Oldbear83 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BluesBear said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BluesBear said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

I don't necessarily doubt the possibility of such a being, but I also don't know how one could be proven or dis-proven definitively. That's why I'd like to hear from some of you who do believe in God -

---

"Philosophers can argue the existence of God, but it takes me just a few Google searches to show you the existence of the Devil"

I am convinced of the existence of Satan. If he exists then it stands to reason that God, his great enemy, also is real.

---

As a former Christian, one of the first core beliefs that I deconstructed was the idea of a literal Satan. In my opinion, many of the passages that refer to Satan in the Bible are using metaphorical or symbolic language to describe abstract concepts (for example, in the book of Revelation, Satan is described as a "dragon" with "horns" and "seven heads," which may be a metaphorical description of the corrupt power structures of the Roman Empire)

I definitely agree with you though that evil exists in this world and I have no problem summarizing this collective evil as "Satan".

---

Baylorjacket...let's pray that you find God again in your life. Deny Him means an eternity in Hell...

In fact, I would challenge this to you - - - Test God. Say to God " God, if you are real, then let me see evidence of this today/this week...."

---

Shouldn't my name have been written in the book of life already?

---

But you are openly denying the existence of Christ..How would you then believe that your name is written in the book of life?

---

I was an extremely devoted Christian for about 25+ years, and my practicing denomination held the belief that once you are saved and the Holy Spirit is indwelled inside you, you will always receive eternal salvation. I'm not arguing this is a correct interpretation, but it is a pretty commonly held position in the western church.

---

The doctrine might be better phrased as 'IF saved Always Saved'

And unfortunately, your position as an enemy of Christ parallels the faith walk, such as it was, of one Judas Iscariot.

---

Ah, the classic "you were never actually a Christian" argument.

While you will probably never believe me, I can tell you that I was ALL in on being a follower of Jesus Christ. I accepted Jesus Christ as my lord and savior, was baptized, felt what I believed at the time the Holy Spirit, worshiped Jesus daily, prayed daily, spent time in the word daily, was heavily involved in Church communities, went on and led mission trips both locally and foreign, led worship, and just about anything else you can think of.

---

And Judas spent years following Christ, doubtless believing he was just as much a disciple as Peter or John or any of the others.

Feelings do not define Reality, by the way.

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

There's something in that video I want to point out - it doesn't have anything to do with the historicity of Jesus or the existence of God, but it really demonstrates something I've been trying to get at:

In the video, Ehrman says that he believes that Jesus being buried in a tomb belonging to Joseph of Arimithea is NOT historic. He believes the early Christians made it up, so that they could claim there was an empty tomb. His "evidence" for that belief are other Latin and Greek texts that referenced crucifixions which said that the Romans left the bodies on the cross to rot or to be eaten by wild animals. His belief is, therefore, that Jesus would have been left on the cross, and could never have been in a tomb to begin with.

But do you see the problem with his logic here? Could there never have been any exceptions? There were none that were ever buried? Family members never begged or bribed the Roman soldiers for the body? Could Joseph of Arimithea, a rich man with influence, have paid or persuaded the authorities to have Jesus' body for a proper burial? In fact, John 19:38 suggests just that, when it states that Joseph had to obtain specific permission from Pontius Pilate to take Jesus' body. So, how is Ehrman not able to incorporate that into his thinking?

Ehrman automatically defaults to the belief that the story of Jesus' burial is fake, simply on the grounds that other texts say that generally doesn't happen with crucified bodies. But that just isn't a sufficient basis for that belief. That'd be like saying a story about someone who was caught speeding but was let off without a ticket is a fake story, because you read all these other accounts where people were speeding, and they all got a ticket, and you read police manuals which said that if they catch someone speeding, to ticket them. No intellectually honest and rational person would buy this argument.

Bart Ehrman is an intelligent guy, so I'm sure that he KNOWS this. So why does he promote a belief that is so logically untenable, that even a second grade logic student can defeat it? My personal opinion is that he does it because he knows there's a market for doubting Christianity, with perhaps millions out there seeking validation in their skepticism who will gladly buy his books and swallow his arguments wholesale. Excuses for not believing in Jesus is in great demand, so dispensing them can be very lucrative.

But regardless, here's the point: HOW you come to believe something, is just as, if not more, important that what you believe. Because if one's thinking process is marred with poor logic, bias, and an underlying agenda, you're NEVER going to fairly, rationally, and honestly deal with arguments, no matter what they are, whether it's for the existence of God, or the historicity of Jesus, or anything else. Waco1947 is the epitome of that. That's why I've been really trying to understand your thinking process behind the historicity of Jesus, because I think it can be revealing - are we dealing with an honest skeptic, or not? Right now, I can't say that we are, given what we've discussed before about evolution and intelligent design, and here, what you've argued so far about Jesus' historicity, as well as your unwillingness to go into it further. Am I wrong?

