Gyroscopic Investing

Desert wrote:

Xan wrote:

MediumTex wrote: I think that if religion is the umbrella, nihilism is the storm.  It falls on us all and we each protect ourselves from it the best way we can using the tools our culture provides us with.

This means that your worldview/religion actually is nihilism then, right?  So there is no "real" morality.  There's no reason for some things to be right and others wrong.  You wrap yourself in morality like an umbrella, but you know that ultimately the storm is the truth and that morality is an illusion that helps us get by.  (I think Desert's point was that atheists try to "tack on" morality by appealing to nature, and that that's inconsistent with nihilism.)

I actually think the storm analogy is pretty good: the storm of chaos, nothingness, and destruction IS raging in this world, and will ultimately destroy it.  And we do hold up umbrellas and idols to try to protect ourselves in this world.  But in Christianity we have a sure and certain hope that there is a real world of which this is just a shadow.  That when this world destroys itself, reality will go on.  Reality came all the way to this shadow world to attach itself to us.  As we have been Baptized and heard the Word and eaten the Supper, we have been grafted on to the "true vine", which will go right on living after the storm.

Wow, beautifully put.  Thanks.

I thought it was good too.

The point he seems to be making, though, is that nihilism is what creates the need for religion, and I wouldn't disagree with that, though I think there is obviously disagreement between us over the meaning of religion--i.e., is it revealed external truth, or is it a projection of what we imagine revealed external truth might look like.

It's interesting how some people listen to Joseph Campbell talk about religion in the context of mythology and think that he is cheapening it, while others listen to him talk about it and they gain new respect for what religion actually does in society.  In Jung parlance, it creates archetypes and models for idealized versions of our higher selves, culminating, of course, in our journey to become closer to, or even at one with God.  None of that can happen without the religious framework, or what Jung called "the religious outlook", which he felt was essential to a person's long term mental health, sort of like a vaccination against nihilism.

In my studies on Comparative Religions Studying, I've tried thinking more about what God has for his plan. Here are my thoughts below. Let me know what you think and thanks again for having this thread and for actively contributing to it everyone. It really does help me to grow in my own understanding of trying to find "Truth".

From a Christian Religious Perspective: God’s Plan

1.) God created universe, God is all that is Good. He lives outside of Time and Space (Closed Theism vs Open Theism Debate. I believe Closed) <Ref. B,G>
2.) God created the angels (including Satan), who were all given freewill
3.) God created the world, the angels rejoiced
4.) God created humans who were given freewill and God rested, seeing everything was good
5.) Lucifer/Satan’s pride (sin = not God’s will) led to being cast out of heaven with a third of the angels. Satan became the Devil but was created perfect. <Ref. D,J>
6.) Sin (Evil) is the absence of Good, which is against God
7.) Causes the fall of Man (sin) due to Satan inhabiting the Serpent and this original sin of man then goes to every human that ever lives
8.) Both Satan and man have sinned and therefore destined to eternally die, sin brought suffering into the world. <Ref. H>
9.) Job was tested by Satan, but can only test what God allows <Ref. I>
10.) God allows suffering as a test for humans so they either strengthened their faith or fall from it (Satan asks every time whether he can do something and God allows it)
11.) God needs sin for us to be saved from it, God didn’t create sin, he allowed it to happen by granting freewill while knowing that most would choose to sin. <Ref. C> Through this story, it is a way for God to show his love, glory, grace, and mercy <Ref. K>
12.) God would give people enough time to repent their sin, but if not they were punished (much like people in Noah’s time). People repented their sin in the Old Testament through blood sacrifices to pay for sin
13.) God doesn’t change his mind (i.e. his nature). He changes his actions based on whether people repent or not. <Ref. A,E>  He expresses regret but wouldn’t change his actions. Humans express regret due to ignorance (non omniscience). God regrets in spite of his omniscience <Ref. F>
14.) Jesus (who was a part of God) was born into the world with freewill as well. Satan tempted him but it didn’t work in the desert.
15.) Jesus died, leading a sinless life to shed his blood to pay for all the time payment of sin of the world (for humans) like in #12
16.) We use our freewill to choose to believe that Jesus died for our sins or not (holy spirit residing in us)
17.) One day, Jesus will come back to fully judge all who haven’t chosen to believe in him. He is patiently waiting to give people time to repent before he acts like in #12
18.) Based on our choices of wanting to have a relationship with God or not, when we die this leads to either Heaven or Hell for eternity for humans and Hell for demons (fallen angels), and Satan. <Ref. L,M>
19.) By us believing we can come up with a better way of having this story play out for having sin and needing a savior, we are committing we can do things better than God, leading to why Satan fell from Heaven in the first place. <Ref. C>

