19th Century American Religions

[Jeannieb43]

Speaking (as we were in the "Help Me Out" thread) of Satan's counterfeiting the true church by bringing up the Mormon church during tha same period, and in America....

There were at least two other new religions which arose in America during the mid 19th Century: Christian Science (Mary Baker Eddy), and Foursquare Gospel (Aimee Semple McPherson).

Note how clever Satan was able to counterfeit the true religion:

1. They each arose in mid-1800s, in America;

2. They each had a "prophet";

3. They each were led by a woman (except Mormonism); and

4. They each foretell a "time of the end" which is to come in the future.

Aimee Semple McPherson's "Temple" is still standing, on the edge of Echo Lake Park in Los Angeles, and I drive past there occasionally. They seem to have a full house of worshipers on Sundays.

The largest Christian Science churches (at least in the Los Angeles area) are now shrinking in membership, and many of them have sold their buildings.

Satan is clever in counterfeiting the true. But whether or not OUR church [organization] will go through to the end, we each can have a firm faith which will stand the test of time.

[cardw]

Quote:

Note how clever Satan was able to counterfeit the true religion:

It's amazing how everyone thinks they are the TRUE religion.

[Woody]

I would hope that each person believes in what they believe. Do you not believe in what you believe? Do you think what you believe is False?

[fccool]

Don't forget the other large 19th century religion that surfaced exactly same year in 1844... that of Secular Science and Evolution.

Darwin sketched the Origin of Species that year.

[cardw]

Quote:

I would hope that each person believes in what they believe. Do you not believe in what you believe? Do you think what you believe is False?

It is quite a different thing to claim that one as THE truth or the best form of THE truth. I don't claim that because I am very aware that there is far more that I don't know than the little that I do know. And that which I do know is only partial at best and more likely simply a story I tell myself to make sense of the world.

To me, only the immature claim to know THE truth. In my experience human knowing is dynamic and continually changes and adapts to new knowledge. It can often go in a completely different direction at different times in one's life. I don't expect that process to end in my lifetime.

[Woody]

Quote:

I would hope that each person believes in what they believe. Do you not believe in what you believe? Do you think what you believe is False?

It is quite a different thing to claim that one as THE truth or the best form of THE truth. I don't claim that because I am very aware that there is far more that I don't know than the little that I do know. And that which I do know is only partial at best and more likely simply a story I tell myself to make sense of the world.

To me, only the immature claim to know THE truth. In my experience human knowing is dynamic and continually changes and adapts to new knowledge. It can often go in a completely different direction at different times in one's life. I don't expect that process to end in my lifetime.

OK. I'm with you on what you have said.

I have consistently claimed that you should not listen to me for truth. I don't claim to have complete truth. There is so much I could understand incorrectly. Truth IS progressive. Look at how much our church continues to grow over the years. We continue to learn truth and will even in Heaven.

There will be a lot of re-programming up there in Heaven I fear.

[fccool]

Quote:

I would hope that each person believes in what they believe. Do you not believe in what you believe? Do you think what you believe is False?

It is quite a different thing to claim that one as THE truth or the best form of THE truth. I don't claim that because I am very aware that there is far more that I don't know than the little that I do know. And that which I do know is only partial at best and more likely simply a story I tell myself to make sense of the world.

To me, only the immature claim to know THE truth. In my experience human knowing is dynamic and continually changes and adapts to new knowledge. It can often go in a completely different direction at different times in one's life. I don't expect that process to end in my lifetime.

Richard ,

I appreciate your attitude as I do hold a similar one, as all of us have epistemological problem of knowing. But, epistemologically all of us believe something to be truth. I agree with you that most of the people mistake belief in truth with the knowledge of truth as these two are different things. You can justifiably believe that you have truth, but you also CAN justifiably know that you do have truth. Belief is easy... knowledge is difficult. But the opposite could be said at the same time because as humans we always tend to seek a reasonable explanation and our reason can only lead us so far as all of us are locked in 4 walls of time, space, senses, and death. We can't see beyond these. Most of the people give up and think that it is impossible to truly know anything because of these. I disagree.

