Figuring Out Religion

[screwtape]

Perhaps I'm taking something out of context with regards to your presuppositions that God is real due to your experience of revelation.  Please clarify that for me. 

Yes, please do Mountaineer. Inquiring minds want to know.

Was there some point where you were just reading the Bible and it finally became intellectually clear that this is the correct "worldview" and you ought to adopt it or, like the folks in the Bible willing to share their salvation testimonies, you had a divine revelation?

I promise not to mock because I had my own.

[Mountaineer]

Woah.  I didn't even see that statement.  I think we can close this thread on the "kid's get it, it's people who are trained to think who are screwing it up" argument.

And not ALL kids "get it."  Millions of Muslim kids don't "get it."  Millions of little Chinese kids don't "get it."

Just the ones who have ears to hear, and have heard.  But I might be wrong.  This whole thread and you guys keep recyling to the same old, same old, taking things out of context and bending statements to fit your "presuppositions", just like me.  Only my presuppositions are the correct ones. 

... Mountaineer

Mountaineer,

Perhaps I'm taking something out of context with regards to your presuppositions that God is real due to your experience of revelation.  Please clarify that for me. 

With regards to kids who "have ears to hear and have heard," are you saying that if the Gospel were read to every Muslim child at one point in their lives, all of them, or some majority of them would convert?  If not, your assertion is false.  Unless there's some defining we have yet to do, effectively.

What do you think my presuppositions are?  As far as I can tell, I tend to sense what I deem to be reality, and only trust other people's statements about reality when they have either deductively proven or inductively lent heavy weight towards.  There are a few presuppositions in there, but these are almost impossible to not observe, including in any religion to some degree.  Anything that hasn't been lent high probability, or even modest probability, I tend to file under "not very likely to be true."

I don't know if it got reconciled, but you said that your FAITH comes from objective evidence, which is a contradiction in and of itself, but even if it wasn't, you've failed to provide any so-called objective evidence that anyone here seems to have accepted, and then followed that up with the fact that "you don't expect people to be persuaded by that evidence" on this forum, or something like that, which makes no sense if you really think you have "objective evidence."

So I think someone is recycle some stuff, but I really don't think it's me.

Please clarify where I'm missing the boat on this stuff.

Revelation:  God revealed is Jesus.  Jesus is the Word.  Jesus told words.  The Word and words are recorded in Scripture.  Everything God wishes us to know he has revealed in Scripture.  The unrevealed stuff of God is the hidden God that I've referred to - that is the wrathful, angry God, 100% pure and perfect God that we cannot stand to be in the presence of.  If we did, we as sinful persons, would be dead.  Because of God's love for us, he refuses to show us his hidden side, no matter how badly we want to see it.  I am not talking about some kind of "direct revelation" e.g. dreams, visions, and the like at this point in history.  Maybe they exist, maybe not.  If they do I would expect them to be demonic in origin.

Gospel:  Yes, I do think that if the Gospel were read and faithfully explained a percentage of non-believers would become Christians - even Muslims.  I understand it is happening, especially in Africa.  It happens in the USA as well.  I have no idea what percentage is.

Presuppositions:  Your only trusting material that fits with your personal worldview of reality is a presupposition.  The proof or evidence has to fit your personal criteria, whatever that is.  That is your presupposition - you know best and are unwilling or unable to trust without absolute proof.  My opinion of course just based on your posts.

Faith:  My faith does come from an objective source that has given objective evidence.  The source is external to me, thus objective and not subjective.  The source is God's revealed Word as mentioned above.  Whether or not another person accepts that as objective evidence is between them and God - not between them and me.

Does that help?  I'm not asking if you agree, but if it helps explain my thinking?

... Mountaineer

[Mountaineer]

Perhaps I'm taking something out of context with regards to your presuppositions that God is real due to your experience of revelation.  Please clarify that for me. 

Yes, please do Mountaineer. Inquiring minds want to know.

Was there some point where you were just reading the Bible and it finally became intellectually clear that this is the correct "worldview" and you ought to adopt it or, like the folks in the Bible willing to share their salvation testimonies, you had a divine revelation?

I promise not to mock because I had my own.

See my response to moda.  Re. testimonies.  I am NOT a fan of testimony - to me, it puts far too much emphasis on man instead of God.  It then often becomes a source of pride if you have a great testimony, or of despair when you hear someone else who has a "better" testimony.  I have told my story, under much pressure to do so, many pages back on this thread.  I really wish I had not succumbed as I do not think it is helpful.  My story is my story, your story is yours.  Does not matter much to others what our stories are.  But I'm a sinner too.  Oh well.

... Mountaineer

[InsuranceGuy]

[deleted]

[screwtape]

I am NOT a fan of testimony - to me, it puts far too much emphasis on man instead of God. 

Read the Bible and get with the program Mountaineer. The Bible is about personal relationships between God and man, not intellectual arguments for belief. If you have one, why not tell us about it?

