Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   People - I /was/ a Christian
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 307 (421000)
09-10-2007 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by crashfrog
09-10-2007 3:34 PM


Re: I know about Faith
People - I was a Christian. A fundamentalist, creationist one. Biblical inerrancy. Redeeming power of Jesus. Gave my life to Christ.
Me, too. I was a born again (yes, I did have that personal salvation experience where I asked Jesus to save me and come into my heart, etc.) evangelical, Biblical literalist Christian.
I will also add that becoming a non-Christian was really a hard thing to do. It had nothing to do with being "prideful in my own intellect" or "wanting to live in my sinful desires". I fought against the loss of my faith. I did not choose to stop believing. I wanted to remain a believer. But I finally had to admit that the Bible is not inerrant or divinely inspired, and, in fact, is contradictory and factually inaccurate, and that I do not even believe that God exists.
So I, too, find born again Christians a bit too smug when they talk about how they and others used to be atheists or evolutionists or whatever until they came to a saving knowledge of Christ, as all atheists were deluded and needed to have the facts explained carefully to them. Some of us were deluded Christians until we understood the facts properly, and became non-evangelical Christians or even atheists.

I could tell you what I've read about evolution, the big-bang, super-universes, quantum foam, and all that stuff. Eventually you'd ask a question I can't answer, then I'd have to go look it up. Even If I had the time for that shit, in the end you'd ask a question science hasn't answered yet. So let's save time and skip ahead to "I don't know." -- jhuger

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by crashfrog, posted 09-10-2007 3:34 PM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Lithodid-Man, posted 09-10-2007 5:09 PM Chiroptera has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 307 (421008)
09-10-2007 5:20 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by ringo
09-10-2007 4:58 PM


Some examples of that high.
I grew up in Southeast Alaska, and as a result I know a little bit about the myths of the indigenous peoples. (I still love totem poles, by the way.) They were fairly typical for an animistic people. Spirits inhabited everything, the land was full of spirits.
Well, I don't know how familiar anyone is with the local landscape. Mountains come straight out of the water, so the landscape is heavily wooded and steep; rainy, low grey clouds, and patches of mist lying among the trees in the hillsides. On two seperate occassions many years apart, as I was admiring this scenery, I felt the Spirits. No shit! The feeling was very strong. Easily as strong as anything I felt as a Christian. And remember, I am an atheist -- I did not and do not believe in spirits. Yet, despite that I felt it very strongly. (By the way, I still sometimes express my homesickness as "the gods here don't know me.")
On another occassion I was meditating on Lao Tzu (my preferred source for spiritual wisdom), and again I felt this intense feeling, as if I were about to pierce the veil of Maya. Again, I was and am an atheist, yet the feeling was so strong that the high lasted through the next day.
Interesting thing about those religious highs. Even an atheist like me, who does not believe this literally, can experience them. (And so I can kind of understand the attraction that ecstactic religion has for some people.)

I could tell you what I've read about evolution, the big-bang, super-universes, quantum foam, and all that stuff. Eventually you'd ask a question I can't answer, then I'd have to go look it up. Even If I had the time for that shit, in the end you'd ask a question science hasn't answered yet. So let's save time and skip ahead to "I don't know." -- jhuger

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by ringo, posted 09-10-2007 4:58 PM ringo has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 307 (421009)
09-10-2007 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by jar
09-10-2007 5:16 PM


Re: Amen brothers!
If you had been brought up in a religious environment that encouraged questioning any and all facets of faith...would it have made a difference?
I don't know. I'm so used to who I am now that I feel that this was going to be inevitable. Probably not, but it's how I feel since I can't imagine now being any other way. But I'm sure that my transition to an atheist would have been more gradual, less traumatic, and the Bible would be on my night table as my preferred source of spiritual wisdom rather than the Tao Te Ching. I might also still be going to Church if I were able to find one that welcomes atheists. (Maybe a Episcopal one?)

I could tell you what I've read about evolution, the big-bang, super-universes, quantum foam, and all that stuff. Eventually you'd ask a question I can't answer, then I'd have to go look it up. Even If I had the time for that shit, in the end you'd ask a question science hasn't answered yet. So let's save time and skip ahead to "I don't know." -- jhuger

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by jar, posted 09-10-2007 5:16 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by jar, posted 09-10-2007 5:32 PM Chiroptera has not replied
 Message 30 by dwise1, posted 09-10-2007 10:02 PM Chiroptera has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 40 of 307 (421075)
09-10-2007 10:58 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by pbee
09-10-2007 10:09 PM


Re: I know about Faith
Is it possible you were barking up the wrong tree?
Many people seem blind to the fact that not all religions stand in favor with God.
Well, it's not as if God let him know that and tried to lead him to the right tree.
Or do you only get one chance at choosing the right tree, and then he removes your God-sense?