The statements you have typed in above... you believe these to be true , otherwise why would you go about typing something that you believe to be false? You say that knowledge is dynamically changes, andI believe that you are incorrect. It is only a belief that dynamically changes ... the belief that of what we think is the truth . By definition, if you know something... it is truth.

For example, if you say that you know that the bridge is safe and you walk across it and it collapses, then you merely believed it to be knowledge. Epistemologically, knowledge is infallible . Belief is not. In essence... there is no "new" knowledge/truth as truth is constant, logically you can't come up with new one as it would require for it to be untrue prior to its birth. There are many be new beliefs which may come and go, but knowledge/truth remain constant. Some may be new concepts to us, but again it is in the realm of belief. So what we believe could partially be knowledge of truth, or could be quite opposite .

That's why such words as "natural" or "super-natural" is quite irrational as these attempt to describe something we don't understand. What is natural and what is supernatural? Supernatural could be natural if we understood more about it. Nevertheless... where am I going with all of this? The passage below is amazing passage in light of our understanding of belief/knowledge/truth and things worth searching for

1st Corinthians 2

1When I came to you, brothers, I did not come with eloquence or superior wisdom as I proclaimed to you the testimony about God.[a] 2For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. 3I came to you in weakness and fear, and with much trembling. 4My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit's power, 5so that your faith might not rest on men's wisdom, but on God's power.

Wisdom From the Spirit

6We do, however, speak a message of wisdom among the mature, but not the wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. 7No, we speak of God's secret wisdom, a wisdom that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began. 8None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. 9However, as it is written:

"No eye has seen,

no ear has heard,

no mind has conceived

what God has prepared for those who love him"— 10but God has revealed it to us by his Spirit.

The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. 11For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man's spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. 12We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us. 13This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words.[c] 14The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. 15The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man's judgment:

16"For who has known the mind of the Lord

that he may instruct him?"[d] But we have the mind of Christ.

So again....

15The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man's judgment:

16"For who has known the mind of the Lord

that he may instruct him?"[d] But we have the mind of Christ.

Basically what Paul is saying here is quite remarkable in light of what all Christian denominations believe today with all of thousands statements of creed trying to put it into a system for people just come and read and thus "know God" by means of another human point of view (belief) of God is. Paul in contrast:

... resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. 3I came to you in weakness and fear, and with much trembling. 4My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit's power, 5so that your faith might not rest on men's wisdom, but on God's power...

Quite the opposite of how we as Adventist trying to reach people by way of our wisdom in "understanding" the end times. What Paul is saying here if we take him verbatim is that person receives the Spirit of God, by way of knowledge of Christ... not from knowing that Daniel's prophesies were fulfilled and all of that other fun stuff like the Ten Commandments and Sabbath . He is saying that you can't understand anything of a spiritual nature unless you have that down first.

So we do have an epistemological "problem" here . We seek knowledge and truth, but according to Bible we will not have it unless we have the Spirit of God. That's why I think there's lots of dissonance in church as Richard has pointed out. People are not humble enough to point people to Christ, instead they point out those external things that the same people can not possibly understand without knowing Christ first (forgive me for speaking in Christian "cliches" here, but I believe that you understand what I mean by "knowing Christ", if you don't, please let me know). So we have people saying...

" Don't you know ____fill in the blank___ is a sin?"

" Don't you know that every word of Bible is true?"... because it says so

How can they?!!!!

1When I came to you, brothers, I did not come with eloquence or superior wisdom as I proclaimed to you the testimony about God.[a] 2For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. 3I came to you in weakness and fear, and with much trembling. 4My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit's power, 5so that your faith might not rest on men's wisdom, but on God's power.

As Adventists, we tend to do quite the opposite . We tend to come not with Christ first, but somewhere in the middle of our superior understanding of Bible prophesy and God's plan for our health and other good stuff. May I ask if that that the reason that many leave the church disappointed and many churches shrink over the years in spite of their "evangelistic" efforts?

[David Koot]

It's amazing how everyone thinks they are the TRUE religion.

