Heaven Prerequisites According to Mike

Keyster, you have a problem if someone suggests the possibility of self-deception? What are all those who believe in different gods and different saviors than you do? They believe just as fervantly, have miracles happen and "know" that what they believe is true.Since what they believe is in disagreement with what you believe isn't somebody in a state of self-deception? And how are we to tell who it is? Or do you think they are not wrong, not-decieved or what?

To me, she appears very intelligent and I don't generally view her comments as hostile. But I was talking more about people like myself who, despite having had unsatisfying years of supposed salvation and church membership, are usually happy to let believers go about their business as long as they don't bother us. When I see a fellow skeptic being personally denounced for what I take as a sincere point that deserves to be addressed, it sours my attitude toward Christendom a little further.

Consider Schraf's quote in a previous thread: I found this pretty insulting as it was hardly appropriate considering the context of what I was trying to relay. In Schraf's last reply he/she was not inquiring as to what I thought about the arguments concerning the possibility of self desception or wishful thinking so much as simply stating them to be fact. In other words, if Schraf is genuinely interested in my thoughts on such matters, he/she is totally clueless as to how to ask it. I haven't found this to be a problem with most of the other people I've debated in this forum.I suspect if I simply stated to you that your beliefs were a product of wishing thinking and self desception (which I don't believe) you would be anything but flattered and might even be inclined to be a little defensive.Respectfully

I have no problem with someone believing or even asking me about such things. Scraf's approach, however, more closely resembles what I see in 20 year olds fresh out of college that have no clue as to how to respectfully disagree. I don't necessarily think someone with different views that mine are in a state of "self" deception. For instance, many of the Atheists I've run across in this forum are extremely intelligent and anything but in a state of "self" deception as their conclusion are very logical considering they've never experienced the spiritual birth (John 3) required to reconcile and accept Christianity.Respectfully

I have experienced it, although it can be argued that I really didn't obtain salvation. I know for a fact that I would saying the same things that you are, Key if it were 5 years ago.

quote:

---

You have a real passion for insulting the beliefs that others cherish. First the comment about the justification for suicide bombing, and now all Christians are in the business of self desception.

---

(I didn't say "all Christians." I was referring to you and the story of your friend.)First, please be aware that I do not "love" to insult anyone's dearly-held beliefs. It is true, however, that I apply the same critical thinking skills and logical analysis to religious beliefs as I do to any other belief. I give them no less (or more) respect than any other.I am sorry that you felt insulted, but truly, the most effective way to counter me is to provide a good rebuttal and show me how I am wrong, not to take things personally and go away in a huff. Take on the things I write and counter them; nothing is stopping you.For instance, if I misread or took your words about "dying for God" in a way you didn't intend, then why not correct me? Sorry, but I don't think it's such a leap to find a similarity between someone saying how great "dying for God" would be and the idea of getting a heavenly reward from God in return for dying in the process of performing certain acts in the name of God.

quote:

---

I don't think this is becoming of your intrinsic goodness.

---

Ooooh, are you calling me a very bad girl?

quote:

---

Furthermore, while you've raised some interesting points that I would normally be happy to address, I don't think doing so with you would be a valuable use of time.

​

Matthew 7:6: "Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not throw your pearls before swine, or they will trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces."

---

I'll be a big girl and overlook the name-calling.I'll concentrate on one point, since I did give something of a laundry list of fallacies.So let's concentrate on "confirmation bias".You cite healed marriages, overcoming addictions, and other things among members of your church as "miracles". These things confirm your viewpoint. However, you ignore both a) healed marriages and recovered addicts among non-Church members and b) divorces and continued addictions among Christians.For example, did you know that divorce rates are lower among atheists and agnostics than among Christians? Not only that, but the highest divorce rate among all Christian groups belongs to the non-denominational conservative Protestant Churches.U.S. divorce rates: for various faith groups, age groups and geographical areasSo, you accept cases that confirm your viewpoint, and ignore (or don't even look for) cases that disconfirm your viewpoint. Confirmation bias.