[Mountaineer]

InsuranceGuy, welcome to the forum - WARNING - it can be a time consuming activity.   

Re. your comments:

If you would care to share, I think you may have an interesting and fresh perspective - you said you just read through this entire thread recently (impressive!), what other key learnings or observations do you have? 

Need to logically convince:  I guess I've not been clear (very possible).  I do not feel that need, I support your view of the value of revealed knowledge and prayer.

No amount of logic:  I agree.  I do think the "evidence" for Christianity is helpful and that evidence is very substantial if one is reasonably objective, but logical proof, in my opinion, has rarely been successful in opening ones ears to hear God's call.  The revealed Word is important (baptism, Lord's Supper, proclaimed Word, Scripture).  Faith comes by hearing - Romans 10 - it is all God's work, it is all God's gift.  The realm of God and his methods are beyond rational understanding.  It is that hidden side of God that we sinful creatures want to understand (or avoid and then desire to become our own God) - and every time we try, God reminds us that he is the Creator, we are the creatures.

Again, a very warm welcome.

... Mountaineer

First of all, sorry if my post came off as accusatory.  It seems like a few of your posts come across a little bit frustrated, I just thought it might alleviate the pressure on you as you will likely not convert anyone on here based on logical arguments or conclusions.  Without God's guidance it is likely impossible to come to any certain conclusion on which religion is true.  You have done such a great job explaining your beliefs, so at some point if people want to know for themselves they are going to have to study and ask God if it is true.

I may have swung hard one direction, but agree that evidence of Christianity can only help validate in your brain the decision made based on feelings in your heart from God.

InsuranceGuy,

Thanks for your concern, but your post did not come across to me as accusatory.  Even if it did, no biggie.  I probably do get frustrated from time to time as I feel sad that others will not or cannot understand the gift God offers.  I know that it is not up to me anyway - it is all God's work to nurture and grow the seeds we cast.  I am not trying to be arrogant or condescending with that statement at all - just wishing that others would experience the freedom and joy that Christianity brings, forever, and praying that God continues to offer the gift.  I benefit from reading your posts.  Keep it up.

One idea that you may wish to ponder - feelings in your heart can be dangerous, they can be good also, but the heart is not a trustworthy compass.  Here are some verses that talk about evil hearts.  There are also verses that imply the heart can be good.  That is why I get very cautious when people speak of follow your heart, or ask what feelings you had that led you Christianity.  I'm of the belief that God gives us the Holy Spirit in our baptism and feeds us Jesus in the Lord's Supper, and proclaims the Word to us via a called and ordained Pastor, just as Scripture says - that is objective  rather than depending on my subjective feeling.

Genesis 6:5 The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

Genesis 8:21 And when the Lord smelled the pleasing aroma, the Lord said in his heart, “I will never again curse the ground because of man, for the intention of man's heart is evil from his youth. Neither will I ever again strike down every living creature as I have done.

1 Samuel 17:28 Now Eliab his eldest brother heard when he spoke to the men. And Eliab's anger was kindled against David, and he said, “Why have you come down? And with whom have you left those few sheep in the wilderness? I know your presumption and the evil of your heart, for you have come down to see the battle.”

Psalm 28:3 Do not drag me off with the wicked, with the workers of evil, who speak peace with their neighbors while evil is in their hearts.

Psalm 40:12 For evils have encompassed me beyond number; my iniquities have overtaken me, and I cannot see; they are more than the hairs of my head; my heart fails me.

Psalm 55:15 Let death steal over them; let them go down to Sheol alive; for evil is in their dwelling place and in their heart.

Ecclesiastes 8:11 Because the sentence against an evil deed is not executed speedily, the heart of the children of man is fully set to do evil.

Jeremiah 7:24 But they did not obey or incline their ear, but walked in their own counsels and the stubbornness of their evil hearts, and went backward and not forward.

... Mountaineer

[moda0306]

InsuranceGuy, welcome to the forum - WARNING - it can be a time consuming activity.   

Re. your comments:

If you would care to share, I think you may have an interesting and fresh perspective - you said you just read through this entire thread recently (impressive!), what other key learnings or observations do you have? 

Need to logically convince:  I guess I've not been clear (very possible).  I do not feel that need, I support your view of the value of revealed knowledge and prayer.

No amount of logic:  I agree.  I do think the "evidence" for Christianity is helpful and that evidence is very substantial if one is reasonably objective, but logical proof, in my opinion, has rarely been successful in opening ones ears to hear God's call.  The revealed Word is important (baptism, Lord's Supper, proclaimed Word, Scripture).  Faith comes by hearing - Romans 10 - it is all God's work, it is all God's gift.  The realm of God and his methods are beyond rational understanding.  It is that hidden side of God that we sinful creatures want to understand (or avoid and then desire to become our own God) - and every time we try, God reminds us that he is the Creator, we are the creatures.

Again, a very warm welcome.