In the end, it certainly involves issues of accuracy. As for what is 'true,' we certainly can understand that to mean, 'what are the facts.' If a belief or understanding is consistent with the facts, then it is 'true.' It is reasonable and, in fact, hardly avoidable to recognize that a particular understanding is in harmony with the 'facts.' Thus, it is appropriate to identify such as 'true.'

Again, accuracy is an important, indeed a necessary component. Therefore, if someone wishes to present a position statement, then by all means do so, and put it out there for scrutiny and peer review.

Dave

[Dr. Shane]

Satan has many counterfeits. How can we be sure we are not involved in one of them? We must study our Bibles and pledge to God to by loyal to all truth He reveals to us. Can ever be sure we are in the "true" church? I don't think so. I think those that are honest with themselves will always have some doubt. Yet that is why we have faith. We trust in that we cannot be absolutely certain of. Looking to the Bible for truth is based on the presumption that the Bible is truth. That itself involves a certain degree of faith.

[fccool]

" As for what is 'true,' we certainly can understand that to mean, 'what are the facts.' If a belief or understanding is consistent with the facts, then it is 'true.' It is reasonable and, in fact, hardly avoidable to recognize that a particular understanding is in harmony with the 'facts.' Thus, it is appropriate to identify such as 'true.' "

Dave, if Socrates was alive, I think he would chuckle . The "facts" can lead you in a direction opposite of the truth, because the "facts" are subject to interpretation to your limited senses, your imperfect memory, and subject to time. To many people our there... evolution is a proven fact . Even things that we can see as "facts", such as colors and shapes... words... are subject to interpretation of our brains as we tend to understand "facts" based on our collective understanding of these. We believe that animals do not see color for example. So, the concept of color exists in our minds and interpretive . If such basic concept as color is interpretive, then what's to say about the meaning of life and origins of the universe! There are hardly any facts that you can truly verify, as virtually anything that you believe you accept based on faith. From meaning of the words that you speak, to more concept beliefs that these words form in your mind. You may have your reasons for your faith, which you should, but It is hardly derived from any verifiable facts... only from your understanding of things.

"Saki" denotes "rice vodka" in Japanese, but it also means "urine" in Russian. Both of these are true at the same time, and when transliterated will look the same, but they do not refer to the same object. So, verifying THE truth based on facts is virtually impossible . We may hit some of it, but not enough to find some kind of meaning IMHO. That's why we need God, who created us to be dependent on His knowledge, which we accept AS FACT though it can not be "verified" right here and right now... which is called FAITH.

[David Koot]

Dave, if Socrates was alive, I think he would chuckle .

[fccool]

Dave,

How did you learn how to speak? Read the post the post in entirety to understand where I'm going with this.

How do you know that the scenario described in film "Matrix" is not true . Could you verify it as "fact" and "observe" the reality if it was the case? Do you think that such scenario is "impossible". If you admit that it is possible... then how would you ever know the difference between the dream world and the real one. You could observe all you wanted, but you would not be observing the truth, but only lies.

We are living in a Matrix of preconceived ideas. Science is philosophical as it deals with concept of truth. Can you really trust your imperical observations in times of love, hate, anger, and jealousy? Don't you think that our pre-existing knowledge will not skew our understanding of "objective reality"? Can anyone at all look at things objectively in a world where all of us learn how to speak from somebody else... and don't even begin to think rationally till age of 7.. 8 or sometimes early teens ... taking the tests in schools where we are being told what the truth is... Even this conversation we are having right now is because we pulled our ideas elsewhere... from thoughts of other people. I hope you see where I'm going with this.

[cardw]

Quote:

1When I came to you, brothers, I did not come with eloquence or superior wisdom as I proclaimed to you the testimony about God.[a] 2For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. 3I came to you in weakness and fear, and with much trembling. 4My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit's power, 5so that your faith might not rest on men's wisdom, but on God's power.

And yet what is this demonstration of the Spirit's power? I don't see this power within the Christian church.

