Deconversion: Letting go of one's religious belief and accepting reality on its own terms.

[Charity]

1 hour ago, oldiesman said:

I think that'd entirely be up to God, Jesus and the Holy Ghost.  They'd be the final judges on where we go for eternity.     But you bring up an interesting argument about reliance ONLY on the scriptures!?    I think it's an established fact here in GS that the scriptures don't always "fit like a hand in a glove" and there are many mysteries that we have been challenged with.

The "that" in your reply is referring to whether once saved/always saved is true or whether only those who "remain faithful" will be saved.  So, you think God purposefully left believers to be guessing/wondering/worried/fearful about whether they will go to a place called heaven or a placed called hell for all eternity.   

I don't get why an all-loving God/Father would do that to his children.  Why wouldn't he make it absolutely clear how to be saved without there being any contradictions within "his word?"

[Charity]

1 hour ago, oldiesman said:

All the more reason why we probably should rely almost solely on our own direct and vibrant faith in God rather than trusting in translators alone.   I know that sounds kinda mushy.    But the good thing is I think we are open to other possibilities now...

39 minutes ago, oldiesman said:

I believe there are many mysteries that mankind won't know about until the afterlife.    I pray that Jesus has mercy on us all when the time comes for our own personal judgements.

I thought Catholics had to take their doctrine from what the current Pope, when speaking ex cathedra on matters of faith and morals, has to say.  Once saved/always saved is not one of those doctrines.  Your reference to "many mysteries," I think is their doctrine around salvation.

[Charity]

21 hours ago, Oakspear said:

How we communicate is a personal decision. I choose to (at least attempt to) communicate in a way that doesn't assume that the other person is a complete idiot. I'm also influenced by the way I communicated my faith while in TWI, and how I see many evangelicals/fundamentalists speak now -- it can be arrogant and condescending. I also figure that I'm not responsible for what other people believe as long as they're not trying to enshrine it in law, or are assuming that I'm an idiot for not believing what they believe. I think that Gervais, at least in that interview is pretty low-key about it. He presents why he thinks the way he does, but doesn't attack Colbert or imply that he is stupid. 

Regarding the second phrase you highlighted. My family members have built up an immunity to my opinions on religion stemming from my obnoxious "witnessing" during my TWI days and get very defensive when I express an opinion about religion. My point was not I wasn't trying to convince her that her god didn't exist, but that maybe her understanding about said god wasn't in line with reality...within the context of stipulating that God exists. 

By the way, I'm not an atheist, although I may sound like one sometimes. I allow for the existence of spiritual entities in a kind of agnostic way, but don't base any life decisions on their existence. If there is a God, then there are gods also, with their existence all being of similar probability.  I recall a quote that was attributed to The Buddha (probably apocryphal) where he acknowledged that gods existed, but that they were rather silly! I have moved away from religion in multiple steps, starting with my rejection of TWO dogma, moving through skepticism about the Bible all the way to where I am now. 

Your post was helpful, especially what I highlighted in blue.  Idiot is what a stupid person is called.  Being so judgmental is where arrogance (having or revealing an exaggerated sense of one's own importance or abilities) and being condescending (having or showing a feeling of patronizing superiority) comes in.

Someone else recently shared with me the idea that they are also not responsible for what other people believe so I guess it's been confirmed for me that I shouldn't either   .

Lesson being simply to share why I no longer believe in the god of the bible and how that has made my life better.

 

[oldiesman]

19 hours ago, Charity said:

I thought Catholics had to take their doctrine from what the current Pope, when speaking ex cathedra on matters of faith and morals, has to say.  Once saved/always saved is not one of those doctrines.  Your reference to "many mysteries," I think is their doctrine around salvation.

You are correct.  The catholic church doctrine won't change or change easily, but any one of us can go to the traditional mass and worship God and enjoy and cherish the experience in the process.   That's where I'm at right now.    They don't know that silent SIT is in play with one of their parishoners... 

[oldiesman]

20 hours ago, Charity said:

The "that" in your reply is referring to whether once saved/always saved is true or whether only those who "remain faithful" will be saved.  So, you think God purposefully left believers to be guessing/wondering/worried/fearful about whether they will go to a place called heaven or a placed called hell for all eternity.   

I don't get why an all-loving God/Father would do that to his children.  Why wouldn't he make it absolutely clear how to be saved without there being any contradictions within "his word?"

How should i know?    You're asking the Ford to explain Henry.