References:
A.) http://regansravings.blogspot.com/2011/ ... -mind.html
B.) http://regansravings.blogspot.com/2011/ ... uture.html
C.) http://www.gotquestions.org/if-God-knew.html
D.) https://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/q ... the-devil/
E.) http://www.gotquestions.org/immutability-God.html
F.) http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/god ... like-a-man
G.) https://carm.org/what-is-open-theism
H.) https://bible.org/article/why-there-suffering
I.) https://bible.org/seriespage/3-satan-s- ... rfect-plan
J.) http://www.allaboutgod.com/why-did-god- ... an-faq.htm
K.) https://www.bereanbiblesociety.org/why- ... the-devil/
L.) http://www.gotquestions.org/sheol-hades-hell.html
M.) http://www.gotquestions.org/paradise.html

MediumTex wrote: I thought it was good too.

The point he seems to be making, though, is that nihilism is what creates the need for religion, and I wouldn't disagree with that, though I think there is obviously disagreement between us over the meaning of religion--i.e., is it revealed external truth, or is it a projection of what we imagine revealed external truth might look like.

It's interesting how some people listen to Joseph Campbell talk about religion in the context of mythology and think that he is cheapening it, while others listen to him talk about it and they gain new respect for what religion actually does in society.  In Jung parlance, it creates archetypes and models for idealized versions of our higher selves, culminating, of course, in our journey to become closer to, or even at one with God.  None of that can happen without the religious framework, or what Jung called "the religious outlook", which he felt was essential to a person's long term mental health, sort of like a vaccination against nihilism.

Side note, based on you referencing Jung's work, would you consider yourself at this point more of a Gnostic than anything else? or a warm/cold deist? Just curious. Thanks!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism

Desert wrote: Here's a pretty good, brief video (7.5 minutes) from William Lane Craig, discussing Christian belief, meaning in life, etc. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QLwnY9IjqzU

I liked the video. Thanks for posting.

Greg wrote:

MediumTex wrote: I thought it was good too.

The point he seems to be making, though, is that nihilism is what creates the need for religion, and I wouldn't disagree with that, though I think there is obviously disagreement between us over the meaning of religion--i.e., is it revealed external truth, or is it a projection of what we imagine revealed external truth might look like.

It's interesting how some people listen to Joseph Campbell talk about religion in the context of mythology and think that he is cheapening it, while others listen to him talk about it and they gain new respect for what religion actually does in society.  In Jung parlance, it creates archetypes and models for idealized versions of our higher selves, culminating, of course, in our journey to become closer to, or even at one with God.  None of that can happen without the religious framework, or what Jung called "the religious outlook", which he felt was essential to a person's long term mental health, sort of like a vaccination against nihilism.

Side note, based on you referencing Jung's work, would you consider yourself at this point more of a Gnostic than anything else? or a warm/cold deist? Just curious. Thanks!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism

I hate labels when it comes to religion, so I would probably not want to join Team Gnostic.

However, if the Gnostics had the Dallas Cowboys team colors and its mascot was a muscular Jesus carrying a sledgehammer, I would be very tempted.

Greg wrote:

Desert wrote: Here's a pretty good, brief video (7.5 minutes) from William Lane Craig, discussing Christian belief, meaning in life, etc. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QLwnY9IjqzU

I liked the video. Thanks for posting.

I actually held my nose and watched this before commenting. I've seen Mr. Craig in debates presenting the same arguments and I have to say I think he is the most arrogant and offensive Christian apologist I've ever seen. He regards his opponents as enemies and agents of Satan and has said so much in his writings. He has even said that a Christian should not visit an atheist's website or read any of their writings but view it as worse than pornography and leave any refutations to experts like him. In a debate I saw him doing with Bart Ehrman he kept throwing it back on Ehrman that the burden of proof was on him. In other words, Ehrman had to prove a negative or else God must exist. It's no wonder that a lot of people are refusing to debate him with tactics like this.

There are plenty of websites refuting his arguments but if you are a Christian I guess you aren't suppose to read those.

The only two points I would make are

1) Why does any of his evidence necessarily point to a mono-theistic God? Why couldn't it have been a bunch of gods working together? Seeing how projects done by committee come out at work, this might be a better explanation for the nature of the universe. I think it was H.L. Mencken who said he couldn't believe the world was created by one God but he could believe it was created by a board of Gods.