---

You mistake my indifference for being uncomfortable continuing the topic of the historicity of Jesus. I genuinely could not care less if Jesus literally existed or not. Don't get me wrong, it's a fun topic to think about as both sides bring good arguments to the table, but at the end of the day Jesus' existence to me is like the prophet Mohammed's or the Buddha's for you. I am significantly more interested in the history and culture of the times that caused these religions to rise and how people today interpret the passed down literature.

I understand you feel extremely confident that Jesus' existence is concrete, but I disagree with you, along with many scholars. Yes, I think there is a decent chance that THE Bart Ehrman is wrong on this topic. You can insult my intelligence or methodology of thinking, but you are the one who is unable to rationally and unbiasedly approach this topic as a Christian (which I 100% understand). If you really want to dive deep into the topic, start a new thread and I'll follow up there.

And please drop the macro evolution denying rhetoric. This is almost Flat earth territory and no one with at least an entry level understanding of biology and genetics will take you serious

---

If "both sides bring good arguments to the table", then WHAT is an argument from the myth side that sways you? Let's evaluate that. Give an example.

"I disagree with you, along with many scholars" - ok, which scholar? Which has an argument you found convincing? Btw, Bart Ehrman said that NO scholar that is relevant questions the existence of Jesus. So I'm very curious as to the scholar you cite and what their credentials are, and what their argument is.

---

Only a single writer included in the apologists' list can be considered a near contemporary of Jesus, although he was born after Jesus' supposed death, and his account was written some sixty years later. This writer is the Jewish historian Yoseph bar Mattatyahu, who is better known as Flavius Josephus. In the year 93 or 94, Josephus composed his Antiquities of the Jews, which includes two passages that are controversial and are frequently used as historical evidence for Jesus. One of these passages is the Testimonium Flavianum, a brief excerpt that interrupts an otherwise bleak chapter and provides an optimistic summary of Jesus' miraculous career. It reads as follows:
"Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was (the) Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day. " (Ant., book 18, chapter 3)

The passage in question is a clear forgery, and modern historians do not dispute that it was added by later Christian writers. The only point of contention is how much of it is fake. Despite this, some apologists continue to argue that Josephus originally wrote about Jesus, and that the account was later embellished by overzealous scribes. These apologists even go so far as to try and reconstruct the "original" Testimonium. However, there are several reasons to believe that the entire passage is an interpolation, including the use of non-Josephean vocabulary and terminology. Additionally, it does not fit in with the rest of the chapter, which speaks of a different "sad calamity" altogether. This "sad calamity" is mentioned in the following paragraph, and it is not related to the Testimonium in any way.

The most significant indication that this passage is a forgery is that it does not appear until the 4th century, despite Josephus' works being widely read and studied by scholars for over 300 years. There is no evidence that anyone had ever read or referred to the Testimonium until that time. Michael Hardwick, a Josephus scholar, claims that more than a dozen early Christian writers, including Justin Martyr, Theophilus Antiochenus, Melito of Sardis, Minucius Felix, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Julius Africanus, Pseudo-Justin, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Origen, Methodius, and Lactantius, had read and commented on Josephus' works, but none of them ever mentioned the Testimonium.

---

But, even if we accept the fact that this passage was altered, Josephus references Jesus elsewhere, when he writes about James, "the brother of Jesus". There is virtually no dispute that this is what Josephus himself wrote, that it was not an interpolation.

So, your argument that because ONE of the TWO passages from Josephus that references Jesus was a forgery... that shows Jesus didn't exist?? That doesn't even make any logical sense!

---

I used the first reference to Jesus, as it is the one commonly cited by Christian apologists, but excellent - I am glad we can both agree that this reference is a clear forgery. With regard to the reference to the brother of Jesus, it's worth considering the entire paragraph in question. Although some Josephus scholars dispute its authenticity (not a forgery but an interpolation like you said), let's assume for the sake of argument that Josephus did write this passage.

If we examine the rest of the paragraph, it becomes apparent that the Jesus in question is most likely Jesus, son of Damneus, who is mentioned just a few lines later. After Ananus arranges for the trial and execution of the "brother of Jesus," everyone is outraged, and King Agrippa removes Ananus from the high priesthood and installs Jesus, son of Damneus, in his place (Antiquities 20.203). This makes it plausible that Josephus was referring to Jesus, son of Damneus, when he mentioned "the brother of Jesus" earlier in the passage.

If this is the case, then there is no need to explain who this Jesus was or what "the Christ" meant, since Josephus had already identified him a few lines later. Moreover, it would clarify why the Jews were upset at the death of James and why his brother Jesus became high priest. Although it is impossible to prove conclusively without the discovery of an original Antiquities manuscript, these factors cast doubt on the traditional interpretation and suggest that there is room for reasonable doubt.

---

YIKES. It is beyond belief the desperate lengths you go, to protect your denial.

In his book Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus wrote:

"But this younger Ananus, who, as we told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent…He assembled the Sanhedrin of judges and brought before them the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, whose name was James, and some others. When he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them over to be stoned."

