I’m in a strange place: very conservative, but not Christian

[Romanov2488]

That was not the intention for my quoting of the Bible. I was not presenting those texts as stand alone proofs of God. I was hoping you would actually read them and understand what they were saying. All of those texts were making a proposal... Issuing a challenge. They were basically saying: consider prophecy. Who else knows the future other than God? It is prophecy itself and it's complete and accurate fulfillment in history that proves the inspiration of scripture; the power and foreknowledge of the God of the bible in being able to describe events before they happen, and have the power to bring them about.
After accompanying Jesus to the top of a mountain, the apostles of Jesus, Peter, James and John, witnessed the appearance of Elijah and Moses who spoke with Jesus for a time concerning the impending crucifixion. Later, Peter wrote in effect, that as great and as awesome and memorable as that event was, seeing two Hebrew heroes in the flesh talking with his Master, such events were never to be used as evidence for truth and validation for faith... He said, quote, there is the more sure word of prophecy, which brings light to darkness.
Daniel; Part One.

Ah, I see because you quoted only the part where I said..”Show me evidence of this god”.

Prophecy is extremely ambiguous. You can take any prophecy and find ways to make it signify what you want. If I make a prophecy today, I’m sure 1000 years from now that some people would agree with it. Even if I make an exact prediction of something, it does not mean that I can see into future or anything. There is a correlation sure, but correlation≠causation.

What fascinates me a lot is the idea of The Rapture. I have family members who are convinced of it. People have been saying it is going to come for hundreds of years and when it doesn’t come…they begin to question things…or they simply commit the fallacy of saying something like, “It won’t happen in my lifetime.” Or, a series of events ordered in a particular way such as the year 2020-2021 has had the Rapture crew up and ready. But here we are now in 2022 going on 2023…

Of course the rapture won’t come in your lifetime and of course Jesus has not given an exact time for it. Of course. How else to keep them on their toes? The question is…to what end will people keep placing faith in something without evidence at the expense of critical thought?

 

[Ziggy]

You wake up in the morning and you begin your day.
There are situations you come across throughout that day that requires you to pass a judgement whether a thing is good or bad, right or wrong.
How do you come to the conclusion that you feel confident in your judgement?

What is a conscience?
Do you feel guilty when you've done something wrong? Where does this conviction come from?
Why does it bother you when people question your beliefs or lack of?
Why do you feel it necessary to defend yourself?

If you don't believe in God, then why are you still seeking answers?
Where do you hope to find those answers?
And if you found them, would it change your mind?

Hugs
And Welcome to the forum!

 

[Pearl]

Quoting the Bible is not evidence of a god. For example saying that the Bible is the word of God because the Bible says so, because the Bible is infallible….is circular reasoning.

You yourself have said you aren't a Christian. Only Christians who have the Holy Spirit to guide them can understand the things of God.

2 Corinthians 4:2-4
Rather, we have renounced secret and shameful ways; we do not use deception, nor do we distort the word of God. On the contrary, by setting forth the truth plainly we commend ourselves to everyone’s conscience in the sight of God. And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

 

[lforrest]

Ah, I see because you quoted only the part where I said..”Show me evidence of this god”.

Prophecy is extremely ambiguous. You can take any prophecy and find ways to make it signify what you want. If I make a prophecy today, I’m sure 1000 years from now that some people would agree with it. Even if I make an exact prediction of something, it does not mean that I can see into future or anything. There is a correlation sure, but correlation≠causation.

What fascinates me a lot is the idea of The Rapture. I have family members who talk about it as if it is going to come. People have been saying it is going to come for hundreds of years and when it doesn’t come…they begin to question things…or they simply commit the fallacy of saying something like, “It won’t happen in my lifetime.” Or, a series of events ordered in a particular way such as the year 2020-2021 has had the Rapture crew up and ready. But here we are now in 2022 going on 2023…

Of course the rapture won’t come in your lifetime and of course Jesus has not given an exact time for it. Of course. The question is…to what end will people keep placing faith in something without evidence at the expense of critical thought?

The evidence is the words of a trustworthy God. Recorded by his trustworthy servants. If an event is only supposed to happen once in all history and it hasn't happened yet what does that prove? If one looks at subjectively improbable odds and concludes they won't lose, you can bet they will lose eventually. Like the poker player going all in on a straight.

 

[Brakelite]

Ah, I see because you quoted only the part where I said..”Show me evidence of this god”.

