Gyroscopic Investing

moda0306 wrote:

Mountaineer wrote:

moda0306 wrote: Mountaineer,

So you are claiming that anyone who claims not to believe in God or questions his existence actually does believe in God... but that we are actually angry with God.

That's quite a claim.

Indeed it is my friend, indeed it is, but my words were actually "you know there is a God"; it is built into our DNA (or whatever it is). You know it as clearly as you know anything else about yourself and is intuitively obvious when you look at your surroundings from the deepest part within you to the furthest object we can observe; even the Egyptians and Greeks (e.g. Aristotle) and our Diest US founding fathers knew there was a god as do pagans throughout history.

... Mountaineer

So your argument that God saw fit to put in all humans an innate knowledge of his presence, and some people are simply rejecting that knowledge, or are angry at God...

That's certainly possible.  But your argument, like most religious ones, is simply an arbitrary statement of fact based on loose inductive evidence and logic.  When humans make a habit of accepting those types of assertions, they find themselves in a sea of bullshit that they can't swim out of.  I'm surprised God would present himself in such a way that took such logical leaps for us to even be aware of his presence, much less what he actually wants from us.

Yep!  God certainly did things that were about 180 degrees off of what "human logic" expected pretty much throughout the whole Scriptural account including Jesus' act of dying to defeat death once and for all - who would have thunk it in advance.  Your last sentence indicates that you are still mired in the perception that you must DO something for God; it is quite the opposite, it is about what Jesus DID for us - yet another example of the 180 degree turn it upside down from our way of thinking.  Thanks be to God that I don't have to depend on my broken, misguided self for my justification before God.  Peace bro! 

... Mountaineer

MachineGhost wrote:

Mountaineer wrote: Indeed it is my friend, indeed it is, but my words were actually "you know there is a God"; it is built into our DNA (or whatever it is). You know it as clearly as you know anything else about yourself and is intuitively obvious when you look at your surroundings from the deepest part within you to the furthest object we can observe; even the Egyptians and Greeks (e.g. Aristotle) and our Diest US founding fathers knew there was a god as do pagans throughout history.

I don't want to belabor the obvious, but do you really think pre-Enlightenment religious mysticism without the benefit of repeatable, observable, objective evidence garned by the non-privileged qualifies as fact? 

Do you realize you are are nothing but a walking 90%-microbe ecosystem on an insignificant planet in an insignificant solar system among hundreds of billions of stars among hundreds of billions of galaxies and which totals only about 5% as the 180 billion light year wide observable universe? 

The utterly sheer arrogance that you personally and specially know there is a "God" concept and what exactly it is from a bunch of anthropomorphized human scribbles from hundreds of years ago endlessly derived from Sumerian origin myths, is infinite.

Even if you are luckily right about the "God" concept, you are also so hopelessly and so utterly wrong in even beginning to understand what exactly it is.  Dems da breaks.

[align=center][/align]

Hey Dude!  It is not about me at all; say anything you like if you are receiving short-term satisfaction from it; you are not arguing with me, you are arguing with God.  It is what God has chosen to reveal through his Word to those with ears to hear that is important.  I do ponder though, how you KNOW all that stuff you said in your post. 

Peace to you too bro ... I hope you find the peace, joy, and love for your fellow man that God has chosen to give me, a poor miserable sinner.

... Mountaineer

TennPaGa wrote: Ran across this article today, and thought it fit in this thread:

The Un-Evangelized Continent?
--- Rod Dreher at The American Conservative  (Dreher is a former Catholic who is now an Orthodox Christian).

The italics below indicate passages from an article that Dreher quotes.

If any corner of the globe should bear the imprint of Catholic values, it’s Latin America. Catholicism has enjoyed a spiritual monopoly in the region for more than 500 years, and today almost half the 1.1 billion Catholics alive are Latin Americans. Moreover, Latin Americans take religion seriously; surveys show that belief in God, spirits and demons, the afterlife, and final judgment is near-universal.

The sobering reality, however, is that these facts could actually support an “emperor has no clothes”? accusation against the church. Latin America has been Catholic for five centuries, yet too often its societies are corrupt, violent, and underdeveloped. If Catholicism has had half a millennium to shape culture and this is the best it can do, one might be tempted to ask, is it really something to celebrate? Mounting defections to Pentecostalism only deepen such ambivalence.
  .........

The most frequent explanation I heard boils down to this: For most of the 500 years since the arrival of Columbus, Catholicism in Latin America often has been skin-deep. People were baptized into the faith, married and buried in it, but for a variety of reasons there was precious little else.
  .........

