the more we should doubt. Any educated person will tell you this. Socrates even said he was wise because he knew one thing others didn't, that he didn't know. The more we know the less we claim to know.
I already stated why this is so messy as to be useless - the more we know should not be reason to have more doubt - that's a ridiculous conclusion and not Socratic.I could counter that while I might doubt, I don't doubt that I'm doubting - Descartes. I can't, and therefore I must exist and be sure of that existance and if I must exist and know that surely - does that produce more doubt or more confirmation?
(It's also insulting to imply the lack of education of someone who would not accept his statement - is that evidence of Lofton's own attempt to brainwash his reader by using shame, guilt, fear and peer pressure tactics???)
The more we know, the more we know and can continue to know if we seek to. I believe most would agree that Socrates (and others) realized that knowledge alone isn't the end game, rather learning is and the more one learns, the more I will realize there is to learn. Yet even these statements would have context. I would say that Mozart knew the bulk of what he needed to know about music, in his day. However he didn't know what he didn't know, for instance he might never have envisioned say the harmonic and rhythmic development of modern hip hop - yet that would not have meant he knew less about music because he didn't know that nor would it have caused him to doubt what he did know.
5) This ignorance is due to the fact that believers fear to doubt. It's the very nature of faith in an omniscient mind-reading God that he is displeased when they doubt his promises. So in order not to displease him they do not seriously question their faith. Believers also fear to doubt because they reside in a Christian community of like-minded believers, their friends, who can be counted on when in need, and who would ostracize them if they walked away from the faith. Social pressure among one's main group of friends keeps them in the fold and blissfully ignorant of the need to test their faith.
Fear of God and fear of the judgment of others - sure, people seek acceptance however as many of us find there are communities of thought that will support all and any beliefs and non beliefs. Lofton implies that serious, deep seated and heart felt faith is largely conditional on fear of loss and peer pressure. I don't think I can buy that whole cloth but it could certainly be a factor if accounting for why people believe what they do.
6) The biggest reason believers don't seriously question their faith is because of where it could lead them, to hell. They cannot bring themselves to travel down a road that might eventually lead them to eternal torture (or however they conceive the final judgment). The thought never occurs to Christians that they don't have the slightest fear of Allah's hell, or the many sects within their own faith who claim all others are going to hell.
The comparison to "Allah's hell" isn't sound - there's no reason why a Christian would factor in the blessings or consequences of a faith that's not their own because, well, it's not their own. He makes that point in that very statement - which is why I think he's such a blatherer, at least in this article.
Many Christians do fear hell. I don't, so I'd be a good example of someone who doesn't fit that pattern. Yet he states it's "the biggest reason believers don't seriously question their faith"..........I think I know what he's talking about but as a blanket statement? Doesn't wash. And all of the Christians I know who do believe in a "hell" are more interested in Heaven than hell so it's not a continuous day to day motivator to stay out of hell rather it's a pursuit of being in Heaven (by whatever name)
7) Believers conversely have a hope they cannot bring themselves to do without, living eternally in heaven with their deceased loved ones. This hope is so intense they cannot entertain they might be wrong, otherwise they might have to admit they will never see their dead mothers, fathers, brothers and sisters again. That's simply too painful for them to even consider.
Hmmmm....file this under "huh?".........to say that with such conviction is immature. People can certainly bring themselves to accept that. I don't think that over a lifetime of faith that's the big all time gotta have it or I'll go nuts kind of a motivator. Maybe it's just me.
8) The nature of faith itself. Faith is a parasite on the mysterious. Without mystery faith couldn't exist. Wherever there is mystery there will always be room for faith because as humans we seek an explanation for the mysterious, and for believers their particular God-concept fills in the gaps. This is one of the informal fallacies I mentioned earlier. Believers require nearly all mysteries to be solved before they will consider their faith unreasonable, and that's an unreasonable epistemic standard since there will probably always be mysteries. Faith is therefore an irrational leap over the probabilities, something no thinking person should ever do with the probabilities given the available evidence. One should only conclude what the probabilities show and never assert more than what the evidence leads us to think is probably the case.
There's too much in this to address in brief - but if I were to discuss "the nature of faith itself" I would not include that faith itself is primarily useful to explain "the mysterious" or to fill in gaps. I have faith and I still have gaps. I'm not going nuts over it or requiring that my faith be the blanket explanation or answer. Some things I just don't understand. That's fine, if other explanations or probabilities suffice, that's fine too. I don't think I'm alone in thinking that way either.
