88Warrior said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

88Warrior said:

---

Does your uneasiness extend to the other end of the spectrum as well..those that feel 100% certain Jesus is not the Son of God?

---

Absolutely.

---

So you're more agnostic than you are atheist?

---

I don't shy away from either term.

I am an atheist in that I do not hold the positive belief in a god / God. And an agnostic in that I do not think the question is knowable given the current information.

Aggrad08 said:

---

Rex Racer said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

Rex Racer said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

Except he does, the earth is in his presence

---

And this Earth is going to pass away and be created anew in his time.

---

Point still stands. The argument that god can't tolerate sin in his presence is clearly false

---

He is patient, but he is not going to tolerate it endlessly.

---

Seems like it's completely and arbitrarily up to him completely undermining your argument

---

I'm not making the argument you seem to think I am making.

When I say God "cannot" coexist with sin, I mean that His holiness inherently repels sin, and he will someday restore his perfect design.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

88Warrior said:

---

Imho it's either 100% belief or none..I don't think Jesus is going to say to us when we enter heaven "See…I am real…why were you unsure all these years?"

---

Yep. I do not understand how you can believe "80%" in Jesus.

---

I'll offer what might be a stupid analogy that I could end up regretting - but it is the first thing that comes to mind.

I imagine an economist who studies hundreds of different economic policies or variations of policies with the purpose of achieving some goal. And after careful consideration decides on one policy as being the most likely to succeed toward that goal. The economist may feel a very high degree of certainty that their chosen policy is best, but its hard to imagine They would take the position that they believe they are unquestionably and absolutely 100% correct and that all other policies are simply wrong. Likely, the economist recognizes the limits to what models, historical data, or other tools can conclude. Similarly, I can image that the economist has a group of different economist whom he respects and has a high opinion of. Should they arrive at different conclusions, it might cause our first economist to consider a possibility that there is merit to their modeling and predictions.

Yeah, the analogy falls a part a bit under some inspection. But, what I'm trying to demonstrate is someone who confidently holds a belief, but acknowledges less than 100% certainty of their correctness due to natural limitations.

In the case of knowledge about the truth of meaning and purpose of existence, the nature of God, the truth of Jesus, that limiting factor is our fallible human brain.

For 100% certainty to be justified, I think I would argue for a requirement that your brain be infallible.

---

Love you but I do not think like that. Each to his own.

dermdoc said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

88Warrior said:

---

Imho it's either 100% belief or none..I don't think Jesus is going to say to us when we enter heaven "See…I am real…why were you unsure all these years?"

---

Yep. I do not understand how you can believe "80%" in Jesus.

---

I'll offer what might be a stupid analogy that I could end up regretting - but it is the first thing that comes to mind.

I imagine an economist who studies hundreds of different economic policies or variations of policies with the purpose of achieving some goal. And after careful consideration decides on one policy as being the most likely to succeed toward that goal. The economist may feel a very high degree of certainty that their chosen policy is best, but its hard to imagine They would take the position that they believe they are unquestionably and absolutely 100% correct and that all other policies are simply wrong. Likely, the economist recognizes the limits to what models, historical data, or other tools can conclude. Similarly, I can image that the economist has a group of different economist whom he respects and has a high opinion of. Should they arrive at different conclusions, it might cause our first economist to consider a possibility that there is merit to their modeling and predictions.

Yeah, the analogy falls a part a bit under some inspection. But, what I'm trying to demonstrate is someone who confidently holds a belief, but acknowledges less than 100% certainty of their correctness due to natural limitations.

In the case of knowledge about the truth of meaning and purpose of existence, the nature of God, the truth of Jesus, that limiting factor is our fallible human brain.

For 100% certainty to be justified, I think I would argue for a requirement that your brain be infallible.

---

Love you but I do not think like that. Each to his own.

---

To each their own indeed. I don't see the fact that people think differently as a negative. My post above is more about how I think and not intended as an indictment on how anyone else thinks.

For the group:

At this point in the thread, I'm drawn to another question . . . I'm going to try my best to phrase it as well as I can, don't read anything into it if it comes off as brash.

Something that I have taken from this thread is that a lot of Christians think that both:
a) Truth through Christianity can be known with 100% certainty and
b) The act of viewing the world through non-Christian perspectives is problematic or possibly not consistent with Christian thinking. I think someone went so far as to call empathy dangerous.

I don't mean to attribute both of these ideas broadly to everyone. But, I think that I've heard very little that makes me think I cannot apply both a) and b) to the posters here. Please don't think I am attributing these thoughts to everyone here.

My question is - once you've accepted a) and b), what guard is there against closed mindedness or philosophical dogmatism. It seems to me that if you are 100% convinced you are correct and are openly unwilling to consider a possibility of being wrong or to even consider a topic from any other viewpoint, you put yourself in this position of being unwilling or unable to engage with any opposing view in any way other than in simply discarding it out of hand or judge it as wrong.

To make it more relevant to us talking here. . . what is the point of threads like this? I am more than happy to share what I think and believe here. But, if you all have decided (before I even open my mouth), that I am 100% wrong and that there should be no consideration of my perspective, I don't see the point of this. Do we engage in these threads because we want to win a debate and show the other side as foolish? Or is the only point in engaging with someone like me for proselytism? Just as I imagine you have little interest in me actively trying to convince you to leave your religion, I also have very little interest in being preached at.

So, what do you get out of these conversations? You already know I'm wrong, you are 100% certain you are right, you won't consider a different perspective or the possibility of being wrong . . . what are we doing here?

birddog7000 said:

---

KV - I have not completely caught up on all of this thread, but I think God is calling to you. I think your returning to this thread is one way he is reaching you. God has placed it on the hearts of quite a few people here to share with you.

I would like to pose a question. Can you define love in measurable terms? And if you can define love in some sort of measurable terms, which I'm sure you can, why is it that something that you cannot see, cannot hear, cannot touch, and cannot taste or smell is explainable at all? Why would anyone believe it? And as I'm sure you know, some people do not believe in it. Because they either have never felt it, or refuse to acknowledge it when they do feel it. But the population that does not believe in the feeling called love is minuscule, so therefore love is widely recognized just by saying the word, it is its own definition.