2.) If you even concede his points that there is proof for the existence of God, it is a big leap to go from there to concluding that the Christian  God is the one true God.

Fred wrote:

Greg wrote:

Desert wrote: Here's a pretty good, brief video (7.5 minutes) from William Lane Craig, discussing Christian belief, meaning in life, etc. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QLwnY9IjqzU

I liked the video. Thanks for posting.

I actually held my nose and watched this before commenting. I've seen Mr. Craig in debates presenting the same arguments and I have to say I think he is the most arrogant and offensive Christian apologist I've ever seen. He regards his opponents as enemies and agents of Satan and has said so much in his writings. He has even said that a Christian should not visit an atheist's website or read any of their writings but view it as worse than pornography and leave any refutations to experts like him. In a debate I saw him doing with Bart Ehrman he kept throwing it back on Ehrman that the burden of proof was on him. In other words, Ehrman had to prove a negative or else God must exist. It's no wonder that a lot of people are refusing to debate him with tactics like this.

There are plenty of websites refuting his arguments but if you are a Christian I guess you aren't suppose to read those.

The only two points I would make are

1) Why does any of his evidence necessarily point to a mono-theistic God? Why couldn't it have been a bunch of gods working together? Seeing how projects done by committee come out at work, this might be a better explanation for the nature of the universe. I think it was H.L. Mencken who said he couldn't believe the world was created by one God but he could believe it was created by a board of Gods.

2.) If you even concede his points that there is proof for the existence of God, it is a big leap to go from there to concluding that the Christian  God is the one true God.

I've read about the Bart Ehrman vs William Lane Craig and I'm interested in watching it. For me at least, to fully understand a topic, you should be able to recognize the arguments for each side (such as in a debate). I don't see anything inherently sinful about reading up on the topics of atheism, hinduism, or any other concept of religion.

The more I understand of the other side's arguments, the better I can have a conversation with them and form a relationship with them. Isn't that what we're doing here? (not perfectly, but trying to understand the other's side).

The one question I have that I think PS and others has brought up in the past is preconceived biases. Do these prevent us from reaching the same conclusions even if presented with the same evidence based on interpretation of the evidence? If so, how can any of us trust that we are interpreting information correctly? Ultimately none of us can get all information (omniscience) so we have to make a judgement call based on limited facts.

I've been worried about this for myself. Does a Christian God make sense to me logically based on the evidence presented, or are my preconceived biases causing me to interpret the evidence a particular way to lead me to a Christian God?

I don't know how I answer this question, or if anyone can. The only way to mitigate this bias is to study other points of view, but are you still taking then those biases with you as you learn and "corrupting" the new information you take in to fit the preconceived biases. Still isn't a satisfying way to mitigate the issue of the question. Can you actually change/control your biases in a measurable way?

Greg wrote:

Fred wrote:

Greg wrote: I liked the video. Thanks for posting.

I actually held my nose and watched this before commenting. I've seen Mr. Craig in debates presenting the same arguments and I have to say I think he is the most arrogant and offensive Christian apologist I've ever seen. He regards his opponents as enemies and agents of Satan and has said so much in his writings. He has even said that a Christian should not visit an atheist's website or read any of their writings but view it as worse than pornography and leave any refutations to experts like him. In a debate I saw him doing with Bart Ehrman he kept throwing it back on Ehrman that the burden of proof was on him. In other words, Ehrman had to prove a negative or else God must exist. It's no wonder that a lot of people are refusing to debate him with tactics like this.

There are plenty of websites refuting his arguments but if you are a Christian I guess you aren't suppose to read those.

The only two points I would make are

1) Why does any of his evidence necessarily point to a mono-theistic God? Why couldn't it have been a bunch of gods working together? Seeing how projects done by committee come out at work, this might be a better explanation for the nature of the universe. I think it was H.L. Mencken who said he couldn't believe the world was created by one God but he could believe it was created by a board of Gods.

2.) If you even concede his points that there is proof for the existence of God, it is a big leap to go from there to concluding that the Christian  God is the one true God.

I've read about the Bart Ehrman vs William Lane Craig and I'm interested in watching it. For me at least, to fully understand a topic, you should be able to recognize the arguments for each side (such as in a debate). I don't see anything inherently sinful about reading up on the topics of atheism, hinduism, or any other concept of religion.

