Doesn't make sense, KFC. If we did, there would be no 'non-Christians', as we'd all be card-carrying Christians, surely? And if you're saying that your God is interventionist, in that he supports and looks after his own, then it ought to be child's play to compile statistics that back that up, right?

You have a point here Furry. First off lives have been changed as a result of these card-carrying Christians. Many have come to Christ as a result of seeing others follow him. They see the peace, joy and happiness that transends everything else. Many martyrs went to their death obediently and many watching came to Christ as a result. Have you ever heard..."the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the faith?" Unlike Islam, they didn't take anyone with them. They did not comit suicide. Their lives were taken from them, and their crime? Not denouncing Christ when they had the chance to do so. Many came to faith and still do all over the world as a result of those willing to die for the one that gave them life. This is still happening.

But at the same time many Christians are not doing the work of Christ. They are content just to believe and not share or show their faith. They are doing a disservice to Christ and to those around them that need to hear the "good news."

And actually there are many Christians or pseudo Christians even that are hurting the cause of Christ. They wold be better off not calling themselves this. That's what makes it all so confusing. Guess who's behind all this? Hint....it's not God.

And actually there are many Christians or pseudo Christians even that are hurting the cause of Christ. They wold be better off not calling themselves this. That's what makes it all so confusing. Guess who's behind all this? Hint....it's not God.

Satan's greatest trick, dividing the religions and making each one think theres is the only way to God.

Yes Andy I'm saying it's all God and not man. This is a very deep issue and one debated within the fundamentalists as well. I have looked at predestination at length and believe it's God who predestines. It's not about our will....it's all about his will be done. Paul writes about this in Eph 1 & 2 especially but it's seen throughout scripture. Jesus said...."You did not choose me but it is I that chose you."

yes I do believe in hell. It's total separation from God and that's what makes it hell. Death is separation. When we die physically our physical body is separated from our soul. When we die spiritually our spirit is separated from God.

I don’t understand the logic here, KFC. This is like a mother choosing to give birth to a child solely in order to put it into an oven to burn. But in this case, you’re saying that God predestines many of His children to be put into an oven to experience pain and torment forever? I don’t understand babe. You’ll have to fill me in more.

I’m sure that another person’s views cannot make any difference to our own, at a heart level.

But doesn't this imply that you think all preaching, missionary work, charity, theological investigation is inherently futile?

No, it’s not futile. Theological investigation, preaching and missionary work are part of the process of our learning and growth. But I don’t think that they determine our beliefs. I believe it’s the other way round.

Our beliefs and our model of the world stem primarily from our level of spiritual or emotional growth. As we grow, our views often change, becoming, generally speaking, more aligned with the ‘truth’ of reality. I believe that our behaviour, and our methods of exploring or expressing these views are secondary ‘by-products’ of our level of growth.

For example, a person might gravitate toward a religious fundamentalist's preaching and missionary work, and might then subscribe to those particular beliefs, and preach and do missionary work herself. Another person might not care for a religious outlook, taking a secular, materialistic stance on reality. A third person might explore a different point of view, such as Eastern wisdom, Buddhism or Taoism. A forth might see how all the views fit together, and might adhere to a model of the world that incorporates aspects of all.

In this sense, I’m sure that at a ‘heart level’, another person’s views cannot make any difference to our own. We usually just gravitate to people who share our views, or who would subscribe to our own. Yet they’d be on the same wavelength in the first place. (Interestingly, a common remark from initiates within particular group who share beliefs, is “This is what I knew in my heart all along.” In other words, they’ve found a level of teaching and wisdom that they’re ready for. It’s the right path for them.)

For sure? Deeper experience leads to not going back, going back implies absence of deeper experience. i.e. It's a cyclic argument, and thus impossible to prove.

Not necessarily. I believe that we can grow into a deeper experience of God, after which we do not go back to a non-experience of God. This has been my experience, anyway.

People can experience God, and then go back to a place where they don’t appreciate or recognise Him anymore. But I believe that on a larger scale, the underlying trend leads toward not going backwards. Whenever a person ‘backslides’, they can trust God’s grace, and can eventually come back to God. This is the meaning behind the parable of the Prodigal Son.

'The science of the soul is a different matter, though, and during our time on earth, “the Kingdom of God is within”, as Jesus said.'