There is only ONE Jesus in history that was EVER known as or associated with being "the Christ". And no, it was NOT Jesus son of Damneus. You do know what that title meant, don't you? And this Jesus (of Nazareth) did have a brother named James as well. Josephus wrote "the Christ" specifically to distinguish him from the other 20 people in his writings named "Jesus" (Jesus son of Gamaliel, Jesus son of Damneus, etc) for which he would write "son of ---". Your explanation is a desperate reach, and makes absolutely no syntactical sense.

You can not be this dishonest, or this stupid, can you?

---

It is possible for people to have different interpretations of a text, and it is not helpful or productive to resort to personal attacks. If you disagree with my interpretation, that's fine, but let's discuss the reasoning behind our respective views in a respectful and constructive manner.

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

There's something in that video I want to point out - it doesn't have anything to do with the historicity of Jesus or the existence of God, but it really demonstrates something I've been trying to get at:

In the video, Ehrman says that he believes that Jesus being buried in a tomb belonging to Joseph of Arimithea is NOT historic. He believes the early Christians made it up, so that they could claim there was an empty tomb. His "evidence" for that belief are other Latin and Greek texts that referenced crucifixions which said that the Romans left the bodies on the cross to rot or to be eaten by wild animals. His belief is, therefore, that Jesus would have been left on the cross, and could never have been in a tomb to begin with.

But do you see the problem with his logic here? Could there never have been any exceptions? There were none that were ever buried? Family members never begged or bribed the Roman soldiers for the body? Could Joseph of Arimithea, a rich man with influence, have paid or persuaded the authorities to have Jesus' body for a proper burial? In fact, John 19:38 suggests just that, when it states that Joseph had to obtain specific permission from Pontius Pilate to take Jesus' body. So, how is Ehrman not able to incorporate that into his thinking?

Ehrman automatically defaults to the belief that the story of Jesus' burial is fake, simply on the grounds that other texts say that generally doesn't happen with crucified bodies. But that just isn't a sufficient basis for that belief. That'd be like saying a story about someone who was caught speeding but was let off without a ticket is a fake story, because you read all these other accounts where people were speeding, and they all got a ticket, and you read police manuals which said that if they catch someone speeding, to ticket them. No intellectually honest and rational person would buy this argument.

Bart Ehrman is an intelligent guy, so I'm sure that he KNOWS this. So why does he promote a belief that is so logically untenable, that even a second grade logic student can defeat it? My personal opinion is that he does it because he knows there's a market for doubting Christianity, with perhaps millions out there seeking validation in their skepticism who will gladly buy his books and swallow his arguments wholesale. Excuses for not believing in Jesus is in great demand, so dispensing them can be very lucrative.

But regardless, here's the point: HOW you come to believe something, is just as, if not more, important that what you believe. Because if one's thinking process is marred with poor logic, bias, and an underlying agenda, you're NEVER going to fairly, rationally, and honestly deal with arguments, no matter what they are, whether it's for the existence of God, or the historicity of Jesus, or anything else. Waco1947 is the epitome of that. That's why I've been really trying to understand your thinking process behind the historicity of Jesus, because I think it can be revealing - are we dealing with an honest skeptic, or not? Right now, I can't say that we are, given what we've discussed before about evolution and intelligent design, and here, what you've argued so far about Jesus' historicity, as well as your unwillingness to go into it further. Am I wrong?

---

You mistake my indifference for being uncomfortable continuing the topic of the historicity of Jesus. I genuinely could not care less if Jesus literally existed or not. Don't get me wrong, it's a fun topic to think about as both sides bring good arguments to the table, but at the end of the day Jesus' existence to me is like the prophet Mohammed's or the Buddha's for you. I am significantly more interested in the history and culture of the times that caused these religions to rise and how people today interpret the passed down literature.

I understand you feel extremely confident that Jesus' existence is concrete, but I disagree with you, along with many scholars. Yes, I think there is a decent chance that THE Bart Ehrman is wrong on this topic. You can insult my intelligence or methodology of thinking, but you are the one who is unable to rationally and unbiasedly approach this topic as a Christian (which I 100% understand). If you really want to dive deep into the topic, start a new thread and I'll follow up there.

And please drop the macro evolution denying rhetoric. This is almost Flat earth territory and no one with at least an entry level understanding of biology and genetics will take you serious

---

If "both sides bring good arguments to the table", then WHAT is an argument from the myth side that sways you? Let's evaluate that. Give an example.

"I disagree with you, along with many scholars" - ok, which scholar? Which has an argument you found convincing? Btw, Bart Ehrman said that NO scholar that is relevant questions the existence of Jesus. So I'm very curious as to the scholar you cite and what their credentials are, and what their argument is.

---

Only a single writer included in the apologists' list can be considered a near contemporary of Jesus, although he was born after Jesus' supposed death, and his account was written some sixty years later. This writer is the Jewish historian Yoseph bar Mattatyahu, who is better known as Flavius Josephus.

---

EARTH TO BAYLORJACKET, EARTH TO BAYLORJACKET -
We have the writings of Paul.