9) Then too, there is the concept of an omniscient God which is used to solve all problems. I call this the Omnscient God Escape Clause. Because theists believe in an omniscient God skeptics must prove their faith is nearly impossible before they will consider it to be improbable, which is an utterly unreasonable standard of proof, making their faith pretty much unfalsifiable.
It's not that unreasonable, for the reasons I stated earlier. If Lofton were to take away the foil of an argument made against "faith", what would be his proof conclusively that there is no "God"? And would it stand conclusively against all other possibilities?
10) Morality seems to be another issue, that if believers walked away from their faith they would ipso facto have no reason to be a good people who care for the common good of a society. But the overwhelming evidence is against this, best seen in the demographics.
Morality isn't reliant on a specific religion, true. When Lofton references it to faith I think he actually kills his own point - if faith isn't based on any factual evidence which I think he's trying to make the case for - then where does the morality a person falsely credits to their faith come from then? If it's from the individual, the argument becomes a moot point - if the morality exists, it exists, regardless of where it comes from. What does Lofton care then, either way?
Which does beg the question - why does he care anyway? If he feels we're all so lost and dumb, and beyond fixing - have a beer, smartie pants. You got it all figured out.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
I wanted to add - file this with the fish wrap, it's not any big deal, I just wanted to get it out of my head and somewhere else.
I've read some of Lofton's stuff and at the expense of sounding uh, prideful, it wasn't worth my time and although he seems to have kicked up a little dust ball in some Christian communities, I'm not sure why as he doesn't have a really grounded, clear or powerful voice of opinion. That opinion of mine has nothing to do with his "atheism".
Richard Dawkins states his positions quite well and his feeling that post-Darwin an atheist has natural selection and evolution to explain through any "intelligent design" beliefs is worth noting.
In fact for me it was Dawkins who put 2 and 2 together for me in regards to understanding natural selection as a nonrandom process and a means to account for diverse, complex life - but - in a universe of possibilities it's still fascinating to consider that that process of natural selection has remained so consistent and that it hasn't broken the boundaries out so far as to develop - over these billions of years involved in evolution - any truly diverse or divergent possibilities. Put another way, why then "natural selection" as a driving force? The known universe that the theory covers is known to be what it is, not what it isn't. There are basic laws, consistencies, strengths, inclinations but not others.
Ultimately the explanation is "because that's the way it is", the way it has become. And I would still ask the question why that way and not others and why not others at the same time, co existing with each other in a universe of laws even broader than our own now? And the answer would still have to be "because that's the way it is" and perhaps even that it couldn't have been any other way once the ball got rolling...... Which is kinda kludgey. But I don't take Dawkins lightly.
Lofton doesn't appear to be rooted in any specific foundation of ideas or thought pattern which is surprising. He's obviously educated, intelligent and has experience, but he does seem inclined to spin off into all sorts of postulations of his own creation. That's fine by me, he's got as much right as anyone. However I don't see a real depth of reasoning, he's all over the road like a pis sed off cow, shot gunning. He seems to be grappling with his own demons. Maybe this is his way of working them out, I don't know but I get the feeling there's more under the hood than what he states. Either way, since I don't get much from his stuff I don't pay much attention to it. This is way too much for me, to be honest but my brain got buzzing and it's a poor effort at best, easlily shot full of holes. (kaboom!)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God first
thanks everybody
I still believe God can not be proven to be or not to be
is a shame some can not read for what it is
a man believes there is God and another one believes there is not a God
what does it matter
will it changed my believed No
I either believe in a thing I can not proved or not that some call a God and others illusion
I see it as both the illusion i believe in
with love and a holy kiss Roy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
Agreed Roy, but I'm fuzzy on what you mean by "illusion"...we seem to differ on the definition of "illusion", which may be why I don't quite understand what you mean.........
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Linda Z
I rarely venture into "Doctrinal" because I don't relish arguing doctrine. However, I have a simple response to the (IMO) mistaken premise of "Ten Reasons Why Most Believers Don't Seriously Question Their Faith."
For me, and I'd bet for many people, that premise is absolutely false. Although I was raised in the Christian church and believed wholeheartedly in God, Jesus, and the Bible, as a child, I came to "seriously question" my faith when I reached my teen years. I checked out different churches, different religions, and settled for a time on no religion, no faith, no beliefs based on anything I couldn't see, touch, smell, hear, taste.
Then one day in the late sixties I had a life-changing experience, thanks to a hippie Christian neighbor who was walking with God. I silently had prayed one of those desperate "If you really exist, God, I need help!" prayers and within a few minutes, this hippie Christian person knocked on my door and said, "God sent me because He says you need help."