Our relationship with God is a stronger and more real experience than the experience of love. It is just not explainable to someone who is actively rejecting the idea that we could be having this experience because they themselves are not experiencing it.

If you want to "prove" the experience is real, seek Him out. God will shower you with His love, grace, and mercy if you are sincere in your request to know Him. If He is calling you closer to Him I am hopeful you will be still and hear Him.

---

On the heels of what I just wrote . . . I don't think I can provide a response to this that makes any sense to you unless you are willing to consider a different perspective. This is a world full of different religions and philosophies to whom the followers all universally believe that their thing provides a unique and superior spiritual experience. The fact that there are 10,000 schools of Christianity further reinforces the idea, in my mind, that people are now just pursuing their own 'designer' religion that maximizes that dopamine hit you get from the experience.

I'm happy to answer your question more directly, but first indulge me with something. Are you actually interested in what I think about love and the experiences you've listed? Or have you already decided that anything I say that contradicts your beliefs can be discarded and that my perspective should be ignored?

Its a strange thing for someone to tell you that how you think and how you experience the world is wrong. To use an overly simplified analogy - imagine that you told me that pizza was your favorite food and I said. . . ."nah, thats not right. You just aren't tasting the food I think is best in the correct way." What do you even say to something like that?

birddog7000 said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

88Warrior said:

---

Imho it's either 100% belief or none..I don't think Jesus is going to say to us when we enter heaven "See…I am real…why were you unsure all these years?"

---

Yep. I do not understand how you can believe "80%" in Jesus.

---

I'll offer what might be a stupid analogy that I could end up regretting - but it is the first thing that comes to mind.

I imagine an economist who studies hundreds of different economic policies or variations of policies with the purpose of achieving some goal. And after careful consideration decides on one policy as being the most likely to succeed toward that goal. The economist may feel a very high degree of certainty that their chosen policy is best, but its hard to imagine They would take the position that they believe they are unquestionably and absolutely 100% correct and that all other policies are simply wrong. Likely, the economist recognizes the limits to what models, historical data, or other tools can conclude. Similarly, I can image that the economist has a group of different economist whom he respects and has a high opinion of. Should they arrive at different conclusions, it might cause our first economist to consider a possibility that there is merit to their modeling and predictions.

Yeah, the analogy falls a part a bit under some inspection. But, what I'm trying to demonstrate is someone who confidently holds a belief, but acknowledges less than 100% certainty of their correctness due to natural limitations.

In the case of knowledge about the truth of meaning and purpose of existence, the nature of God, the truth of Jesus, that limiting factor is our fallible human brain.

For 100% certainty to be justified, I think I would argue for a requirement that your brain be infallible.

---

Love you but I do not think like that. Each to his own.

---

To each their own indeed. I don't see the fact that people think differently as a negative. My post above is more about how I think and not intended as an indictment on how anyone else thinks.

For the group:

At this point in the thread, I'm drawn to another question . . . I'm going to try my best to phrase it as well as I can, don't read anything into it if it comes off as brash.

Something that I have taken from this thread is that a lot of Christians think that both:
a) Truth through Christianity can be known with 100% certainty and
b) The act of viewing the world through non-Christian perspectives is problematic or possibly not consistent with Christian thinking. I think someone went so far as to call empathy dangerous.

I don't mean to attribute both of these ideas broadly to everyone. But, I think that I've heard very little that makes me think I cannot apply both a) and b) to the posters here. Please don't think I am attributing these thoughts to everyone here.

My question is - once you've accepted a) and b), what guard is there against closed mindedness or philosophical dogmatism. It seems to me that if you are 100% convinced you are correct and are openly unwilling to consider a possibility of being wrong or to even consider a topic from any other viewpoint, you put yourself in this position of being unwilling or unable to engage with any opposing view in any way other than in simply discarding it out of hand or judge it as wrong.

To make it more relevant to us talking here. . . what is the point of threads like this? I am more than happy to share what I think and believe here. But, if you all have decided (before I even open my mouth), that I am 100% wrong and that there should be no consideration of my perspective, I don't see the point of this. Do we engage in these threads because we want to win a debate and show the other side as foolish? Or is the only point in engaging with someone like me for proselytism? Just as I imagine you have little interest in me actively trying to convince you to leave your religion, I also have very little interest in being preached at.

So, what do you get out of these conversations? You already know I'm wrong, you are 100% certain you are right, you won't consider a different perspective or the possibility of being wrong . . . what are we doing here?

---

I think that you are forgetting that most here have absolutely viewed and lived the perspective you are talking about. I will speak for myself, so that I don't say something about other posters that may not be true. I have lived just like you are saying, and have viewed the world through the exact same perspective. I did that for 25+ years. So to say "we" have no idea of the perspective you are talking about is just not true. Most of us would readily admit we had those views for some, or a lot of, our lives.

I do think that before we "open our mouths", you have decided we are 100% wrong. "We" have lived and viewed both sides of the perspective and yet you are 100% we are wrong and you are right. Who is not considering the other perspective in this conversation? I will say it again, most, if not all, have lived the life view and perspective you are "preaching", therefore we have a genuine understanding of what you are saying and we are simply engaging in the discussion as we see it through our new perspective. You don't have to hear what we are saying, but we sincerely hope you do.

I'm curious, if you don't want the sort of discussion we are engaging in, then why did you start the conversation to begin with. Why are you still weeks later engaging in it? I think because God is pulling you into it, which in my eyes is a beautiful thing. I hope you can see it that way as well.

---

Great post. I have also lived from the perspective described by Kurt.

And maybe I am misreading Kurt, but he posts as if none of us have ever considered his viewpoint.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

birddog7000 said:

---

KV - I have not completely caught up on all of this thread, but I think God is calling to you. I think your returning to this thread is one way he is reaching you. God has placed it on the hearts of quite a few people here to share with you.

I would like to pose a question. Can you define love in measurable terms? And if you can define love in some sort of measurable terms, which I'm sure you can, why is it that something that you cannot see, cannot hear, cannot touch, and cannot taste or smell is explainable at all? Why would anyone believe it? And as I'm sure you know, some people do not believe in it. Because they either have never felt it, or refuse to acknowledge it when they do feel it. But the population that does not believe in the feeling called love is minuscule, so therefore love is widely recognized just by saying the word, it is its own definition.

