What I would find interesting is if Christianity was not the most popular religion in our country, and if instead it switched places with a religion generally disliked by Americans, like Islam. True Christians would face such a dilemma in their lose/lose propisiton of either being true to their religion and being socially ostracized, or "converting" for the sake of acceptance and risking eternal damnation.

I thought we went over this?

Yep.

We did...





You call it piecemeal theology when I show that your absolute claim is false.
Sweet.

To be fair, he did say "hardly," as in he can hardly argue against the fact that the bible says prayers will be granted. At least I think thats what he meant.

That is a good looking cookie.

The question is 100% inquisitive and not in any way meant to be sarcastic.

It's just that I won't allow myself to be dragged beyond this point anymore. If someone claims there's a god, my next and very sincere question is, "Where?". Until that gets answered, I see no point in continuing. I'd expect no less from you when listening to my belief in Sasquatch.

I haven't been convincing many theists lately with this new approach, but my frustration level has decreased tremendously!

Do they really? (keep in mind that 100,000 or so believers may seem like "many" independently referenced, but 100,000 out of several billion isn't really "many" at all)

Since you used the words "everyone" and "universal", giving one example to the contrary will refute your claim:

Explain Helen Keller's early years.

Actually, to the best of my knowledge all reputable science today discounts the existence of a "god" gene or a "god spot." Helen Keller's early years were the result of ignorance on the part of her care givers. She had a thirst for justice as well as life and it was frustrated by her inability to communicate. Why that would have anything to do with VMAT-2 is beyond me.

Aaron:
Prove the man is wrong? He said nothing. That's meaningless.

Almost every theist has made postings that suggest otherwise. see splendour, pletho, etc.

I would be surprised if you found anyone who would agree with you. Any discomfort at peer rejection is like a mosquito bite compared to the thought of eternal damnation. Frankly, I don't think you even believe what you said.

Also- your description of meeting god sounds rathar abstract. To someone just reading this forum, it doesn't sound like you met him. It sounds more like you just decided in college to believe what you've been told. That hardly sounds to any of us like you met god. Perhaps you've left part of the story out?

the threat of eternal damnation is only less severe because people don't take it seriously. That is, I don't think most christians really believe a lot of what they're supposed to. If they did, btw, they'd all be fundamentalists.

If you really believed the choices were eternal damnation or eternal bliss, all based on what you did in this lifetime, then all believers would be living in church, they'd spend all their time doing charitable works and preaching the word of God, they'd have no premarital sex, booze, gambling, etc. There'd be no time to even think about those vices because all your free time would be spent helping others or praying to God.

To pretend that peer rejection is comparable to your eternal fate if you really believe it is laughable. Unless all the people we're talking about are idiots who can't weigh the significance of one over the other.

Look at it again:

I don't see how your position has contradicted my claim.

I know I got a little ahead of myself, but arguing over what "granted" or "answers" means it a little tilting for me.

You are right. But no one has said that God is required to answer all prayers. What is the point in saying this? I should have addressed this earlier, my mistake.

It sounds abstract because it is. I don't have one of those conversion stories where someone sat down with me and told me about the gospel and how Jesus died for my sins. There's not a particular moment in my life that I point to and say, "That's when it happened."

Sometime during my first two years of college, I started to question my faith. I was among those who simply parroted stuff they learned from their church at home, and I knew it. I began to see what else was out there. Somewhere along the way I made a commitment to pursue whatever I discovered to be "true" (as best as I could determine truth). If I didn't find a particular perspective to be "true" then I looked at another one. I didn't start with Christianity. I spent a while looking at Eastern religions, Islam, Mormonism, and various atheistic and non-theistic positions. There was always something that didn't quite "make sense" to me. Some of them required a denial of my experience of life as I knew it (for example, accepting strong forms of determinism despite my experience of "free will"). Some required me to take intellectual leaps that made no sense (Mormonism). And some didn't really seem to answer any questions or address anything I really cared about (in other words, I found the ideas to be dull and uninteresting).

Eventually, I took another look at Christianity (both the Catholic church and Protestantism). The notion of grace "clicked" in the way that intellectual insight "clicks." It didn't make sense for a while, then one day it did. I see the same type of reaction from students all the time. The increase of understanding is not a continuous process. It comes in short bursts as one new idea finally gets properly connected to the appropriate other ideas.

Somewhere during the span of those two years, that "click" came regarding the nature of grace and what I was seeking in my life. That "click" (whenever it happened) is probably the moment when God met me in my wandering. The process from there is a mixture of social influences (spending time with more mature Christians, to learn how they think and act, and then taking on leadership positions myself) and intellectual influences (reading commentaries and other Christian books). I do believe that a "spiritual journey" is probably the best description, and it's probably why I have such a heavily process-oriented theology. I have found that God works in the process more than he works in the results. My life is an example of it.

[/testimony]

Probably not a direct answer to your propmt, but there it is.

thank you for elaborating.