If this theory were true, wouldn’t it be far more so in Russia, which has had Christianity for just over 1,000 years? Of course the Russians suffered what no Latin American ever has: 75 years of a technologically sophisticated atheist regime dedicated to the extermination of religion. But you can’t say that Russia was a Christian paradise prior to the coming of the Bolsheviks, right? How does a country that has had Orthodox Christianity for nearly a millennia fall to communism?

For that matter, what about western Europe? It had Christianity, both Catholic and then Protestant, for even longer, but it gave itself over to two world wars.
  .........

Thought experiment: do we expect too much of religion, or too little?

Interesting article.  Thanks for posting.

From my humble perspective, I'll offer a couple of comments.  First, when one subscribes to a works-righteousness based faith** (examples would be Roman Catholicism and Protestant Evangelism such as Southern Baptist) that emphasizes what you must do for God in order to please Him, it is very, very easy to fall off the road into the ditch.  One ditch is the "how do I ever know I've done enough" side and frequently leads to despair.  The other ditch is the self-righteous side or "I'm better than those 'other' people" that frequently leads to judgemental pride.  People then frequently say "what the hell am I doing with these 'make me feel bad' religions and then abandon the faith or just continue to go through the motions without deep seated conviction.  I say this with all due respect to my Roman Catholic or Evangelical friends as I have many of both that are really close friends.  Lutheranism, which is just authentic confessional Christianity, as I have discussed before at length in this thread, is a middle of the road approach that is based on the Scriptural interpretation that God has already done everything for us - it seems so very strange to embrace this view because almost everything else in life rewards what we do for ourselves - but that is what Scripture says when using the interpretative method of 'Scripture interprets Scripture with the clearer passages interpreting the more difficult'.  Many have and do wish to impose mans' logic into the interpretative mix - and thus end up with the first view of 'deeds are more important than creeds' I discussed above.

Secondly, God has promised to always leave a remnant until the Last Day, i.e. Judgement Day, or Day of the Lord.  The Word of God is present at and has survived since the very beginning; Christianity, based on Christ the visible Word of God, has survived for two thousand years inspite of corrupt governments, evil people, and man's attempts to inject himself into God's Word or deflect it, or discount it, or twist it, rather than listen and believe what God's Word actually says.  I believe that is what happened not very long ago (in God's time) in western europe, particularly Germany where the theologians in the 19th century succumed to the sirens call of modernism and the historical critical method of Scripture interpretation - i.e. if we can't prove it with logic and the scientifc method, it ain't so.  This laid the foundation for Imperial expansion and subsequent Nazism along with the view that the we must follow the authority of the state even when it conflicts with God's Word.  This is unsettling to many now because of the parallels in our current country.  Pretty much, throughout history, God has moved away from where His Word is rejected (e.g. Israel, then the Roman empire, then Syria/Iraq, then eastern europe, then western europe, and now the United States and South America to a smaller degree).  The Christian church is currently thriving in Africa and China to some extent.  What the future holds is clear:  It ain't pretty for the unbelievers.  The message started out as "Repent, turn from your evil ways, the kingdom of God is near"; it remains that way today.  Thanks be to God for his eternal promises that have always come true; the future for those who believe in God's promises is beyond imagination wonderful.  Come Lord Jesus!  I can hardly wait to be in my perfect body and to live in the presence of the perfect God with all my perfect believing family and friends of the past, present and future.

** Other world faiths such as Islam are also works-righteousness religions.  My comments are about Christianity which is the only religion with a living God.

... Mountaineer

President Harrison encourages LCMS to "not grow weary" in the public square:

“We are going to be pushed on many sides on our participation in the state,”? Harrison warned those watching. “There will be people among us, among the orthodox Lutheran fellowship, who will have different ideas on [matters of] conscience.”?

The key? “Grab hold of and become clear on the precious gift that we have been given by the Lutheran Reformation,”? he encouraged. “That is the biblical teaching of the two kingdoms.”?

During the course of the webinar, Harrison explained — to viewers from New Jersey to Colorado — the history of the Synod’s two-kingdom theology and why it’s unique to Lutheranism.

Citing the Augsburg Confession and Article 16, which discusses civil government, he noted that the “Divine realm and the temporal realm are both God’s orders. They are established by God, but they have different purposes. The kingdom of the left hand — the state, emanating from the family — is ruled by reason and natural law. … The other kingdom of the right — of the church — is a matter of grace.”?

Clarifying that the Church doesn’t “want to meddle in the affairs of the state,”? Harrison also noted that, “On the other hand, we don’t want the state meddling in the church’s business.”?

“It’s insanity for the state to turn its coercive powers on the Church and hinder its work,”? he explained, reminding attendees that “anything by the state that hinders the Gospel must be rejected out of hand and out of conscience.”?