I could tell you what I've read about evolution, the big-bang, super-universes, quantum foam, and all that stuff. Eventually you'd ask a question I can't answer, then I'd have to go look it up. Even If I had the time for that shit, in the end you'd ask a question science hasn't answered yet. So let's save time and skip ahead to "I don't know." -- jhuger

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by pbee, posted 09-10-2007 10:09 PM pbee has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by pbee, posted 09-10-2007 11:35 PM Chiroptera has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 42 of 307 (421078)
09-10-2007 11:00 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by pbee
09-10-2007 10:48 PM


What fascinates about the whole thing is when people turn *against those who continue to serve God afterwards.
Huh? Like who?
Edited by Chiroptera, : added signature. and removed old subtitle.

I could tell you what I've read about evolution, the big-bang, super-universes, quantum foam, and all that stuff. Eventually you'd ask a question I can't answer, then I'd have to go look it up. Even If I had the time for that shit, in the end you'd ask a question science hasn't answered yet. So let's save time and skip ahead to "I don't know." -- jhuger

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by pbee, posted 09-10-2007 10:48 PM pbee has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 104 of 307 (421183)
09-11-2007 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by Archer Opteryx
09-11-2007 4:36 AM


Re: Which is supreme?
If you ever had to choose between atheism or truth, which would you choose?
First, I doubt that it's a matter of choice. People believe what they believe. They can acknowledge what they really believe, or they can go into some sort of self-denial. People can have some influence over their beliefs by avoiding studying a subject in depth or by refusing to think very deeply about the implications of what they know, but in the end people will believe what they believe without much conscious choice.
But, to avoid charges of dodging the question, let me answer that I don't know if I'd really need to make such a choice. Simply acknowledging the existence of a god is not itself a religion, otherwise acknowledge the non-existence of a god (atheism) would be as much a religion. Relgion is more than just belief that there is a god; it is an entire mental construction that gives one a sense of place in the universe and in society. As such, it involves and produces myths (not necessarily untrue stories), morality, and rituals.
Even if one defines religion (assuming a deity exists) as the proper worship that keeps that deity happy, it involves things like faith in, respect for, and love of that deity. These are not easy things to come by -- just like beliefs, people are not entirely in control of who they trust or love. These things pretty much just happen.
Even if it could be demonstrated so that I have no doubt that a god exists, I don't see it changing the way I view the world in any significant way, nor the way I live my life. Why would it?
Even if it could be demonstrated that the Evangelical Protestant god of hellfire and damnations exists, I don't see how it would make me any more likely to love or have faith in that deity. These things are not in my control. That's not to say I wouldn't go throught the motions of worship if I felt it would keep the big guy happy (or not if it wouldn't do any good), but my inner feelings wouldn't change too much.
So, even it could be shown to me without a doubt that a god exists, I suspect that I would remain an atheist in all essential respects, except for what I feel to be the trivial acknowledgement that a god exists.

I could tell you what I've read about evolution, the big-bang, super-universes, quantum foam, and all that stuff. Eventually you'd ask a question I can't answer, then I'd have to go look it up. Even If I had the time for that shit, in the end you'd ask a question science hasn't answered yet. So let's save time and skip ahead to "I don't know." -- jhuger

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Archer Opteryx, posted 09-11-2007 4:36 AM Archer Opteryx has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 144 of 307 (421430)
09-12-2007 6:01 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by Ihategod
09-12-2007 5:58 PM


Re: Which is supreme?
Let me explain the question to you, Vash.
Suppose, just suppose for the sake of argument, that in truth there was no God. Would you prefer to believe in a fictional god or would you prefer to acknowledge a reality without god?

