Honour Amongst Christians

So, your advice to me is discard my wonky compass and accept a different equally-wonky compass? Why would that help? Why do you think it would be a good idea to place my soul on a different wonky compass? I would think that holding onto my equally-wonky compass would be the prudent thing until my compass is corrected.You have identified a way in which my compass can be corrected, and I agree with you. My wonky compass can be corrected by God. Why do you have a problem with me having my wonky compass corrected by God? Why would you rather correct my compass yourself? Of course, there are religions (wicca?) that don't believe in salvation at all. You say Christianity is set apart because they believe you cannot contribute to your salvation. But there are religions that believe there is no such thing as salvation in the first place. And besides, of the 30,000 or so Christian sects, there is more than 1 that believes you need to do nothing in order to gain salvation. They just differ on other ideas. So you're not even "one" against 90,000. You're in a pool of likely 15,000 or so.Both reasons are "crystal clear", both go "against the grain" of the 90,000 other religions saying otherwise, both are "polar opposite". Both have exactly the same power in their claim on reality. Every religion has exactly the same power in it's claim on reality. I'm asking these questions in this thread because I don't have a religion and I'm wondering if I should be joining one. You've offered yours, saying it's "different", but it's "different" from the others in exactly the same way they're all "different" from each other. Equally different, equally useless in determining which is a part of our reality.

My reasons aren't illogical, but regardless I see your point. But, well, I've been trying to tell you that this is exactly what I want to do all along. It's just that when my compass is tossed onto the scrap heap, I'm left with nothing to steer me. I wait for any inkling of steering from God, but none comes. The only steering I get is from my compass. My wonky compass tells me this is a great idea. But I do not know how to go about accomplishing it. How do I let go of my compass without choosing another? I already am trusting the force of desire in my sails. That's what my compass is. Whenever I place my fate in the hands of God, I don't get any steering at all. Then I'm forced to decide something... forced to use my wonky compass again. Why are you assuming I have a choice in the matter? I've been trying to tell you for multiple posts that I don't choose my wonky compass, I just don't know how not to use it.Let's choose an example. A man drops his wallet. My compass tells me to pick up the wallet and return it to him. How do I reject my compass? How do I trust God to steer me? How do I know the difference between trusting God or trusting my compass or doing nothing? I've waited for God to steer me in similar situations. I end up standing there doing nothing until someone else picks up the wallet and steals it. Then I stand and do nothing until the theif gets away. If I acted, it would have been because my wonky compass told me too. How can I get away from my wonky compass? Okay, I'm not overly concerned with what it's called. I'd just really like to know how I'm supposed to do it. How can I not use anything to decide what to do? And how come every time I let God steer my decision, no steering happens at all?

You do not have me confused at all. If you have anything provable or real, please present it. I'm all ears, I really am. What claims can be tested out? You haven't presented any. Well, you did claim that India's separation was from divine intervention. How do you propose we test that out? Is there anything else you think we can test? What is the non-zero information from the website that you think we can test? Please identify it so I can see for myself. Why would you attribute such a saying to me? I've never said anything remotely close to "nothing is proveable". What I've said is that nothing you've currently presented is proveable. I'm certianly willing to look at anything you have to show. I certainly do think plenty of things are proveable. I'm just waiting for you to tell me about whatever it is you think you can prove. A bare link is, well, rather useless. A message from you that "I'm sure I can find what I'm looking for if I check this place out in person" is equally useless. What will I find if I check it out? What do they do differently that no one else does? What is this testable, proveable "thing" you keep hinting at but not describing at all? What is this power? I'm really, really asking. Is it possible for you to show or prove it? You say it is, but you don't actually show or prove it, please do so. My flip-flopping words have remained constant throughout our entire exchange: Please, if you have something you think I do not, please show it to me. So far, the only thing you've showed to possess that I do not is the ability to get extremely defensive when someone asks you to show the thing you claim to be able to show. If that's what you're talking about, I don't find it a desirable trait.