The more I understand of the other side's arguments, the better I can have a conversation with them and form a relationship with them. Isn't that what we're doing here? (not perfectly, but trying to understand the other's side).

The one question I have that I think PS and others has brought up in the past is preconceived biases. Do these prevent us from reaching the same conclusions even if presented with the same evidence based on interpretation of the evidence? If so, how can any of us trust that we are interpreting information correctly? Ultimately none of us can get all information (omniscience) so we have to make a judgement call based on limited facts.

I've been worried about this for myself. Does a Christian God make sense to me logically based on the evidence presented, or are my preconceived biases causing me to interpret the evidence a particular way to lead me to a Christian God?

I don't know how I answer this question, or if anyone can. The only way to mitigate this bias is to study other points of view, but are you still taking then those biases with you as you learn and "corrupting" the new information you take in to fit the preconceived biases. Still isn't a satisfying way to mitigate the issue of the question. Can you actually change/control your biases in a measurable way?

Interesting discussion.  From my work-for-pay years, one of the courses I benefited from the most taught the concept of "self-observing - self-remembering".  Those qualities from the perspective of the course leader are pretty rare in the general population.  From my work-for-free years, a.k.a. retirement, one of the more useful things I've learned is to identify "presuppositions" either I or others have about a subject - very much related to the self-observing teachings.  I think both of these concepts are to help identify our biases so we can be more objective than we would otherwise be.  I aso agree that it is helpful to try to understand others' points of view.  I know for example on this religion thread, I've sure done a lot of pondering and thinking and ruminating to try to determine if I have rose colored glasses just because I was raised in a Christian family.  I've studied far more than I would have otherwise likely done, both Christianity and other religions.  For that, I thank everyone who has posted.  I'm kind of like Medium Tex in this regard, I like to thoroughly examine a subject of interest whether I end up agreeing with some items or not. 

I must say however, that after all of my study and all the questions that I've pondered, I remain absolutely convinced the Christian Triune God is the only real God, the others have far too many significant flaws to be in the ball game (my opinion), mainly because they either focus on abstractions or dead prophets or tell us to look inward for the answers; I don't know about the rest of you, but I am not anywhere close to being god-like enough to depend on my self re. matters of eternal significance and consequences.  There is far more evidence for the Christian Triune God is, in my opinion, than the evidence of quasi religions such as self-importance, self-reliance, man caused climate change, worship of money, worship of ancestors, worship of logic, worship of government, or the other widely adhered to world religions like Islam, Buddhism, Mormonism, etc.

... M

Desert wrote: I wanted to share a book title/author I've just started reading.  Greg, you and others might be interested. 

Josephus, The Essential Writings
A New Translation by Paul Maier

I've been wanting to read some of Josephus's voluminous writings, and ran across this book at a local museum yesterday.  Josephus was a Jew, born a couple years after the crucifixion of Jesus.  He wrote prolifically, so this book is but a sampling.  The writings selected for this book are ones that have some relationship with Biblical writings.

So far it's been a fascinating read.  He starts out at the beginnings of the world, and his stories so far parallel the OT.  I'm presently reading his version of the story of Joseph.  Of course I'm really looking forward to his writings concerning his own period.  I'll report back a bit later when I get there.

Interested in hearing your thoughts then Desert after you're done reading it. Thanks for the post.

Desert wrote: Anyway, it's probably best for you to avoid Craig, and me to avoid Ehrman.  When I look for an atheist viewpoint, I typically look to Sam Harris.  He was my favorite as an atheist, and remains so as a Christian.  He's calm, thoughtful, and I still agree with him on many topics.  He recently had a podcast where he discussed who he'd be voting for, for president.  I thought he made excellent points and found myself agreeing with him. 

Yes, I've read Sam Harris and listened to him in debates.  Also, Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens when he was alive were good. I was always told these guys were the angry new atheists but they seemed like quite rational people to me and always gracious in debates.

When it comes to Biblical Criticism, you can't beat Ehrman but I don't think he's a great debater. It's probably his voice that makes him sound whiny.

I enjoyed The Mike Licona/Richard Carrier debate on the resurrection recently. Both sides were gracious and actually seemed to listen to each other's point of view. If you're someone like Craig who thinks his opponent is the devil incarnate that doesn't happen.

Fred wrote:

Desert wrote: Anyway, it's probably best for you to avoid Craig, and me to avoid Ehrman.  When I look for an atheist viewpoint, I typically look to Sam Harris.  He was my favorite as an atheist, and remains so as a Christian.  He's calm, thoughtful, and I still agree with him on many topics.  He recently had a podcast where he discussed who he'd be voting for, for president.  I thought he made excellent points and found myself agreeing with him. 