Our relationship with God is a stronger and more real experience than the experience of love. It is just not explainable to someone who is actively rejecting the idea that we could be having this experience because they themselves are not experiencing it.

If you want to "prove" the experience is real, seek Him out. God will shower you with His love, grace, and mercy if you are sincere in your request to know Him. If He is calling you closer to Him I am hopeful you will be still and hear Him.

---

On the heels of what I just wrote . . . I don't think I can provide a response to this that makes any sense to you unless you are willing to consider a different perspective. This is a world full of different religions and philosophies to whom the followers all universally believe that their thing provides a unique and superior spiritual experience. The fact that there are 10,000 schools of Christianity further reinforces the idea, in my mind, that people are now just pursuing their own 'designer' religion that maximizes that dopamine hit you get from the experience.

I'm happy to answer your question more directly, but first indulge me with something. Are you actually interested in what I think about love and the experiences you've listed? Or have you already decided that anything I say that contradicts your beliefs can be discarded and that my perspective should be ignored?

Its a strange thing for someone to tell you that how you think and how you experience the world is wrong. To use an overly simplified analogy - imagine that you told me that pizza was your favorite food and I said. . . ."nah, thats not right. You just aren't tasting the food I think is best in the correct way." What do you even say to something like that?

---

I would agree that it is strange to think everyone is experiencing something you are not. My above response would say I have wondered why someone could tell me the same thing. And I resisted those people saying it for years.

Please enlighten me on your thoughts on love. I am genuinely interested. If it doesn't change my perspective will you think I'm wrong?

I don't get a dopamine hit from my relationship with God.

I don't think this is the best place to discuss these types of deep topics. I look forward to hearing your thoughts on love and will spend some time considering them before I reply. But I also want to give you an invitation to reach out to me at any time you want to discuss life and God over the phone, or if feasible, in person. If that is something you would consider I'll pass my number along to you.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

birddog7000 said:

---

KV - I have not completely caught up on all of this thread, but I think God is calling to you. I think your returning to this thread is one way he is reaching you. God has placed it on the hearts of quite a few people here to share with you.

I would like to pose a question. Can you define love in measurable terms? And if you can define love in some sort of measurable terms, which I'm sure you can, why is it that something that you cannot see, cannot hear, cannot touch, and cannot taste or smell is explainable at all? Why would anyone believe it? And as I'm sure you know, some people do not believe in it. Because they either have never felt it, or refuse to acknowledge it when they do feel it. But the population that does not believe in the feeling called love is minuscule, so therefore love is widely recognized just by saying the word, it is its own definition.

Our relationship with God is a stronger and more real experience than the experience of love. It is just not explainable to someone who is actively rejecting the idea that we could be having this experience because they themselves are not experiencing it.

If you want to "prove" the experience is real, seek Him out. God will shower you with His love, grace, and mercy if you are sincere in your request to know Him. If He is calling you closer to Him I am hopeful you will be still and hear Him.

---

On the heels of what I just wrote . . . I don't think I can provide a response to this that makes any sense to you unless you are willing to consider a different perspective. This is a world full of different religions and philosophies to whom the followers all universally believe that their thing provides a unique and superior spiritual experience. The fact that there are 10,000 schools of Christianity further reinforces the idea, in my mind, that people are now just pursuing their own 'designer' religion that maximizes that dopamine hit you get from the experience.

I'm happy to answer your question more directly, but first indulge me with something. Are you actually interested in what I think about love and the experiences you've listed? Or have you already decided that anything I say that contradicts your beliefs can be discarded and that my perspective should be ignored?

Its a strange thing for someone to tell you that how you think and how you experience the world is wrong. To use an overly simplified analogy - imagine that you told me that pizza was your favorite food and I said. . . ."nah, thats not right. You just aren't tasting the food I think is best in the correct way." What do you even say to something like that?

---

My last comment on this particular thread because I think we're just talking in a "loop" and ending up right back where we started…I think you're asking of us (Christians) what you're unwilling to do yourself. And to be fair maybe you're incapable of looking at it from a Christian perspective because you haven't experienced or are resistant to God and the ever presence of the Holy Spirit. No one can will you or talk you into being a Christian…Ultimately that is between you and God..We can only share our experiences and give life examples (yes, some without the verifiably scientific proof that you seek) of what it's done in our lives…I'll turn the tables and ask you why do you post so much on these religious threads? What is your motivation? Personally I think (like the poster above eluded to) you are searching or looking for something..maybe it's what you don't believe in that is guiding you back to these topics?? I wish you well and peace be with you!

birddog7000 said:

---

I think that you are forgetting that most here have absolutely viewed and lived the perspective you are talking about. I will speak for myself, so that I don't say something about other posters that may not be true. I have lived just like you are saying, and have viewed the world through the exact same perspective. I did that for 25+ years. So to say "we" have no idea of the perspective you are talking about is just not true. Most of us would readily admit we had those views for some, or a lot of, our lives.

I do think that before we "open our mouths", you have decided we are 100% wrong. "We" have lived and viewed both sides of the perspective and yet you are 100% we are wrong and you are right. Who is not considering the other perspective in this conversation? I will say it again, most, if not all, have lived the life view and perspective you are "preaching", therefore we have a genuine understanding of what you are saying and we are simply engaging in the discussion as we see it through our new perspective. You don't have to hear what we are saying, but we sincerely hope you do.

I'm curious, if you don't want the sort of discussion we are engaging in, then why did you start the conversation to begin with. Why are you still weeks later engaging in it? I think because God is pulling you into it, which in my eyes is a beautiful thing. I hope you can see it that way as well.

---

Thank you for the response. I began this thread in response to a comment on another thread that said that without God, life and everything is meaningless. What I intended to do with the thread is to state that I did not think that God was necessary to live a life with meaning and purpose - albeit, not the same type of eternal or universal purpose and meaning.