Here I disagree fundamentally with your terminology. Frequently I find myself defending science against accusations of atheism and reductionism, often here on JU. (Incidentally, you make something of a suggestion to this end yourself above, albeit in a roundabout way - I would argue from personal experience that one can subscribe to a scientific or rational view of the world and yet still find it a marvellous and rewarding place to live in; i.e. it is not necessary to conclude that 'all is death and finality'.) Each time, I make the point that science does not have an agenda on - let alone any claim to have 'dismissed' or 'disproven' - spirituality, but that spirituality is by definition outside science's remit. Consequently, there can be no 'science of the soul'. Let's leave the soul to religion, and detectable phenomena to science.

Yes, I agree that the word “science” is probably out of context. Although from my own point of view, it’s a definite form of science that can be proved for oneself. But it’s such a subjective form of proof, that I’d have to agree with you. We’ll leave the soul to religion, and detectable phenomena to science.

But here, I’ll wheel out Sir William Blagg’s quote, because I think it’s apt: “Religion and science are opposed . . . but only in the same sense as that in which my thumb and forefinger are opposed - and between the two, one can grasp everything."

'In answer to your point Furry, I don’t think that it matters whether we ‘know’ that God exists or not.' I tend to agree, Andy. (Actually I think it is important that we DON'T know

Why do you think it’s important that we don’t know, Furry?

my answer--
yes, and then yes again.
there is no way i could explain it. but there's my answer.

'As we grow, our views often change ...'
Agreed. However, what causes our views to change? The influence (either constructive or destructive) of the views of others - in books, film, conversation, culture etc. This is why I took issue with your assertion that ' I’m sure that another person’s views cannot make any difference to our own, at a heart level.' Without access to these opinions and beliefs, none of us would even be familiar with the notion of Christianity (or any other faith), let alone its tenets. My life is peppered with instances of adjustment in the way I see the world because a book, documentary or conversation has given me a changed perspective, and I quite definitely wouldn't argue that 'this is what I knew in my heart all along'.

'Not necessarily. I believe that we can grow into a deeper experience of God, after which we do not go back to a non-experience of God. This has been my experience, anyway.'
I wasn't taking issue with your argument itself, but with its value. The argument is cyclic, and so cannot be proven one way or another.

'Although from my own point of view, it’s a definite form of science that can be proved for oneself. But it’s such a subjective form of proof ...'
Agreed, except that in the very nature of being subjective it does not constitute 'proof'. I quite understand that those with faith such as yourself may feel so confident of their position that formal proof is no longer needed, and I accept that. However, I do not accept that this constitutes 'knowledge' or 'truth' or 'understanding' or 'proof', because it is subjective and untestable. Rather, it constitutes faith, belief and / or conviction.

'Although from my own point of view, it’s a definite form of science that can be proved for oneself.'
We've been down this road before, Andy, and there's probably little of benefit in opening it all up again. However, I would try and illustrate my problem with this. We cannot each invent 'science' in our own image and to fit what we want to get out of it. Science is a formal method of investigation, and by definition objective, observable and repeatable. To talk about it being proved for oneself is, as explained above, a non-sequiteur. The 'soul' itself is, almost by definition, outside the parameters of science. Whatever kind of relationship with or understanding of your 'soul' you enjoy (and I have no doubt that you are sincere in your description of this), it isn't in the slightest a scientific one.

Actually, for the believers, I suspect there is little more to say of value than jlaur65's comment above:
' my answer--yes, and then yes again.there is no way i could explain it. but there's my answer.'
Can't argue with that!

Glad to fill you in Andy but can only do so by touching lightly on the subject. Like I said, this is a huge issue and one that's been debated for many years and you and I are not going to solve this here on JU.

First you assume that "all" children are God's children. Why? Where are you getting that from? Jesus said to the unbelievers...."You are of your father the devil." See Andy there are two fathers. One is the Creator God Jehovah and the other is Lucifer. One is the light and the other masquerades as the light. Many think they are following the light but in fact will find out they are not. Satan is a liar and deceiver and is called "the angel of light."

The Phantom of the Opera is a great example of this. I love that movie. You have the Phantom coming across as just a lonely ill treated soul who has been hidden in the dark for years. The heroine is quite taken by him and at first believes he is her destiny. He is handsome and his love for her seems deep but is seen later as nothing more than lust. Halfway thru the movie she rips off his mask to find a horrific looking man and later sings to him that it's his cold dark heart that is offensive to her. It's not his face, it's his heart.