Yes, I've read Sam Harris and listened to him in debates.  Also, Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens when he was alive were good. I was always told these guys were the angry new atheists but they seemed like quite rational people to me and always gracious in debates.

When it comes to Biblical Criticism, you can't beat Ehrman but I don't think he's a great debater. It's probably his voice that makes him sound whiny.

I enjoyed The Mike Licona/Richard Carrier debate on the resurrection recently. Both sides were gracious and actually seemed to listen to each other's point of view. If you're someone like Craig who thinks his opponent is the devil incarnate that doesn't happen.

I saw Hitchens live one time debating religion, and when the cameras were off he seemed like a really warm and gracious guy.  The guy he was debating seemed a lot more one dimensional, sort of like a Christian apologist version of Marco Rubio.

The debate was at a church and primarily attended by area Christian high schools.  I thought the premise of the event was pretty good--i.e., to stimulate thought in the students' minds.  Unfortunately, right after the debate wrapped up one of the principals got up and let everyone know that Hitchens was wrong and the other guy was right, presumably in case Hitchens had made a strong impression on any of them.

I thought the principal's comments made the Christian position seem very weak.  You don't get on a stage after a debate and tell everyone what they're supposed to believe if you have any confidence whatsoever in their ability to discover the truth for themselves.

MediumTex wrote:

Fred wrote:

Desert wrote: Anyway, it's probably best for you to avoid Craig, and me to avoid Ehrman.  When I look for an atheist viewpoint, I typically look to Sam Harris.  He was my favorite as an atheist, and remains so as a Christian.  He's calm, thoughtful, and I still agree with him on many topics.  He recently had a podcast where he discussed who he'd be voting for, for president.  I thought he made excellent points and found myself agreeing with him. 

Yes, I've read Sam Harris and listened to him in debates.  Also, Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens when he was alive were good. I was always told these guys were the angry new atheists but they seemed like quite rational people to me and always gracious in debates.

When it comes to Biblical Criticism, you can't beat Ehrman but I don't think he's a great debater. It's probably his voice that makes him sound whiny.

I enjoyed The Mike Licona/Richard Carrier debate on the resurrection recently. Both sides were gracious and actually seemed to listen to each other's point of view. If you're someone like Craig who thinks his opponent is the devil incarnate that doesn't happen.

I saw Hitchens live one time debating religion, and when the cameras were off he seemed like a really warm and gracious guy.  The guy he was debating seemed a lot more one dimensional, sort of like a Christian apologist version of Marco Rubio.

The debate was at a church and primarily attended by area Christian high schools.  I thought the premise of the event was pretty good--i.e., to stimulate thought in the students' minds.  Unfortunately, right after the debate wrapped up one of the principals got up and let everyone know that Hitchens was wrong and the other guy was right, presumably in case Hitchens had made a strong impression on any of them.

I thought the principal's comments made the Christian position seem very weak.  You don't get on a stage after a debate and tell everyone what they're supposed to believe if you have any confidence whatsoever in their ability to discover the truth for themselves.

Most of these debates are sponsored by Christian organizations so the whole idea is to come and watch the atheist get creamed. On Ehrman's blog he says he sometimes wonders if there is any point to it, as he figures the best he can do is make a few people think about things they otherwise wouldn't.

Fred wrote:

MediumTex wrote:

Fred wrote: Yes, I've read Sam Harris and listened to him in debates.  Also, Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens when he was alive were good. I was always told these guys were the angry new atheists but they seemed like quite rational people to me and always gracious in debates.

When it comes to Biblical Criticism, you can't beat Ehrman but I don't think he's a great debater. It's probably his voice that makes him sound whiny.

I enjoyed The Mike Licona/Richard Carrier debate on the resurrection recently. Both sides were gracious and actually seemed to listen to each other's point of view. If you're someone like Craig who thinks his opponent is the devil incarnate that doesn't happen.

I saw Hitchens live one time debating religion, and when the cameras were off he seemed like a really warm and gracious guy.  The guy he was debating seemed a lot more one dimensional, sort of like a Christian apologist version of Marco Rubio.

The debate was at a church and primarily attended by area Christian high schools.  I thought the premise of the event was pretty good--i.e., to stimulate thought in the students' minds.  Unfortunately, right after the debate wrapped up one of the principals got up and let everyone know that Hitchens was wrong and the other guy was right, presumably in case Hitchens had made a strong impression on any of them.