That's just it, though. I don't think wicca offers any "goodies". None at all. That seems rather root-detailed to me. But maybe I'm misrepresenting wicca (I really don't know too much about it). Let's just make one up. I'll call it "The Religion with No Goodies". I've simply made this one up on the spot. And it still has exactly the same claim to reality as your religion, or any other. Yes, that could work. But we're ignoring the fact that we can simply, at any time, make up another religious idea that's exactly the opposite of whatever we're looking at. And it would have exactly the same claim to reality as any other religion, including your proposed version of Christianity. How can we tell a made-up religion from a God-given one? If there was a way, we'ed have 1 religion, like all know there's only 1 way to have pure water. That's a part of reality, we know so, there's only 1 way. Religious ideas are not (currently) a part of reality, we (currently) have no way to decide which ideas are made up and which are God-given. Why do you keep insisting this? Are you seriously saying my 'system of living' is peppered by words and notions that indicate I think I need to contribute to some goodies by the words "my system of living does not think I need to contribute in any way to any form of goodies".Why do you keep insisting that when I say one thing, I somehow mean the exact opposite? Is mis-translation or lying about other people a part of your Christianity? I think this is an excellent idea. All we need is a method to determine which religions are made-up, and which are God-given. Do you have an idea on how to do that? How can you tell a made-up idea wasn't given from God to be made-up?

You might be thinking that, but then you'd be wrong. The problem is that making one up on the spot precisely matches the criteria you're requesting. Therefore it's not "being defensive", but "doing exactly as you asked". Their is no way to determine whether or not the religion I've made up on the spot was God-given or not. Their is equally no way to determine whether or not the Christianity you're proposing was God-given or not.You've indicated one way to differentiate your Christianity from the others. I made up on the spot another one that does exactly the same. We have no way to know if either is God-given. God certainly could have inspired me, just as easily as He could have inspired the founders of your Christianity.Do you have a method in which we can tell the difference between God-given religions and non God-given religions? It certainly does beat flying blind. If we could identify one such religion, anyway. The problem is you've provided your Christianity as this one religion. I've provided the one I've made up. They both equally surpass the notion of "one swimming upstream vs. the rest heading downstream". So now we no longer have "one swimming upstream", we have 2. And, actually, we have as many as you or I or anyone else can imagine. So we don't even have 2, we have 100,000. Or an infinite number, even. And the test is failed since we no longer have "one swimming upstream against all the others", we actually have an unlimited number that we can't tell apart or even identify.So our problem then becomes, how do we tell the imagined ones from the real God-given ones? (Which is also the original problem, actually)How do we identify that your Christianity is God-given? How do we identify that my made up religion is not God-given? How can we know Christianity wasn't made up and simply glorified and institutionalized? How can we know the religion I came up with wasn't inspired by God Himself?I agree that finding a solution would be better than flying blind. The problem is that your proposed course of action is flying blind.

In attempt to show that I "do something" in order to gain salvation, you've provided: Every single one of your examples is simply me "doing something" because I have to do something in my everyday life. If I do nothing, I will die. If I do not eat breakfast, lunch and dinner everyday, I will die. None of the options has anything to do with me "doing something in order to gain salvation". They simply have to do with me "doing something" in the same way you and everyone else "does something" everyday.I would never say "I do nothing". Clearly, I type posts on a message board, and so do you. Also, clearly, this has nothing to do with either of us "doing something in order to receive salvation".I repeat, again, that I do nothing in expectation of receiving salvation. If I've worded something strangely previously that makes you think so, please take this straight-forward wording with all the other straight-forward wordings of the same that I've made to take precedence.I'll say it one more time in case you still aren't believing me:I do nothing in expectation of receiving salvation.Please, please stop telling me otherwise when it's obvious you're just making things up and abusing context.