Question? Oh heck yeah. I questioned. I searched. I demanded proof. I doubted. I denied the very existence of God.
I'll forever be grateful for God's mercy and grace to me, a rebellious, doubting little brat of a sinner, at the height of my refusal to believe in Him. So to those who yammer on and on about how faith is for the weak of mind and the easily fooled brainwashed among us (and I'm not saying that's you, Roy), I say :P and
Link to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God first
thanks socks
il·lu·sion (-lzhn)
n.
1.
a. An erroneous perception of reality.
b. An erroneous concept or belief.
2. The condition of being deceived by a false perception or belief.
3. Something, such as a fantastic plan or desire, that causes an erroneous belief or perception.
4. Illusionism in art.
5. A fine transparent cloth, used for dresses or trimmings.
[Middle English, from Old French, from Late Latin illsi, illsin-, from Latin, a mocking, irony, from illsus, past participle of illdere, to mock : in-, against; see in-2 + ldere, to play; see leid- in Indo-European roots.]
il·lusion·al, il·lusion·ary (-zh-nr) adj.
il·lusion·less adj.
An perception of reality of a God
seeing water that not there in the sand
otherwise the perception there is the impossible which is real because of my belief in it
God is more than I can Imagine and less I can Imagine
the belief I have and the unbelief have
otherwise God a real spirit and God the illusion of God
Bro Lustus seems to believe there no God while you seem to believe that is a God
how can God be real or on the other hand how God be not real
you we fight our faith by our unfaith or we fight our unfaith by our faith
the two sides of God
with love and a holy kiss Roy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God first
thanks Linda Z
thanks Linda Z you made me smile my friend
you understand why I posted this because the person search himself maybe he did not get same as you
but you had that hippie Christian person to direct you in the direction
because that all we can do
and who knows maybe someone is directing him
because Atheist means nothing and Christian means nothing too
all man battle something
whether its unbelief or its belief
the two side of faith
with love and a holy kiss Roy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
I don't have any question as to why you posted this Roy. It's a Doctrinal forum for posting things. It's difficult to understand if you think otherwise but you shouldn't equate disagreement with disapproval. For the purposes of this board you can post and you do. Rather than play a guessing game, yes, it's easier when you clarify it but it doesn't matter to me that you do or don't. Since you did, I commented. I can live without reading anymore of this stuff, trust me.
Yeah, illusion. That I don't agree with, not for me anyway.
"diffusion" describes the phrase "see through a glass darkly".
diffusion is not abstraction or distortion.
Christianity is focused on a relationship - the nature of it is intangible compared to say, sitting next to a friend. The friend is there. The relationship is shared between us and is there too but not the same way. Physical, "spiritual", one might use those words.
Christ is "in" me, not sitting next to me in the same way as the friend would be. The presence and the relationship is an internal one.
That relationship is pure and true as is. As I would be a "son of God" the relationship is full and complete. The quality of the relationship can grow, become richer and clearer.
In that the "see through a glass darkly" is not a distortion, nor an illusion. It's not even just a matter of development or a lack of development. It's simply an acceptance in it's purest state.
I might describe this "diffusion" in the relationship as the light that comes from regular lamp in a room, with a regular tungsten bulb - warm, close, inviting, useful, soft.
It's not as bright or illuminating as a full on mercury lamp, 10,000 watts. But no less real or useful, no less meaningful. This is how I see the bible's phrase "we see through a glass darkly".
Outside of that it's not an illusion, either. That's what you seem to want to say, so fine. Go for it.
Everyone has good days and bad days in a relationship but the relationship remains unless it's ended and destroyed. God is faithful and just, and always "here".
It's pretty simple to me if I don't complicate it. I have the problems, that goes with the territory. But there's a consistency in the relationship I can have that isn't governed by those problems, that is strong and stable. I prefer to rely on that, weak or strong, good days bad days. When I do life is good for me. When I don't, it's not as good, sometimes not at all.
More often than not though, it's good. .
Link to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God/man/Atheist or unbelief/Jesus/Christ/child of God
What is a person that believes in God?
01-28-2012
I once believe the Truth was the Church that I was raised in and than I believe it was in the Way ministry and I tried Spirit and Truth Fellowship International and others. But I found no truth at all because I was not looking at the Christ inside of me the heart of my spirit God himself. You see God creative everything from himself otherwise I had it all alone the oneness of my inner thought which my inner self of Christ.