---

Interestingly, I deliberately excluded Paul from the category of contemporary accounts, as his writings do not offer anything resembling a firsthand or historical depiction of Jesus. Rather, in discussing their "Christ Jesus", earlier Christian writers like Paul often present him as a mythological figure who traverses the heavens and underworld, rather than as a flesh-and-blood human being. While Paul does mention Jesus' death, he never discusses it as an actual event that occurred to a real man from Galilee who lived on Earth for a few years. Additionally, Paul does not provide any details about Jesus' life or teachings, such as the places he traveled, the miracles he performed, or the parables he told. In fact, Paul appears to deny that Jesus performed any miracles, mocking those who demand "miraculous signs" (1 Cor. 1:22-23).

Throughout his letters, Paul emphasizes that scripture serves as the source of his gospel and knowledge of Christ, rather than personal experience or observation. According to Paul, the existence of the Savior was previously unknown and hidden away in heaven until revealed by God. Therefore, Paul and other epistle writers do not refer to any specific human Jesus but rather describe Christ as now present on Earth and sent by God, similar to how the Spirit of God and Son of God are treated interchangeably in some passages.

Some Christians suggest that Paul's silence on Jesus' earthly life is due to a lack of interest or a focus on more theological concerns. However, this explanation is weak given that Paul had extended opportunities to learn about Jesus' life and likely would have shared these experiences if he considered them significant. Moreover, the New Testament writers rarely cite Jesus' teachings or examples in their arguments, instead referring to the Jewish scriptures.

One commonly suggested explanation for the absence of references to Jesus' earthly life in Paul's writings is that he simply had no interest in it. However, this argument is unconvincing and seems to be a weak rationalization within Christianity. According to the Book of Acts, Paul quickly reported for duty to the elders in Jerusalem following his conversion. However, in his own account in Galatians, Paul indicates that he waited three years before making a brief visit to Jerusalem to meet with Peter and James. He did not return to Jerusalem for another fourteen years, during which time he could have had opportunities to learn more about Jesus' life.

Some scholars have argued that the New Testament writers, including Paul, simply did not have an occasion to mention Jesus' earthly life in their writings. However, this explanation is unconvincing given that there were numerous theological debates and issues within the early Christian church where Jesus' teachings or examples could have been cited, such as circumcision, salvation by grace or works, and taking supper with unbelievers. Instead, the writers of the New Testament frequently refer to the Jewish scriptures rather than to Jesus' teachings or life.

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BluesBear said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BluesBear said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

I don't necessarily doubt the possibility of such a being, but I also don't know how one could be proven or dis-proven definitively. That's why I'd like to hear from some of you who do believe in God -

---

"Philosophers can argue the existence of God, but it takes me just a few Google searches to show you the existence of the Devil"

I am convinced of the existence of Satan. If he exists then it stands to reason that God, his great enemy, also is real.

---

As a former Christian, one of the first core beliefs that I deconstructed was the idea of a literal Satan. In my opinion, many of the passages that refer to Satan in the Bible are using metaphorical or symbolic language to describe abstract concepts (for example, in the book of Revelation, Satan is described as a "dragon" with "horns" and "seven heads," which may be a metaphorical description of the corrupt power structures of the Roman Empire)

I definitely agree with you though that evil exists in this world and I have no problem summarizing this collective evil as "Satan".

---

Baylorjacket...let's pray that you find God again in your life. Deny Him means an eternity in Hell...

In fact, I would challenge this to you - - - Test God. Say to God " God, if you are real, then let me see evidence of this today/this week...."

---

Shouldn't my name have been written in the book of life already?

---

But you are openly denying the existence of Christ..How would you then believe that your name is written in the book of life?

---

I was an extremely devoted Christian for about 25+ years, and my practicing denomination held the belief that once you are saved and the Holy Spirit is indwelled inside you, you will always receive eternal salvation. I'm not arguing this is a correct interpretation, but it is a pretty commonly held position in the western church.

---

The doctrine might be better phrased as 'IF saved Always Saved'

And unfortunately, your position as an enemy of Christ parallels the faith walk, such as it was, of one Judas Iscariot.

---

Ah, the classic "you were never actually a Christian" argument.

While you will probably never believe me, I can tell you that I was ALL in on being a follower of Jesus Christ. I accepted Jesus Christ as my lord and savior, was baptized, felt what I believed at the time the Holy Spirit, worshiped Jesus daily, prayed daily, spent time in the word daily, was heavily involved in Church communities, went on and led mission trips both locally and foreign, led worship, and just about anything else you can think of.

---

And Judas spent years following Christ, doubtless believing he was just as much a disciple as Peter or John or any of the others.

Feelings do not define Reality, by the way.

---

If the gospels are genuinely true and Judas first hand witnesses miracles performed by Jesus, we can agree that he certainly made a poor choice stabbing Jesus in the back.