Thank-you. You too. And if you ever do find a way to identify if a religion is God-given or non-God-given, please get a hold of me and let me know.

But this doesn't make sense. I did open a browser. I did look at the web site. I did not see anything or feel anything that I haven't seen or felt before and completely understand why I see or feel those things from a non-religious perspective. To me, it seems like exactly the same wondrous sense of community that humans can provide to each other to gain strength from. But it's certainly possible that I've missed what you want me to look at or try to feel. Which is why I've been asking you to provide a bit more information. It's kinda vague right now. It may be that it has to be vague for some reason.This is what prompted me, again, to ask what it is you're expecting me to see or feel. If you can't tell me about it, and I can't experience it, it's certainly possible that it exists and I'm simply incapable of it.It's also certainly possible that it doesn't exist, and you're simply adding superfluous conotations to perfectly mundane feelings and experiences.This is the problem. I can't tell the difference between the two, and I'm asking you to provide anything you can to help. If you're answer is "I can't help you". Then thanks for trying in the first place. As far as I can tell, you don't have anything more or extra or better to offer other than your claim to such. A claim that cannot be backed is rather useless when I'm looking for actual parts of our reality that I'm missing out on. I'm not seeking this kind of life. I've found this kind of life. It's available to us all, simply from being human. What I'm seeking for is something beyond this wonderful life. Something more to the fantastic beauty and love and sense of community I'm already priviledged (and probably lucky enough) to currently be experiencing. You seemed to say there was something I was missing, and that you could show it to me. I've been inquiring about it ever since, but you've turned into pushing me away now rather than trying to help. If I put any more effort into every baseless claim of "something more" that comes along, I'd have to quit my job and competely lose the wonderful life I'm currently lucky enough to participate in. In order to make such a drastic change, I'm afraid your personal endorsement isn't enough for me to take such a drastic risk.There is, however, a completley easy method to show that your idea actually has some merit, and that there's actually something to be gained from following your advice. All you have to is, you know, actually show the stuff you claimed you're able to show. If you can't, and you can only promise that it can be shown "if I actually search into it" then I'm afraid you simply sound exactly the same as every other dead-end promise that has nothing more than I'm already engaged in.You will persuade me to change my life and follow your course as soon as you do what you've claimed you can do... show me the benefits that I can't get from what I'm already doing.Your answer of "all it takes is 1/2 an hour to walk down to the local area and check it out" is identical to every other baseless claim that turns into nothing more than a wasted 1/2 hour.If you actually have something more, something unique that you can show. I'm sure it wouldn't be that hard to show some of it. I'm not asking you for a 3-hour seminar full of hard-core physical evidence. All I'm asking is for even the slightest hint of something "more" that your advice will provide, that I don't have already. You've yet to do so.

Yeah, sorry, I have communication problems, I know. If it makes you feel any better, I am trying to improve them (that's part of why I post on here, actually). If that's what you're reading now, I'm still failing in communicating. What your pages show certainly does "seem like much" to me. It seems very powerful and an excellent example of what people are capable of when we work together for the benefit of us instead of me. I was just trying to say that I understand this level of power, and I already have it from my own family/community. But it isn't right to down-play how important and strong such societies can be.I was also asking if you were aware of anything even better, and how to attain such. Or something that your strong-community obviously has that my strong-community is obviously lacking. Since, to me, I don't see much of a difference. I find it difficult to communicate about this request because sometimes words like "attain" or "has" can be very misleading. Sometimes it's not so much getting or adding but more letting go or removing that ends up with a stronger result than when we began.It's hard for me to ask for such improvements while trying to also communicate the possibility that they may not be additions or even materialistic (it may be mental additions or subtractions). It ends up with me getting confused over what I'm talking about, and obviously shows in my writing.Regardless, the request (however difficult to communicate) still stands, and if you are aware of anything "more" or "better" that you know your community has over all the others you've encountered, I'd love to hear about it. That's what I'm constantly looking for, and why I refer to myself as "a seeker". Thanks, you too.