... Mountaineer

First of all, sorry if my post came off as accusatory.  It seems like a few of your posts come across a little bit frustrated, I just thought it might alleviate the pressure on you as you will likely not convert anyone on here based on logical arguments or conclusions.  Without God's guidance it is likely impossible to come to any certain conclusion on which religion is true.  You have done such a great job explaining your beliefs, so at some point if people want to know for themselves they are going to have to study and ask God if it is true.

I may have swung hard one direction, but agree that evidence of Christianity can only help validate in your brain the decision made based on feelings in your heart from God.

This is one area I want to clear up...

Most of us aren't asking for a "certain conclusion" on which religion is true.  That's a straw man in this argument.  We are asking for some decent, intriguing inductive, empirical evidence that God exists, but more-so (as it pertains to this PARTICULAR conversation) whether Jesus is the son of God, and what God wants from us, and what is the punishment for getting certain things right and wrong.

That, or just simply describe how you came to obtain your faith (which Moutaineer has done, but it didn't seem particularly enlightening to any of us, which is too bad because it was obviously extremely important and impactful for him).

But we aren't asking for certainty.  Hell, all of us could accept that God exists and that Jesus is his Son, and a good chunk of our debate would still be had with regards to what God wants and whether/how people go to Heaven or Hell.

So there's a LOT more here than a bunch of atheists asking for logical/empirical PROOF of God's existence.  Almost more importantly, if we accept his existence, we're asking for some insight on how you know all the other stuff. 

[InsuranceGuy]

[deleted]

[InsuranceGuy]

[deleted]

[MachineGhost]

Thanks for your concern, but your post did not come across to me as accusatory.  Even if it did, no biggie.  I probably do get frustrated from time to time as I feel sad that others will not or cannot understand the gift God offers.  I know that it is not up to me anyway - it is all God's work to nurture and grow the seeds we cast.  I am not trying to be arrogant or condescending with that statement at all - just wishing that others would experience the freedom and joy that Christianity brings, forever, and praying that God continues to offer the gift.  I benefit from reading your posts.  Keep it up.

"God" is not mutually exclusive to Christianity.  "God" by its nature would have many facets, manifestations and will be revealed knowledge to everyone differently (or not).  If you cannot admit this due to your religions constraints, there's your source of frustration.  You need to be more mentally flexible and allow even the slightest remote possibility that you're being a fundamentalist.  And what have we all learned about one way bets or extremes in life so far?

[MachineGhost]

Moda ... I hope I'm not intruding too much into this conversation.  I think what you're looking for is quite logical.  Nobody can assemble a 100% airtight case for the existence of the Christian God, but I do think one can assemble a collection of evidence that can at least show that a belief in God.

Belief in "God" is not belief in Christianity per se.  So I would suggest not using Christian sources to provide such "evidence", which seems to be a persnickety trait that religious believers fall into, i.e. the confirmation bias:

Confirmation bias, also called myside bias, is the tendency to search for, interpret, or recall information in a way that confirms one's beliefs or hypotheses.  It is a type of cognitive bias and a systematic error of inductive reasoning. People display this bias when they gather or remember information selectively, or when they interpret it in a biased way. The effect is stronger for emotionally charged issues and for deeply entrenched beliefs. People also tend to interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing position. Biased search, interpretation and memory have been invoked to explain attitude polarization (when a disagreement becomes more extreme even though the different parties are exposed to the same evidence), belief perseverance (when beliefs persist after the evidence for them is shown to be false), the irrational primacy effect (a greater reliance on information encountered early in a series) and illusory correlation (when people falsely perceive an association between two events or situations).

A series of experiments in the 1960s suggested that people are biased toward confirming their existing beliefs. Later work re-interpreted these results as a tendency to test ideas in a one-sided way, focusing on one possibility and ignoring alternatives. In certain situations, this tendency can bias people's conclusions. Explanations for the observed biases include wishful thinking and the limited human capacity to process information. Another explanation is that people show confirmation bias because they are weighing up the costs of being wrong, rather than investigating in a neutral, scientific way.

Confirmation biases contribute to overconfidence in personal beliefs and can maintain or strengthen beliefs in the face of contrary evidence. Poor decisions due to these biases have been found in political and organizational contexts.

[Mountaineer]

I am NOT a fan of testimony - to me, it puts far too much emphasis on man instead of God. 

Read the Bible and get with the program Mountaineer. The Bible is about personal relationships between God and man, not intellectual arguments for belief. If you have one, why not tell us about it?

Already did, sorry to say, as I indicated in the post.  Just search the thread if you have interest - but what would you do with that information anyway?  It really wasn't very entertaining from my perspective and it is impossible for you to follow in my footsteps with all of the related context anyway.  Thus, personal stories to me are what I mentioned in my previous thoughts on the subject.  Get a good book - way better.  If you are looking for entertainment, the Christian bookstores are full of "Theology of Glory" material - try Joel Osteen, Joyce Meyer, TD Jakes, Beth Moore, etc.  Theology of the Cross material is rather thin. 