However, we find ourselves in a much different position 2000 years later where we have to look at the evidence presented to us and make a decision in what we believe in. You can call me an apostate, heretic, lunatic agnostic, or something similar (they all are valid) - but I ask you kindly to trust me when I say I was a genuine follower of Jesus for the majority of my life.

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

"I believe Jesus Christ was absolutely a real man, it seems silly to deem otherwise with a mountain of evidence." Baylorjacket 4/19/22

---

Do you really have nothing better to do on a Saturday night than to parse through my old posts from nearly a year ago on a football forum?

Yes - about a year ago I would have said that it is silly to not concretely believe that a historical Jesus existed. However, like I have already said, I have read many books on the topic, engaged and reflected on the subject, and this confidence has dropped over the past year.

You continuing to post my old quotes is not going to change anything.

---

Has that made your life better? Has losing faith improved any aspect of your life?

---

Thanks for the question Doc. In many ways, yes, aspects of my life has improved after losing faith. My mental and physical health have both improved as I've focused more on the present than eternity. My heart for social justice and ability to love others has also increased.

But don't get me wrong, it hasn't been a walk in the park. Losing my church community was very difficult, and as my close family are all believers, this has affected my relationship with them some as well. There have also been periods of loneliness that I have had to overcome.

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

"I believe Jesus Christ was absolutely a real man, it seems silly to deem otherwise with a mountain of evidence." Baylorjacket 4/19/22

---

Do you really have nothing better to do on a Saturday night than to parse through my old posts from nearly a year ago on a football forum?

Yes - about a year ago I would have said that it is silly to not concretely believe that a historical Jesus existed. However, like I have already said, I have read many books on the topic, engaged and reflected on the subject, and this confidence has dropped over the past year.

You continuing to post my old quotes is not going to change anything.

---

Has that made your life better? Has losing faith improved any aspect of your life?

---

Thanks for the question Doc. In many ways, yes, aspects of my life has improved after losing faith. My mental and physical health have both improved as I've focused more on the present than eternity. My heart for social justice and ability to love others has also increased.

But don't get me wrong, it hasn't been a walk in the park. Losing my church community was very difficult, and as my close family are all believers, this has affected my relationship with them some as well. There have also been periods of loneliness that I have had to overcome.

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BluesBear said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BluesBear said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

I don't necessarily doubt the possibility of such a being, but I also don't know how one could be proven or dis-proven definitively. That's why I'd like to hear from some of you who do believe in God -

---

"Philosophers can argue the existence of God, but it takes me just a few Google searches to show you the existence of the Devil"

I am convinced of the existence of Satan. If he exists then it stands to reason that God, his great enemy, also is real.

---

As a former Christian, one of the first core beliefs that I deconstructed was the idea of a literal Satan. In my opinion, many of the passages that refer to Satan in the Bible are using metaphorical or symbolic language to describe abstract concepts (for example, in the book of Revelation, Satan is described as a "dragon" with "horns" and "seven heads," which may be a metaphorical description of the corrupt power structures of the Roman Empire)

I definitely agree with you though that evil exists in this world and I have no problem summarizing this collective evil as "Satan".

---

Baylorjacket...let's pray that you find God again in your life. Deny Him means an eternity in Hell...

In fact, I would challenge this to you - - - Test God. Say to God " God, if you are real, then let me see evidence of this today/this week...."

---

Shouldn't my name have been written in the book of life already?

---

But you are openly denying the existence of Christ..How would you then believe that your name is written in the book of life?

---

I was an extremely devoted Christian for about 25+ years, and my practicing denomination held the belief that once you are saved and the Holy Spirit is indwelled inside you, you will always receive eternal salvation. I'm not arguing this is a correct interpretation, but it is a pretty commonly held position in the western church.

---

The doctrine might be better phrased as 'IF saved Always Saved'

And unfortunately, your position as an enemy of Christ parallels the faith walk, such as it was, of one Judas Iscariot.

---

Ah, the classic "you were never actually a Christian" argument.

While you will probably never believe me, I can tell you that I was ALL in on being a follower of Jesus Christ. I accepted Jesus Christ as my lord and savior, was baptized, felt what I believed at the time the Holy Spirit, worshiped Jesus daily, prayed daily, spent time in the word daily, was heavily involved in Church communities, went on and led mission trips both locally and foreign, led worship, and just about anything else you can think of.

---

And Judas spent years following Christ, doubtless believing he was just as much a disciple as Peter or John or any of the others.

Feelings do not define Reality, by the way.

---

If the gospels are genuinely true and Judas first hand witnesses miracles performed by Jesus, we can agree that he certainly made a poor choice stabbing Jesus in the back.

However, we find ourselves in a much different position 2000 years later where we have to look at the evidence presented to us and make a decision in what we believe in. You can call me an apostate, heretic, lunatic agnostic, or something similar (they all are valid) - but I ask you kindly to trust me when I say I was a genuine follower of Jesus for the majority of my life.

