How close are Christians to their god?

Hi,I’ve only just discovered this site, so haven’t had much time to digest its contents as fully as I’d like. However, one thing has caught my eye already, namely the number of posts by Christians that bemoan a failure in others to understand the true nature of their religion.But is this all that surprising? My own experience tells me there are almost as many flavours of Christianity as there are Christians. Time spent on these forums does nothing to clarify the situation.So before getting involved in any of the debates, I’d be very interested in getting some feedback from Christians regarding one very particular aspect of their faith, namely the nature of their own personal relationship with their god.Thanks in advance to anyone who wishes to share their views on this subject.

Hello arachnophilia, For now I’m happy to remain a gentle little soul (no religious overtones intended). Brave is brave, but dead is dead. This caught my eye, but I don’t know anything about you or your beliefs, so checked out a few of your earlier posts to try to get some context. I found this:- The ”strict literal reading of the bible’ line raises plenty of questions, but may be another debate for another day. Today’s question is simple. What is your view of those who believe themselves to be Christian, but do not match the qualification criteria, as you understand it?

arachnophilia, No probs. I have to confess that when I read it first, I assumed you must be a non-believer, despite your signature. Indeed, reading one or two of your posts in isolation may also have led me to that conclusion. However, the ”literal bible’ line suggested I should err on the side of caution and accept what I read as 'gospel'.As for the ”literal bible’ aspect, I’m not so interested in what may be seen as the inconsistencies within the texts, that has been done so many times before. It’s more to do with what can be inferred from the divine/human interface that led to the compilation of the bible. However, I’m not sure how well I could formulate such an argument, so it may never see the light of day. One of the things I’m learning very quickly on here is that lack of clarity of thought or precision of expression can be mercilessly exposed.Which is probably the main reason I am here - for the mental stimulation. It started a couple of months ago when I read a magazine article about ID. I’d heard all the arguments before, so was taken aback at some of the responses in the letters page the following month. Quite frankly, some of them bordered on being offensive. This led me onto the net, and I quickly found this site. I liked what I saw. Here is a place where it seems possible to really exercise the grey cells, such are the depth and complexity of the debates. If I can get through these first few exchanges, I think I might enjoy it on hereRather than respond to your answer on the ”qualification criteria’ issue, I’ll deal with it in a response to jar if I may, as he has also ”pulled me up’ on it and I feel it’s important to try to deal with as many direct responses as is possible. Edited by dogrelata, : No reason given.

jar,If my memory serves me right, you were one of the individuals in residence when I blundered into a chat room by mistake on my first evening on here. Apologies for my hasty retreat, but I’m not really into chat rooms I’m afraid Anyway; it’s nice to make your acquaintance at last. I was basically playing devil’s advocate in response to arachnophilia’s post, which I had misconstrued as it turns out. However, if you read my original post, it doesn’t say ”claim to be Christian’, it says ”believe themselves to be Christian’. I wasn’t suggesting for a second anyone would claim to be Christian when they are not. I was asking about those who believe themselves to be Christian, but whose beliefs appear to place them outside of the basic tenets of what it means to be a Christian - as I understand things, not having any such faith myself.But studying the discussion on exclusion in the subsequent posts between arachnophilia, robinrohan and Phat, I see there’s a ready acceptance amongst the membership of the differences that exist within the Christian religion and across all the religions.Lost in my clumsiness was the idea that I was hoping to develop the point, depending on what sort of response I received. Maybe I need to start being a little less obtuse and become a bit more proactive in leading the discussion where I want it to go, rather than just planting the seed and waiting to see what develops. Where I really wanted to discussion to go was along the lines of, ”what can we, or should we infer from differences in belief within the Christian faith, or across the faiths?’At this point I’ve just realised I’ve not properly introduced myself in the sense that I’ve not really identified my particular standpoint on issues religious or scientific. I’m not sure whether it is expected of new arrivals to do so or not, but it seems to me to be a common courtesy, so I shall rectify that omission now (with apologies for not having done so sooner).By the age of ten I had arrived at the conclusion that man created god. At that age I had little or no concept of the laws of probability, but as time has passed, a little knowledge of that subject has been acquired. With the passing of the years, and the gaining of both knowledge and experience, I can say that the probability that man created god seems ever more likely to me. I’m not going to be stupid enough to try to assign a value to it, but it can be seen as a process where any fresh evidence strengthens the case for one side of the argument or the other. To date, the evidence for man creating god outweighs the competing point of view by some considerable distance.Not that I would ever suggest that I might not be mistaken in the way I interpret or weigh the evidence, but the process works for me. I like the idea of degrees of certainty rather than absolutes - certainty being the mother of delusion.So to tie up the post, where am I going with this idea? Ironically, given that it was ID that brought me to this site, the question might be, if man did create his gods, can we see any evidence for it in the belief process?The polytheistic early religions were awash with gods, generally based around the movements of the stars. The modern religions each has their own god, and when we get down to examining Christianity for example, we see what appears to be a great diversity in the actual beliefs held. As an outsider looking in, this might almost be seen that groups or individuals are ”tailoring’ their religion to suit their own needs. The question then becomes, if this were the case, would this ”tailoring’ suggest a degree of creative design on behalf of the believer? And if creative design is part of the ongoing process of theism, doesn’t it seem reasonable to suppose it was also the founding father?