Prophecy is extremely ambiguous. You can take any prophecy and find ways to make it signify what you want. If I make a prophecy today, I’m sure 1000 years from now that some people would agree with it. Even if I make an exact prediction of something, it does not mean that I can see into future or anything. There is a correlation sure, but correlation≠causation.

What fascinates me a lot is the idea of The Rapture. I have family members who are convinced of it. People have been saying it is going to come for hundreds of years and when it doesn’t come…they begin to question things…or they simply commit the fallacy of saying something like, “It won’t happen in my lifetime.” Or, a series of events ordered in a particular way such as the year 2020-2021 has had the Rapture crew up and ready. But here we are now in 2022 going on 2023…

Of course the rapture won’t come in your lifetime and of course Jesus has not given an exact time for it. Of course. How else to not keep them on their toes? The question is…to what end will people keep placing faith in something without evidence at the expense of critical thought?

My friend, regarding your statement concerning ambiguity, I fully understand where you are coming from, but only if you are considering prophecy from people such as Nostradamus, and other spiritualist teachers and philosophers who do not have the Spirit of God operating in their lives. Their so called prophecies we are told by their followers have a certain success rate, but as you say, there is always ambiguity and doubtful scenarios that offer absolutely no assurance of truth and validity.
Bible prophecy is of an entirely different nature. Please go that link, it is somewhat of a long read, it is my own article, so I apologize for the lack of grammatical artistry and skill, but I do believe it offers an explanation of some prophetic scenarios in scripture, specifically the prophecies of Daniel (not all), written 2500 years ago and beginning from his time began to be played in history, and continue to be unfolding as we communicate together today. Give it a chance. You maybe surprised.

 

[Romanov2488]

You wake up in the morning and you begin your day.
There are situations you come across throughout that day that requires you to pass a judgement whether a thing is good or bad, right or wrong.
How do you come to the conclusion that you feel confident in your judgement?

What is a conscience?
Do you feel guilty when you've done something wrong? Where does this conviction come from?
Why does it bother you when people question your beliefs or lack of?
Why do you feel it necessary to defend yourself?

If you don't believe in God, then why are you still seeking answers?
Where do you hope to find those answers?
And if you found them, would it change your mind?

Hugs
And Welcome to the forum!

We still seek answers in the form of science. Science has given so much to humanity and has really dispelled a lot of ignorance. Science also helps inform our morality. For example instead of believing we are the center of the universe, we now know that we are one planet out of trillions of others.

I don’t have an answer for where our conscience comes from but…what I can tell you is that God is not a requirement for morality and much of our morality is informed by science and shaped by society. This is the common morality argument overall; saying that conscience/morality exists therefore God exists is a non sequitur. Some who use this argument may define objective moral values as moral values declared by God but that would make the argument state its conclusion within its second premise. That commits the fallacy of ‘begging the question’. Some other arguments such as one by C.S. Lewis in Christianity state that moral law has not been shown to have a natural origin so it must of come from a supernatural moral law giver. This is an argument from ignorance…not knowing does not excuse asserting an unsubstantiated answer. The argument of morality also is really good at assuming denigration…which basically makes atheists appear untrustworthy when they try to debunk the moral argument because afterall an amoral godless liar would try to convince people that god doesn’t dictate morality…that way they can get away with all of their evil actions undisturbed.

 

[LearningToLetGo]

what I can tell you is that God is not a requirement for morality and much of our morality is informed by science and shaped by society.

Are you defining morality in relative or absolute terms?

 

[Romanov2488]

Are you defining morality in relative or absolute terms?

Neither, morality is simply defined as the distinction between right or wrong. I am simply talking about the morality argument which asserts that God is its source and that atheists are immoral people.

 

[Ziggy]

In fact, my problem isn’t even Christianity. It’s believing in a God I can’t see and that’s not exclusive to Christianity only. You also have the Muslims and the Jews who believe in one god only.

According to the Bible, God made man in his image and likeness.
The Bible says God is Spirit.

When you look in the mirror you see a physical shell of the spiritual person within you.
You can't see that Spirit, but you experience it by what you think, how you feel, and by your actions.
If you were to remove the outer shell, how could you prove that you were real?

Your physical body isn't the whole story. There is You inside of that body.
My belief is, that You inside your body comes from God himself.
At the same time we also have an ego. And that ego is selfish and wants to claim itself as it's own creation.

We can't see the ego, but we know it exists.
The ego and the belief in God will always be in conflict with eachother, until one is willing to subit themselves to the creator that created them.