So the "children" you speak of are not God's children. They are the ones that have followed the other father and they will go to the same place he is going. Hell was not made for mankind. It was made for the devil and his angels. If you read the NT letters you will see the pleading of the NT writers to be aware. To be watchful, awake and careful.

People don't like to think of God as anything but the God of love. But he is also a God of justice. Someday there will be a judge but no jury, a sentence but no trial and for some a prosecutor but no defender.

Satan's greatest trick, dividing the religions and making each one think theres is the only way to God.

Yes, this is true but also to make people believe "all" religions lead to God as well. Whatever it takes.

We've been down this road before, Andy, and there's probably little of benefit in opening it all up again. However, I would try and illustrate my problem with this. We cannot each invent 'science' in our own image and to fit what we want to get out of it. Science is a formal method of investigation, and by definition objective, observable and repeatable. To talk about it being proved for oneself is, as explained above, a non-sequiteur. The 'soul' itself is, almost by definition, outside the parameters of science. Whatever kind of relationship with or understanding of your 'soul' you enjoy (and I have no doubt that you are sincere in your description of this), it isn't in the slightest a scientific one.

Yes, I agree with you. Consciousness, self-awareness and spirituality is inherently subjective ‘stuff’, and doesn’t sit well with science. Still, it’s part and parcel of our reality, and forms the basis of all scientific thought in the first place. It therefore leads to a vicious circle, so we won’t labour it all again.

The influence (either constructive or destructive) of the views of others - in books, film, conversation, culture etc. This is why I took issue with your assertion that ' I’m sure that another person’s views cannot make any difference to our own, at a heart level.' Without access to these opinions and beliefs, none of us would even be familiar with the notion of Christianity (or any other faith), let alone its tenets. My life is peppered with instances of adjustment in the way I see the world because a book, documentary or conversation has given me a changed perspective, and I quite definitely wouldn't argue that 'this is what I knew in my heart all along'.

I was referring more to underlying beliefs and views, rather than to specific details or tenets. For example, (1) a materialistic point of view, with no religious leanings; (2) philosophical ideas and spiritual practices, like Buddhism or Taoism; (3) a fundamentalist mindset, which describes a basic model of the world, and offers rules and regulations; (4) a larger view of reality, which encompasses a broad spectrum of wisdom from all the different views, and consolidates them into a balanced whole.

In my opinion, whichever of these general areas we gravitate to depends on our level of spiritual awareness or growth. Whilst a fundamentalist might not be ready to consider Eastern ideas, a Buddhist might not be ready to consolidate Eastern and Western views, and so on. I believe that there are elements of Truth within all these different viewpoints, and so wherever we’re at, our heart can feel at ‘home’, so to speak. In other words, we can find a level of wisdom that we’re comfortable with, and at any particular stage, one could say “this is what I knew in my heart all along”.

Anyway, this stuff is difficult to put into words. I’m speaking from within a religious context to boot, so it might sound somewhat foreign to a scientific minded person like yourself. (The "heart" stuff wouldn't actually apply to the materialstic viewpoint anyway.) You’ll have to excuse me if I’ve gone round the houses.

Actually, for the believers, I suspect there is little more to say of value than jlaur65's comment above: ' my answer--yes, and then yes again.there is no way i could explain it. but there's my answer.' Can't argue with that!

Wise words. Simplicity is a virtue, which is why I have such a heart for the fundies. Jesus said that the Truth can be found through nothing more than a ‘child-like faith’.

I’ll go with jlaur65 too!

The following Psalm sums it up for me. It's simplicity is beautiful

"Lord, I have given up my pride
and turned away from my arrogance.
I am not concerned with great matters
or with subjects too difficult for me.
Instead, I am content and at peace.
As a child lies quietly in its mother's arms,
so my heart is quiet within me
Trust in the Lord, now and forever."

- Psalm 131

Jesus exists, and He loves me lots. And that's literal Truth. I think I'll become a fundie after all.

I think the key is that you have to have a belief...or a desire for a belief...to begin with. That's the foundation for "seeing" the proof of God in the world.