Sorry if I wasn't clear, but I think I agree with you. This is what I said from that message: When I said 'help people just because it's nice to help people', I meant the same thing as 'out of the kindness of their hearts'.I was trying to say that Christians also do good things for the same reasons that everyone else does good things... out of the kindness of their hearts.

I'd say that people who believe such are not limited to catholics or even abrahamic-related-religions.But I can understand where you found my wording confusing. Sorry, I wasn't trying to imply that christians (or anyone else) believed in a 'good deeds get us into heaven' mentality. Even though some people do believe such, the point is irrelevant to what I was trying to say. I should have been more careful to stay away from it.

Thank you. Of course, I must concede that not all non-believers do good deeds out of the kindness of their heart. Some are selfish and do good things to get respect from peers, or in order to gain trust so that they can get away with bad things later.My main point is that we should be honest as best we can (that is, if integrity is important to us). This way, we can try our best to keep our motives as pure as we are capable of. We will make mistakes, as we all do. But an honest person can recognize those mistakes and attempt to correct them for the future.Now here's the basic focus of this thread:The best honesty I'm capable of in evaluating this reality has led me to believe that God does not exist.I may certainly well be wrong, but is it right for me to lie to myself in order to gain the approval of other people who believe I'm totally wrong?
If I am wrong, and there is a God who wants me to change, shouldn't I be as honest and open and receptive of change as I possibly can in order to follow that God when (if?) He attempts to change me?My honesty has led me to believe that many people say things that are not true (for whatever reasons, it doesn't really matter). This leads me to rely on verification of claims about reality before I accept their validity.This puts me in an awkward position. What if God exists, and expects people to believe in Him without the ability to verify Him in any way? Am I doomed to be 'in the bad books' with God because of the way my best attempts at honesty has led my life? How can I tell the difference between a person telling me about an unverifiable fake-God or an unverifiable true-God?I do not require obejective, strict, physical verification (although that would be prefered since it is easily understood). I only require some sort of verification that I can do myself which allows me to identify a true-God as opposed to a fake-God.If someone gives me such a verification method, and I attempt it, and it shows me that they are mistaken... How can I be sure I attempted the method correctly or if it is indeed a fake-God?If you read the thread, many people have mentioned that my situation is not one to worry about, and any being worthy of being called God would have no problem with me being honest and trying my best. Others have different opinions.Welcome to EvC, and enjoy the thought-exercises.

Thank-you for your time and effort. And I agree that the Bible certainly is 'pretty neat' (as an understatement) I'm not sure how this can help with my problem, though. I agree that the Bible does contain fulfilled prophecies within itself. The problem is with your first statement: I certainly agree that the validity of the Bible has no bearing on me being Christian or not. But I'm at a loss as to how I can verify that the Bible is valid. You already believe it to be, I (I'm afraid) do not. I don't mean to insult your beliefs, it's just what my life experiences (quite possibly very corrupt) has led me to.You see, to me the Bible is a book as much as any other book we have from the past is a book. It's a great tool for us to use to get insight in how people of the past thought. And, as far as morals and values are concerned, the Bible is an excellent resource to compare our morals of today with what people thousands of years ago thought. We can then see which morals are still important (like most of the New Testament) and which are... not so much (like most of the Old Testament). Then we can compare the ones we share in common, and see if the reasons we share them in common are still valid. And we can also compare the ones we no longer agree with, and see if our reasons for discarding those values are valid.However, as a book representing an accurate picture of historical reality, I am forced to treat the Bible as I would every other book I look at in the context of historical reality. That is, we look around us to see if any evidence is left behind in order to attempt to confirm any claims. We can also compare with other books from that time period (if any are available) to see what others from the same time and place had to say about events.In a historical context, when reviewed along with other historical documents and evidence, the Bible doesn't seem to agree with what most of the other books agree on. And things the Bible takes as extremely important events just aren't mentioned in other historical documents recording supposedly 'important' events.This doesn't mean that the Bible can't be 100% true, or that it contains no truth, but it makes me lean in the direction that the Bible is more a collection of thoughts and stories from a religiously-bent faction rather than an accurate piece of historical reality. That is, an excellent tool for comparing our cultural morals, but not so great when trying to look at historical accuracy.Again, I certainly could be wrong. But the only data I have to compare against the Bible shows me that the Bible is either missing data itself, or a bunch of other historical data (that all seems to relatively agree together) is incorrect. This doesn't mean that the Bible contains nothing of historical value. It simply means that the historical value of the Bible should be treated the same as any other book's historical value. Each and every seperate historical claim should be examined to see how it stands on it's own merits.I personally believe that it's dishonest to say that something is 'a part of reality' simply because it was written in the Bible. This may be an incorrect belief, but I've had many experiences where people have written things down when they just aren't true. I've also had plenty of experiences where people have written down that 'God wants' this or that, and I don't find that very convincing either. For the same reasons, I don't find the written word of the Bible (people's written word of what 'God wants' from thousands of years ago) very convincing. To me, it's just another person's thoughts. Or (more likely) a large group of many different people.