Harrison also prepared viewers for the days ahead, when beliefs and convictions will continue to be tested and tried: “We will feel like strangers increasingly, and so it goes. Luther said the Gospel comes and waters a place and then for thanklessness it passes away. And we see in our time the Gospel passing America. The Lord is allowing it to move to the South.”?

More is in the link:

http://blogs.lcms.org/2014/not-grow-weary

... Mountaineer

interactive processing wrote:

Mountaineer wrote:
1. Agree.  One must have faith only in the promises of Jesus; never, ever have faith in faith.  And, there is only one God; all those who profess that all religions have the same God are incorrect.  Really.  Truly.  Always.  But I can't prove it to an unbeliever.

2. Agree.  Abortion is a vertical realm issue with the caveat that one is expected by God to obey the state unless it conflicts with the will of God as expressed in Christian Scripture.

... Mountaineer

number one is a bit of a logical loop-de-loop you don't have faith in faith yet you have faith in Jesus and are sure it will work, which is faith in faith....

i don't know that you would get much out of it if viewed with a closed mind, but the movie i am suggesting gives a solid argument (including many made by christian speakers) for the understanding that all religions have the same experience of God, once you get past the differences in the language used to describe the experience and the path to having it.

Perhaps we should define faith.  From my perspective, faith can refer to the object of our trust - what we believe in.  Faith also refers to the human act of believing, of trusting, of placing our confidence in and depending on someone or something.  Faith, in the second sense, is the very core of our being.  It is our basic grasp on reality.  If faith is misplaced, then all of life is skewed.  If faith is misdirected toward one of God's creatures, rather than being directed toward our Creator himself, then life goes sour and spoils.  Faith, in the sense of the trust that provides the core orientation for our lives, is among the most important words in the human language.  According to Harvard psychologist Erik Eriksen there is an eight stage basis for analyzing human development, the course of human life.  The first and fundamental stage, between birth and age two, revolves around trust or faith.  This fundamental orientation largely determines the way in which individuals view the world.  Learning to trust, or to mistrust, frees or binds us at all subsequent stages of our development.  Learning to trust, or learning not to trust, the world around us determines much of our personality and the course of our life.  We first learn to trust our mother and father.  They become objects on which we depend.  From those whom we trust we gain a sense of identity, security, and meaning.  People wither without that.  Without that our lives have little or no purpose and worth - we die.  We cannot survive without a sense of our ultimate identity, security, and meaning.  God has fashioned his human creatures to find secondary identity, security, and meaning in other persons and places than in himself.  We can easily pervert what God has given us a secondary sources of identity, security, and meaning into gods.  My wife is a wonderful gift of God.  Much of my identity is wrapped up in being her husband.  But I can become an idolater in my my marriage.  I can regard her as my ultimate source of identity.  When I do, I put us both in prison.  I imprison her in my false set of expectations for her, which she cannot possibly meet.  She is a fine wife; as a god she has her inadequacies.  And I imprison myself in her inability to meet my expectations for a god.  I inflict suffering on both of us through impossible expectations when I worship her instead of cherish her as a gift from God.  The same can be said of occupation.  Faith rests on someone or something.  The Christian faith rests upon the person of our God, who has revealed himself as Jesus of Nazareth.  Our faith rests upon who he is and upon what he has said to us.  So, we are people of faith, believers.  Faith has two meanings.  It is both the object, or content, and it is the action.

Enough of my ramblings.  What are your thoughts about faith?

... Mountaineer

I'll try to watch your recommended movie soon.

To me, faith is something you believe even though you can't objectively prove it or call on your direct experiences as evidence of it. Seen this way, I don't actually believe that I have met very many faithful religious people. Nearly all of my religious friends and acquaintances claim to have talked with God, or seen an angel, or had Jesus visit them, or spoken in tongues, or had the Devil possess them, or something along those lines. To me, this is religion without faith: they have had personal experiences that validate their belief! No faith required. You don't have to have faith that God exists if he talks to you and sends angels to look after you and all of these things are perceived by your senses.

This is religion that makes sense to me. I may personally be of the opinion that these peoples' brains manufactured the experiences they perceived, but the fact that they believe something that they feel they had a personal experience with makes sense to me. What doesn't make sense if believing in a God or a savior or a Devil or any of that without any actual confirmatory experiences or sensory inputs. Religion is a very personal thing; how can you believe it without personal experiences that validate the belief?

interactive processing wrote: when faith is used in the discussion of religion it tends to be the definition "belief that is not based on proof" and not it's other use as a synonym for hope, trust or belief. it is kinda important to keep the different uses straight and not mix and match or confuse them.
when someone has a religious faith in x it generally means they "believe without proof" not that they hope its true (wishing or wanting), or that they trust that its true ( rational reasons can be given for having or not having trust) or that they believe (rational reasons can be given for believing or for not believing something)

this may be getting a bit semantically deep since synonyms work both ways and it is possible to use the word trust and imply a "trust that is not based on rational proof" or say i "believe" something and still have no rational proof for that belief.