First, It is probably not exactly correct to assume that all atheist/agnostic views are identical - just as I don't think its fair to say that all Christians have the same views. But, I do absolutely accept that you and many others here have likely spent some quantity of time as non-believers or else believing in something different from what you believe in now. My expectation is that during that time period, you all likely found meaning and purpose in friends, family, learning, and other things. In which case, I do believe you have some understanding of my perspective. And if that is the case, I think that contradicts what some of the others posted where they stated a direct opposition toward being willing to consider my perspective. And thats totally fine too - but then it sorta misses the point of the thread. If I've conflated you with something someone else posted, then I apologize.

Banned, for example provided several excellent posts where he described how he (and his wife) might change or alter their values should they stop believing. Without saying anything approving is disapproving of the specific content of those posts, I very much appreciated him sharing those thoughts.

I disagree that I have decided you are 100% wrong. There are absolutely arguments for the existence of God that I find valuable. And there are many parts of Christian teaching that I think is beautiful. I think I've been open on this board that I very much understand the concerns and potential issues with my worldview. And to many of those concerns and issues, I simply have no answer.

As to the question of who is not considering who's perspective in this conversation. . . . I think that is unfair. I started this thread asking you to look at my perspective. Go start a thread asking me to look at things through your perspective, and I will happily do just that. If you start a thread asking me to look at things through your perspective and I judge your conclusions through my own lenses, haven't I missed the mark?

I engage in these threads because I want to learn. I can say without a shadow of a doubt that my ten plus years here have shaped the way I understand Christians and Christianity. It doesn't mean that I am closer to agreeing with it, but I have a deeper understanding of it and the various views. And, maybe more importantly, I think I have a deeper appreciation of just how important and central these ideas are to many of you. The more I learn about what makes you tick, the better I can understand you and the billions of my fellow human beings that believe similar to you. This thread was to talk about what makes me tick. If you are not interested in learning about me or if you feel you already know everything about me because you used to not believe. . . then thats fine.

dermdoc said:

---

Great post. I have also lived from the perspective described by Kurt.

And maybe I am misreading Kurt, but he posts as if none of us have ever considered his viewpoint.

---

Didn't you post on page 1 that you've always been a Christian?

88Warrior said:

---

My last comment on this particular thread because I think we're just talking in a "loop" and ending up right back where we started…I think you're asking of us (Christians) what you're unwilling to do yourself. And to be fair maybe you're incapable of looking at it from a Christian perspective because you haven't experienced or are resistant to God and the ever presence of the Holy Spirit. No one can will you or talk you into being a Christian…Ultimately that is between you and God..We can only share our experiences and give life examples (yes, some without the verifiably scientific proof that you seek) of what it's done in our lives…I'll turn the tables and ask you why do you post so much on these religious threads? What is your motivation? Personally I think (like the poster above eluded to) you are searching or looking for something..maybe it's what you don't believe in that is guiding you back to these topics?? I wish you well and peace be with you!

---

I mean, for %#*(% sake guys, go through my last 10 years of posting on this board. Half of it falls into the category of why I think you are wrong and the other half falls squarely into the category of asking about your views or trying to view things through your perspective.

Ok, maybe more than half is about why you are wrong. But, my point remains. This is all deflection.

birddog7000 said:

---

I would like to pose a question. Can you define love in measurable terms? And if you can define love in some sort of measurable terms, which I'm sure you can, why is it that something that you cannot see, cannot hear, cannot touch, and cannot taste or smell is explainable at all? Why would anyone believe it? And as I'm sure you know, some people do not believe in it. Because they either have never felt it, or refuse to acknowledge it when they do feel it. But the population that does not believe in the feeling called love is minuscule, so therefore love is widely recognized just by saying the word, it is its own definition.

Our relationship with God is a stronger and more real experience than the experience of love. It is just not explainable to someone who is actively rejecting the idea that we could be having this experience because they themselves are not experiencing it.

If you want to "prove" the experience is real, seek Him out. God will shower you with His love, grace, and mercy if you are sincere in your request to know Him. If He is calling you closer to Him I am hopeful you will be still and hear Him.

---

I'm trying to respond to this based on where you wanted to go with this topic. Steer me if I've gone the wrong way.

Defining love in measurable terms is difficult. I am sure there is a neuroscientist out there somewhere that thinks they can map the emotion through brain scans and quantify it as a natural phenomenon. And while there may be something interesting to learn by studying love that way, it fails to capture 'what love feels like' and how / why it is important to us. The fact that just about everyone experiences this emotion and describes it with reasonably similar language is a good reason to consider it to be generally part of the human experience.

Brain studies do show a lot of common ground in how people experience love on a purely physical level inside the brain, but even those studies show variations. Which might suggest that we all experience love similarly, but slightly differently.

'Truth' falls into different categories. For simplicity sake, lets say the categories are 'objective' and 'personal' (subjective). If I have 5 fingers on my left hand, this is an objective truth. It is something true regardless of opinion, belief, experience, whatever. If I say that blue is the best color, this is a personal truth. It is a truth that is dependent on personal experience or opinion. I tend to put love in the personal truth category. While you might be able to assign love some objective definition based on a scan of what is happening in someone's brain, I think that assignment fails to capture what we mean when we say we love someone. When we talk about someone we love, we mean to describe the subjective / personal experience. And it is not meant as a universal. For example, "I love my wife" is a personal truth and not an universal truth.

Religion can be tricky, because there are claims that are absolutely objective. God exists or does not exist independent of human opinion or experience. What God's love is, or feels like, or means is something we experience on a personal level, and not on some measurable scientific level.

The way you describe your relationship with God or God's love will differ from person to person and from religion to religion. While there may be some commonalities, I would object to the claim that all people experience God or God's love in the same way. So, when you describe your relationship with God, I categorize this as personal truth. And personal truth is important. But, I feel it is distinct from objective truth.

I do not doubt your personal truths. What I object to (and maybe you are not doing this) is when someone says 'nope, your personal truths are wrong' as though you know what it feels like to be that person. We all only know what it feels like to be ourselves.

edit: to answer your final paragraph . . . If I should seek out God and God's love and reach a different conclusion, will you tell me I'm wrong? That I have incorrectly felt / not felt. Like I said before, it seems strange to have someone tell you that what you feel and what you experience is wrong on the basis that it does not match someone else's specific feeling and experience.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Great post. I have also lived from the perspective described by Kurt.