But please understand, your 'click' hardly constitutes "meeting god" to any non-believer. It simply sounds like one religion clicked for you and you went with it. This seems no different then the descriptions other people have who follow other religions then you. Or someone who thinks they get something that previously eluded them. (whether they actually get it is immaterial to the feeling.)

I am happy that this is meaningful to you. But you should realize that your story would not be remotely compelling to any non-believer.

May I also suggest that it was more likely that the belief system you were raised with is the one that was going to click with you. It is not suprising that most people end up going with the belief system that is predominant in their circles (be it their country, their town or even just their family.)

Right. But even if you really believed that you were saved by a miracle from God, how is it acceptable to express this out loud? Right in front of the 8 families grieving over the tragic loss of their loved ones?

This in a nutshell, should offend the sensibilities of any rational thinking person. Not in any other discourse would society fail to call someone out on such an extreme sense of hubris. But one only has to include the word god in his comments, and anything goes. Because we mustn't question it if it has to do with god, right? Give me a break!

It's not supposed to be "compelling." My testimony is what it is. From my perspective, why should I have to make up a lie to spread (or defend) something I believe is true?

You're welcome to suggest it. But I will tell you that the beliefs that I hold today don't look much like the things I parroted when I was younger. The notion of "grace" that I have now is not very close to the notion of "grace" I had as a kid. I can repeat the same line ("grace is unmerited favor") but the words have a meaning grounded in experience rather than repetition.

Aaron W. -

Let me try again. Suppose John says: "I think an all-loving God would skip the earth+hell thing and start with heaven." This does not imply that John is married to a definition of 'all-loving' or 'God'; but rather that John gets his meaning of 'love' from images of sparing suffering and giving pleasure.

So now you should show John what you mean by 'love'---in some non-circular way, without reference to 'God'. Or you should show John what you mean by 'God', without reference to 'love'. If you cannot do either of these, then you cannot say that John has willfully ignored some hidden, deeper meaning of 'God is all-loving'. Because if you can't show him that meaning, then you do not know it either! (It's as if you claimed a sequence of familiar but undefined symbols was a proof of Goldbach's Conjecture. But how do you KNOW that? Show us the connection to our common knowledge!)

At most you can say, "I feel that, if I DID mean anything by 'God is all-loving', I would mean something IMPORTANT." Or something like that.

It's not hubris. It might be thoughtless to say it if you don't know how the other people hearing it will react.

If some stranger was riding in a bus with 20 members of my family and the stranger was the only one spared when the bus goes over a cliff and he says to me he believes God saved him. I'd say so be it.

But that's because I believe God does works in people and puts us through various tests and processes and that death is not necessarily a punishment.

Its only because you see the one side and attach extreme emotion to death that you attribute hubris.

What I'm saying is not unlike those Muslims that go around saying "As God wills" about every circumstance both good or bad.

I am not suggesting you make up a lie. I am letting you that your testimony does not sound like it reflects what you think it does. In other words, it doesn't sound remotely like you met god.

I mistook that your sharing it in this thread where people are debating such mystical topics that your testimony was supposed to answer the underlying question of did you meet god.

Just because you have an adult understanding of what you were taught doesn't mean its not the same thing.

So be it, what Splendour? So be it, you'd agree with him? So be it, you think only a fool could think that god thought more of him, than the 20 members of your family that he let die? Or just so be it, let him think whatever he wants to think? What's the harm?

Replace god with anything else. What if he said, "It's obvious I survived because I'm German". Or, "It's only because I'm white that I am still alive". That wouldn't be offensive?

Imagine a fire breaking out in an Irish pub. All but one die. The lone survivor declares, "Obviously, I have the luck of the Irish!". Would that not be considered one of the stupidest comments of all time? Then why is this same line of reasoning considered standard operating procedure when it comes to god?

A miracle from God or a divine intervention is suppose to be acknowledged so God can be praised. Now some people might think there's a time and a place for it but the truly devout know that the time and place is always right now in the present.

Luke 17:11-19 (Contemporary English Version)

Ten Men with Leprosy
11On his way to Jerusalem, Jesus went along the border between Samaria and Galilee. 12As he was going into a village, ten men with leprosy [a] came toward him. They stood at a distance 13and shouted, "Jesus, Master, have pity on us!" 14Jesus looked at them and said, "Go show yourselves to the priests." [b] On their way they were healed. 15When one of them discovered that he was healed, he came back, shouting praises to God. 16He bowed down at the feet of Jesus and thanked him. The man was from the country of Samaria.
17Jesus asked, "Weren't ten men healed? Where are the other nine? 18Why was this foreigner the only one who came back to thank God?" 19Then Jesus told the man, "You may get up and go. Your faith has made you well."

Job's another example. He bows down and worships God when disaster hits home.