... Mountaineer

[Mountaineer]

Thanks for your concern, but your post did not come across to me as accusatory.  Even if it did, no biggie.  I probably do get frustrated from time to time as I feel sad that others will not or cannot understand the gift God offers.  I know that it is not up to me anyway - it is all God's work to nurture and grow the seeds we cast.  I am not trying to be arrogant or condescending with that statement at all - just wishing that others would experience the freedom and joy that Christianity brings, forever, and praying that God continues to offer the gift.  I benefit from reading your posts.  Keep it up.

"God" is not mutually exclusive to Christianity.  "God" by its nature would have many facets, manifestations and will be revealed knowledge to everyone differently (or not).  If you cannot admit this due to your religions constraints, there's your source of frustration.  You need to be more mentally flexible and allow even the slightest remote possibility that you're being a fundamentalist.  And what have we all learned about one way bets or extremes in life so far?

MG,

Could you please expand on the bolded statement - I would like to have a better understanding of what you mean by the term "God" and why you have come to believe as you do.  I understand that Muslims have Allah, Hindus have multiple gods, The Donald apparently has the god of money and self, and the like.  But that is not the Triune God.  When I use the term "God" with a capital G, I am referring to the one God in three persons - God the Father, God the Son (Jesus), and God the Holy Spirit as defined in the Apostles Creed. 

I do agree that God has revealed himself in nature for all to see.  I believe I posted a discussion of the difference between general and specific revelation a while back.  General revelation is what every human on the planet is capable of knowing, e.g. via nature (short paraphrased version - don't want to bore you to tears.)

Re. your statement about my possibly being a fundamentalist - this is the definition of fundamentalism I use:  http://cyclopedia.lcms.org/display.asp? ... ALISM  Is it anything like your definition?  I am a Lutheran, definitely not a premillennialism adherent.


... Mountaineer

[MediumTex]

This is one area I want to clear up...

Most of us aren't asking for a "certain conclusion" on which religion is true.  That's a straw man in this argument.  We are asking for some decent, intriguing inductive, empirical evidence that God exists, but more-so (as it pertains to this PARTICULAR conversation) whether Jesus is the son of God, and what God wants from us, and what is the punishment for getting certain things right and wrong.

That, or just simply describe how you came to obtain your faith (which Moutaineer has done, but it didn't seem particularly enlightening to any of us, which is too bad because it was obviously extremely important and impactful for him).

But we aren't asking for certainty.  Hell, all of us could accept that God exists and that Jesus is his Son, and a good chunk of our debate would still be had with regards to what God wants and whether/how people go to Heaven or Hell.

So there's a LOT more here than a bunch of atheists asking for logical/empirical PROOF of God's existence.  Almost more importantly, if we accept his existence, we're asking for some insight on how you know all the other stuff.

As far as inductive or empirical evidence that God exists, I recently read some compelling arguments from Robert Robinson:
http://robertcliftonrobinson.com/2015/0 ... oking-for/

I would be happy to share the details of my personal conversion and what I have learned about God's plan if you are serious about your inquiry.

As weird as it may sound, for "spiritual learning" I'm a scientific method kind of guy:
1)  Ask a question:  Inevitably a question comes up that I'd like to better understand
2)  Do background research:  Review relevant scriptural and other authoritative sources
3)  Construct a hypothesis
4)  Test hypothesis:  Ask God if your hypothesis is correct
5)  Analyze data:  If God tells you that you're wrong, keep researching and ask for His help in finding the answer.  Start over as necessary.  If the answer from God is that you are right, yay!

Please do share anything you would like about your personal conversion or beliefs, and welcome to the forum if you are new here.

[MachineGhost]

Could you please expand on the bolded statement - I would like to have a better understanding of what you mean by the term "God" and why you have come to believe as you do.  I understand that Muslims have Allah, Hindus have multiple gods, The Donald apparently has the god of money and self, and the like.  But that is not the Triune God.  When I use the term "God" with a capital G, I am referring to the one God in three persons - God the Father, God the Son (Jesus), and God the Holy Spirit as defined in the Apostles Creed. 

I do agree that God has revealed himself in nature for all to see.  I believe I posted a discussion of the difference between general and specific revelation a while back.  General revelation is what every human on the planet is capable of knowing, e.g. via nature (short paraphrased version - don't want to bore you to tears.)

Re. your statement about my possibly being a fundamentalist - this is the definition of fundamentalism I use:  http://cyclopedia.lcms.org/display.asp? ... ALISM  Is it anything like your definition?  I am a Lutheran, definitely not a premillennialism adherent.

Boy, you certainly have an interesting worldview.

In terms you can understand, I am referring to "God" as God the Father.