And maybe I am misreading Kurt, but he posts as if none of us have ever considered his viewpoint.

---

Didn't you post on page 1 that you've always been a Christian?

---

I said I HAD always been a Christian but went through a period of doubt and disbelief. Maybe I did not specify it enough.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

birddog7000 said:

---

I think that you are forgetting that most here have absolutely viewed and lived the perspective you are talking about. I will speak for myself, so that I don't say something about other posters that may not be true. I have lived just like you are saying, and have viewed the world through the exact same perspective. I did that for 25+ years. So to say "we" have no idea of the perspective you are talking about is just not true. Most of us would readily admit we had those views for some, or a lot of, our lives.

I do think that before we "open our mouths", you have decided we are 100% wrong. "We" have lived and viewed both sides of the perspective and yet you are 100% we are wrong and you are right. Who is not considering the other perspective in this conversation? I will say it again, most, if not all, have lived the life view and perspective you are "preaching", therefore we have a genuine understanding of what you are saying and we are simply engaging in the discussion as we see it through our new perspective. You don't have to hear what we are saying, but we sincerely hope you do.

I'm curious, if you don't want the sort of discussion we are engaging in, then why did you start the conversation to begin with. Why are you still weeks later engaging in it? I think because God is pulling you into it, which in my eyes is a beautiful thing. I hope you can see it that way as well.

---

Thank you for the response. I began this thread in response to a comment on another thread that said that without God, life and everything is meaningless. What I intended to do with the thread is to state that I did not think that God was necessary to live a life with meaning and purpose - albeit, not the same type of eternal or universal purpose and meaning.

First, It is probably not exactly correct to assume that all atheist/agnostic views are identical - just as I don't think its fair to say that all Christians have the same views. But, I do absolutely accept that you and many others here have likely spent some quantity of time as non-believers or else believing in something different from what you believe in now. My expectation is that during that time period, you all likely found meaning and purpose in friends, family, learning, and other things. In which case, I do believe you have some understanding of my perspective. And if that is the case, I think that contradicts what some of the others posted where they stated a direct opposition toward being willing to consider my perspective. And thats totally fine too - but then it sorta misses the point of the thread. If I've conflated you with something someone else posted, then I apologize.

Banned, for example provided several excellent posts where he described how he (and his wife) might change or alter their values should they stop believing. Without saying anything approving is disapproving of the specific content of those posts, I very much appreciated him sharing those thoughts.

I disagree that I have decided you are 100% wrong. There are absolutely arguments for the existence of God that I find valuable. And there are many parts of Christian teaching that I think is beautiful. I think I've been open on this board that I very much understand the concerns and potential issues with my worldview. And to many of those concerns and issues, I simply have no answer.

As to the question of who is not considering who's perspective in this conversation. . . . I think that is unfair. I started this thread asking you to look at my perspective. Go start a thread asking me to look at things through your perspective, and I will happily do just that. If you start a thread asking me to look at things through your perspective and I judge your conclusions through my own lenses, haven't I missed the mark?

I engage in these threads because I want to learn. I can say without a shadow of a doubt that my ten plus years here have shaped the way I understand Christians and Christianity. It doesn't mean that I am closer to agreeing with it, but I have a deeper understanding of it and the various views. And, maybe more importantly, I think I have a deeper appreciation of just how important and central these ideas are to many of you. The more I learn about what makes you tick, the better I can understand you and the billions of my fellow human beings that believe similar to you. This thread was to talk about what makes me tick. If you are not interested in learning about me or if you feel you already know everything about me because you used to not believe. . . then thats fine.

---

Based off of the last sentence in your OP:

"I want to argue that I don't really think you all actually believe this."

It seems you got exactly what you thought you wanted.

I think I, and many others have hit the mark of the discussion you were trying to start, but based off this and some of your other replies you only want to confirm/affirm your outlook on life. Which ironically is what you are accusing us Christians of doing. Which is ok, like you said, it's human nature to want to confirm/affirm your own way of doing things.

I have read your response about love and will read it again after I've thought it over some. I am definitely interested in what makes you tick. I'll reply later.

birddog7000 said:

---

Based off of the last sentence in your OP:

"I want to argue that I don't really think you all actually believe this."

It seems you got exactly what you thought you wanted.

I think I, and many others have hit the mark of the discussion you were trying to start, but based off this and some of your other replies you only want to confirm/affirm your outlook on life. Which ironically is what you are accusing us Christians of doing. Which is ok, like you said, it's human nature to want to confirm/affirm your own way of doing things.

I have read your response about love and will read it again after I've thought it over some. I am definitely interested in what makes you tick. I'll reply later.

---

That quote needs the context of its paragraph. If you are hung up on the word 'argue', maybe it was a poor choice of words.

I don't care if you confirm / affirm my views. I'm asking you to tell me what views you might come to given different presuppositions. And it is my opinion that those view are likely less draconian than the way they are portrayed by some.

Banned wrote a perfectly good response where he described how he (and then his wife) might change their lives should they not have a belief in God. Banned's in particular did NOT really affirm my position, and thats fine. As far as I'm concerned, he is the only one that understood the assignment. And when that happens, its usually the fault of the person creating the assignment. So much of the confusion likely had to do with how I phrased the original post. I feel like I've spend half the thread explaining that I was looking for in the thread and then having people ignore that and tell me that I was actually looking for something else. Like I said, chalk it up to poor wording.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

birddog7000 said:

---

Based off of the last sentence in your OP:

"I want to argue that I don't really think you all actually believe this."

It seems you got exactly what you thought you wanted.

I think I, and many others have hit the mark of the discussion you were trying to start, but based off this and some of your other replies you only want to confirm/affirm your outlook on life. Which ironically is what you are accusing us Christians of doing. Which is ok, like you said, it's human nature to want to confirm/affirm your own way of doing things.

I have read your response about love and will read it again after I've thought it over some. I am definitely interested in what makes you tick. I'll reply later.

---

That quote needs the context of its paragraph. If you are hung up on the word 'argue', maybe it was a poor choice of words.