I was Christian most of my life, and honestly, I wanted to believe. I just never felt it. I tried. I studied. I prayed. It never happened. I realized that I was so guilt-ridden over not only my doubt but my every action...fearful that I was never good enough, that it was not constructive for me to force religion on myself.

Stepping away, so to speak, from God/religion was incredibly freeing.

Many aspects of our world and society make it difficult to be convinced (or even suspect) that there is a God as described in the Bible. I think it takes that foundation of belief to be able to reconcile what we know to be true with the God described in the Bible.

I don't doubt that it makes sense to you. And I don't doubt that you "feel" God and see his influence in the world. It's just that I don't.

The Bible, and the concept of a Christian God, just won't line up for me.

To decide which writings should guide the church, Christians asked three main questions

Actually, it wasn't 'Christians' who decided which books should be entered in the bible, it was the men who sat on the council of Nicea who decided what to include and what to omit. Were they guided by god? Maybe. But there was a LOT of political motivation behind their decisions as well.

As for the Gnostic gospels contradicting themselves, well, I think you should take a look at your bible and see the contrdictions there.

Out of curiosity, have you ever read the texts found at Nag Hammadi? Or is all this knowledge second hand - from your pastor's mouth? If you have read, then I'm more than willing to discuss things. If you haven't - well, don't knock something that you haven't tried. Don't believe someone else's judgement; read them for yourself.

You cannot prove to me that god exists. I have to feel it for myself. As it happens, I think that I have, but.....the god I know doesn't require me to prostate myself on sundays and doesn't need me to get on my knees to pray. I am MORE than worthy to eat the crumbs FROM his table, not from under it. He doesn't want me to demean myself in order to know him.

The Bible, and the concept of a Christian God, just won't line up for me.

That's why we have to find our own path. It's all a question of personal taste and preference at the end of the day, as Dharma has said. If it doesn’t make sense to us, or if it’s not aligned with what’s in our heart, then how can we be expected to believe in it?

Glad to fill you in Andy but can only do so by touching lightly on the subject. Like I said, this is a huge issue and one that's been debated for many years and you and I are not going to solve this here on JU.

I've only just seen your reply KFC. You must have typed it up a few minutes before mine.

First you assume that "all" children are God's children. Why? Where are you getting that from?

God created all our souls. So in this sense, I conclude that we’re all God’s children.

So the "children" you speak of are not God's children. They are the ones that have followed the other father and they will go to the same place he is going. Hell was not made for mankind. It was made for the devil and his angels. If you read the NT letters you will see the pleading of the NT writers to be aware. To be watchful, awake and careful. People don't like to think of God as anything but the God of love. But he is also a God of justice. Someday there will be a judge but no jury, a sentence but no trial and for some a prosecutor but no defender. Satan's greatest trick, dividing the religions and making each one think theres is the only way to God. Yes, this is true but also to make people believe "all" religions lead to God as well. Whatever it takes.

There’s too many parts in the fundie model that I don’t subscribe to. It doesn’t hold up for me. Our definitions of love and justice differ greatly, for one. (I believe in a God of love, but vengefulness and eternal damnation doesn’t constitute love to me.) But we all interpret reality and our experience of life through different lenses. If you’re at peace with it, then that’s all that counts babe.

Dharma

Well who do you think the council consisted of? Non Christians? Doesn't really matter tho because God works thru Non Christians as well.

Now for contradictions......can you shed some light here? When I ask for them, I usually get a shrug and an "I'll get back to you." I smile and say ok...."when you do.....I'll be ready." They never do. See I've been reading and studying the Holy Scriptures for 30 years and also have read many great people in history who have done the same. We all walk away when it's all said and done...and say.....WOW. I had one person look up at me in a study and say...."I didn't know this stuff was in here. I've got to tell my family."

I totally agree. I don't take anybody's word for nothing. I'm a true researcher at heart. Yes I've read those Gnostic Texts. But I'll admit.....not all of them. Kinda curious tho. Do you really believe that a woman has to become a man to enter heaven like the Gospel of Thomas states? Physically become a man? Somehow I can't believe you believe this...? I do have a book called "The Lost Books of the Bible." Of course as you know I don't believe God has lost anything.

In the US treasury those working in the counterfeit division have to study the original bills. I mean study inside and out what the real bills look like. They don't study the counterfeits...they study the real thing. They become so familiar with what the original looks like they can spot the lie when it comes up. It's the same principle I use for studying scripture. While there are many counterfeits, there is only one original.