jar,Thanks for your thoughts. Some of them tie in nicely with a couple of ideas I’m exploring at the moment. Agreed. However, given the number and diversity of ”maps’ in existence, I think it’s reasonable to ask if any of them offer a usable representation of the ”territory’ in question. Or even if the ”territory’ exists at all, the ”maps’ being no more than a representation of the hopes and desires of those who drew them. ”Gambit’. Nice word, I like it. But sometimes you’ve just got to put your head in the lion’s mouth, to see how sharp its teeth are. After all, there’s rarely any reward to be had where the risk is zero. So what the hell, let’s have a little peekI assume you’re talking about the proposal that if believers are wrong about their faith, they die and that’s the end of the story. Non-believers, on the other hand, may face dire consequences if they are wrong. Any rational person, therefore, would choose to believe.Obviously I am familiar with the proposal, but have only ever seen it presented in this form. To me this form seems incomplete or unfinished. That’s because it appears to assume that if god exists he is wholly benevolent (except towards non-believers of course). It appears to exclude the possibility that god may exist as a malevolent being. This possibility would be a lot more problematical for believers were it true, as it becomes unclear what the consequences of their faith might be in those circumstances. Yip, I’ve been told on a number of occasions that I’m a believer. It’s a funny old world we live in

jar,I get the strong feeling from you that given the option of choosing between a world living in perfect harmony, but without any gods, or the world as it is today, overseen by your god and the possibility of salvation, you would pick the former over the latter. I'm probably wrong, if so apologies, but a lot of what you say kind of gives that impression.

riVerRaT,Thanks, it’s nice to ”meet’ you. This raises a number of issues, but I’m determined not to try to run before I can walk around here, so I’ll settle for asking you to clarify the term, ”the more you seek God’, because it sounds like you might be edging perilously close to the ”n’ word - need. When I see need in connection with faith I see ”necessity is the mother of invention’, I see first cause.To expand on that a little, I offer the following analogy. Imagine an investigation into whether god created man, or man god. Even Christians admit that they can’t really explain why god dunnit, so to speak - so they’re light on motive. If ”need’ for a god can be identified within the human race, a strong motive emerges. Add to that the fact that the monotheistic gods worshipped today wouldn’t have been man’s first attempt at god creation, and the circumstantial case starts to build. None of which proves a thing, but it’s nice to explore the possibilities. Granted. However, and I don’t wish to appear flippant here, the very same sentiment could be expressed by somebody believing themselves to be Napoleon reincarnate. Any time we wander into the realm of feelings it’s tough, because so many feelings emanate from within ourselves and we spend half our lives trying to rationalize them.Which seems like a good place to sign off for the evening.

jar,As I say, apologies for calling it wrong. But at least it’s added some fresh impetus to the exchange, which appeared to be reaching a natural conclusion.I find your brand of Christianity refreshing. I’m fascinated to hear you say you’ve hitched a ride on a train, destination unknown. Good luck on the journey.Actually, maybe the exchange has reached its natural conclusion, but I can’t let it go without asking one last question. Have you ever had personal experience of the entity common known as Satan? If you have, I guess what really interests me here is how it manifested itself? How did you recognise it? And if you believe you haven’t, how do you know you haven’t?Which is maybe a sneaky way of asking, how sure are you that your god isn’t the malevolent entity suggested by me in an earlier post?