I don't care if you confirm / affirm my views. I'm asking you to tell me what views you might come to given different presuppositions. And it is my opinion that those view are likely less draconian than the way they are portrayed by some.

Banned wrote a perfectly good response where he described how he (and then his wife) might change their lives should they not have a belief in God. Banned's in particular did NOT really affirm my position, and thats fine. As far as I'm concerned, he is the only one that understood the assignment. And when that happens, its usually the fault of the person creating the assignment. So much of the confusion likely had to do with how I phrased the original post. I feel like I've spend half the thread explaining that I was looking for in the thread and then having people ignore that and tell me that I was actually looking for something else. Like I said, chalk it up to poor wording.

---

I will be perfectly honest that I have zero idea what you want from us.

I, and other posters, have said we understood your world view and had even entertained it. But rejected it and embraced Christianity.

Maybe I am too simple minded.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

birddog7000 said:

---

Based off of the last sentence in your OP:

"I want to argue that I don't really think you all actually believe this."

It seems you got exactly what you thought you wanted.

I think I, and many others have hit the mark of the discussion you were trying to start, but based off this and some of your other replies you only want to confirm/affirm your outlook on life. Which ironically is what you are accusing us Christians of doing. Which is ok, like you said, it's human nature to want to confirm/affirm your own way of doing things.

I have read your response about love and will read it again after I've thought it over some. I am definitely interested in what makes you tick. I'll reply later.

---

That quote needs the context of its paragraph. If you are hung up on the word 'argue', maybe it was a poor choice of words.

I don't care if you confirm / affirm my views. I'm asking you to tell me what views you might come to given different presuppositions. And it is my opinion that those view are likely less draconian than the way they are portrayed by some.

Banned wrote a perfectly good response where he described how he (and then his wife) might change their lives should they not have a belief in God. Banned's in particular did NOT really affirm my position, and thats fine. As far as I'm concerned, he is the only one that understood the assignment. And when that happens, its usually the fault of the person creating the assignment. So much of the confusion likely had to do with how I phrased the original post. I feel like I've spend half the thread explaining that I was looking for in the thread and then having people ignore that and tell me that I was actually looking for something else. Like I said, chalk it up to poor wording.

---

Maybe it is all just poor wording and misunderstanding but you did use the word argue in some form 3 times in that paragraph. And to correct myself, it was the last sentence in the 1st paragraph. I had mistyped my post.

I did say in my first post on this thread that we (Christians) do not think about meaning outside of existence with God. I will hold firm to that statement. We haven't forgotten our past, and therefore we can understand your view and remember a time we held similar views, but we do not look at our current life or our future without including God in it.

To keep the replies to a minimum, I'll respond to your post on love. Your personal truth, KV loves his wife, is as true of a truth to me as it is you. Just because she isn't my wife doesn't make your love for her any less of a truth. And if I spent any time around the two of you I would probably be able to say, KV loves his wife, without ever feeling any love at all for either of you. I would argue that most of us, after some observation, could objectively say that it is true KV loves his wife. Just like we can see the 5 fingers of a hand.

Love is subjective and personal, and as both you and I said it is not universal. But such a large portion of the population understands love that most of us have a great grasp of its meaning which is why I think it is a good unseen but observable (both personally and as a bystander) truth that we can use to partially describe the relationship we have with God.

I hope you have not been frustrated by our discussion, I do not intend to "argue", but it is a discussion board. If I ever start a thread about my personal experience, please feel free to argue with me as much as I'm willing to come back for more.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

birddog7000 said:

---

I would like to pose a question. Can you define love in measurable terms? And if you can define love in some sort of measurable terms, which I'm sure you can, why is it that something that you cannot see, cannot hear, cannot touch, and cannot taste or smell is explainable at all? Why would anyone believe it? And as I'm sure you know, some people do not believe in it. Because they either have never felt it, or refuse to acknowledge it when they do feel it. But the population that does not believe in the feeling called love is minuscule, so therefore love is widely recognized just by saying the word, it is its own definition.

Our relationship with God is a stronger and more real experience than the experience of love. It is just not explainable to someone who is actively rejecting the idea that we could be having this experience because they themselves are not experiencing it.

If you want to "prove" the experience is real, seek Him out. God will shower you with His love, grace, and mercy if you are sincere in your request to know Him. If He is calling you closer to Him I am hopeful you will be still and hear Him.

---

I'm trying to respond to this based on where you wanted to go with this topic. Steer me if I've gone the wrong way.

Defining love in measurable terms is difficult. I am sure there is a neuroscientist out there somewhere that thinks they can map the emotion through brain scans and quantify it as a natural phenomenon. And while there may be something interesting to learn by studying love that way, it fails to capture 'what love feels like' and how / why it is important to us. The fact that just about everyone experiences this emotion and describes it with reasonably similar language is a good reason to consider it to be generally part of the human experience.

Brain studies do show a lot of common ground in how people experience love on a purely physical level inside the brain, but even those studies show variations. Which might suggest that we all experience love similarly, but slightly differently.

'Truth' falls into different categories. For simplicity sake, lets say the categories are 'objective' and 'personal' (subjective). If I have 5 fingers on my left hand, this is an objective truth. It is something true regardless of opinion, belief, experience, whatever. If I say that blue is the best color, this is a personal truth. It is a truth that is dependent on personal experience or opinion. I tend to put love in the personal truth category. While you might be able to assign love some objective definition based on a scan of what is happening in someone's brain, I think that assignment fails to capture what we mean when we say we love someone. When we talk about someone we love, we mean to describe the subjective / personal experience. And it is not meant as a universal. For example, "I love my wife" is a personal truth and not an universal truth.

Religion can be tricky, because there are claims that are absolutely objective. God exists or does not exist independent of human opinion or experience. What God's love is, or feels like, or means is something we experience on a personal level, and not on some measurable scientific level.

The way you describe your relationship with God or God's love will differ from person to person and from religion to religion. While there may be some commonalities, I would object to the claim that all people experience God or God's love in the same way. So, when you describe your relationship with God, I categorize this as personal truth. And personal truth is important. But, I feel it is distinct from objective truth.