I could tell you what I've read about evolution, the big-bang, super-universes, quantum foam, and all that stuff. Eventually you'd ask a question I can't answer, then I'd have to go look it up. Even If I had the time for that shit, in the end you'd ask a question science hasn't answered yet. So let's save time and skip ahead to "I don't know." -- jhuger

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Ihategod, posted 09-12-2007 5:58 PM Ihategod has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by Ihategod, posted 09-12-2007 6:11 PM Chiroptera has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 256 of 307 (422063)
09-15-2007 5:46 PM
Reply to: Message 253 by Cold Foreign Object
09-15-2007 5:00 PM


Talk about trapped by bad arguments
It is an axiomatic truth that Atheists (like yourself) cannot be honest or objective about the Source which falsifies their worldview.
And the weakness of your logical construction is that it relies on this axiom. Once this axiom is deleted, then you have no argument left. And, unlike most axioms, you cannot even appeal to either evidence or "common sense" for its adoption. It is an entirely ad hoc addition to save the conclusions that you feel must be true.

I could tell you what I've read about evolution, the big-bang, super-universes, quantum foam, and all that stuff. Eventually you'd ask a question I can't answer, then I'd have to go look it up. Even If I had the time for that shit, in the end you'd ask a question science hasn't answered yet. So let's save time and skip ahead to "I don't know." -- jhuger

This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 09-15-2007 5:00 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 259 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 09-16-2007 6:00 PM Chiroptera has replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 266 of 307 (422281)
09-16-2007 6:46 PM
Reply to: Message 259 by Cold Foreign Object
09-16-2007 6:00 PM


Re: Talk about trapped by bad arguments
Said response makes no sense....
Of course it doesn't make sense to you. Under the delusion you suffer, no counter argument is going to make sense to you. Under the delusion you suffer, your arguments are going to seem very logical, no matter how irrational they are.
As I've pointed out before, your own statement is very apt:
But at the same time, delusion is understood to mean that the deluded is unaware of being in a state of delusion.
That means you are completely unable to understand how powerful the delusion you suffer really is. Every argument against you position, regardless of how cogent, will seem to you to be illogical and rife with error. Every irrational sequence of statements that you write will, under your delusion, appear to be completely reasonable.
Hey, you said it yourself!

You can observe a lot by watching. -- Yogi Berra

This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 09-16-2007 6:00 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 269 of 307 (422286)
09-16-2007 6:59 PM
Reply to: Message 268 by Cold Foreign Object
09-16-2007 6:55 PM


Re: Atheist Evangelism
...do we believe our own experience with Christ and the results of our faith that God has honored based on what St. Paul and the Apostles have said....
But if you are the one suffering under the delusion, then your own experience, the results of your faith, and your interpretations of what St. Paul and the Apostles have said are all suspect.
You said it yourself:
delusion is understood to mean that the deluded is unaware of being in a state of delusion.

You can observe a lot by watching. -- Yogi Berra

This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 09-16-2007 6:55 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 273 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 09-17-2007 9:51 PM Chiroptera has replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 275 of 307 (422674)
09-17-2007 10:42 PM
Reply to: Message 273 by Cold Foreign Object
09-17-2007 9:51 PM


Re: Atheist Evangelism
what is your source and basis for belief that Christians are under a delusion?
I didn't say that I believed that Christians are under a delusion. I simply pointed out the self-evident fact that if you were under a delusion you wouldn't be aware that you were under a delusion.
The facts that you believe to be true could be part of the delusion, but you wouldn't be able to tell the difference. The logic you use could be very irrational, but the nature of your delusion would prevent you from recognizing this. The guidence you feel from God could very well be part of your delusion.
Again, if you were the deluded one, you wouldn't be aware of it.

You can observe a lot by watching. -- Yogi Berra

This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 09-17-2007 9:51 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 298 of 307 (425494)
10-02-2007 1:34 PM


I hope that it isn't too late to add an interesting tidbit of information.
Yesterday, Wikipedia had a link to Silma Ihram on its front page.
quote:
Ihram became a 'born-again' Christian in 1968, and participated in missionary work with the Children's Special Service Mission (CSSM) in the late 1960s and early '70s.
In 1976, during an extended trip to Indonesia, Ihram had a "personal revelation that I had to become a Muslim" and converted to Islam, changing her name to 'Silma Ihram'.
I don't know anything else about Ms. Ihram other than what's written in this article, but we seem to have another example of a "Born Again" Christian that didn't stick with the Christian faith (although in this case, she traded it for another religious faith).
But I suppose that there will be those who will insist that her initial "born again" experience wasn't genuine.

In many respects, the Bible was the world's first Wikipedia article. -- Doug Brown (quoted by Carlin Romano in The Chronicle Review)

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024