The Bible says that Jesus is the embodiment of God in the flesh.
Jesus represents God's character, his personality.
If you read the Gospels and watch Jesus, you will see God.
A christians role is to be like Jesus, which is being in the image and likeness God made man to be.

But there is that ego....
You believe there is an ego?
What proof is there?

Hugs

 

[Romanov2488]

According to the Bible, God made man in his image and likeness.
The Bible says God is Spirit.

When you look in the mirror you see a physical shell of the spiritual person within you.
You can't see that Spirit, but you experience it by what you think, how you feel, and by your actions.
If you were to remove the outer shell, how could you prove that you were real?

Your physical body isn't the whole story. There is You inside of that body.
My belief is, that You inside your body comes from God himself.
At the same time we also have an ego. And that ego is selfish and wants to claim itself as it's own creation.

We can't see the ego, but we know it exists.
The ego and the belief in God will always be in conflict with eachother, until one is willing to subit themselves to the creator that created them.

The Bible says that Jesus is the embodiment of God in the flesh.
Jesus represents God's character, his personality.
If you read the Gospels and watch Jesus, you will see God.
A christians role is to be like Jesus, which is being in the image and likeness God made man to be.

But there is that ego....
You believe there is an ego?
What proof is there?

Hugs

 

[LearningToLetGo]

Neither, morality is simply defined as the distinction between right or wrong.

But for whom? Right and wrong are always relative to a person. Right for me might mean wrong for you as in the case of a war, for example.

So when defining morality we need to determine for whom, and this is where it gets interesting.

 

[Romanov2488]

But for whom? Right and wrong are always relative to a person. Right for me might mean wrong for you as in the case of a war, for example.

So when defining morality we need to determine for whom, and this is where it gets interesting.

For sure it differs from person to person. We still have tribes in corners of the world who practice the act of cannibalism for example. You might think of them as pure savages but to them eating their (hopefully already passed away) brother, uncle, or father…is a means by which they can be with their loved one forever and if you refuse to have a piece…then that means you never loved them.

 

[LearningToLetGo]

For sure it differs from person to person. We still have tribes in corners of the world who practice the act of cannibalism for example. You might think of them as pure savages but to them eating their (hopefully already passed away) brother, uncle, or father…is a means by which they can be with their loved one forever and if you refuse to have a piece…then that means you never loved them.

Then morality is relative? Is that your position? That's fine if it is. But take science into the equation. Science will show how to be effective, not how to be good or bad. If our morality is relative then science will show how to be effective in a relative sense only. Walk this path long enough and you can make the most horrible things moral as long as you are on the good end of the scale.

 

[Ziggy]

Neither, morality is simply defined as the distinction between right or wrong. I am simply talking about the morality argument which asserts that God is its source and that atheists are immoral people.

I wouldn't agree that atheists are immoral people. There a plenty of atheists that are very moral, some more than professing christians.
I don't believe you need to believe in God to be moral, because God already built that in to our DNA.
It's inherit.
At the same time there are people that have no morals whatsoever.

And your argument would be that morals are a product of society...
I can see that.
2 groups of people raised up in the same society,
one group believes it's acceptable to attack an old man and beat him to death without a cause.
The other group will run to protect him.

What is the defining factor between both groups?
And I'm leaving religion out of it.
Why do some people feel empathy while others lack it?
Is empathy something you are born with or taught?

I believe we are born with these attributes but they can be "turned on" or "turned off" by the society in which we live.
Also parenting plays a big role.
hugs

 

[Romanov2488]

Then morality is relative? Is that your position? That's fine if it is. But take science into the equation. Science will show how to be effective, not how to be good or bad. If our morality is relative then science will show how to be effective in a relative sense only. Walk this path long enough and you can make the most horrible things moral as long as you are on the good end of the scale.

Science informs morality. You may think you’re doing good by draining the blood of someone whose sick thinking the sickness will leave along with their blood (known as bloodletting that was practiced up until the 18th century) but science would inform you that the sickness is caused by a certain virus which does not require the draining of blood.

Science can also be used by evildoers in the form of ICBMs (intercontinental ballistic missiles). Science is a tool

 

[Mantis]

Do ath

Science informs morality. You may think you’re doing good by draining the blood of someone whose sick thinking the sickness will leave along with their blood (known as bloodletting that was practiced up until the 18th century) but science would inform you that the sickness is caused by a certain virus which does not require the draining of blood.