God doesn't require me to prostrate myself on the ground or pray on my knees either. Not sure where that's coming from but sounds like you've got some unwise counsel there. Like I've said before many religionists out there are going to have alot to answer for in how they've taught the people about God. What does God require? Micah says it best:

With what shall I come before the Lord. And bow myself before the High God? Shall I come before Him with burnt offerings. With Calves a year old? Will the Lord be pleased with thousands of Rams, Ten thousand rivers of oil? Shall I give my firstborn for my transgession. The fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?

He has shown you O man, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you but to do justly, to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God?

It's not hard or burdensome. Christ said to come to me all who have heavy burdens and he will lighten the load. What he was talking about was the religionists who were putting all these do's and don'ts onto the people's shoulders. He came to set them free.

Tex

I really feel for you. I wish I could talk to you person to person. It's hard to find out what's really down deep there, but I can only guess. It sounds as if you were trying too hard to climb the ladder of salvation on your own merit. Not relying on Christ to do so for you. Letting go of the reins so to speak. God says "those that seek me will find me" and I believe that. He puts the desire in there. I'm sure you've heard the saying...."Let Go and Let God." God never puts one on a guilt trip.

I wouldn't give up your search. I could give you some help or ideas on where to start but it's only if you have the desire.....otherwise it would be worthless. I'd start by saying religion and relationship are two different things. Religion is man made and many religions are not looking out for the best interest of the people. Their motto is "DO, DO, DO and true Christianity's is DONE, DONE, DONE. It's been done for us. We don't have to do anything but to believe it.

I actually think Satan is quite religious and he uses it for all its worth. To me.... BUSY means.....B-eing U-nder S-atan's Y-olk.

Well who do you think the council consisted of? Non Christians?

No, of men who were more concerned with politics than they were with faith, religion and god.

I could care less who or what you've been studying for years, to be honest. You come off as sounding more than a little fanatical sometimes. It's scary to watch.

As for Thomas' assertion....wekk, do YOU believe that it's possible to trun wine into water with a single gesture? That it's possible to re-grow a human ear with a single touch? That it's possible to rise from the dead and ascend into the heavens on a cloud? Those are all examples taken from YOUR book of faith, and those are only a smidgen of stuff. There are many, many more in the NT and the OT both.

I believe that self-knowledge is what leads a person to god. It's really the simple.

You come off as sounding more than a little fanatical sometimes. It's scary to watch.

Actually, just devout.  I have never been threatened by her faith, altho I will admit she skunks me on biblical knowledge.  I guess it is a matter of where you are.  I am comfortable in my faith, as I know you are.  So she comes off as very devout.  But not fanatical.

'In the US treasury those working in the counterfeit division have to study the original bills. I mean study inside and out what the real bills look like. They don't study the counterfeits...they study the real thing. They become so familiar with what the original looks like they can spot the lie when it comes up. It's the same principle I use for studying scripture. While there are many counterfeits, there is only one original.
Wow, respect KFC. It's not often I come across people who are fluent in Hebrew, Aramaic AND Greek.

'Yes I've read those Gnostic Texts. But I'll admit.....not all of them.'
And that is simply too ludicrous a statement to deserve any further comment!

'To me.... BUSY means.....B-eing U-nder S-atan's Y-olk.'
Hey - God wants us to be layabouts! Howe do you explain those dedicated people who wrote [down] the books of the Bible in the first place then, KFC? I'm with you on this one, Dharma ... 'fanatical' IS the word.

I'm paraphrasing here. I believe everyone is an athiest to a degree. It's just that I believe in one less god than you. When you fully comprehend why it is you can dismiss other gods then you will understand why I can dismiss yours.

it's God who predestines. It's not about our will....it's all about his will be done. Paul writes about this in Eph 1 & 2 especially but it's seen throughout scripture. Jesus said...."You did not choose me but it is I that chose you."

People don't like to think of God as anything but the God of love. But he is also a God of justice. Someday there will be a judge but no jury, a sentence but no trial and for some a prosecutor but no defender.

yes I do believe in hell. It's total separation from God and that's what makes it hell. Death is separation. When we die physically our physical body is separated from our soul. When we die spiritually our spirit is separated from God.