Well crap, since it was just me you were insulting, maybe I was wrong about your not being interested in a cordial discussion?!?!? Not going away in a huff, just trying to make a more productive use of my time.If I were to engage someone in an abortion debate and the first comment I made after hearing them talking of a womans right to choose was "its beliefs like yours that inspire many to slaughter innocent babies, and followed up with a laundry list of how I thought the were disillusioned, full of wishful and irrational thinking I think it would be naive of me to expect a thoughtful, cordial discussion to follow.Your attitude seems to have been, well that's just me where you're concerned, deal with it.Fortunately, I don't have to if your going to continue with that approach. Now, I'm cool with your approach below, so I'll give responding a shot.Incidentally, when I was younger I found myself quite adept at trampling on other peoples beliefs. It was never productive for me either. As I relayed in one of my previous messages, its not the content of your comments I have a problem with. Indeed, what you have pointed out here is a perfectly legitimate question. Its the approach of simply stating, "ah, this beautifully displays the motive for becoming a suicide bomber." Thats an insult not an inquiry. If you really want a response, simply ask the question, what of the possibility of the verses and hyms you cite inspiring some to become suicide bombers? I apologize for the name-calling. I think the "miracles" I site are confirmation that there are benefits to Christianity, but would agree that there are some similar benefits experienced elsewhere like the examples you site. There are some distinctions, however, that may be unique.For instance, a friend of mine that has been a Christian for two or three years had a history of drug and alcohol addiction. Prior to becoming a Christian, he spent time in jail, attended various counciling and or therapy session, but always found himself going back to it. The way he tells it, after praying to receive Christ as his saviour, the urges that used to dominant him largely stopped. They were there, but to an insignificant degree. They simply stopped fazing him, immediately.On the other hand, another friend of mine that was an alcoholic talked of his experience in AA that helped him get away from drinking. It was a very long process, but eventully he learned how to kick the habit. In this case there wasn't any immediate healing or freedom from the addition, whereas in the other case there was. First of all, yes I do know about the divorce rate statistics. But I don't consider them valid as most people that would check "Christian" on a survey aren't in fact Christian's, even if they're sincere or appear devoted.Consider the following verses:Matthew 7:13-14: "Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it. "The "only a few" part is clue that claims of 70 or 80 (or whatever)percent of American's being Christian is not the case. In addition to this verse consider the following:Matthew 7:21-23: "Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!' "This further indicates that "many" that claim to bear the name of Christ aren't Christian's where Christ is concerned. While many, if forced to choose, would say they are Christians this does not match the numbers expectation given in scripture. My own observations over the last several years has reinforced this. Therefore I consider statistical claims showing other belief systems to be more beneficial invalid. WIth this I think its certainly possible, knowing there is no freaken way to prove this, that authentic Christian's enjoy higher measureable benefits relative to other faiths or belief systems. As derived from my analysis above, I don't ignore them, I just think the ones offered by Christianity are better for those called by God. Those not called to be Christian's (by God) will be better off elsewhere as even trying Christianity without divine invitation will be counter-productive.Respectfully

1) For the most part, AA works through Christianity. It's the reason that there are a number of splinter groups.2) You're pulling an "Al Gore", giving an "I know a person...." story. However, what Schraf presented you was statistics. You still haven't discussed the statistics. Why do atheists and agnostics - you know, those people who never pray, who may very well make fun of God, who see nothing wrong with premarital sex (and don't even feel guilty about it like many Christians who break God's commandments do), who never go to church, etc - have a lower divorce rate than those who believe in God's commandments, even if they're not always perfect at following them?Speak statistically, not on a case-by-case basis.------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

I don't think the arguement with the statistics is as you preceive. It seems that we are, yet again, hearing the "no true scotsman" argument.Again and again when some statistical fact about "christians" is brought up it is dismissed with a "well *they* are't true christians" argument.It would seem that there are in fact, very few christians in the world. At least if you accept this kind of argument. It is my understanding that a Christian is one who accepts the Christ as the son of god and the road to salvation. It has nothing to do with anything else they do or espouse. If the individual is a believer in the Christ then they are Christian period however good or evil they may be.

Correct meif I am mistaken about what you are saying here: So...You are saying, indirectly it seems, that through belief in Christ ones addictions are expunged more rapidly and is a more effective cure?I'd like to present an anecdote which you may take with a grain of salt, as I am sure there are documented instances and this isn't one. My father smoked for about 27 years, especially all during his time in the navy. The day he retired from the navy, after smoking both cigarettes and pipe tobacco all those years, he quit cold turkey. That day and since then he has never touched a cigarette or any tobacco whatso ever. He didn't need Christ or God to do that. He just told himself he wasn't going to touch them again. He quit without relapse. The point being is that like schraf pointed out: you are missing valuable data that doesn't support your argument.
There are surely documented cases of people going cold turkey both within and without christian belief systems, and cases of people relapsing in both cases as well.
Here is an excerpt from this website: Forbidden Hmmm...no mention of God.