riVerRat,Nice post. Thanks. It’s nice to see some self-deprecating humour. In a word - no. I’m not even sure I know what it means. There are those who seek definitive of universal truths, but I am not one of them. Truth appears to be a close relation of certainty, and certainty, as I said in an earlier post, is the mother of delusion. Again no. Sorry to be such a killjoy. I can honestly say I’ve never asked ”why are we here’ or ”what is the meaning of my life’. My view of life in that respect is very simple. Mankind is one form of energy (possibly as per superstring theory), amongst many countless others - no more or less significant, just different. I don’t need to feel special or significant.I’m always mildly amused when religious people suggest that anyone showing an interest in their faith has a secret desire to believe also. After all, if I wanted to find out more about paranoid schizophrenics, I wouldn’t expect them to start suggesting I had secret desires in that direction.My interest is in people, and religion is one of the ”biggies’ in that area. Although it appears to be becoming less so, at least amongst the Western civilizations. Maybe that’s part of the attraction as well. A desire to observe the evolution of human emotion as the tide of scientific knowledge sweeps away so many of our long held understandings. If I had to guess, the Western religions of two hundred years hence will be barely recognizable to today’s believers.The polytheistic belief structures of yesteryear fell into disuse as they no longer provided a good fit for man’s understanding of reality, so were replaced with more up-to-date models. With the speed of scientific understanding increasing at an exponential rate, my guess is be that religion needs to start changing pdq, or risk extinction, at least in the Western world.So yeah, you're right, I probably am a little bit nutz like you.

jar, As I may have mentioned earlier, I got off at the first stop. If you look out the window you’ll see me, a leaf blowing in the wind, free but fragile, not afraid of either the freedom or the fragility.One of the things about the journey though, is that most don’t hitch a ride, most are placed on the train as toddlers and must decide whether they wish to stay for the long haul or get off at the next stop.What am I talking about? I guess one of the things religions are good at is getting themselves into the human psyche at a very early age. Christianity has the festivals of Christmas, Easter and, in the States, Thanksgiving. Christmas in particular is a big deal for young kids. It helps promote a positive association with a belief in Jesus. You get gifts, you give gifts, you feel good - by the way we’re celebrating the birth of Jesus. These are powerful messages for kids in their most formative years, even in secular families. Boring old science doesn’t get a look-in until much later, when the human is well on the way to becoming what they will grow in to.

riVerRat, That’s a good question, and I wish I had short answer, but I’ll try to keep it as brief as possible.I don’t think our minds are limited, but our terms of reference certainly are, to the point of being subjective even. If we take a fundamental, creationist Christian, a Buddhist and a secular scientist, they will have different views as to the nature of reality. These views will irreconcilable on some, even many issues. The point here isn’t whether any of them are ”right’ or ”wrong’, it is the fact that each group will consider itself to have viewed the evidence objectively and applied rational logic to underpin their view of reality. But they will have arrived at wholly different conclusions.So how can we have any expectation that any human view as to the nature of reality is anything other than subjective, or bound by the limited terms of reference of a species of life living on a small planet in some distant corner of a vast universe? Apologies if this caused offence. It was literally the first thing that popped into my head. Perhaps it was Freudian. Despite the Freudian possibilities, I was not suggesting that I think religious people are schizophrenic. The point I obviously failed to make was that it was possible to have a legitimate interest in a person or group of people without possessing any desire to be like them or share their beliefs. If you read carefully, you will see that I used the words, ”why we are here’ and ”what is the meaning of my life’. ”Why we are here’ implies a reason, and a reason presupposes many things, which is why I never ask that question. Both are loaded questions. I do ask questions like, ”can I understand the processes which led to the state of being that exists within this time and space?’ This is a much more open question, and does not exclude anything, secular or religious. If we start by asking the wrong question, our chances of reaching a satisfactory conclusion are much diminished. If that makes me weird, them I’m guilty as charged.Edited by dogrelata, : No reason given.

For sure. The extent to which any these religions are able to sustain any ”critical mass’ may well depend on how far and quickly they can evolve given the speed at which scientific understanding is moving.I recall watching a religious debate on TV a few years ago. One of the Christian theologians opined that he felt it was no longer even necessary to believe in god to be a Christian these days. Which many people will not be able to agree with, but I’d be surprised if they didn’t agree that this is a sentiment that would not have been expressed a couple of hundred years ago.

It’s tough to post and still find the time read as much as I’d like, so am not as familiar with anyone’s views as I’d like to be. Hopefully that will change as time goes by.Instead I find myself having to ask things that people may have answered countless times before. However, if you’re interested, I do have one question for you. It concerns the chronology of your experience of your god. To the uninitiated layman like me, it is possible to imagine three separate phases of that experience. They might be the first teaching or awareness that led you to understand that (some) people believed in a supernatural entity. Another might be the first time you observed something that made you think of that god. And yet another might be the first time you ”felt’ your god with or within you.Are these things you can identify with? I guess what I’m really interested in is whether you feel the experience could be broken down into separate phases, as above, one leading on from another.Thanks.