Quote:

6We do, however, speak a message of wisdom among the mature, but not the wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. 7No, we speak of God's secret wisdom, a wisdom that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began. 8None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

This sounds very Gnostic in its description of the secret wisdom. This also suggests that Paul's message is not a rational message.

Quote:

10but God has revealed it to us by his Spirit. The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. 11For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man's spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. 12We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us. 13This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words.[c] 14The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. 15The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man's judgment: 16"For who has known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct him?"[d] But we have the mind of Christ.

I know what this spirit is for myself because I recognize that part of me that dwells beyond thinking and feeling. Christianity today does not teach people how to "hear" this part of themselves. And this "knowing" is understood far better by those who are not Christians.

And it does not require one to dwell on the Crucified Christ to understand this. I can see how it might for some people, particularly within the context of ancient philosophies.

What is interesting is that Christianity's claim of exclusive understanding is the very type of thinking that prevents people from understanding the "things of the spirit."

[fccool]

Richard,

I don't believe that you can not absolutely know God apart from Christianity, and I don't think that this is a general consensus either. People who strive for leadership in the church partly are politicians and tend to be more on a pragmatic side of trying to fit a perfect solution in a box. As you have correctly pointed out, there is no God in a box solution that you can just open and put on. As people we have different experiences and backgrounds that will alter our understanding of things accordingly.

Yet I believe that Christ was either a liar, or He was telling truth when He said:

"Do not let your hearts be troubled. Have faith in God and faith in me. In my Father's house there are many dwelling places; otherwise, how could I have told you that I was going to prepare a place for you? I am indeed going to prepare a place for you, and then I shall come back to take you with me, that where I am you also may be. You know the way that leads where I go."

"Lord," said Thomas, "we do not know where you are going. How can we know the way?" Jesus told him: "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through me. If you really knew me, you would now my Father also. From this point on you know him; you have seen him."

"Lord," Philip said to him, "show us the Father and that will be enough for us." "Philip," Jesus replied, "after I have been with you all this time, you still do no know me?"

"Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'? Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I speak are not spoken of myself; it is the Father who lives in me accomplishing his works. Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me, or else, believe because of the works I do. I solemnly assure you, the one who has faith in me will do the works I do, and greater far than these. Why? Because I go to the Father."

It can't be both a truth and a lie at the same time. And no, I don't believe we should be teaching people how to "listen" to "hear" our "spiritual" voice as it can't be taught by men. Otherwise you might be mistaken a feeling of hate as a command from "inside" to kill someone. I know its extreme example, but I hope you understand where I'm coming from.

As I pointed out from what Paul is saying... my belief will not be rational, but if you can find reason to live outside of its scope... that's your choice.

[cardw]

Quote:

I don't believe that you can not absolutely know God apart from Christianity, and I don't think that this is a general consensus either.

I find no evidence for this position. It is simply based on claims. And I have yet to see this power of the Spirit described by Paul within modern Christianity.

Quote:

Yet I believe that Christ was either a liar, or He was telling truth

Well that depends on what level of metaphor Jesus was using and whether you understand what he was trying to teach.

You can't appeal to rationality without opening up the bible to rational evaluation, which it fails miserably.

Quote:

And no, I don't believe we should be teaching people how to "listen" to "hear" our "spiritual" voice as it can't be taught by men. Otherwise you might be mistaken a feeling of hate as a command from "inside" to kill someone. I know its extreme example, but I hope you understand where I'm coming from.

As I pointed out from what Paul is saying... my belief will not be rational, but if you can find reason to live outside of its scope... that's your choice.

This basically says that Christianity is the only belief system not subject to the rules of reason.

And I said the spirit is past thinking and feeling. So, your example reveals that you don't really know what I am referring to. It is not something that is taught in a traditional sense. It can't be described in words. It is a life experience.

[fccool]

Absence of proof, is not a proof of absence . That's where human reason ends... at the four walls of perception I've described. But once again, I respect your choices, although I don't hold to your reasons for making those. I believe that I will be responsible for my decisions, and you for yours. If you can rely on your own reason and inner voice to find God and know his ways (outside of Biblical principles)... so be it and may God be your judge not me.