As for fundamentalism, I use the commonly accepted definition: a movement in American Protestantism that arose in the early part of the 20th century in reaction to modernism and that stresses the infallibility of the Bible not only in matters of faith and morals but also as a literal historical record, holding as essential to Christian faith belief in such doctrines as the creation of the world, the virgin birth, physical resurrection, atonement by the sacrificial death of Christ, and the Second Coming.

[MediumTex]

I can't fathom how Mary would have had ANY doubt about the virgin birth story, although I don't read it as a virgin birth.  I read it as one of those Mount Olympus-style stories where a deity comes to earth and has relations with a human in order to make a semi-godlike being along the lines of the way Zeus sired Perseus in Greek mythology.

When Perseus died he was drawn up into the sky to live among the stars, which is pretty much how Jesus's life on earth ended as well.

[Mountaineer]

Could you please expand on the bolded statement - I would like to have a better understanding of what you mean by the term "God" and why you have come to believe as you do.  I understand that Muslims have Allah, Hindus have multiple gods, The Donald apparently has the god of money and self, and the like.  But that is not the Triune God.  When I use the term "God" with a capital G, I am referring to the one God in three persons - God the Father, God the Son (Jesus), and God the Holy Spirit as defined in the Apostles Creed. 

I do agree that God has revealed himself in nature for all to see.  I believe I posted a discussion of the difference between general and specific revelation a while back.  General revelation is what every human on the planet is capable of knowing, e.g. via nature (short paraphrased version - don't want to bore you to tears.)

Re. your statement about my possibly being a fundamentalist - this is the definition of fundamentalism I use:  http://cyclopedia.lcms.org/display.asp? ... ALISM  Is it anything like your definition?  I am a Lutheran, definitely not a premillennialism adherent.

Boy, you certainly have an interesting worldview.

In terms you can understand, I am referring to "God" as God the Father.

As for fundamentalism, I use the commonly accepted definition: a movement in American Protestantism that arose in the early part of the 20th century in reaction to modernism and that stresses the infallibility of the Bible not only in matters of faith and morals but also as a literal historical record, holding as essential to Christian faith belief in such doctrines as the creation of the world, the virgin birth, physical resurrection, atonement by the sacrificial death of Christ, and the Second Coming.

Perhaps this illustration would be of value in helping to understand my "interesting" worldview.  Picture five old time wheels with spokes.  The center of the wheel is what you base your beliefs upon, or rely upon to guide you through life.  The spokes of the wheel are the various aspects of life - family, job, hobbies, etc. that represent pretty much everything you do or think about.  The rim of the wheel represents your worldview that encompasses all the wheel items.

The center of wheel 1 is the Bible.
The center of wheel 2 is God the Father.
The center of wheel 3 is Jesus.
The center of wheel 4 is the Holy Spirit.
The center of wheel 5 is man or a god other than the Trinitarian God.

My thoughts:
If you base your worldview on wheel 1, your center is the literal inerrant words in the Bible, rarely examined in context.  The Christians who have this worldview are likely to cherry pick verses to fit their agenda.  The Christians with this center likely quickly fall into a Law based version of Christianity - what you do for God, how you earn your way to heaven and the like.  These tend to be the most judgemental Christians, i.e. if you drink you will go to hell, if you don't pray hard enough bad things will happen, if you don't ....... ad nauseum.  This view is more associated with what you are calling fundamentalism.  This view has the God many try to ascend to.

If you base your worldview on wheel 2, your center is God the Father.  This is the unrevealed God, the hidden God whose attributes include omnipresence, omnipotence, omniscience, wrath, power, zero defects tolerated - the scary God.  Those with this center likely will fall into a Law vased version of Christianity as in wheel 1.

If you base your worldview on wheel 3, your center is Jesus.  This is the revealed Son of God who took on human form so we could better understand him, hear his teachings, relate to him.  This is the person who took all of our sins to himself, and then to the grave, and then came back to life and was resurrected.  This is the person that best exemplifies grace, forgiveness and love, Jesus is the one that did and does it all for us, no payback expected.  This wheel is Gospel oriented.  Jesus is the person who descends from his throne at the right hand of God the Father to come to us in Word and Sacrament.  This view also belives the Scriptures to be inspired by the Trinitarian God, written by man, inerrant when taken in context, and that Scripture interprets Scriptures as I've discussed before.  This view is more associated with traditional confessional Lutheranism.

If you base your worldview on wheel 4, your center is the Holy Spirit.  Even though the work of the Holy Spirit is to make Jesus known to us, many with this worldview get trapped in feelings, emotion, hand waving, speaking toungues, and the like, as they think this is what is desired by this person of the Trinity.  They sometimes forget the primary purpose of the Spirit is to make Jesus known.  This view is more associated with Pentacostalism.

I would say people that have any of the 4 types of wheels are Christians who have the Creator in some form at the center of their wheel - their outward behavior will likely be different, even though their belief in the basics of Christianity is similar, and sufficient for Salvation.  All four of us are friends, at least from my perspective.    People from wheels 1 - 4 are also friends with people in wheel 5 and care greatly about them.