Pointedstick wrote: To me, faith is something you believe even though you can't objectively prove it or call on your direct experiences as evidence of it. Seen this way, I don't actually believe that I have met very many faithful religious people. Nearly all of my religious friends and acquaintances claim to have talked with God, or seen an angel, or had Jesus visit them, or spoken in tongues, or had the Devil possess them, or something along those lines. To me, this is religion without faith: they have had personal experiences that validate their belief! No faith required. You don't have to have faith that God exists if he talks to you and sends angels to look after you and all of these things are perceived by your senses.

This is religion that makes sense to me. I may personally be of the opinion that these peoples' brains manufactured the experiences they perceived, but the fact that they believe something that they feel they had a personal experience with makes sense to me. What doesn't make sense if believing in a God or a savior or a Devil or any of that without any actual confirmatory experiences or sensory inputs. Religion is a very personal thing; how can you believe it without personal experiences that validate the belief?

I have never had the first paragraph experiences.  As to your question at the end of the second paragraph, I really don't know but I do.  I just believe the promises of Jesus are truth; try as I have, I cannot disprove Scripture (His revealed Word) or find a better, more reasonable, worldview than that explained by Christianity - probably that is a really poor explanation, but so be it.  Maybe it is be because I don't want a god small enough that I can explain.  Then that god would be no bigger than I am, there would be absolutely no reason for faith, and I know that I am a flawed person - that flawed person part - I have a lot of experience that I could talk about.  The great "I am" has grabbed hold of me for some reason that I cannot explain and I cannot escape, even if I wanted to.  I trust God's Word and relish learning more of it, hearing more of it, tasting more of it, and one day, understanding it.

... Mountaineer

interactive processing wrote:

Mountaineer wrote:
1. Agree.  One must have faith only in the promises of Jesus; never, ever have faith in faith.  And, there is only one God; all those who profess that all religions have the same God are incorrect.  Really.  Truly.  Always.  But I can't prove it to an unbeliever.

2. Agree.  Abortion is a vertical realm issue with the caveat that one is expected by God to obey the state unless it conflicts with the will of God as expressed in Christian Scripture.

... Mountaineer

number one is a bit of a logical loop-de-loop you don't have faith in faith yet you have faith in Jesus and are sure it will work, which is faith in faith....

i don't know that you would get much out of it if viewed with a closed mind, but the movie i am suggesting gives a solid argument (including many made by christian speakers) for the understanding that all religions have the same experience of God, once you get past the differences in the language used to describe the experience and the path to having it.

OK, I watched the movie.  I tried my best to be objective, but please recognize that I have biases just like everyone else and bring my presuppositions to the party - it is unavoidable.  My comments:

The movie With One Voice seems to be based on religions and religious interpretation that favor mysticism and says those interpretations are similar, i.e. the focus is on feelings and are usually based on some type of experience that affected the various people. The movie reminded me of the inhabitants of the fabled Pleasantville, where everyone is happy and all the children are above average.  The movie speakers seem to focus on the subjective - an individual’s experience, thoughts and feelings, and not on an objective external God.  My understanding of Christianity would not place mysticism as a healthy method of interpretation or path to follow because it forces one to turn into themselves rather than look outward to an objective source for the source of truth, justice, salvation, and comfort, that created us all. 

From my point of view, the Creator is more important than the creature.  The movie also seems to focus on “works righteousness”?, that is “be a good person who cares for others”? as the means to please God.  That is not unusual for most religions other than Christianity.  Christianity seems to focus much more on what God has already done for us, that is God is and wants to be a God of mercy (grace); the God of justice uses his wrath to turn us back to Him, and if we don’t, the onus is on us for our rejecting His gift and He will finally give us what we deserve instead of showing his mercy.  In other words, He will finally say “enough is enough, you had plenty of opportunity to hear what I said”?, I will judge you on your imperfect works and not on what Jesus did for you.  So, all in all, the movie is a "works righteousness" characterization, not a "you are saved because of what Christ did on the cross for you" type of movie.  Not surprising, because almost everyone wants to think their actions play a role in their heavenly future - that free gift God offers is too good to be true so it is rarely portrayed.