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BluesBear said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BluesBear said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

I don't necessarily doubt the possibility of such a being, but I also don't know how one could be proven or dis-proven definitively. That's why I'd like to hear from some of you who do believe in God -

---

"Philosophers can argue the existence of God, but it takes me just a few Google searches to show you the existence of the Devil"

I am convinced of the existence of Satan. If he exists then it stands to reason that God, his great enemy, also is real.

---

As a former Christian, one of the first core beliefs that I deconstructed was the idea of a literal Satan. In my opinion, many of the passages that refer to Satan in the Bible are using metaphorical or symbolic language to describe abstract concepts (for example, in the book of Revelation, Satan is described as a "dragon" with "horns" and "seven heads," which may be a metaphorical description of the corrupt power structures of the Roman Empire)

I definitely agree with you though that evil exists in this world and I have no problem summarizing this collective evil as "Satan".

---

Baylorjacket...let's pray that you find God again in your life. Deny Him means an eternity in Hell...

In fact, I would challenge this to you - - - Test God. Say to God " God, if you are real, then let me see evidence of this today/this week...."

---

Shouldn't my name have been written in the book of life already?

---

But you are openly denying the existence of Christ..How would you then believe that your name is written in the book of life?

---

I was an extremely devoted Christian for about 25+ years, and my practicing denomination held the belief that once you are saved and the Holy Spirit is indwelled inside you, you will always receive eternal salvation. I'm not arguing this is a correct interpretation, but it is a pretty commonly held position in the western church.

---

The doctrine might be better phrased as 'IF saved Always Saved'

And unfortunately, your position as an enemy of Christ parallels the faith walk, such as it was, of one Judas Iscariot.

---

Ah, the classic "you were never actually a Christian" argument.

While you will probably never believe me, I can tell you that I was ALL in on being a follower of Jesus Christ. I accepted Jesus Christ as my lord and savior, was baptized, felt what I believed at the time the Holy Spirit, worshiped Jesus daily, prayed daily, spent time in the word daily, was heavily involved in Church communities, went on and led mission trips both locally and foreign, led worship, and just about anything else you can think of.

---

And Judas spent years following Christ, doubtless believing he was just as much a disciple as Peter or John or any of the others.

Feelings do not define Reality, by the way.

---

If the gospels are genuinely true and Judas first hand witnesses miracles performed by Jesus, we can agree that he certainly made a poor choice stabbing Jesus in the back.

However, we find ourselves in a much different position 2000 years later where we have to look at the evidence presented to us and make a decision in what we believe in. You can call me an apostate, heretic, lunatic agnostic, or something similar (they all are valid) - but I ask you kindly to trust me when I say I was a genuine follower of Jesus for the majority of my life.

---

The problem I see, BaylorJacket, is that we are all of us subjective, and very prone to grade our own work leniently. I'm not calling you names, by the way. If I start doing that I should be reminded by my own conscience of my own hypocrisy and weakness in my spiritual walk.

But I have been pained to see others lose their way, misled by ego, hope of an easy life or money, and of course the lure of social acceptance.

That reminds me. In an earlier post, you mentioned you were looking for 'social justice'. Can you expand on what you mean by that? What is social justice to you, and how does someone create it?

Thanks for your conversation.

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

"I believe Jesus Christ was absolutely a real man, it seems silly to deem otherwise with a mountain of evidence." Baylorjacket 4/19/22

---

Do you really have nothing better to do on a Saturday night than to parse through my old posts from nearly a year ago on a football forum?

Yes - about a year ago I would have said that it is silly to not concretely believe that a historical Jesus existed. However, like I have already said, I have read many books on the topic, engaged and reflected on the subject, and this confidence has dropped over the past year.

You continuing to post my old quotes is not going to change anything.

---

Has that made your life better? Has losing faith improved any aspect of your life?

---

Thanks for the question Doc. In many ways, yes, aspects of my life has improved after losing faith. My mental and physical health have both improved as I've focused more on the present than eternity. My heart for social justice and ability to love others has also increased.

But don't get me wrong, it hasn't been a walk in the park. Losing my church community was very difficult, and as my close family are all believers, this has affected my relationship with them some as well. There have also been periods of loneliness that I have had to overcome.

---

The present is eternity, its truly the 'forever now'.

True social justice isn't about directly helping others, its about working on yourself. The world would be a much better place if people worked on themselves instead of trying to wrangle society.

My personal experience with being a Christian is total disregard for the vast majority of what we call church and religion today. It's not truly church or religion, its gatekeeping through shame, fear and appearances. I've only heard one pastor in my lifetime who truly understood what faith in Jesus means.

Find Christ because you want to.

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BluesBear said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BluesBear said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

I don't necessarily doubt the possibility of such a being, but I also don't know how one could be proven or dis-proven definitively. That's why I'd like to hear from some of you who do believe in God -

---

"Philosophers can argue the existence of God, but it takes me just a few Google searches to show you the existence of the Devil"

I am convinced of the existence of Satan. If he exists then it stands to reason that God, his great enemy, also is real.