It is the people who do not believe in wheels 1, 2, 3, or 4 who place man, the creature, or other gods at the center of their wheel 5, that are in severe danger of losing all that matters in the big picture if they die while centered in wheel 5.  People from wheel 5 can make great neighbors.  People from wheel 5 can be just as moral as people in the other 4 wheels.  People from wheel 5 are all around us on this side of the Last Day.  They just won't be around People from wheels 1 - 4 on the other side of the Last Day.

I am a wheel 3 Jesus centered guy. 

Make any sense?  Helpful or just more confusion?

... Mountaineer

[MachineGhost]

Make any sense?  Helpful or just more confusion?

That was very helpful, thanks!  I had to chuckle at you just sweeping man and all other etcetera gods into one wheel, though.  One thing I cannot accuse you of is being objective.

If one happened to believe in imaginary gods (like the Olympians or Titans) through no fault of their own, does that damn them?  That's a little different than choosing to believe in a literal god that isn't Christian.

Oh and to answer your original question, it has to be wheel #5 for my "God" since I got swept under the rug.

[Mountaineer]

those choices make me think of the "finger that points idea" that was mentioned in the other thread (or possibly further back in this one..) one through five are pretty much different variations of worshiping the finger that points toward god, and slightly diss the other variations over mountaineers favorite version.. group one follow this finger, group two that one, group five (the the poor doomed bastards) the thumb, and so on.. all very serious.. and still none of the descriptions even consider for an instant that perhaps the finger is pointing at something and the original idea had nothing to do with the finger itself or worshiping it but with looking toward where it points.. toward the experience it is pointing at. With my apologies if this sounds harsh because i do respect religion and i do see it having a place in the world for some people... it is just that this version / understanding of Christianity and god reminds me of LARPers (live action role players) who instead of living an adventurous life. taking risks and putting something on the line out in the world, crawl out of there basements and away from their computer screens to dress up and role play / imagine what it would be like to do so...
this version /understanding of god seems to be leaving many of us scratching our heads much the same way we would be, if a LARPer dressed in robes caring a staff wandering around the neighborhood park explained how he was a knight on a quest and how being a knight was true and real because he believes it is..

MG and interactive processing,

You both have interesting comments.  Thanks for taking the time to do so; it would likely be of value to others who are reading this thread to even better understand where you are coming from.  Thus, I have a followup question: I've noticed frequently throughout this thread many of the "agnostic toward Christianity" comments are dissing the Christian worldview and/or attacking the Christian without presenting their worldview in any kind of detail.  Does that mean you all just don't have one, our you all just have not thought about it enough to articulate relatively clearly?  For example, if "your god" got swept under the rug into wheel 5, why not present that "better case" rather than pee on wheels 1 - 4 and those who might hold one of those worldview?  You come across to me like the Republicans who attacked obamacare, obama, or Pelosi without presenting a better case that would rally the troops and gain support. 

If you notice what I tried to explain in my post (a focus on Christian worldviews, not those that are man centered), you will see I did not break out the plethora of the other 4200 world religions or the roughly 1 to 2 billion people who are agnostic/athesist and what their worldviews might be in detail - describing a billion individual man-centered gods would be exhausting  . Please feel free to describe your god who is at the center of your wheel and your subsequent worldview at your convenience - it should be interesting, and perhaps even entertaining for us Christians.  Perhaps these links will get you started if you have not thought much about religion or lack thereof or life after this journey ends in much detail.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism

... Mountaineer

[Mountaineer]

i am sorry if my last post came off as snarky, it was made late in my day and there is maybe some frustration at the round, and round, and round, and round aspect of this thread where neither side seems to even listen to the other..

i think i have given my views further back toward the beginning or perhaps in some other thread long ago but i will post them again..

yes i have spent countless hours thinking about and studying religion, spirituality, philosophy and my relationship with the universe, and even more working on the long slow process of self transformation and growth based on that study..

i do not belong to or identify with any one religion, what i have settled on (at the moment .. forever open to new understanding) is considering myself a philosophical model agnostic-gnostic ... what that means is i am agnostic toward any one region being the ultimate truth or only viable path, each one has its own area that it describes best or in a most useful manner and other areas where it will be "a bit strange or obtuse or corrupted" think of it like studying a map, if you are looking at maps of a land, which map is best to look at depends on which has the information that bests suites your needs in that moment..
each of the following maps give you a different picture of the terrain you want to cover or the ground you are exploring Climate maps, Economic or resource maps, Physical maps, Political maps, Road maps, Topographic maps, all are maps of the same land, each religion like each map tend to have areas that they cover better than others but they are all talking about the same terrain and creating a representation of the same ground (the ground you want to walk on) ...the actually walking the ground is the gnostic part... or engaging in the religious experience or transformation or as benko described it in the other thread