... Mountaineer

interactive processing wrote:
the "objective" external god is one that you have faith in (" a belief that is not based on proof") the experience they talk of transcends the external internal dichotomy, looking inward is a search for your connection to god (the universe) it is an effort to silence the ego that keeps you trapped in that split/duality/seperation that brings you suffering and keeps you from truth, justice, salvation, and comfort, a unfounded "faith" and a bunch of circular beliefs seems a pale substitute for the pursuit of inner peace and direct knowledge of your connection
it didn't come off as a works of righteousness to please god characterization to me, more of a works of righteousness as a part of a path to alter the nature of your perception of the universe and your perception of your fundamental relationship to it. "works of righteousness" in your definition seems to imply the very duality they seek to overcome.. doing stuff to please some external being doesn't make much sense from a gnostic or mystic point of view if they don't believe in that duality to start with.


thanks for taking the time to watch it.. ...sincerely..
i wasn't expecting you to agree with it or necessarily understand, it but i am happy that you were willing to take the time to expose yourself to a gnostic interpretation of religion.

Mountaineer wrote: I have never had the first paragraph experiences.  As to your question at the end of the second paragraph, I really don't know but I do.  I just believe the promises of Jesus are truth; try as I have, I cannot disprove Scripture (His revealed Word) or find a better, more reasonable, worldview than that explained by Christianity - probably that is a really poor explanation, but so be it.  Maybe it is be because I don't want a god small enough that I can explain.  Then that god would be no bigger than I am, there would be absolutely no reason for faith, and I know that I am a flawed person - that flawed person part - I have a lot of experience that I could talk about.  The great "I am" has grabbed hold of me for some reason that I cannot explain and I cannot escape, even if I wanted to.  I trust God's Word and relish learning more of it, hearing more of it, tasting more of it, and one day, understanding it.

... Mountaineer

Why Christianity, then? If you've chosen to have absolute faith in the truth of one religion's precepts without, as you've said, any evidence, can you shed some light on why you chose not to do the same for any of the others?

Pointedstick wrote:

Mountaineer wrote: I have never had the first paragraph experiences.  As to your question at the end of the second paragraph, I really don't know but I do.  I just believe the promises of Jesus are truth; try as I have, I cannot disprove Scripture (His revealed Word) or find a better, more reasonable, worldview than that explained by Christianity - probably that is a really poor explanation, but so be it.  Maybe it is be because I don't want a god small enough that I can explain.  Then that god would be no bigger than I am, there would be absolutely no reason for faith, and I know that I am a flawed person - that flawed person part - I have a lot of experience that I could talk about.  The great "I am" has grabbed hold of me for some reason that I cannot explain and I cannot escape, even if I wanted to.  I trust God's Word and relish learning more of it, hearing more of it, tasting more of it, and one day, understanding it.

... Mountaineer

Why Christianity, then? If you've chosen to have absolute faith in the truth of one religion's precepts without, as you've said, any evidence, can you shed some light on why you chose not to do the same for any of the others?

P.S.,

I will answer based on my experience.  (However, the most likely reason is God wanted me in spite of my doubts, "wilderness wanderings", disregard for Him at times, but would not give up on pursuing me; I expect that reason will seem as folly to one who does not yet believe.)

I was raised in a Christian home, so I'm sure that was a big factor in shaping my earliest beliefs.  The in my college years, I began relying on science to explain things - science does an excellent job within the boundries for which it is intended but seemed to fall short on explaining many things that interested me such as: Why am I here?  Where did we come from?  Where are we going when this life ends?  What is the source of knowledge, truth and morals?  Where does evil come from?  Then, later in life after reading about religions in general, I became really aware that Christianity was the only religion that had a God that is alive; I was repulsed by the evil of man as evidenced by the crucifixion and fascinated by the resurrection.  I came to the conclusion that Christianity hinged on the fact that Jesus indeed rose from the dead - the more I studied, the more I became convinced that Christianity was the worldview that most completely answered my questions, explained past and current reality, and had much literary and archeological evidence to back up its claims.  Also, the idea of a religion that depended on an external source for truth, definitions of right and wrong, power, knowledge, etc. instead of finding it within me was very eye opening for a self-justified know-it-all whiz kid - I came to realize that being my own source for all that was so very arrogant, narcissistic, and short sighted - I had been my own god. 

Here is a link to two videos by Professor Paul Maier you might like to see.  They give a summary of the world's religions and discuss the reasons why Christianity is the one that offers the most.  Maier can be somewhat abrasive in his lectures so try to overlook that and listen to the message if you can.
 
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/g2vcmm6a4y8s ... yFiIa?dl=0

... Mountaineer

Edited to add:  I used an old 2009 MacBook Pro to open the files - Quicktime worked great with clear video and audio results.  I have not tried to open the dmg files with a Windows computer or associated programs.  Hope you are able to watch as the videos do an excellent job of addressing your question of "Why Christianity vs. other religions?".

MangoMan wrote:

Mountaineer wrote:

Pointedstick wrote: Why Christianity, then? If you've chosen to have absolute faith in the truth of one religion's precepts without, as you've said, any evidence, can you shed some light on why you chose not to do the same for any of the others?