[cardw]

Quote:

Absence of proof, is not a proof of absence

And absence of proof is hardly proof of existence.

Quote:

That's where human reason ends... at the four walls of perception I've described.

If you reject perception, then anything can be true. One has to have a place to start. I have found far more success with trial and error. With that method you can use a lot of things you don't exactly understand completely.

Christianity makes some extraordinary claims and this requires extraordinary results. These evidences are simply not there either empirically or rationally. What many Christians claim is that they are somehow by passing human reason by reading the Bible. If that got results then I might pay more attention to those claims, but I haven't seen the "Power of the Spirit" and I don't believe that you have either.

And it takes the same human perception to read the Bible as it does to observe the evidence and I have tons of evidence that people are following their own perceptions whether or not they are reading the Bible.

Quote:

I believe that I will be responsible for my decisions, and you for yours.

That's pretty easy to demonstrate since many consequences come fairly soon after the choice.

Quote:

If you can rely on your own reason and inner voice to find God and know his ways (outside of Biblical principles)... so be it and may God be your judge not me.

That's not exactly what I said. I think there are some great principles in the Bible, only I don't find the idea of Jesus being sacrificed for our sins one of those. There are a lot of those Christian cliches that have very little meaning. What I do find excellent is the idea that our ethics are self referenced. (Love your neighbor as yourself and do unto others as you would have done to you) This is so familiar I think most people miss its brilliance.

[fccool]

I have to use perception to make decisions about every day life. I do not reject it by far, and this is not my point. But by trial and error only works in empirical world of observation, and that's my exact point. It locks you to material world, and as most of the scientist do, leads you to believe that empirical data is all there is and we should only try to use empirical data to make "rational" choice. You can come to a conclusion that God exist, and you can come to that conclusion by means of science and reason... but that's as far as you can go by means of reason. So to speak, if you get stuck on an island with nobody to speak to and all the time to reason and try and err... I doubt you could deduce any long term meaningful purpose for your scientific experiments. It's not a job scientists take on. They only try to explain the HOW part.

For example... sun exists to give light and warms to the humans, and earth rotates around the sun purposefully. That's meaningful. But with empirical observation and deduction to find meaning you will only resort to a circular ones which has been given to me by science... Such as we exist to perpetuate our existence. Or... the meaning of life is to seek truth.

What you are claiming you can do in effect is through trial and error to find that exact thing... a meaning for your existence. Science CAN not even come close "observing" origins. You can make theories(guess beliefs) about it, which is just poking a finger outside of the walls of your perception and pointing there... and so you ever will as we are humans and all we can do is theorize and hope that our theories are true. And it is easy to make theory about something you can smell, taste, tough, and see. But making a theory of what really happens after you die, you get only one chance to try and err. If you are right, then nothing to worry about. If Bible is correct no matter how unlikely, you are missing out then.

Christianity makes some extraordinary claims and this requires extraordinary results.

I'd like to know what kind of results are you talking about? Something you can empirically measure? That we are indeed too complex of a being to be evolved by random mutations? Please specify.

[David Koot]

Read the post the post in entirety to understand where I'm going with this.

[fccool]

I read your post last night, and it is rather elementary--although IMO you missed some important points, as you also seem to have done in your above-cited post.

I appreciate your time in doing so. Please let me know which important points I missed.

A meticulous observer is able to separate his/her observations from his/her emotions.

For you to be such observer you have to also not only separate your observation from your emotion, but also observation of other people from their emotions as we share collective body of knowledge. There are always a certain degree of faith, as even you as a "scientist" except most of your beliefs based on faith in second hand data. And as you well know, scientific community does it to a greater extend and with a certain degree of faith that the hypotheses which are derived from are valid. And this is speaking only about the beliefs that come about the way of the scientific method. How can you use scientific method to verify existence of angels? Would the lack of supporting data indicate the opposite, that angels don't exist? Nobody has yet proven beyond either way. So I prefer to believe in former based on my reason for it. As I've said... the scientific method can only take you so far.