We are all born with Christ consciousness, Buddha nature, whatever you want to call it. The process of growing spiritually is one of subtraction i.e. subtracting things that are not us.

religion is the map to preforming that subtraction..

so i am not saying there is a "better case" than Christianity at all.. i am saying there is a better way to understand the case that Christianity (Christ and the bible are making) as well as the case that other religions are making and that that understanding does not involve "my god -your god" "this god - that god" at all.. god is god the human relationship to god and what god is is the same for all.. relation to the transcendent and that which transcends is beyond .. and that means it is "beyond words" and their ability to describe. the best they can do is point at or represent the territory.. different cultures spread over different times have used different words, different stories, different metaphors to point toward the terrain, ...but the map is not the territory... the confusing the map with he territory is what reminds me of the LARPer confusing "the pretending" with real adventure. i don't want to seen as be the park bully ((or atheist)) kicking sand in the LARPers face, i hope that my participation in this conversation might open their eyes to the possibility that their favorite and beloved religion may have far more to offer them than they even remotely suspect... so again my apology if it came off as harsh or snarky or bullying...

interactive processing,

Thank you for the explanation (especially if you did it twice  ).  This thread has become long enough in words and time span that it is easy for us all to forgot what has transpired before.  Anyway, your post was very interesting.  Let me play something back to you and test if I understood this correctly.  It seems your "philosophical  model agnostic-gnostic" religion, similar to Benko's Buddhism philosophy, is trying to subtract from what is now to increasingly perfect it - or in the after death case, trying to escape what is wrong or evil about this world, kind of like what the Christian monks and the Christian ascetic church Fathers did in earlier centuries.  I may be influenced by what I think I understand about gnostic religions and early Christian history.  Am I close or really off base with my understanding? 

A second question, how did you choose the path you did, or what material did you study that led you down that path, or maybe said a different way, it seems the path you picked is inwardly focused rather than externally focused on some objective "god" (even the golden calf was objective); why do you think the internal source is the preferred one? - maybe I'm wrong on those assumptions but that is what I'm hearing.  Either way, I'd like to better understand why you believe your worldview is better than the alternatives you considered.  Thanks in advance, if you care to further explain.

... Mountaineer

i think you may be close in your understanding, the effort is to subtract from what is now in-order to increasingly perfect it... BUT... keep in mind we are describing the transcendent or indescribable, the idea that we are adding to what is now, is equally valid in the weird world of describing the indescribable ...
so yes i endeavor to remove from my thoughts, world view, actions or consciousness, in life all that is keeping me separate from god / harmony OR i endeavor to add to my thoughts, world view, actions or consciousness, all that connects me to god / harmony.. both meaning or describing the same process
this is likely in keeping with early gnostic Christianity as well as Buddhism Taoism and some aspects of Hinduism etc. i am not a deeply studied historian and gnostic Christianity did kinda vanish and or get erased by the mainstream church, so there may be some differences between their beliefs and mine and very likely huge differences between their beliefs caricaturization by the church and what they truly were..

i don't know that any one source or area of study was ultimately more influential than the next, but the combination of practice (removing the things which are not us) and study leads to an insight that the overlap between all religions is understanding that they are all at there core internal or (once more into the the weird world of describing the indescribable) that the very sense that there is an internal VS external split is one of the things that gets removed in the journey..

[MachineGhost]

http://www.thegreatillusion.com/

[Mountaineer]

http://www.thegreatillusion.com/

Interesting,

I'm trying to decide whether I was reminded more of "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds", "Puff the Magic Dragon", or "The Raven" of Poe ... or the Woodstock generation that tried their best to escape reality into the inner depths of a drug fueled mind.  Hard choices so I think I'll stay with the trustworthy one.  Come Lord Jesus and bring on the new creation quickly, this one is downright broken and getting moreso by the minute; I will trust you to come to us with your perfection rather than me trying to escape to my most unperfect inner self.

... Mountaineer

[Mountaineer]

l82start,

Thank you for the explanation (especially if you did it twice  ).  This thread has become long enough in words and time span that it is easy for us all to forgot what has transpired before.  Anyway, your post was very interesting.  Let me play something back to you and test if I understood this correctly.  It seems your "philosophical  model agnostic-gnostic" religion, similar to Benko's Buddhism philosophy, is trying to subtract from what is now to increasingly perfect it - or in the after death case, trying to escape what is wrong or evil about this world, kind of like what the Christian monks and the Christian ascetic church Fathers did in earlier centuries.  I may be influenced by what I think I understand about gnostic religions and early Christian history.  Am I close or really off base with my understanding? 

A second question, how did you choose the path you did, or what material did you study that led you down that path, or maybe said a different way, it seems the path you picked is inwardly focused rather than externally focused on some objective "god" (even the golden calf was objective); why do you think the internal source is the preferred one? - maybe I'm wrong on those assumptions but that is what I'm hearing.  Either way, I'd like to better understand why you believe your worldview is better than the alternatives you considered.  Thanks in advance, if you care to further explain.