I was raised in a Christian home, so I'm sure that was a big factor in shaping my earliest beliefs. 

In the US, Europe or Latin America, you are surrounded by Christianity as the predominant and sanctioned [or unsanctioned-but-really-accepted-as-sanctioned] religion. If you don't grow up in a household that teaches Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, etc., other religions seem very culturally foreign. Certainly, some people still embrace minority religions anyway as adults, but Christianity is so much easier because it's everywhere, not because it is "the one true religion".

And yet what we see more and more of, with each passing generation, is people embracing NO religion, regardless of what they grew up with. Why? In part, I agree with PS that people want concrete proof. I also think a lot of people will not just accept the rituals and mysticism of another era that makes no sense in today's world, especially now that we have valid scientific explanations for so many things.

And perhaps it's because people aren't as inclined to burden themselves with the need for answers to unanswerable questions such as:

Mountaineer said "science does an excellent job within the boundries for which it is intended but seemed to fall short on explaining many things that interested me such as: Why am I here?  Where did we come from?  Where are we going when this life ends?  What is the source of knowledge, truth and morals?  Where does evil come from?"

Young people today are pretty darn good at living in the moment.

Mountaineer, thanks for the explanation. I appreciate it. I hope you can understand how from my perspective, it looks like you chose Christianity because it was culturally familiar and emotionally appealing to you. If you've never actually felt God's presence, or spoken with Jesus, or been touched by an Angel, or anything like that... it's just hard for me to imagine believing something so strongly without any confirmation that I was right about it.

Pointedstick wrote: Mountaineer, thanks for the explanation. I appreciate it. I hope you can understand how from my perspective, it looks like you chose Christianity because it was culturally familiar and emotionally appealing to you. If you've never actually felt God's presence, or spoken with Jesus, or been touched by an Angel, or anything like that... it's just hard for me to imagine believing something so strongly without any confirmation that I was right about it.

That is the reason for Christianity requiring faith - if we understood all of what we wanted to know it would make us think we were like God and thus destine us for the outer darkness.

  Mountaineer

I wander into this conversation with trepidation. Non-believer here but I try not to be too strident about it. What bothers me is that, absent revelation, I find the choice between eternal peace and everlasting hell more than just a tad extreme. Believing "just in case" doesn't really work. And almost everywhere in the world people follow whatever religion they are born into. Yes, there are people who are always searching but that is not really even an option in some parts of the world (as discussed often elsewhere).

Religion is such an important issue with one's children as well. I always tell our daughter that she has to choose her own path with religion and politics. My reasoning is that if kids are not free to do so, then whoever procreates the most wins (so to speak).

Lastly, I can't seem to conjure up any kind of picture of heaven that seems like it might even remotely please everyone. What if God dictates that I have to listen to hip-hop for eternity?

On a humorous note, I saw a billboard just south of Chicago on a cold winter day a few years ago. There were two photos with the caption 'Heaven or hell. You decide.' The hell picture looked like a cozy campfire while the heaven option was along the lines of "overcast with a chance of snow showers."

Mountaineer wrote:

Pointedstick wrote: Mountaineer, thanks for the explanation. I appreciate it. I hope you can understand how from my perspective, it looks like you chose Christianity because it was culturally familiar and emotionally appealing to you. If you've never actually felt God's presence, or spoken with Jesus, or been touched by an Angel, or anything like that... it's just hard for me to imagine believing something so strongly without any confirmation that I was right about it.

That is the reason for Christianity requiring faith - if we understood all of what we wanted to know it would make us think we were like God and thus destine us for the outer darkness.

  Mountaineer

What about all the people who saw Jesus' miracles and resurrection? If you're correct and the Bible is true, then they were people for whom no faith was required. Are they in "outer darkness?"

Pointedstick wrote:

Mountaineer wrote:

Pointedstick wrote: Mountaineer, thanks for the explanation. I appreciate it. I hope you can understand how from my perspective, it looks like you chose Christianity because it was culturally familiar and emotionally appealing to you. If you've never actually felt God's presence, or spoken with Jesus, or been touched by an Angel, or anything like that... it's just hard for me to imagine believing something so strongly without any confirmation that I was right about it.

That is the reason for Christianity requiring faith - if we understood all of what we wanted to know it would make us think we were like God and thus destine us for the outer darkness.

  Mountaineer

What about all the people who saw Jesus' miracles and resurrection? If you're correct and the Bible is true, then they were people for whom no faith was required. Are they in "outer darkness?"