I thought the principal's comments made the Christian position seem very weak.  You don't get on a stage after a debate and tell everyone what they're supposed to believe if you have any confidence whatsoever in their ability to discover the truth for themselves.

Most of these debates are sponsored by Christian organizations so the whole idea is to come and watch the atheist get creamed. On Ehrman's blog he says he sometimes wonders if there is any point to it, as he figures the best he can do is make a few people think about things they otherwise wouldn't.

At worst, they're probably harmless.  At best, they probably do get people thinking.

One of the points Hitchens made when I saw him was that Christianity is a lot like living in North Korea.  It is ultimately the fear of the horrible things that might happen to you that keeps you in line, even though the propaganda talks endlessly about the Dear Leader's generosity and righteousness.

For me, I prefer appeals to rationality rather than fear, and thus the whole concept of Hell has always bothered me.  If God's message is so compelling and true, why do I need to have a pit of fire looming in the afterlife to keep me engaged?  Shouldn't the truth of the message itself be sufficient?  It's the kind of move that a government might undertake to compel participation in some activity (not just North Korea, but here and in most countries). 

The approach I like better is to persuade me rather than compel me.  The private sector must persuade me to do what it wants me to do, and they appeal to me in every way they can to get me interested in the "truth" of their product.  The government, since it has the power of the gun at its disposal, doesn't need to try nearly as hard to convince me it's right.  It simply tells me what to do, and if I disobey I either get attacked, put in a cage, or both.  Christianity resembles the former much more than the latter in the way it is practiced today, though the figure of Jesus as recorded in the Gospels stands apart from this coercion model in the way that his teachings sought to persuade people of the truth of his message, and that is the part of the Bible I find most appealing.

MediumTex wrote: One of the points Hitchens made when I saw him was that Christianity is a lot like living in North Korea.  It is ultimately the fear of the horrible things that might happen to you that keeps you in line, even though the propaganda talks endlessly about the Dear Leader's generosity and righteousness.

I heard Hitchens make that analogy too and after watching a few documentaries and reading books about life in N. Korea I thought it was a very good one. In one of the documentaries I watched somebody asked the question of whether they actually loved the Dear Leader as they appear to or just feared him. The answer was that they don't know the difference. It's just the way they have been programmed.

Okay this thread is super long and I just got here but I'll go ahead and summarize my beliefs. 

Both my parents are atheist although my mom might be agnostic.  I was baptized Catholic but never did anything beyond that.  Growing up I'd say I was agnostic, then atheist.  Then I actually had an experience where I believe God spoke to me through a really short vision.  It has only happened once in my entire life, and for years I pretended it didn't happen but eventually decided to believe what I saw or felt and now do believe in God.

I went through a phase several years ago where I tried to find a religion that resonated the most with me but I couldn't find one.  I read a bunch of the Bible and agreed with most of the New Testament but not all of it.  When I read the Old Testament it seemed to me like parts were very influenced by the men who wrote it.  One book I read that I really loved was The Voice of Knowledge by Miguel Ruiz, a book about the Toltec beliefs.  That book was amazing.  It was all about loving ourselves and accepting ourselves as part of God's creation.

I also really enjoyed Conversations with God, which I also believe is written by a man but his books had some really thoughtful points.  I don't believe God only offers heaven to those who believe the history of Jesus because there are so many people in the world who have been raised in different religions.  The "believe or hellfire" doesn't sound like the all-loving God that Jesus spoke of. 

I also really enjoyed reading near-death stories as people who have experienced those have very insightful things to say about the ways we live our lives, and those stories make me believe there very well may be life after death. 

I wouldn't say my faith is unwaveringly strong, as we really don't know.  But the fact that we all exist is such a miracle to me.  I believe evolution was guided by God and all science is good and cannot contradict the reality that God created.  I believe we are all a part of God and are all creators like God, in that we create our reality.

Nowadays I try to live my life so I can be thankful for the good and hope for the best.  I believe that showing love and compassion will be the best avenues toward being closer to God, and I try not to worry about it too much if I fall short of my ideal self.  I don't pray everyday but do on occasion and have never found a church I liked, although I might enjoy going someplace someday to talk about life with like-minded people.  I just don't really know many people who think like I do.

Michellebell wrote: Okay this thread is super long and I just got here but I'll go ahead and summarize my beliefs. 