... Mountaineer

i think you may be close in your understanding, the effort is to subtract  from what is now in-order to increasingly perfect it... BUT... keep in mind we are describing the transcendent or indescribable, the idea that we are adding to what is now, is equally valid in the weird world of describing the indescribable ... 
so yes i endeavor to remove from my thoughts, world view, actions or consciousness, in life all that is keeping me separate from god / harmony OR i endeavor to add to my thoughts, world view, actions or consciousness, all that connects me to god / harmony..  both meaning or describing the same process
this is likely in keeping with early gnostic Christianity as well as Buddhism Taoism and some aspects of Hinduism etc. i am not a deeply studied historian and gnostic Christianity did kinda vanish and or get erased by the mainstream church, so there may be some differences between their beliefs and mine and very likely huge differences between their beliefs caricaturization by the church and what they truly were..

i don't know that any one source or area of study was ultimately more influential than the next, but the combination of practice (removing the things which are not us) and study leads to an insight that the overlap between all religions is understanding that they are all at there core internal or (once more into the the weird world of describing the indescribable) that the very sense that there is an internal VS external split is one of the things that gets removed in the journey..

Interesting.  Thanks for the followup explanation.  As for being hard to describe what you have learned, I sort of relate it to the Apostle John trying to describe the undescribable in the Book of Revelation or Daniel in parts of the Book of Daniel - thus the symbolic and apocalyptic language.  Many Christians I know don't like to study those two books, they find it too strange or discomforting.  Personally, Revelation is one of my favorites as it decribes in three episodes, from very different perspectives, the ways the battle has been won.

... Mountaineer

[Mountaineer]

http://www.thegreatillusion.com/

Interesting,

I'm trying to decide whether I was reminded more of "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds", "Puff the Magic Dragon", or "The Raven" of Poe ... or the Woodstock generation that tried their best to escape reality into the inner depths of a drug fueled mind.  Hard choices so I think I'll stay with the trustworthy one.  Come Lord Jesus and bring on the new creation quickly, this one is downright broken and getting moreso by the minute; I will trust you to come to us with your perfection rather than me trying to escape to my most unperfect inner self.

... Mountaineer

  reminded me of the new age stuff that was popular in the 90s..
which was a fine example of seeking becoming the imaginary pretend version of itself.. it is not just traditional religions that are prone to loosing touch with substance..

i wish i was better at getting the idea across for people.. i am afraid that my attempt at discussing the  transcended experience sounds a bit like gibberish..

interactive processing,

For what it's worth, not gibberish to me.  Thanks for the time you took to offer your views.  I may have different views than you or others, but I respect those who discuss potentially "hot topics" in a thoughtful and kind manner.  Somehow, this religion thread has managed to mostly avoid the avid tribal (hat tip to moda  ) feeding frenzy of the battle flag thread ... maybe the object we are pursuing in this thread is further away, mostly unknowable by human reason, and not as in-our-face as the sensational news story of the day; we have more time to ponder, reflect, digest and ponder again.

... Mountaineer

I will trust you to come to us with your perfection rather than me trying to escape to my most unperfect inner self.

... Mountaineer

the "inner self"* is not unperfect.. it is the over-self, or ego, or dualistic perception of our relationship with the world that is the un-perfected part of man, the inner self when not confounded by the mind is the part that has direct knowledge of harmony, there is a direct feedback/connection between it and the universe that it is a part of, it is a part us that is inherently self correcting... that which is not harmony scrapes and drags screeching and bending as it moves through the world.. imagine rob petrey dancing gracefully around the ottoman in the second season opening credits without looking or thinking instead of tripping and stumbling head first, or the state that the modern high performance athletics call "flow state" moving in the moment. without mental hindrance, or meditation in motion... then apply this to all aspects of your life not just the physical.. dealing smoothly in harmony and without hindrance with other people (aka LOVE) or having harmony within your own mind (inner peace) these are not even things you need to give up faith or faith based Christianity. to look for.. they are not "putting man before god" or turning man into god.. but there is a reason this state and religious descriptions of it describe it as discovering our connection with god...

[Mountaineer]

This may be of interest to some, even those who are not searching for a church home but are interested in learning a bit more, or perhaps to examine 'why the Christian God?'.  The first chapter in the book discusses the importance of the Reformation - 500 years ago this year.  The first chapter also presents an overview of various Christian traditions much better than I have in multiple pages of my mind dump.  The Chapter is written by John Warwick Montgomery, a renowned Christain apologetics scholar. 

More on Montgomery:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Warwick_Montgomery

The first Chapter:
https://www.dropbox.com/home/ScannerPro ... +Veith.pdf

Also included is the table of contents.  If anyone has interest in some particular book chapter, let me know on a post or PM and I'll post it.

... Mountaineer