I do not doubt your personal truths. What I object to (and maybe you are not doing this) is when someone says 'nope, your personal truths are wrong' as though you know what it feels like to be that person. We all only know what it feels like to be ourselves.

edit: to answer your final paragraph . . . If I should seek out God and God's love and reach a different conclusion, will you tell me I'm wrong? That I have incorrectly felt / not felt. Like I said before, it seems strange to have someone tell you that what you feel and what you experience is wrong on the basis that it does not match someone else's specific feeling and experience.

---

I forgot to reply to your edit:

I would say that if you sincerely seek out God and God's love you will receive it. If you seek it out with the intent of disproving it, you will not. I'm looking forward to hearing about your experience! I hope you choose to open your heart to Him!

I don't have time to delve deeply into the conversation now, but I do want to say thank you for KV for starting it and for others that have contributed. Personally, I have enjoyed it and feel I have grown in my understanding of other perspectives; even other Christians. I will be out of pocket for a week or so, but look forward to catching up on my return.

birddog7000 said:

---

Maybe it is all just poor wording and misunderstanding but you did use the word argue in some form 3 times in that paragraph. And to correct myself, it was the last sentence in the 1st paragraph. I had mistyped my post.

I did say in my first post on this thread that we (Christians) do not think about meaning outside of existence with God. I will hold firm to that statement. We haven't forgotten our past, and therefore we can understand your view and remember a time we held similar views, but we do not look at our current life or our future without including God in it.

To keep the replies to a minimum, I'll respond to your post on love. Your personal truth, KV loves his wife, is as true of a truth to me as it is you. Just because she isn't my wife doesn't make your love for her any less of a truth. And if I spent any time around the two of you I would probably be able to say, KV loves his wife, without ever feeling any love at all for either of you. I would argue that most of us, after some observation, could objectively say that it is true KV loves his wife. Just like we can see the 5 fingers of a hand.

Love is subjective and personal, and as both you and I said it is not universal. But such a large portion of the population understands love that most of us have a great grasp of its meaning which is why I think it is a good unseen but observable (both personally and as a bystander) truth that we can use to partially describe the relationship we have with God.

I hope you have not been frustrated by our discussion, I do not intend to "argue", but it is a discussion board. If I ever start a thread about my personal experience, please feel free to argue with me as much as I'm willing to come back for more.

---

Read my posts using these definitions:

argue
[ol]

give reasons or cite evidence in support of an idea, action, or theory.

exchange or express diverging or opposite views

[/ol]
Surely, the word 'argue' is often used in a different way, thus my admission to the poor choice of words.

-----------------------

Lets consider the statement: "I love my wife". The statement is based on a lot of personal experience that I have with her which affects me and invokes emotion in me that I refer to as love. Because you are familiar with the emotion, you have no trouble in accepting the truth of the statement "KV loves his wife". But, my personal experience telling me that I love my wife, does not mean that you love my wife also. And there is not a necessity that my personal truth be everyone's personal truth.

I think you would probably say that you love everyone - at least in a general 'love all God's children' sorta way. And on top of that we can experience love that is romantic in nature or love that is more platonic. To make this not sound weird, lets assume that I'm not talking about platonic love. . . .

Lets say you meet my wife and get to know her. And after you meet her, you decide you don't really care for her. You love her in the general 'love everyone' way perhaps, but there isn't an emotional connection, you just don't get along or have anything in common. Now lets say I tell you that you should give her another chance that I know that if you give it a good sincere chance, you'll absolutely love her. So, you try again and get the same result. While it is your truth that "KV loves his wife", it is not necessarily true that you must love her also (at least not in the same way). At some point, it would become weird if I continued to insist that you would definitely love her if you just kept trying and giving it a more sincere try.

Whatever personal truths you have regarding God or your relationship to God are your personal truths. And it may be my truth that you, birddog, possess those personal truths. But, it doesn't follow that I must also share the same personal truths about God or my relationship to God.

So earlier I asked the question: If I should give Christianity a good sincere try and open myself up, but either reach a different conclusion, or no conclusion, or a contradictory conclusion - will you accept those as my personal truth? Or is it the case that as long as my personal experience differs from yours, then I must be doing it wrong?

These subjective truths about God might have some foundation in something objectively true. For example, it could be objectively true that God loves us. But, so long as our access to that truth is limited to personal experience and subjective truth, then we don't really have a great way, its seems, to prioritize one subjective experience over the other. Your subjective truth tells of the Christian God. Someone else's subjective truth tells of some variation on the Christian God. And someone else's tells of a different God altogether. Or maybe no God at all. I do not discount all of these different and competing personal truths - but I have no way of interrogating those truths. All I can experience is what I experience.

So, you can keep telling me to give Christianity / God another try. But, at some point, you may be simply telling me that my personal experience or my personal truth is invalid because it conflicts with your own?

Your personal experience is not invalid but the truths you derive from your experience can be invalid.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

birddog7000 said:

---

Maybe it is all just poor wording and misunderstanding but you did use the word argue in some form 3 times in that paragraph. And to correct myself, it was the last sentence in the 1st paragraph. I had mistyped my post.

I did say in my first post on this thread that we (Christians) do not think about meaning outside of existence with God. I will hold firm to that statement. We haven't forgotten our past, and therefore we can understand your view and remember a time we held similar views, but we do not look at our current life or our future without including God in it.

To keep the replies to a minimum, I'll respond to your post on love. Your personal truth, KV loves his wife, is as true of a truth to me as it is you. Just because she isn't my wife doesn't make your love for her any less of a truth. And if I spent any time around the two of you I would probably be able to say, KV loves his wife, without ever feeling any love at all for either of you. I would argue that most of us, after some observation, could objectively say that it is true KV loves his wife. Just like we can see the 5 fingers of a hand.

Love is subjective and personal, and as both you and I said it is not universal. But such a large portion of the population understands love that most of us have a great grasp of its meaning which is why I think it is a good unseen but observable (both personally and as a bystander) truth that we can use to partially describe the relationship we have with God.

I hope you have not been frustrated by our discussion, I do not intend to "argue", but it is a discussion board. If I ever start a thread about my personal experience, please feel free to argue with me as much as I'm willing to come back for more.

