Let me begin by saying there is a lot of good science out there in the form of scientific laws that can be proven and re-proven. The scientific method incorporates this ability to replicate the results. I'm all for provable science.

BUT herein lies the problem.. Some science is theory based passed off as fact..

Google Big Bang THEORY, THEORY of Evolution, and THEORY of Gravity

I was indoctrinated in school to believe all of these and it made me very anti-religion. Only once I started realizing that a lot of "history" they teach in school is full fledged brainwashing and indoctrination, did I realize that maybe just maybe this indoctrination is meant to deceive us from the TRUTH.

These "theories" are why so many people are becoming atheists...

The reason people become atheists is lack of scientific proof of these "religions"

SO

If atheists question something because it's "belief based" and then replace it with "Theory" based reasoning... they have in essence traded one religion for another belief system or religion.

ONCE you see through these aforementioned theories you will see where I'm going with all of this... but until you research them there's nothing more I can do to help you.

They self-classify as Christian. So if I'm starting a conversation with someone I don't know and it's not about that, I'm not going to start by making that a point of contention.

You understand this is probably a gross overestimate, right? Methinks that pride might be more of an issue than you realize. (What is your estimate of the number of Christian books put into publication?)

There are many people who struggle intellectually with Christianity due to trying to build on an overly conservative foundation. For myself, I've found that many aspects of conservative perspectives seem to struggle to hold together under more intense intellectual rigor.

For all the things that you've said you've read and done, very little of it appears to have much of an impact in the "living out" of your faith. (At least, in any sort of positive measure.) And being an ex-pastor doesn't actually say much in that arena. What do you think it means to follow Jesus? Certainly, there's more than just reading books, right? I want to go back to your initial characterization:

Your first reflex in your justification of "knowing what being a Christian means and entails" is to point to "seminary" and "Bible smacking/debating people." Think about that. If someone is meeting you for the first time and this is what you tell them about your faith, what does that say about that faith that you claim to have?

Living orphan, nice posting. Sorry about your recent life challenges. I can't help you much but here's a funny story:

A very religious man was once caught in rising floodwaters. He climbed onto the roof of his house and trusted God to rescue him. A neighbor came by in a canoe and said, “The waters will soon be above your house. Hop in and we’ll paddle to safety.”

“No thanks” replied the religious man. “I’ve prayed to God and I’m sure he will save me”

A short time later the police came by in a boat. “The waters will soon be above your house. Hop in and we’ll take you to safety.”

“No thanks” replied the religious man. “I’ve prayed to God and I’m sure he will save me”

A little time later a rescue services helicopter hovered overhead, let down a rope ladder and said. “The waters will soon be above your house. Climb the ladder and we’ll fly you to safety.”

“No thanks” replied the religious man. “I’ve prayed to God and I’m sure he will save me”

All this time the floodwaters continued to rise, until soon they reached above the roof and the religious man drowned. When he arrived at heaven he demanded an audience with God. Ushered into God’s throne room he said, “Lord, why am I here in heaven? I prayed for you to save me, I trusted you to save me from that flood.”

“Yes you did my child” replied the Lord. “And I sent you a canoe, a boat and a helicopter. But you never got in.”

To Living Orphan:


For what is worth, I've come to the belief that the modern churches are still exclusively Old Testament followers and your references seem to confirm this perspective.

The Christ Being is only marginally appreciated under this type of auspices.

The Christian prayer states "not my will but thy will be done". Its the great road of the future to which suffering is comprehended.

If you must read, then the Gospels are appropriate but read from all four perspectives. "Imitation of Christ", by Thomas a Kempis is a good read but it should be understood that it was written for monks in a cloistered Abby.

Another good read is the "Bhagavad Gita " ; meditations on the Gospel of John have been the source book for many who seek the Christ .

The Gospel of Luke, who was a doctor, can bring forth the healing aspect of the Christ Being within Love and compassion.

All of these can bring an affect to anyone but again it may not be what one wants or desires.

In no way should any of these works be "judged" but imbibed just as food and let them work their way through one's being ; if one has the answer or demands the answer or knows the answer then why bother ?