P.S.,

I quibble with your choice of words "If you're correct and the Bible is true" - I think it would be more accurate to say "If God is correct and His Word is true" - but I get your drift.  Anyway, Scripture indicates all those who believe, that is trust in, the promises God, regardless of the events that resulted in their belief, will be in the "new Jerusalem" with the Triune God.  I expect characters like Abraham, David, etc. will be there even though they did not see God in human form like many in the New Testament accounts did, and even though they were sinners; God gave them the gift of repentance. 

... Mountaineer

barrett wrote:
Religion is such an important issue with one's children as well. I always tell our daughter that she has to choose her own path with religion and politics. My reasoning is that if kids are not free to do so, then whoever procreates the most wins (so to speak).

Isn't that kind of like saying I'm going to let my daughter choose to use heroin or experiment with sex if she wishes while I just keep silent on the matter (or any other course of action that may prove to be exceeding harmful)?  No offense, but that seems rather silly to me.

... Mountaineer

Mountaineer wrote: Isn't that kind of like saying I'm going to let my daughter choose to use heroin or experiment with sex if she wishes while I just keep silent on the matter (or any other course of action that may prove to be exceeding harmful)?

Nah.

And besides, acting on that belief is probably more likely to make her actually want to use heroin become a godless librul.

barrett wrote:
Lastly, I can't seem to conjure up any kind of picture of heaven that seems like it might even remotely please everyone. What if God dictates that I have to listen to hip-hop for eternity?

There is great news for you Barrett, if there is hip-hop for eternity, at least you won't cry about it, nor will it be painful, nor will you be mourning about it.  But, there probably won't be hip-hop anyway because the former things will be gone.  I think God must be looking out for you.  Turn from your unbelief and get ready to party hard! 

Revelation 21:3  And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God.  4 He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away.”?

... Mountaineer

Pointedstick wrote: Mountaineer, thanks for the explanation. I appreciate it. I hope you can understand how from my perspective, it looks like you chose Christianity because it was culturally familiar and emotionally appealing to you. If you've never actually felt God's presence, or spoken with Jesus, or been touched by an Angel, or anything like that... it's just hard for me to imagine believing something so strongly without any confirmation that I was right about it.

I have often thought about how fortunate I am to have been born in time and space where I was - into a Christian family at a time when almost all of my friends went to one of our small town (~500 people) three churches.  It really does cause me to ponder "What if I'd been born into a Islamic or Buddhist family in the 1500s, or in to a pagan family in Ireland in the 500s, etc."  By the grace of God, I am what I am and was born where I was born.  No need to ponder on the unanswerable, I have heard God's Word and did not ultimately reject it.  I'm just glad that God wanted me in spite of my wayward ways and sinful character, and that all of my subsequent  reading, studies, and  conversations have proven, even to me  a one time indifferent self-righteious somewhat lost soul, the validity, timelessness, and power of  God's truth.  Thanks be to God that I know Jesus did it all FOR ME and I don't have to worry about unanswerable hypothetical questions.  Once again, it is not about me at all ... it is ALL about what Jesus did FOR ME and FOR YOU; that is why I try to focus on and talk about the revealed Word of God (Jesus, the means of grace, Scripture) rather than going on and on about "my story".  Hopefully, all will not reject the gift.  I was once about as far from it as one could be without having God completely turn me over to my sinful doubts and desires and harden my heart beyond recovery - as the Scripture describe happened to many who refused to hear the promises and/or believe them.

As for your statement "If you've never actually felt God's presence, or spoken with Jesus, or been touched by an Angel, or anything like that", I may have misspoken in previous posts, or not have been clear.  I have and do have "feelings" about God/Jesus/Spirt ... the feelings* are just far subordinate and far more suspect  than receiving God in the manner he has promised for us to receive Him:  Word and Sacrament - that is receiving the Spirit at baptism by virtue of Word and water, receiving His body and blood in the Lord's supper with the words of institution, and hearing His words of forgiveness for my sins in confession and absolution.  I appologize if I misled you my with earlier statements.

*Feelings are suspect when thinking they came from God because they can be caused from demonic forces.  Feelings can also evaporate in a heartbeat, e.g. if you get bad news; God's Word is permanent and can always be relied upon.  God has only promised to be present in his Word and Sacrament.  The uplifted feelings I have because of the Divine Service (worship service) are stirred in me because of the Word and Sacrament I receive.  Knowing that I actually have God within me and that He renews me and feeds me Jesus every time I receive that Word and Sacrament is undescribably uplifting.

Peace, and a very joyful "soon to be day of giving thanks" to all! 

... Mountaineer

Mountaineer wrote: Hey Dude!  It is not about me at all; say anything you like if you are receiving short-term satisfaction from it; you are not arguing with me, you are arguing with God.  It is what God has chosen to reveal through his Word to those with ears to hear that is important.  I do ponder though, how you KNOW all that stuff you said in your post. 