I simply used Luke 9:51-55 to illustrate that some of Yeshua's disciples
believed that they were able to simply ask Hashem ("God") and receive their
request. Both "James" and "John" were "immersed" by "John the baptist" and
were talmidim ("disciples") of Yeshua ( so they are considered "righteous"
because they were "following Yeshua" ) and presumably (at least according
to "James" and "John") Hashem would listen to and fulfill their request, even
if it should result in the destruction of a Samaritan village.


These are better verses concerning the efficacy of prayer:


James 5:16-18 (NASB)
----------------------

16) ...(AQ) The effective prayer of a righteous man can accomplish much.

17) Elijah was (AR) a man with a nature like ours, and (AS) he prayed
earnestly that it would not rain, and it did not rain on the earth for (AT)
three years and six months.

18) Then he (AU) prayed again, and (AV) the sky poured rain and the earth
produced its fruit.

Cross references:

(AQ) James 5:16 : Gen 18:23-32; John 9:31
(AR) James 5:17 : Acts 14:15
(AS) James 5:17 : 1 Kin 17:1; 18:1
(AT) James 5:17 : Luke 4:25
(AU) James 5:18 : 1 Kin 18:42
(AV) James 5:18 : 1 Kin 18:45


Proverbs 28:9 (NASB)
--------------------

9) He who turns away his ear from listening to the law,
Even his (M) prayer is an abomination.

(M) see Ps 66:18; 109:7; Prov 15:8; 21:27


In the WEB Messianic edition, "law" is rendered "Torah" and could be the
"correct" word to use in context. [ I often quote from the NASB because it is
one of the most popular literal English translations. ]


Thus, the prayer of someone "righteous" can accomplish much. On the other
hand, for someone who turns away from reading or listening to the Torah,
"even his prayer is an abomination." Since the Torah is considered "God's
word" to Israel, ignoring the Torah is similar to not listening to or reading
what Hashem ("God") has communicated; then, if one is to ignore the Torah,
why would Hashem answer one's prayer?

Similarly, Yeshua is the "Word of God"; thus, if one were to ignore what
Yeshua has taught or stated, why should Hashem answer one's prayer?

Some "believers" state that Yeshua is the "living Torah" or "Incarnate Torah";
i.e., they believe that both the Torah and Yeshua are important ( e.g., see
Hebrews 1:1-2).


Some passages (in the first epistle of John) clarify further about the
preconditions concerning those who pray and what is being prayed for:

1 John 3:21-24 (NASB)
---------------------

21) (AY) Beloved, if our heart does not condemn us, we have (AZ)
confidence before God;

22) and (BA) whatever we ask we receive from Him, because we (BB) keep
His commandments and do (BC) the things that are pleasing in His sight.

23) This is His commandment, that we (BD) believe in (BE) the name of His
Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, just as (BF) He commanded us.

24) The one who (BG) keeps His commandments (BH) abides in Him, and He
in him. (BI) We know by this that (BJ) He abides in us, by the Spirit whom He
has given us.

Cross references:

(AY) 1 John 3:21 : 1 John 3:2
(AZ) 1 John 3:21 : 1 John 2:28; 5:14
(BA) 1 John 3:22 : Job 22:26; Matt 7:7; 21:22; John 9:31
(BB) 1 John 3:22 : 1 John 2:3
(BC) 1 John 3:22 : John 8:29; Heb 13:21
(BD) 1 John 3:23 : John 6:29
(BE) 1 John 3:23 : John 1:12; 2:23; 3:18
(BF) 1 John 3:23 : John 13:34; 15:12; 1 John 2:8
(BG) 1 John 3:24 : 1 John 2:3
(BH) 1 John 3:24 : John 6:56; 10:38; 1 John 2:6, 24; 4:15
(BI) 1 John 3:24 : John 14:17; Rom 8:9, 14, 16; 1 Thess 4:8; 1 John 4:13
(BJ) 1 John 3:24 : 1 John 2:5


1 John 5:14-15 (NASB)
----------------------

14) This is (Y) the confidence which we have before Him, that, (Z) if we ask
anything according to His will, He hears us.

15) And if we know that He hears us in whatever we ask, (AA) we know that
we have the requests which we have asked from Him.

Cross references:

(Y) 1 John 5:14 : 1 John 2:28; 3:21
(Z) 1 John 5:14 : Matt 7:7; John 14:13; 1 John 3:22
(AA) 1 John 5:15 : 1 John 5:18-20

So an honest question:

Would you be able to pray side by side with a family member of someone saved in the same accident that caused you to lose 20 loved ones? Of course, they would be praying to god for his grace in saving their loved one, while you would probably be praying for the strength to accept the massive loss of your 20 loved ones. You would see no contradiction in that whatsoever? Their giddiness over thinking that god saved their family member, while yours all perished, wouldn't bother you one bit?

This doesn't seem to hold water because the people are not happy your loved ones died, they are only happy their loved one lived. If that kind of thing annoys you it seems like a personal issue rather than an issue with religion.