---

As a former Christian, one of the first core beliefs that I deconstructed was the idea of a literal Satan. In my opinion, many of the passages that refer to Satan in the Bible are using metaphorical or symbolic language to describe abstract concepts (for example, in the book of Revelation, Satan is described as a "dragon" with "horns" and "seven heads," which may be a metaphorical description of the corrupt power structures of the Roman Empire)

I definitely agree with you though that evil exists in this world and I have no problem summarizing this collective evil as "Satan".

---

Baylorjacket...let's pray that you find God again in your life. Deny Him means an eternity in Hell...

In fact, I would challenge this to you - - - Test God. Say to God " God, if you are real, then let me see evidence of this today/this week...."

---

Shouldn't my name have been written in the book of life already?

---

But you are openly denying the existence of Christ..How would you then believe that your name is written in the book of life?

---

I was an extremely devoted Christian for about 25+ years, and my practicing denomination held the belief that once you are saved and the Holy Spirit is indwelled inside you, you will always receive eternal salvation. I'm not arguing this is a correct interpretation, but it is a pretty commonly held position in the western church.

---

The doctrine might be better phrased as 'IF saved Always Saved'

And unfortunately, your position as an enemy of Christ parallels the faith walk, such as it was, of one Judas Iscariot.

---

Ah, the classic "you were never actually a Christian" argument.

While you will probably never believe me, I can tell you that I was ALL in on being a follower of Jesus Christ. I accepted Jesus Christ as my lord and savior, was baptized, felt what I believed at the time the Holy Spirit, worshiped Jesus daily, prayed daily, spent time in the word daily, was heavily involved in Church communities, went on and led mission trips both locally and foreign, led worship, and just about anything else you can think of.

---

And Judas spent years following Christ, doubtless believing he was just as much a disciple as Peter or John or any of the others.

Feelings do not define Reality, by the way.

---

If the gospels are genuinely true and Judas first hand witnesses miracles performed by Jesus, we can agree that he certainly made a poor choice stabbing Jesus in the back.

However, we find ourselves in a much different position 2000 years later where we have to look at the evidence presented to us and make a decision in what we believe in. You can call me an apostate, heretic, lunatic agnostic, or something similar (they all are valid) - but I ask you kindly to trust me when I say I was a genuine follower of Jesus for the majority of my life.

---

The problem I see, BaylorJacket, is that we are all of us subjective, and very prone to grade our own work leniently. I'm not calling you names, by the way. If I start doing that I should be reminded by my own conscience of my own hypocrisy and weakness in my spiritual walk.

But I have been pained to see others lose their way, misled by ego, hope of an easy life or money, and of course the lure of social acceptance.

That reminds me. In an earlier post, you mentioned you were looking for 'social justice'. Can you expand on what you mean by that? What is social justice to you, and how does someone create it?

Thanks for your conversation.

---

I would absolutely agree with you that we grade our own work leniently.

Social justice to me is creating a fair and equitable society where everyone has access to opportunities and resources regardless of their race, gender, socioeconomic status, or other characteristics. It involves recognizing and addressing systemic barriers and injustices that may prevent certain groups of people from achieving their full potential and participating fully in society.

Now, creating social justice is obviously quite difficult and subjective. For me, this primarily involves fighting for equality for women as well as those who fall into the LGBTQ+ category. The methodology of trying to create social justice for these people has included me protesting, voting, and having conversations with people on both sides. Based on my personal experiences growing up in a southern evangelical community, I unfortunately witnessed a great deal of discrimination towards these groups. This is purely based on my experiences, as I know a lot of churches do some incredible work fighting for the oppressed and marginalized.

---

curtpenn said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

"I believe Jesus Christ was absolutely a real man, it seems silly to deem otherwise with a mountain of evidence." Baylorjacket 4/19/22

---

Do you really have nothing better to do on a Saturday night than to parse through my old posts from nearly a year ago on a football forum?

Yes - about a year ago I would have said that it is silly to not concretely believe that a historical Jesus existed. However, like I have already said, I have read many books on the topic, engaged and reflected on the subject, and this confidence has dropped over the past year.

You continuing to post my old quotes is not going to change anything.

---

Has that made your life better? Has losing faith improved any aspect of your life?

---

Thanks for the question Doc. In many ways, yes, aspects of my life has improved after losing faith. My mental and physical health have both improved as I've focused more on the present than eternity. My heart for social justice and ability to love others has also increased.

But don't get me wrong, it hasn't been a walk in the park. Losing my church community was very difficult, and as my close family are all believers, this has affected my relationship with them some as well. There have also been periods of loneliness that I have had to overcome.

---

Interesting you have found it easier to love others and seek social justice. When I'm in the valley, I tend toward the opposite and lean into nihilism. If all species are headed to oblivion and are the products of mere time and chance, then there is no inherent value in the cosmos or anything in it. Will to power is all.

---

curtpenn said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BluesBear said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BluesBear said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

I don't necessarily doubt the possibility of such a being, but I also don't know how one could be proven or dis-proven definitively. That's why I'd like to hear from some of you who do believe in God -

---

"Philosophers can argue the existence of God, but it takes me just a few Google searches to show you the existence of the Devil"

I am convinced of the existence of Satan. If he exists then it stands to reason that God, his great enemy, also is real.