Not necessarily, and not to the extent of invalidating observations. You seem to be referring to interpretation of data rather than observation.

Are you saying that that does not happen to this extend? I know you really don't . For computer to operate, it has to be programmed. The reasoning of the computer is only as good as its software and hardware. If programming is flawed or the hardware is damaged, then the data is likewise flawed. Our minds are no different. If you believe that TimeSpace (example)is an accurate description of reality, then your observation will not likely be independent from your "programming", as your mind interprets things before you even know them at some levels. As your observation is in fact that INTERPRETATION OF REALITY BY YOUR BRAIN as your brain has to interpret the neural impulses into some sort of coherent information. Therefore, observation by our senses and interpretation is similar things... not completely the same, but can be tricked and mislead. That is not to say that we can't use these to come up with some kind of coherent information. But I would not mistake that information with truth and knowing truth that accurately reflect reality.

As a simple experiment... just do this for me please. Believe that black is white. Can you do it? Nop... You can't. You can't just let go of what you gathered up and just let go. You follow a program which influences your interpretation, and observation as you can't separate those two. You can view them as separate issues, but in your mind these fuse and work together. If one is flawed, then it influences the other.

[cardw]

Quote:

You can come to a conclusion that God exist, and you can come to that conclusion by means of science and reason... but that's as far as you can go by means of reason. So to speak, if you get stuck on an island with nobody to speak to and all the time to reason and try and err... I doubt you could deduce any long term meaningful purpose for your scientific experiments. It's not a job scientists take on. They only try to explain the HOW part.

I don't think you can prove God exists by science and reason. And to prove that this god is the one described in the Bible is hardly based on scientific research. And I realize that science doesn't provide meaning by itself, but that doesn't default to the option of God. I see no evidence of an exclusive claim to meaning by Christianity because I can observe many people finding deep meaning and happiness outside Christianity.

Quote:

But making a theory of what really happens after you die, you get only one chance to try and err. If you are right, then nothing to worry about. If Bible is correct no matter how unlikely, you are missing out then.

This is really fear based. I could go crazy worrying about covering every claim that some religion had about the afterlife. This strikes me as immature.

[fccool]

I don't think you can prove God exists by science and reason. And to prove that this god is the one described in the Bible is hardly based on scientific research. And I realize that science doesn't provide meaning by itself, but that doesn't default to the option of God. I see no evidence of an exclusive claim to meaning by Christianity because I can observe many people finding deep meaning and happiness outside Christianity.

Please don't misquote me. I said conclusion, not proof. I understand that you can observe "deep meaning" and "happiness" in

people outside of the scope of God. But then again, your observations are based on your view and understanding of these subjects. Bible is just as exclusive as science, as modern sciences tend to exclude any possibility of supernatural. But, this is another topic

This is really fear based. I could go crazy worrying about covering every claim that some religion had about the afterlife. This strikes me as immature.

That's the beauty of it. You don't have to. You believe based on the information that you get and at least give my view a chance. Would you be willing for 15 days to read Bible and pray to God for understanding? Try it.

I've been through the scientific way as I have grown up in atheistic country and atheistic family. I know the arguments as I was the ones who held these. But as my understanding of certain things changed, my views changed. I gave it a chance, and I believe that I found answers to the questions that I was asking and these were more rational to me than atheism. It's not an issue of fear. Once I realized my limitations and understood cause and effect, then it was easier to accept Biblical view. There were always questions, and there will always be. But this is no different to atheism, or any other religion out there. Rational thought is just that, a thought. But the results and consequences of living out this thought do matter. And I don't find the prospect of atheism too appealing as it's hard to derive any morality from it. If there is no God, then this world would make less sense to me. Let's put it that way.

[cardw]

Quote:

Please don't misquote me. I said conclusion, not proof. I understand that you can observe "deep meaning" and "happiness" in people outside of the scope of God. But then again, your observations are based on your view and understanding of these subjects. Bible is just as exclusive as science, as modern sciences tend to exclude any possibility of supernatural. But, this is another topic

Well, for me, there is not enough evidence to even come to a conclusion. And modern science simply doesn't have the tools to explore the supernatural, so its excluded by default not by belief. I am not appealing to science to find meaning for me.