Science seems to be the religion of atheists. Science is cool and all but it seems to change about every ten years. It is not set in stone unlike our Lord who does not change.

 

[Romanov2488]

Do ath


Science seems to be the religion of atheists. Science is cool and all but it seems to change about every ten years. It is not set in stone unlike our Lord who does not change.

Science is not the religion of all atheists, just some. I understand the science changes, can be misused, misrepresented. I don’t pray to Dr. Fauci, the same guy whose come under scrutiny for being a shill of vaccine mandates. Science is a more reliable tool than religion, however. You’ve said it yourself: science changes whereas religion is essentially set in stone. In other words, religion leads to stagnation. “We simply believe without question.” The Roman Catholic Church persecuted Galileo in 1633 regarding his theory of the earth revolving around the sun. Today the Catholics try to take credit by saying they support the science since they’ve funded and founded universities.

The creationists posit that the earth is 6000 years old when yet we have evidence of it being 4.5 billion. The story of Noah’s Ark was that 2 of each species was brought onto the ark. Only about 50,000 animals could fit on the ark and still have room for food and supplies to endure the 370 days the ark was adrift. So only 25,000 different species were on board. 25,000 of the 8.7 million species in existence today. That would only be .29% of the species of animals in existence today. Not even one percent of today's species.

 

[Mantis]

Science is not the religion of all atheists, just some. I understand the science changes, can be misused, misrepresented. Science is a more reliable tool than religion, however. You’ve said it yourself: science changes whereas religion is essentially set in stone. In other words, religion leads to stagnation. “We simply believe without question.”

The creationists posit that the earth is 6000 years old. The story of Noah’s Ark was that 2 of each species was brought onto the ark. Only about 50,000 animals could fit on the ark and still have room for food and supplies to endure the 370 days the ark was adrift. So only 25,000 different species were on board. 25,000 of the 8.7 million species in existence today. That would only be .29% of the species of animals in existence today. Not even one percent of today's species.

It's not "religion" that is set in stone. The Lord is set in stone. He never changes. I am not trying to be offensive when I say this but you are blind. You have to read the Bible with spiritual eyes to understand it. You are looking at it like a text book and trying to figure out the logistics of animals in the boat! Everything in that book is true even if you don't understand it. The Lord inspired people to write that stuff and it is very, very deep. Almost too much for our small minds to comprehend completely. But if you pray for God to help you understand and interpret it when you read it he will help you.

You can make the Bible say whatever you want it to. You have to read deep. There are people that think the earth is 6000 years old. I don't see that when I read the Bible. Maybe modern man is 6000 years old. the Earth is probably ancient. The Bible says the Earth is forever. Anyway I guess what I am trying to say is that you are looking at all of this from non spiritual eyes so it won't make sense. It will seem foolish to you.

 

[Romanov2488]

It's not "religion" that is set in stone. The Lord is set in stone. He never changes. I am not trying to be offensive when I say this but you are blind. You have to read the Bible with spiritual eyes to understand it. You are looking at it like a text book and trying to figure out the logistics of animals in the boat! Everything in that book is true even if you don't understand it. The Lord inspired people to write that stuff and it is very, very deep. Almost too much for our small minds to comprehend completely. But if you pray for God to help you understand and interpret it when you read it he will help you.

You can make the Bible say whatever you want it to. You have to read deep. There are people that think the earth is 6000 years old. I don't see that when I read the Bible. Maybe modern man is 6000 years old. the Earth is probably ancient. The Bible says the Earth is forever. Anyway I guess what I am trying to say is that you are looking at all of this from non spiritual eyes so it won't make sense. It will seem foolish to you.

“Religion is not set in stone, god is”. Yet the entire religion revolves around a god set in stone. The Bible has merit, but I can never say everything in it is true.

However, let’s go back to one of the statements you made. You said, “Everything in the Bible is true.” Genesis 9:28-29 says “After the flood Noah lived 350 years. Noah lived a total of 950 years, and then he died.”

Do you believe Noah lived 950 years despite us not having evidence of any human beings living for that long?

Why is something such as believing that something such as a talking snake existed considered religion, but if you say you believe in a winged rabbit..you get told you’re insane?

 

[LearningToLetGo]

Science informs morality.

I disagree. Science tells us what is effective. In the case of blood-letting, it is not an effective cure for illness.

Let's not forget that the same science produces rockets to travel to Mars and rockets to carry nuclear bombs. The choice of how to use a rocket is a moral one. Science could care less about a rocket's payload. Science only cares that the payload is effectively delivered.