Pogo,Sorry for not getting back with you earlier. I got a little side tracked with other discussions. Sincerety has nothing to do with actually being a Christian, spiritual birth and election determine that. I know, I've run across at least a half dozen folks that have mentioned similar testimonies. If you weren't part of the elect and born of the spirit than God wasn't there... for you. Fear of eternity is not what sustains me as a Christian, it is the in-born spirit. Personally, I don't worry about hell or the lake of fire at all. This is yet another clue that faith cannot come from ourselves, it is a gift of God. Not all of us are to ultimately have faith. The verse I pointed out to you earlier says just this. Many were created to be objects of wrath so God could demonstrate his power to those that belong to him.
Not a very popular doctrine I know, but I do think it is accurate. If you can establish how this isn't the case scripturally, I'm certainly willing to listen.Respectfully[This message has been edited by kevstersmith, 09-21-2003]

Brian, thanks for the feedback. The verse wasn't specifically for all Jews as most of his followers were Jews. The comment was directed towards the Pharisees and teachers of the law that had hate toward him and were trying to condemn him. I don't see any problem with applying this principle toward someone that chooses to be nasty toward me or any other Christian.Jesus was never soley interested in saving the House of Israel.Consider Genesis 18:18: "Abraham will surely become a great and powerful nation, and all nations on earth will be blessed through him. "Now keeping in mind that Jesus said "Before Abraham was, I am" it is reasonable to infer that not only did he know that the gentiles were to be brought in, but also the he was the mechanism through which it was going to be possible. Your comment does not address how a woman agreeing with his reference to her being a dog was not a humble statement.Furthermore, there wasn't a flaw in Jesus thinking. He said what he said to allow her the opportunity to express both her humility and faith.Respectfully

Thanks for replying Key, I have been busy myself to keep up Yes, this has been the point of contention all along from my point of view); IF election (Calvinism, predestination) is true, then once again, what was the point of the Godman sacrifice? To put it bluntly, you are either in the club or you are not. Period. No chance of ever getting in, which, even though you have explained it and used scripture as part of your basis (but then even though I do not find the bible reliable, I can still understand it, as can everyone that reads it) I still cannot accept. It is inconceivable that a loving and just and merciful god would permit a small band of people in (regardless of their freewill) and deny the majority entrance. As far as my born again experience, I can only say that, at the time and based on faith and NOTHING else, it was a real as anything tangible. NO, I cannot prove to be that I had such an experience (I don't think anyone is born again, since I have a hard time even believing in the biblical god), but at the time it was real to me. There are many more, yet few have a platform with which to voice them; I am glad that I found this forum, because at least I am in good company (with respect to fellow unbelievers) and I no longer feel like a spiritual reject But if god was never there for me, how is that I "felt" his presence, seen prayers answered and miracles performed? Perhaps it was simply my perception; I credited god when 'good' things happened and blamed satan when 'bad' things occurred. Sorry about that, I assumed that the fear of hell (eternal punishment for a temporary sin(s) was a motivating factor in virtually every christians belief system. If 'not all of us are to have faith' (as a gift) then again, the whole thing seems pointless and cruel. As far as people being created to demonstrate his wrath, I have to seriously object to that, when his 'holy and just' wrath seems to befall even his believers! The ones who assign the biblical god the designations of just and holy are afflicted; and why? If we were to see, as a society, murderers, pediophiles, rapists, abusers and other violent ilk dispatched by this loving and just god, then your point have a great deal of validation. But we rarely see universal justice at all; are the thousands of innocent children that are victims of unspeakable horror created in order to demonstrate his wrath?
If that is true, I find it more appalling than anything in all of human history. It is disgusting and abhorrant; and if there were any chance of me believing again, it is lost. Key, I'm not angry at you; you are consistant and your beliefs are your own, but don't you think that it (predestination as you've described) is just a tad sick?I mean, what if you are not one of the elect?

quote:

---

If I were to engage someone in an abortion debate and the first comment I made after hearing them talking of a womans right to choose was "its beliefs like yours that inspire many to slaughter innocent babies, and followed up with a laundry list of how I thought the were disillusioned, full of wishful and irrational thinking I think it would be naive of me to expect a thoughtful, cordial discussion to follow.

---

I intended that comment to be a starting point for discussion.I apologize if it didn't come off that way.

quote:

---

As I relayed in one of my previous messages, its not the content of your comments I have a problem with. Indeed, what you have pointed out here is a perfectly legitimate question. Its the approach of simply stating, "ah, this beautifully displays the motive for becoming a suicide bomber." Thats an insult not an inquiry. If you really want a response, simply ask the question, what of the possibility of the verses and hyms you cite inspiring some to become suicide bombers?