The Way Ministry taught me about spirit and that Christ was in me, which is the hope of glory but that only the beginning to discovering the truth that was in a place I never dream. So I give credit to the Way Ministry for the direction they gave and all the others that try to point me in right direction. I am that person that believes a God that in my heart there nothing to prove me right or wrong because I believe by own unbelief.
One thinks why would I say I believe because of my unbelief because if a person does not get honest about him-self how can that have any truth belief in God. I know from my five senses God cannot be real but I know by inner self that is everything and nothing. My heart tells me Christ is real because I see his love in people all around me, which means, God must be real too.
When we get honest about our deep down feeling we know we have unbelief even that we do not want to face it. So God creative d us from what himself making sin a part of God, which is why God had no choice to make a way for making a way for God cleanse his self of our sin. Is God sin no but God has to deal with us a part of him that must return one day as we must return dust that returns to God him-self.
I see myself as the broken Man I am which all the hang up of my past and future I will have some day but for now I am trying to be more honest with everybody. Because with truth I will free myself from this unbelief I must live because everyone that claims they have no unbelief is a lie and there is no truth in them. Otherwise Christ die for them in vain because Christ for us all I do not know if that voids out God gift of Christ but I hope not,
Sin is my unbelief that I hide from most until now just how I lust after sex that I do not want to have but its part of me. The part of me I wish one know but in uncovering the lie I hide from myself I can face it the first step to making it in past or putting my unbelief in the open can make me believe stronger than before or making a invisible God visible. Thank you with Love of truth and a holy kiss of Christ to all from Roy.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kit Sober
my apologies for not being clear....
I was speaking of questioning myself in light of what the Bible says and what the Lord says and what the devil says
I remember a dear friend, towards the end of his active ministry saying "I don't even need to think about speaking in tongues any more, it just comes naturally." And that statement filled me with dread for his life. Acts 17:11 gives us the key to nobility in God's eyes, to daily search the scriptures whether those things are so. Daily we must decide whether to believe the Lord or go with the flow (downhill).
when I was much younger and surrounded by the cheer leaders of friends it was easier to choose right from wrong, but now it's a bit more challenging because my body (including my mind) is falling apart, I'm pretty much alone day by day, the company I work for is in final stages of closing of sale to another company and I have only hope I will find another job due to having become deaf, etc. etc. Life is minute by minute deciding how and what I will do.
It's easy for me to know that God is love, that Jesus Christ is Everything, but the decision is whether or not He is truly my Lord in the minutes of my life.
The hypocricy of the twi led us down the road of hypocricy whereby it was no problem to say "Jesus is Lord" with our mouths, but the minutes of our lives were not required to be in subjection to Him. Therefore instead of using the fleeting days of the exuberance of youth to firm up the muscles of our faith, we were left with flabby hypocricy in daily life, which eventually must be dealt with if one wants to stand before the Lord and have Him say, "Well done, beloved and faithful servant."
That's all I was saying.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God first
thanks Kit Sober
what I heard was not a person that agree with the man thought but not a Kit Sober that was going to nail the grave close
it plane from your words you are a believer first in your heart
otherwise you are like the rest of us
but you not bitter nor can you be
because you know that all will see it as you see it
but you have spoken no words against your brother
otherwise you love your enemy
with love and a holy kiss Roy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
God Bless You Friend..
It seesm such an innocent question, doesn't it..
:)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
This all reminds me of that Great Question of Life, and my own personal favorite answer:
Question: Why did the chicken cross the road?
Answer: What chicken?
Other screeds floating in the temporal lobe paste:
If Lofton is a "man of God" I'm a hat pin in a pepper mill.
I loathe the modern use of the term "man of God". There are men, there's a God. No need to get them mixed up.
I only know one way - call 'em like you see 'em. There's never any lack of people to inform me of how wrong or right I am and with that kind of help, how can I lose?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Q. Why did the chicken cross the road?
A. He wanted to prove to the possum that it could be done.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God first
thanks ham and socks and waysider
yes that the question we want to know
with love and a holy kiss Roy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
If Lofton is a follower of Christ I too am a hat pin.....but hey, I sometimes call the cashiers at Wal-mart "Sister". Girl power.
I hope the irony is not lost on you.....you use a little critical thinking to evaluate a post that basically says you are incapable of critical thinking....and the judgements fly. I guess one can interpret critical thinking as bitter and speaking words against your brother......it is silly, but one is free to assume. Lofton has no problem with it.
Loving your enemy doesn't include agreeing with or easily putting up with apostasy. We are kept by God Almighty for Jesus Christ. Jude speaks a great deal about contending and defending the faith. It would be a great topic discussion.
Then again sometimes you just have to shake your head in wonder ....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.