Quote:

That's the beauty of it. You don't have to. You believe based on the information that you get and at least give my view a chance. Would you be willing for 15 days to read Bible and pray to God for understanding? Try it.

Well, I can go farther than that. I tried it for 30+ years. It did have some usefulness, but certainly did not produce all the results that are claimed, nor is the Bible based on some Divine source. In my reading of the history of this collection of books there are clear indications that it is reasonably certain that it is not of Divine origin.

Quote:

I've been through the scientific way as I have grown up in atheistic country and atheistic family. I know the arguments as I was the ones who held these. But as my understanding of certain things changed, my views changed. I gave it a chance, and I believe that I found answers to the questions that I was asking and these were more rational to me than atheism. It's not an issue of fear. Once I realized my limitations and understood cause and effect, then it was easier to accept Biblical view.

Well, while I don't believe in any god, I certainly am aware that science doesn't have answers to questions of meaning. And the answers, at least for me, are not based on rational proofs. They are experience based and are largely subjective. So I doubt if your beliefs are rational. And for me, the Bible is not a default view left over after you explore other methods.

I would be interested in what "answers" the Bible gave you. And what difference did these answers make?

Quote:

There were always questions, and there will always be. But this is no different to atheism, or any other religion out there. Rational thought is just that, a thought. But the results and consequences of living out this thought do matter. And I don't find the prospect of atheism too appealing as it's hard to derive any morality from it. If there is no God, then this world would make less sense to me. Let's put it that way.

Well, for one thing atheism is not a set of beliefs. The only "requirement" is that you don't believe in a god or gods. Otherwise you are free to believe what ever you want. I'm probably agnostic or what some call atheism lite. I'm simply unwilling to give a reality to something I can't observe. This is largely based on the abuses that I observe when people take something they have no proof for an impose particular views on others based on this imaginary manifestation.

[fccool]

I am just curious then what are you views on our origins? The question of origins and questioning evolutionary theory was one of those "answers" you are asking me about.

The complexity of nature that is virtually improbably by chance. How do you deal with that? Is that something that you choose not to dwell on too much, or do you just leave it as "not enough evidence to determine"?

I'm not saying that things like evolutions are impossible, but improbability of it leads me to find more rational answers, as I find belief that random choice events working together to bring about something as complex as human body... that I do find more irrational than belief that God exists and designed these with purpose of function that we can observe.

[cardw]

Quote:

I am just curious then what are you views on our origins? The question of origins and questioning evolutionary theory was one of those "answers" you are asking me about.

Well, it seems obvious to me that the planet has been here with life on it far longer than 10,000 years and we are finding transitional species in the fossil record. And evolution has provided an insight into the adaption of species and offers some credible methods of evolution that don't rely on random mutations. As far as the mechanism of this transition I tend to believe there is an underlying order, whether within processes we don't know about or influences from unknown dimensions.

But these are not answers any more than a belief in creation. I think it is far better to say I don't know than to claim a specific origin in a god as described by the Bible. I can, with good reasons, come to the conclusion that the god of the Bible is not an accurate description of how life came to this planet. And through that same rational process conclude that evolutionary theory is far from being complete.

I can also understand the comfort a personal god might give and yet I have not found evidence in my own life experience that this god exists. I have found evidence of a deeper experience of life through many transformational experiences and while these are undefined in rational ways, they certainly provide results in a far better subjective experience of life.

The weakness that I see in the Christian view of god is an over dependence on what that god will do. I have observed that there are many difficulties in life that can be overcome by learning new ways of doing things and often in the waiting for god to do something, an opportunity to grow and to learn is lost.

There is also a tendency to over simplify things and this results in some rather immature judgmental attitudes toward those whom Christians view as inferior or controlled by Satan.

And Christianity's history in general does not speak well for it. It has only been subdued by secular governments who have had to work to free themselves from its rather violent solutions to societal problems and to stop Christian institutions from carrying out their violence against portions of society that are attacked only for religious reasons.