---

I did not say that the hymn was the motive for suicide bombers.What I said was; "and the above religious ideas display beautifully the roots of the justifications for suicide bombings."You were fondly recalling several hymns which talk about how great it is to die for God.I commented that the religious idea of dying for God has been used as a justification for suicide bombers.It seems to me that you just didn't like the comparison, but instead of explaining or showing me how I was incorrect in my comparison, you became insulted.Like I said, I am sorry you were insulted. It wasn't intended. Would you like to address my comparison?

quote:

---

I apologize for the name-calling.

---

Accepted.It won't be the first time someone has used a Bible verse to stick it to me.

quote:

---

I think the "miracles" I site are confirmation that there are benefits to Christianity, but would agree that there are some similar benefits experienced elsewhere like the examples you site. There are some distinctions, however, that may be unique.

---

Well, what's your definition of "miracle", then?If you are saying that miracles can happen to Christians and non-Christians at random, then how do you know when they are "real" God-caused miracles and when they are just things that happen?

quote:

---

For instance, a friend of mine that has been a Christian for two or three years had a history of drug and alcohol addiction. Prior to becoming a Christian, he spent time in jail, attended various counciling and or therapy session, but always found himself going back to it. The way he tells it, after praying to receive Christ as his saviour, the urges that used to dominant him largely stopped. They were there, but to an insignificant degree. They simply stopped fazing him, immediately.

​

On the other hand, another friend of mine that was an alcoholic talked of his experience in AA that helped him get away from drinking. It was a very long process, but eventully he learned how to kick the habit. In this case there wasn't any immediate healing or freedom from the addition, whereas in the other case there was.

---

A comparison between two cases does not constitute evidence, I'm afraid. It's simply anecdote, and anecdotal evidence can be found for anything.What needs to be shown is that people who differ significantly only in that some are Christians and some are not show a difference in recovery from addiction.

quote:

---

First of all, yes I do know about the divorce rate statistics. But I don't consider them valid as most people that would check "Christian" on a survey aren't in fact Christian's, even if they're sincere or appear devoted.

---

However, wouldn't you agree that people who check "Christian" on a survey are much more likely to actually be Christian than those who check "Athiest/Agnostic"?You seem to be willing to accept at face value any and all cases which support your belief but dismiss all cases which do not support your belief as being about people who aren't "really" Christian, even if they sincerely believe they are Christian.So, how do you know you're a "real" Christian, then?

quote:

---

WIth this I think its certainly possible, knowing there is no freaken way to prove this, that authentic Christian's enjoy higher measureable benefits relative to other faiths or belief systems.

---

So, you dismiss all evidence that contradicts your claim and prefer to accept a viewpoint that you admit cannot even come close to being demonstrated as reality?------------------
"Evolution is a 'theory', just like gravity. If you don't like it, go jump off a bridge."[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 09-22-2003]

quote:

---

you are missing valuable data that doesn't support your argument.

---

I'd like to add to this: the case of the Challenger. Please excuse the lack of names, etc, as it's been a while since I studied this.The day the Challenger was due to be launched, it was bitter cold by Texas standards. Ice was forming on the boosters; breath could be seen in the air. A NASA team met to discuss whether it was safe to launch. At the time of launch, it was 36 degrees Farenheit.Great pressure was on the team to launch, from the government who had payloads, to the media who wanted to see a female teacher on the mission. The one document that showed that, in testing of the booster rockets, that the double set of O-rings effectively failed to be redundant in low temperatures, and that the chance of failure rose to near 20% per O-ring, wasn't available to them. The only thing that they had to go on was a graph which plotted the temperature of launches vs. the number of O-ring failures - from 1 failure to three. The hardware scientists (boldstered by unusual test readings in the morning), with one in particular, were insistant that this was a bad idea, but couldn't explain just why. Something was wrong with the data in the graph - but again, he couldn't put into words what was wrong with it. It seemed normal. There were many plots of 1 failure, a few of 2 failures, and 1 of 3 failures. There didn't seem to be much of a pattern. Both the hot and cold launches seemed to have slightly more failures, but it didn't look significant. Eventually, the scientists relented.The one in question who had related the story left and went to a restaraunt which had a TV in the corner, convinced it was going to blow up on the launch pad. He watched it begin to lift off, and breathed a sigh of relief. When he left the room, he suddenly heard the people inside start screaming, and went back inside to see the debris raining down.The key error was.... the number one error in statistics... *omission of data*. In this case, the data that was omitted was the cases where there were *zero* O-ring failures. When you add that in, it was apparent that most flights had been conducted at warm temperatures; *every* cold flight had at least one O-ring failure.Omission of data is probably the worst error you can make in statistics.------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."