Both my parents are atheist although my mom might be agnostic.  I was baptized Catholic but never did anything beyond that.  Growing up I'd say I was agnostic, then atheist.  Then I actually had an experience where I believe God spoke to me through a really short vision.  It has only happened once in my entire life, and for years I pretended it didn't happen but eventually decided to believe what I saw or felt and now do believe in God.

I went through a phase several years ago where I tried to find a religion that resonated the most with me but I couldn't find one.  I read a bunch of the Bible and agreed with most of the New Testament but not all of it.  When I read the Old Testament it seemed to me like parts were very influenced by the men who wrote it.  One book I read that I really loved was The Voice of Knowledge by Miguel Ruiz, a book about the Toltec beliefs.  That book was amazing.  It was all about loving ourselves and accepting ourselves as part of God's creation.

I also really enjoyed Conversations with God, which I also believe is written by a man but his books had some really thoughtful points.  I don't believe God only offers heaven to those who believe the history of Jesus because there are so many people in the world who have been raised in different religions.  The "believe or hellfire" doesn't sound like the all-loving God that Jesus spoke of. 

I also really enjoyed reading near-death stories as people who have experienced those have very insightful things to say about the ways we live our lives, and those stories make me believe there very well may be life after death. 

I wouldn't say my faith is unwaveringly strong, as we really don't know.  But the fact that we all exist is such a miracle to me.  I believe evolution was guided by God and all science is good and cannot contradict the reality that God created.  I believe we are all a part of God and are all creators like God, in that we create our reality.

Nowadays I try to live my life so I can be thankful for the good and hope for the best.  I believe that showing love and compassion will be the best avenues toward being closer to God, and I try not to worry about it too much if I fall short of my ideal self.  I don't pray everyday but do on occasion and have never found a church I liked, although I might enjoy going someplace someday to talk about life with like-minded people.  I just don't really know many people who think like I do.

I liked "Conversations with God" very much also, as it is the first work I've read that actually makes sense of why things look the way they do if there is an omnibenevolent, omniscient, omnipotent God.

As for where you might find spiritual community, have you tried a Unitarian-Universalist (UU) church? They are all different and some are way too liberal for me, but others I have visited had quite a few open-minded people.

Michellebell wrote: Nowadays I try to live my life so I can be thankful for the good and hope for the best.  I believe that showing love and compassion will be the best avenues toward being closer to God, and I try not to worry about it too much if I fall short of my ideal self.  I don't pray everyday but do on occasion and have never found a church I liked, although I might enjoy going someplace someday to talk about life with like-minded people.  I just don't really know many people who think like I do.

The only time I pray any more is when I get up in the morning and maybe have a bit of a hangover and it's both physically and emotionally painful getting out of bed and going to work. I find myself saying "God help me" but it's really just a meaningless expression because I don't believe  that there is a god who really listens to prayer and helps people. When I say that to a religious person, I usually get a response like "you're just angry with god" but the truth is that I really and truly believe what I am saying and I am at peace with it. I was once a devout Christian like Mountaineer and the idea of rejecting the faith I had for over 25 years was like looking into a deep, dark abyss. I looked into it however and I am now glad that I did. There is no comfort for me in things supernatural any more. I prefer to stand on the solid rock of things that are rational and reasonable and can be seen and measured with the naked eye. I do admit there is a possibility of a supernatural world that we don't understand but I don't see any god actually trying to communicate with us from that world beyond what we only imagine.

Fred wrote:

Michellebell wrote: Nowadays I try to live my life so I can be thankful for the good and hope for the best.  I believe that showing love and compassion will be the best avenues toward being closer to God, and I try not to worry about it too much if I fall short of my ideal self.  I don't pray everyday but do on occasion and have never found a church I liked, although I might enjoy going someplace someday to talk about life with like-minded people.  I just don't really know many people who think like I do.

The only time I pray any more is when I get up in the morning and maybe have a bit of a hangover and it's both physically and emotionally painful getting out of bed and going to work. I find myself saying "God help me" but it's really just a meaningless expression because I don't believe  that there is a god who really listens to prayer and helps people. When I say that to a religious person, I usually get a response like "you're just angry with god" but the truth is that I really and truly believe what I am saying and I am at peace with it. I was once a devout Christian like Mountaineer and the idea of rejecting the faith I had for over 25 years was like looking into a deep, dark abyss. I looked into it however and I am now glad that I did. There is no comfort for me in things supernatural any more. I prefer to stand on the solid rock of things that are rational and reasonable and can be seen and measured with the naked eye. I do admit there is a possibility of a supernatural world that we don't understand but I don't see any god actually trying to communicate with us from that world beyond what we only imagine.