I’m intrigued about this issue, and I want to search it deeper. It would be nice to hear some views, especially from fundamentalists, because this is a significant issue. I'm exploring it with an open and compassionate mind.

Do you think the doctrine of eternal damnation includes all non-Christians – including the type of atheist I mentioned earlier – i.e. decent human beings, who might end up atheist or agnostic with no particular religious leanings? Maybe these folk hadn’t brought Jesus into their life because it wasn’t really their cup of tea. Or they’d previously given the matter deep thought and had searched sincerely, but to no avail. Their experiences and searching hadn’t borne fruit, and had not particularly struck a chord, so they veered instead toward a state of agnosticism or atheism, with no great shakes.

So they go to the grave, generally content with their life. They'd given it their best shot. Maybe they’d lived a full, decent life, and had spent their twilight years growing old gracefully, sipping a glass of their favourite wine each evening, with their spouse.

Here, I think I’m describing a vast number of souls, if not the majority. (Even if we don’t end up exactly like this, I hope you can get my gist.) As you and I concluded earlier KFC, and as it’s stated in the Bible, such people really don’t have much say in the matter. It’s ‘where they’re at’, or at least it’s where they’ve ended up, which is very often a place of atheism, or most commonly agnosticism.

Now if we adhere strictly to the Biblical word as you do, and as most fundamentalists insist we should, then we’d have to conclude that these souls will be punished in hell forever when they pass over to the other side.

If we don’t conclude this, then we’re guilty of cherry picking the Bible, and we’re really admitting that we can afford some breathing space from scriptural fundamentalism.

Now I’m a realist, KFC. I have a primary passion in life to search for the truth of our reality, and to learn as much as possible about where we fit into the bigger picture. Discovering the true nature of reality is a significant issue to me, and I think that we should explore it openly and honestly as much as we can, or at least as much as we care for. God hasn’t left us alone here, because not only do we have our Holy Books to explore, we also have an ‘inner-compass’, (some might call it the Holy Spirit), which can guide us toward the Truth. Of course, we also have our intellect. We can combine them all.

The Bible offers us a model of the world. It’s the word of God. Some might say it’s like a ‘map’, which describes the territory of reality. I happen to believe that the Bible represents a very good map, for the most part. (You already know the kind of verses that I subscribe to, i.e. verses which describe God as the Creator and loving Father of all, whose nature is compassionate, loving, forgiving and accepting. For me personally, my heart affirms that this is “Truth”. I also believe that Jesus Christ is real. He exists, and has all authority in Heaven and earth. I believe that Jesus can help us, guide us, and light our way. We really can afford to relax and find inner peace in this life, especially when we know that our life is in good hands.)

Also, as you know, KFC, I believe that we can afford some breathing space from extreme scriptural fundamentalism. To me, some verses in the Bible represent an ‘inaccurate map’ of reality. In order to discern which verses are accurate and which are not, I believe we can align the doctrines with our own inner-wisdom.

But apparently this is a no-no, according to the fundies. So I’m interested in hearing some more of your views.

Stop for a moment, and imagine, whilst applying a realistic mind, the issue at hand. Non-Christians will experience an eternal existence of pain, torture and banishment from God, in hellfire, for ever and ever. This includes old dears like those described earlier. Their punishment and suffering will never end. Think about the intrinsic experience of this, for those people. Furthermore, as KFC pointed out earlier, the Bible states that these souls didn't actually have any choice in the matter. God Himself chooses who becomes a Christian, and who doesn’t.

Fundamentalists claim that this is a true model of intrinsic reality. Now if we’re not allowed to cherry pick the Bible, then what kind of God are we talking about here? Is this really an accurate depiction of our reality?

I think we should consider this issue deeply, because it’s a significant one, especially for Christians. Can we really not afford any breathing space from extreme scriptural fundamentalism? What does our mind and heart have to say about this?

(I suspect some people might want to respond with something like, “But we can’t expect to fully understand the mystery of God’s ways, and we should leave it at that.” However, the mystery of God’s ways isn’t the issue at hand. It’s the Bible that I’m talking about. The Bible describes the issue very clearly.)

Fundamentalists, can you help me out with this one? You ask us to consider the Bible as the answer to our life. And this is a major aspect that's being considered. What kind of God are we being asked to believe in?