---

Read my posts using these definitions:

argue
[ol]

give reasons or cite evidence in support of an idea, action, or theory.

exchange or express diverging or opposite views

[/ol]
Surely, the word 'argue' is often used in a different way, thus my admission to the poor choice of words.

-----------------------

Lets consider the statement: "I love my wife". The statement is based on a lot of personal experience that I have with her which affects me and invokes emotion in me that I refer to as love. Because you are familiar with the emotion, you have no trouble in accepting the truth of the statement "KV loves his wife". But, my personal experience telling me that I love my wife, does not mean that you love my wife also. And there is not a necessity that my personal truth be everyone's personal truth.

I think you would probably say that you love everyone - at least in a general 'love all God's children' sorta way. And on top of that we can experience love that is romantic in nature or love that is more platonic. To make this not sound weird, lets assume that I'm not talking about platonic love. . . .

Lets say you meet my wife and get to know her. And after you meet her, you decide you don't really care for her. You love her in the general 'love everyone' way perhaps, but there isn't an emotional connection, you just don't get along or have anything in common. Now lets say I tell you that you should give her another chance that I know that if you give it a good sincere chance, you'll absolutely love her. So, you try again and get the same result. While it is your truth that "KV loves his wife", it is not necessarily true that you must love her also (at least not in the same way). At some point, it would become weird if I continued to insist that you would definitely love her if you just kept trying and giving it a more sincere try.

Whatever personal truths you have regarding God or your relationship to God are your personal truths. And it may be my truth that you, birddog, possess those personal truths. But, it doesn't follow that I must also share the same personal truths about God or my relationship to God.

So earlier I asked the question: If I should give Christianity a good sincere try and open myself up, but either reach a different conclusion, or no conclusion, or a contradictory conclusion - will you accept those as my personal truth? Or is it the case that as long as my personal experience differs from yours, then I must be doing it wrong?

These subjective truths about God might have some foundation in something objectively true. For example, it could be objectively true that God loves us. But, so long as our access to that truth is limited to personal experience and subjective truth, then we don't really have a great way, its seems, to prioritize one subjective experience over the other. Your subjective truth tells of the Christian God. Someone else's subjective truth tells of some variation on the Christian God. And someone else's tells of a different God altogether. Or maybe no God at all. I do not discount all of these different and competing personal truths - but I have no way of interrogating those truths. All I can experience is what I experience.

So, you can keep telling me to give Christianity / God another try. But, at some point, you may be simply telling me that my personal experience or my personal truth is invalid because it conflicts with your own?

---

I completely understand what you're saying in your example. I only know as much about you as this message board provides me, so I appreciate some more insight into your life experience. Love, is both a feeling and a choice. When you "fall in love" that is because of feelings. When you continue to love your spouse after times get hard and it isn't a honeymoon anymore, that love is a choice.

It is the same with God, you can choose to love God. The access to the truth that God loves us is not only limited to personal experience, or subjective truth. It is given to us in the Bible. Which is a historical document with many authors over thousands of years that have the same message over and over and over. That God loves those that love him! The most quoted Bible verse in current times, John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." is a statement of the depth of God's love for us. To believe in, and love, God is a choice you make, and the creator of your heart knows whether you have sincerely made that choice or not.

I have not told you to give a relationship with God another try, I have simply said I hope you do, and I am praying you will. I live in todays world, so if you don't come up with the same personal experience as me, then I won't be surprised, but it will sadden me. Not because there is a scoreboard in the sky, or a checklist of converts on my dresser, but because what I want everyone to have what I have! I hope you have a blessed weekend.

Klaus Schwab said:

---

Your personal experience is not invalid but the truths you derive from your experience can be invalid.

---

Surely, this can be true for any of us, right?

Moot.


Perhaps they did make us in their image.....

"I give credence to fact that Roswell actually happened... bodies were recovered & .. their DNA was examined...same sequences found human genome".---------- John Ramirez, a former CIA official with 25 years of experience

kurt vonnegut said:

---

---

Tis something to ponder...

Hypothetical situation for an atheist/agnostic non God worshiper: Would it be immoral for a person to pretend to have faith and be in a relationship with God if that person didn't believe God existed. What if that person derived more happiness and peace of mind living in this pretend state. Kind of like Aggie football hoping to beat a better coached and more talented team. Don't the players still practice for the game and tell themselves they are going to win to build confidence and motivation. No one knows for sure the outcome of the game until they finish the game. But the team does their best to win, even if the odds are against them and they are UNCERTAIN of the outcome going before the game. If God didn't exist, there would be no moral universal/Godly standard that would prohibit an atheist from trying the worship and serving God experiment.

From my relationships with my atheist family and friends, a big barrier to believing in God is not having 100% earthly scientific proof. It doesn't make sense to them to believe in something that you are uncertain of (which on the surface makes sense).
It's a problem to look at the issue through that lens because
we have earthly tools (eyes, ears, brain, etc) to understand a God that can exist in ways we cannot even imagine with our earthly brains and experiences. What is humorous to me is that atheist and christians share the experience of earthly living by faith. We have faith in that we will live to next year, otherwise we might quit your job and spend more time with your family. Would we go to sleep tonight if we did not have ENOUGH faith to wake up in the morning. I have faith and hope that I will not die in a car crash on the freeway to work. If I was 100% certain that I would die in a crash, I probably would take a different route to work or stay at home.

Now, none of us know (from a scientific and Earthly viewpoint) for certain the outcome of this life and the afterlife until we die and meet our maker. Scripture reveals that faith comes from and is a gift from God. Jesus says your faith doesn't have to be perfect and can be as small as a mustard seed. He can work with that tiny seed and grow it into a mighty tree with time. Praying and reading the scriptures and inviting God into my life has given me the faith to where I can live my life with an assurance that He is real. Living in this state then opens me up to spiritual experiences throughout life that only deepens my faith as I age. I don't understand how the Holy Spirit works in me and gives me the faith. I also don't think God gives the gift of experiencing the spiritual experiences to people who chose to reject him. I am convinced God loves his creation and wants everyone to choose Him. I only know that I don't have enough faith to be an atheist after living as a practicing Christian and experiencing this for 30+ years.