Peace to you too bro ... I hope you find the peace, joy, and love for your fellow man that God has chosen to give me, a poor miserable sinner.

Really man, if you're just going to copt-out and deflect all points of critical thinking towards a "higher authority" that might as well be a hallucinotion for all you know and doesn't answer back, there's no engaging in any real conversation.  I'm done "figuring out religion" and this thread.  Like PT Barnum said, there's nothing to see here, folks!

MangoMan wrote: And yet what we see more and more of, with each passing generation, is people embracing NO religion, regardless of what they grew up with. Why? In part, I agree with PS that people want concrete proof. I also think a lot of people will not just accept the rituals and mysticism of another era that makes no sense in today's world, especially now that we have valid scientific explanations for so many things.

But that makes TOO much sense.  All religions rely on an emotional component for belief, not facts.  Emotions are not rational. 

Frankly, every day I'm really glad I'm not caught up in one of the innumerous religious mysticism reality bubbles as Mountaineer demonstrates most publicly, even though my heart bleeds for the naivety and ignorance of his tunnel vision.  I much prefer to be unecumbered so I can see the bigger metaphysical picture.  But its not for everyone, I guess. 

Since Thanksgiving is rapidly approaching, I thought I would offer my personal thanks to all of you on this thread who have taken the "high road" in comments, questions, new ideas, and in general non-snarkiness in your responses to everything I have posted.  Religion can definitely be a hot topic and is treated as such in most other forums in which I have participated.  But those other forums are apparently not populated with the high-calibre folks who hang out here.  I have the utmost respect for all of you who have chosen that "high road", regardless of what your beliefs are about Christianity, especially for those who are non-believers and have taken the "high road"; it is so easy to get sucked down to the level of the snarky ones and you have risen above the muck in your kindness!  So, celebrate the Thanksgiving Day, enjoy your families and friends, and may God look favorably upon you.  My very best wishes to you and yours. 

... Mountaineer

interactive processing wrote: for the Christians, there is a new /newish movie out called "god's not dead" that y'all might enjoy, it has a kid making an argument for the existence of god along with a few other christian themed story lines all intersecting. it seems to be a set of fictionalized tales very loosely based on some things that have been in the news in the last couple years..

i doubt the atheists will be convinced by it, but its not a bad movie even if it does pour on the christian sentimentality a bit thick.

Mountaineer wrote:

barrett wrote:
Religion is such an important issue with one's children as well. I always tell our daughter that she has to choose her own path with religion and politics. My reasoning is that if kids are not free to do so, then whoever procreates the most wins (so to speak).

Isn't that kind of like saying I'm going to let my daughter choose to use heroin or experiment with sex if she wishes while I just keep silent on the matter (or any other course of action that may prove to be exceeding harmful)? 

No, to me these are not the same.

1) Sex - I assume like most people that she will have sex when she is old enough to understand all the pros and cons. We talk to her about it & feel that the lines of communication just need to be kept open. As living creatures we have sexual desires which I think are neither morally right nor wrong. They are just part of being alive.

2) Heroin - The potential penalty for heroin use is death. At the very least there is suffering. Again, communication is important.

3) Politics - I want her to vote for the candidates that she feels will serve us the best. To impose my views is to limit her free will. After all, I have been wrong plenty of times. Also, political parties evolve or devolve and people - older folks especially - have a hard time changing their minds once they are made up. Sometimes a re-think is called for.

4) Religion - I believe 99% of kids (32% of statistics are made up on the spot) who are not indoctrinated by their parents, churches, mosques, etc. will choose to lead decent, productive lives if we teach them about right and wrong behavior (again, I am no paragon but at least I have some life experience). My guess is that they will also choose to be agnostic. That is at least the pattern I see among young people. If they find at some point that is not sufficient, then they should be free to seek whatever truths they please.

If, however the penalty for not accepting God as one's savior really is eternal torment, then I should obviously do an about face and pour all my energy into making sure she is on the right side of the great divide. I just don't believe in heaven and hell so I am not really qualified to teach another person about these ideas.

barrett wrote:4) Religion - I believe 99% of kids (32% of statistics are made up on the spot) who are not indoctrinated by their parents, churches, mosques, etc. will choose to lead decent, productive lives if we teach them about right and wrong behavior (again, I am no paragon but at least I have some life experience). My guess is that they will also choose to be agnostic. That is at least the pattern I see among young people. If they find at some point that is not sufficient, then they should be free to seek whatever truths they please.

As long as you realize that you're indoctrinating her with everything you believe, exactly the way religious people do.  You're modeling and endorsing the no-heaven, no-hell, make-your-own-way, be-a-good-person religion, just in the same way that a religious parent would model and endorse their own worldview.