To me that is all fine.  If you have experienced no evidence in your life that there is a God, then your beliefs are rational and justified.  My father and husband are like you.  Since I experienced something that made me think there may indeed be a very loving God and read books and stories about other peoples' experiences, I decided there is certainly no harm in believing.  If anything it makes me feel better, but of course I don't know anything for sure.  My belief is that God loves us all regardless of what we choose to believe, but some of the religions have been helpful for many people when making decisions about how they live their lives.

Libertarian666 wrote:

Michellebell wrote: Okay this thread is super long and I just got here but I'll go ahead and summarize my beliefs. 

Both my parents are atheist although my mom might be agnostic.  I was baptized Catholic but never did anything beyond that.  Growing up I'd say I was agnostic, then atheist.  Then I actually had an experience where I believe God spoke to me through a really short vision.  It has only happened once in my entire life, and for years I pretended it didn't happen but eventually decided to believe what I saw or felt and now do believe in God.

I went through a phase several years ago where I tried to find a religion that resonated the most with me but I couldn't find one.  I read a bunch of the Bible and agreed with most of the New Testament but not all of it.  When I read the Old Testament it seemed to me like parts were very influenced by the men who wrote it.  One book I read that I really loved was The Voice of Knowledge by Miguel Ruiz, a book about the Toltec beliefs.  That book was amazing.  It was all about loving ourselves and accepting ourselves as part of God's creation.

I also really enjoyed Conversations with God, which I also believe is written by a man but his books had some really thoughtful points.  I don't believe God only offers heaven to those who believe the history of Jesus because there are so many people in the world who have been raised in different religions.  The "believe or hellfire" doesn't sound like the all-loving God that Jesus spoke of. 

I also really enjoyed reading near-death stories as people who have experienced those have very insightful things to say about the ways we live our lives, and those stories make me believe there very well may be life after death. 

I wouldn't say my faith is unwaveringly strong, as we really don't know.  But the fact that we all exist is such a miracle to me.  I believe evolution was guided by God and all science is good and cannot contradict the reality that God created.  I believe we are all a part of God and are all creators like God, in that we create our reality.

Nowadays I try to live my life so I can be thankful for the good and hope for the best.  I believe that showing love and compassion will be the best avenues toward being closer to God, and I try not to worry about it too much if I fall short of my ideal self.  I don't pray everyday but do on occasion and have never found a church I liked, although I might enjoy going someplace someday to talk about life with like-minded people.  I just don't really know many people who think like I do.

I liked "Conversations with God" very much also, as it is the first work I've read that actually makes sense of why things look the way they do if there is an omnibenevolent, omniscient, omnipotent God.

As for where you might find spiritual community, have you tried a Unitarian-Universalist (UU) church? They are all different and some are way too liberal for me, but others I have visited had quite a few open-minded people.

My dad is an atheist and my stepmom is Catholic.  When they had their three kids, she wanted them to go to Catholic Church, but my dad wanted them to not be locked into that one religion, so he joined the Unitarian church and had them go to both.  I went once or twice and honestly didn't get much out of it.  Maybe it was just a little TOO open. 

Why not visit a Unitarian church, and see what it's like, if you're curious about it?

Desert wrote: Wow, that was surprising.  The message was far more religious than I would have guessed.  I think I hit the jackpot with this message; she covered some historical information regarding the Universalist church, constrasted with Calvinism, etc.  Overall though, I was surprised by how much theology she discussed.  I had a different picture of Universalism.

Every UU church is different. For example, some self-identify as Christian churches, others don't. I think all are religiously liberal, as that is pretty basic to the whole point of the denomination, but other than that they differ widely.

If you want to know more about the general beliefs that UU folks share, they have a nice website that lays it out.

Libertarian666 wrote:

Desert wrote: Wow, that was surprising.  The message was far more religious than I would have guessed.  I think I hit the jackpot with this message; she covered some historical information regarding the Universalist church, constrasted with Calvinism, etc.  Overall though, I was surprised by how much theology she discussed.  I had a different picture of Universalism.

Every UU church is different. For example, some self-identify as Christian churches, others don't. I think all are religiously liberal, as that is pretty basic to the whole point of the denomination, but other than that they differ widely.

They do all deny the divinity of Christ, though, right?  Isn't that what Unitarian means as opposed to Trinitarian?

jafs wrote: www.uua.org

Ah, so yes, the specifically deny the deity of Christ.