I would argue that most successful cults, if they are to grow in size, must contain passages similar to this. Passage about being tested in your faith. Etc.

Successful cults will have a hook for every mental and emotional state that brings you back in under the wings of cult. Happiness and joy? Praise be to God. Sadness? Tribulation? Open your heart to Him. Doubt? That's Satan, or God testing your faith.

Successful cults that manage to spread will demonize thoughts and ideas and even people (in the case of Islam) who don't fit with keeping inside the confines of the cult.

How do you know, if brought up in a particular faith (or surrounded by its adherents), whether you're in a fake cult or not? Emotions can't tell you, because others have the same emotions. Your bible can't tell you, because if you're in a successful cult, the bible will be a tool of control and keeping you in the cult (or the religion wouldn't have spread in the first place - a weird kind of selection bias).

Then perhaps you would like to share more about what you're "struggling" with.

It seems that your emotion is doing something more than you think it is.

You're free to do and to be and to say whatever you want. I'm just confronting you with your own words.

I don't disagree with you that one should be free to express doubts in their faith and that Christian faith is often done in a way that better reflects "fake it 'til you make it" and prosperity gospel theology. However...

At the tender age of 22, you have flung yourself head-long into the sand in exhaustion and desperation. If you're not living out your faith by the seat of your emotions, then what exactly do you think it is you're doing?

And what exactly are you looking for when you get a "full cup"? Reading your words, it sounds like you're looking for a type of emotional response. That's pretty much the same thing as what you're describing here.

I've got a home church already, and Canyon Ridge is quite a ways from here. With regards to how you've described your faith thus far, I think I have to keep coming back to the question of what it is you think you're "struggling" with. Here was your original statement:

What is the struggle?

maybe you should read up on what a scientific theory is

theory>>>law

I highly encourage everyone to research these theories but please use reliable sources

You clearly have no understanding of the term "theory" as it applies to science. But keep to your "faith", which is just the willing suspension of critical thought.

And, btw, atheism is a religion like abstinence is a sex position.

I just Googled "definition of religion" and here's what I found:
Atheism is precisely not that! Quit trying to create false equivalencies. I can't be bothered with unsubstantiated myths that originated with iron age desert dwellers who had no understanding of the world around them.

You claim the existence of a god. Where's your proof?

There is nothing in those theories which disprove a possible God. If your version of God doesn't work with them thats one thing. But suggesting there cant be A God and those theories is flawed.

Also dont go disbelieving the theory of gravity to much because it could hurt.

This is pretty much maximally false. Religious scientists used to have arguments that have been proven false by semi modern understanding of complexity, thermodynamics etc. Only people giving up on science completely like you are able to make them now.

Yeah, those successful theories are a big part of the prevalence of modern atheism. Scientific theories are the most fault tolerant endeavor humans have come up with. You can make mistakes/approximation not know certain things and still get everything correct in specific regimes, effective field theory in modern physics terms. Religion is the practically the least fault tolerant thinking humans have done. Get 1 thing wrong and everything you think about religion is totally useless.

Fortunately they have not drowned him, otherwise everyone had an aquarium hanging above his door instead of a cross!!

If that were true there wouldn't be any schisms. Get something wrong in religion you get a new version of it.

Or religion is ever evolving too.

A schism seems like exactly what I was talking about. If you disagree with me on 1 thing I now have a different version of our previously common religion....your readings of any texts going forward now become totally irrelevant to me, even if they were the sole decider just before the schism.

Guess im misunderstanding what you are saying. Think i got it.

I was actually thinking more on a fundamental level, though. If Christianity just flat out missed on the divinity of Jesus or if Muslims got it wrong wrt to Mo's revelation, there isn't any way to save all or parts of their thinking. In physics, quantum electrodynamics starts with assume the electron is a fundamental point particle with probability amplitudes calculated by a set of well known rules. Everything in that sentence could be wrong and the rules themselves could be inconsistent, but it wouldn't change anything about the validity of QED as an effective field theory.

Religion never tries to ignore the stuff we can't really know (what happens when you die etc) it builds upon assumed answers while good effective theories work even when you're wrong at step 1. That's what I meant about "fault tolerant". Science is the best at it (way better than even math), religion the worst.