But I have read those words while being true to myself and with an open mind and God did not speak to me. (Or, perhaps I was unable to listen correctly at the time, or something like that). I've read the Gospel of John much more than 3 times. In addition, I've had it read to me much more than 3 times. And I've read it slowly while asking God to speak to me. (Although not recently, all about 10 years ago or more) Granted, I thought of Him as "God" rather than "the Lord", but in my mind there's no difference. I've never become aware of any voice of God.Are you suggesting I need to read it again?Are you suggesting I need to re-do this trial every time it doesn't seem to work to me?That... seems like a very large waste of time. Time I could spend actually helping other people. But you're just another person. You're not God. Why should I care as to what you say? There's plenty of people who threaten me in the same way. They all have the same thing in common, they want me to believe what they believe. Why should your words have more weight than anyone elses? Why should I redo your test before I take any of their tests for the first time? You say if I don't bother with your test I'm not being honest. Well, if I don't bother with all 100,000 tests of all the different religions I'm also not being honest. But I'm not capable of putting that much time and effort into this search. I have to earn a living, I have to provide for some family that depends on me. I can't leave them while I go testing every trial anyone puts up to me. So, yes, it may be dishonest of me to not redo your trial. But how can I do otherwise honestly? If I do your trial, I must honestly do all 100,000+ of the other trials for all the other people who claim to know God.What is it about your trial that can set yours apart?All these trials have the same thing in common, there is no way to verify their effectivness. You say "But if at anytime you have thoughts this is true that is God speaking." And I have had those thoughts before, but it was not God speaking, it was me. Is God incapable of sending his voice unless I'm reading the gospel of John? Why can't I just ask God to send His voice to me? Why can't I just openly cry to God for help? Which, of course, I've already done many times with only my own voice as an answer. Does this mean I'm not honest enough? Not open enough? How can I be more honest and open than I'm capable of? Thanks. I have no problems having anyone wish me well.

Thanks for your thoughts. I'll be hoping the best for you too.Thanks, everyone, for all the input on this topic. It allowed me to explore my own beliefs/ideas and see how they hold up to scrutiny.I will still continue to search for anything better.And I will continue to do so with all the honesty and openess I'm capable of.If this leads me to God, I will certainly accept such an answer.If this leads me further down the road of atheism, I have no problems with that either.I am not looking for "the answer".I am simply looking for "whatever I'm capable of finding".It is possible that 'the answer' is beyond my personal abilities. This doesn't discourage me, as it's not my goal. My goal is to make the best of what I have, and honour whatever source is responsible for what I have (if any) by not wasting any talents.Good luck to all, and thanks for all the sharing of ideas in this topic.