Fundamentalists, can you help me out with this one? You ask us to consider the Bible as the answer to our life. And this is a significant aspect that's being considered. What kind of God are we being asked to believe in?

(that was an edit that might have been missed. No tounge in cheek or condescension going on here. This is important to me, in terms of how we've been asked to adhere to the Bible, in recent weeks on JU.)

What is your definition of anti-semetic? While I have heard MLuther was anti-semetic I know of no such truth behind the rumor.

KFC,

I have heard this too and looked into this a while back. There are different articles ( I have no way a proving their truth) that show him being anti-semetic. Do a google search if you like on Martin Luther, The Jews and their lies. This is a disturbing article supposedly written in 1543. This article is one that he supposedly wrote shortly before he died. Looke towards the end of the article (it is kind of lengthy) and you will find him saying, burn their houses and synagogues.


Hope that helps.

To BlueDev My Faith in God is as equivilent to my faith in the Invisible Pink Unicorn, otherwise known as the IPU.

To K.F.C (....F-A-I-T-H. Forsaking All I Trust Him.) You first have to know whom to trust, and how do you know what the definition of Him is? There is no way to know other than by faith.
And since Faith is no test of certainty, when using Faith, all is uncertain.
God exists definitely, only in the minds of all who have faith in God existing, just as the IPU exists in the minds of others.

Proving wind exits is easy, we can setup expiraments that are repeatble and worthy of science about wind. But nothing about God

I like the non-Christian argument. I used to be a Christian myself, a very evangelical type. But in my life, I believe having integrity more important than any faith.
What I mean is, since I can't prove God exists (no one can prove he doesn't), I can't truthfully say to you that he doesn't.
However, George H. Smith's book (Atheism - The case against God) really does spell it out. Its unfortunate that a faith can charge up emotions that make us heated and therefore not only unreliable, but actually evil. I myself have come to terms with the fact that God may exists, but HE does not have any affect on my life or the lives of the ones around me.

That said, I do see the affect that faith has in others, but I don't see it as holding any integrity. I see emotionalism, and sympathy (some empathy) which I think we all have anyway. But all that has nothing to do with faith that I have seen. It has to do with simply being human.

One anthropologist said that humans have a natural tendancy to believe in God.

Belief in God is more arrogant, than not believing. Which is more prideful you think, believing you were made by a supreme being for the purpose of His enjoyment, or believing that we are just here, and we need to make the best of it if we want to remain here for the time that we are allowed. The time that our bodies don't give out.

Also, I don't really think I can admire a creator that made men have tits, and what about that there appendix. We don't need it, so why is it there?
There are more proofs that saying (if God exists) he exists for some other reason than having Man around. We are more like a byproduct of some creative energy that ramped up 5 Billion years ago. Do you realize there is nothing in history except contemporary science that figured out our matter has been around for only 5 Billion years?

So whether or not God exists, is a moot point. I used to believe and used to live by faith. Now I have fixed that error in my reason and am actually healthier from doing so.

Good luck with the IPU (I mean God) exists thingy.

Regards,

Fox

Foxy, as long as you exclusively come from the level of the head (intellect), you'll conclude that belief in God is the same as belief in pink unicorns and Santa Claus. It's a case of searching deeper and coming from the level of the heart. But if your consciousness hasn't yet risen to higher wavelengths of spiritual awareness, then you'll have to remain in the land of unicorns, and our words will be like clanging cymbals. (In other words, you'll think I'm speaking bollox.)

You forget that I already had the Christian expreience. spiritual awareness as you may put it. And just because you happen to have spirituality, doesn't mean you have to attribute those thoughts or feelings to some God. All people have some sort of spritual awareness. It is part of thinking in general. We mostly think in spiritual heartful terms. Because LOGIC is hard, not easy. It is hard to use logic, it takes discipline and refinement. It is not without some reserve that I use logic and critical thinking to voice my ideas. Even so, spiritual, intellectually, and with high moral grounds, I believe and think, its the right way to be.

The most spiritual people I know are Buddhists. The Greeks with the many gods for GODS sake were spiritual. I mean ever read Homer?

Regards,
Fox

To BlueDev My Faith in God is as equivilent to my faith in the Invisible Pink Unicorn, otherwise known as the IPU.

Congratulations. We each must find our own path.