We need here a discussion about usefulness of science. If religions are for example bad because of the wars they 'cause' than science is even worse. Not religions did produce atom bombs. The 'glorified' scientists did. It was not religion which did produce oil and is now close to destroy this planet this way or that way.
If the criterion of 'good' is based on invulnerability, happiness and tranquility than science did lead exactly in the other way.
Another disadvantage of science is: It belongs to those who are powerful and rich. And they rather spend 2 million dollar for their dog's panties than to give us ordinary mortals 1$ to buy bread when we should need it. This also means that the scientific progress will lead to more and more surveillance, manipulation and horrible wars.
But what do the religions teach:
Stop being an egoist and don't turn others lives into hell.

So much wrong in here

Religion causes wars, science enables them.
Science did not produced oil; nature did. Science has allowed us to utilize these natural resources. Energy is a central commodity for human civilization and science has made this possible. It is also our only hope for a sustainable planet.
Science has improved quality of life tremendously for billions of people.
Science made the industrial revolution possible, it has rid the world of diseases which wrecked the population for centuries, it has allowed the global population to grow by improving crop quality.
It is certainly true that science has also produced WMDs and many other things that can be and have been used for evil purposes . What you are doing however is misreprenting both science and religion. Your second paragraph is just baseless rambling. How do you define 'science'? You are using it rather broadly to put it mildly.

-Killing other people without a reason.
-Flying planes into skyscrapers.
-Child abuse.
-There is an invisible man in the sky. (ROFL)

Money matters are the cause of war. Political philosophies/religions are the vehicles that bring the troops to the battlefield.

"If the criterion of 'good' is based on invulnerability, happiness and tranquility than science did lead exactly in the other way."
This was the main claim and you didn't refute it. You said it is baseless rambling without any arguments.
Define science: knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation.
Scientists use this knowledge to 'improve' our living but in my opinion they did fail. Improving requires that something becomes better and not worse or unchanged. Our living is only improved when we feel better. More happy, more secure and less restlessness. Happiness is of course really difficult to measure but it is for sure not improved when security and restlessness didn't improve.
The scientific progress has driven us to the limit of extinction. So security has worsen. The technical progress like cars, computers, tabletts have lead to more restlessness. The medical progress did of course find solutions to some diseases but new diseases (some caused by scientific progress) replaced them. Before industrialization only 3% did die on cancer but now cancer is the second leading cause of death in the US. That more people now live on planet earth and that the average age did go higher doesn't mean that the quality of live improved as well. This 'improvement' on its own is putting lots of pressure on the balance of nature hence endangering our survival.
That the progress of science also has the disadvantage of leading to more surveillance, to more manipulation (nowadays very wide spread through media) and to more horrible wars, this argument you didn't refute too.

I partially agree with your main claim. While scientific advancements have clearly, objectively, improved quality of life for billions of people, this does not necessarily translate into a higher degree of happiness.
I would argue that this is mostly due to the human condition rather than a consequence of scientific progress.

In your previous post you seemed to be drawing a sharp distinction between science and religion. I would argue that the two are not mutually exclusive. Many scientists are religious and a significant part of religious people do not see a conflict between science and religion:

http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/10/2...-and-religion/

To include invulnerability in a criterion of goodness is preposterous and circular. This leaves happiness and tranquility as criteria. Are people on average more happy and tranquil now than before the enlightenment? Are religious people more happy and tranquil now than non-religious people?

More people die of cancer now because earlier people died by the millions of the plague, smallpox, etc before they could get cancer.
Smoking and obesity are also mostly modern phenomena which increase the prevalence of cancer.

This does not take away from the fact that science has increased life expectancy for billions of people all over the world.
I'm not familiar with diseases caused by scientific progress, could you give some examples?

I would disagree that science leads to surveillance, manipulation and horrible wars. Rather, it enables them. This is an essential difference.
My view of human nature in general is that sadly, moral progress has lacked far behind scientific progress throughout history.

Without security happiness and tranquility are not possible. Fear is killer of those. How is this preposterous and circular?