---

As a former Christian, one of the first core beliefs that I deconstructed was the idea of a literal Satan. In my opinion, many of the passages that refer to Satan in the Bible are using metaphorical or symbolic language to describe abstract concepts (for example, in the book of Revelation, Satan is described as a "dragon" with "horns" and "seven heads," which may be a metaphorical description of the corrupt power structures of the Roman Empire)

I definitely agree with you though that evil exists in this world and I have no problem summarizing this collective evil as "Satan".

---

Baylorjacket...let's pray that you find God again in your life. Deny Him means an eternity in Hell...

In fact, I would challenge this to you - - - Test God. Say to God " God, if you are real, then let me see evidence of this today/this week...."

---

Shouldn't my name have been written in the book of life already?

---

But you are openly denying the existence of Christ..How would you then believe that your name is written in the book of life?

---

I was an extremely devoted Christian for about 25+ years, and my practicing denomination held the belief that once you are saved and the Holy Spirit is indwelled inside you, you will always receive eternal salvation. I'm not arguing this is a correct interpretation, but it is a pretty commonly held position in the western church.

---

The doctrine might be better phrased as 'IF saved Always Saved'

And unfortunately, your position as an enemy of Christ parallels the faith walk, such as it was, of one Judas Iscariot.

---

Ah, the classic "you were never actually a Christian" argument.

While you will probably never believe me, I can tell you that I was ALL in on being a follower of Jesus Christ. I accepted Jesus Christ as my lord and savior, was baptized, felt what I believed at the time the Holy Spirit, worshiped Jesus daily, prayed daily, spent time in the word daily, was heavily involved in Church communities, went on and led mission trips both locally and foreign, led worship, and just about anything else you can think of.

---

And Judas spent years following Christ, doubtless believing he was just as much a disciple as Peter or John or any of the others.

Feelings do not define Reality, by the way.

---

If the gospels are genuinely true and Judas first hand witnesses miracles performed by Jesus, we can agree that he certainly made a poor choice stabbing Jesus in the back.

However, we find ourselves in a much different position 2000 years later where we have to look at the evidence presented to us and make a decision in what we believe in. You can call me an apostate, heretic, lunatic agnostic, or something similar (they all are valid) - but I ask you kindly to trust me when I say I was a genuine follower of Jesus for the majority of my life.

---

The Episcopal Church welcomes you.

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

quash said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

quash said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

I've been exploring different religious and philosophical ideas lately, and I would love to hear your thoughts on what convinces you that God exists. As someone who hasn't yet been convinced by arguments for the existence of God, I'm hoping to learn more about what draws others to belief in a higher power.

I don't necessarily doubt the possibility of such a being, but I also don't know how one could be proven or dis-proven definitively. That's why I'd like to hear from some of you who do believe in God - what is it about your experience or understanding of the world that makes you believe there is a God?

Of course, I'm open to hearing from people who don't believe in God as well. I'm looking forward to hearing your thoughts!

---

Life.

No scientific explanation for living organisms is remotely viable.

---

God of the gaps argument.

---

Not that simple. Not an argument that the unknown = God.

But rather the honest admission that the unknown can = the possibility of an explanation exceeding the parameters of currently accepted science or the ability of mankind to understand.

My largest problem with evolutionary scientists is the same that I have with an "expert" in any field…….the absolute steadfast unwillingness to admit "I don't know, I might never know, the correct explanation might conflict with my existing beliefs, the correct explanation might be beyond my ability to understand, therefor my beliefs based on incomplete data and/or science are not more valid than beliefs based on something else".

It generally offends the scientific community, but I admittedly believe that useful wisdom begins with acceptance of our limitation to understand large parts of our reality.

---

Slandering science doesn't provide an actual argument against science.

And you are still firmly in the god of the gaps argument.

---

If you could read better, it was a critique of scientists, not science. There's no slander at all. And he's not saying that God is the explanation for the unknown but rather that scientists eliminate that possibility out of bias, not science. Ironically, that'd be like a "science of the gaps" argument.

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

"I believe Jesus Christ was absolutely a real man, it seems silly to deem otherwise with a mountain of evidence." Baylorjacket 4/19/22

---

Do you really have nothing better to do on a Saturday night than to parse through my old posts from nearly a year ago on a football forum?

Yes - about a year ago I would have said that it is silly to not concretely believe that a historical Jesus existed. However, like I have already said, I have read many books on the topic, engaged and reflected on the subject, and this confidence has dropped over the past year.

You continuing to post my old quotes is not going to change anything.

---

Has that made your life better? Has losing faith improved any aspect of your life?

---

Thanks for the question Doc. In many ways, yes, aspects of my life has improved after losing faith. My mental and physical health have both improved as I've focused more on the present than eternity. My heart for social justice and ability to love others has also increased.

But don't get me wrong, it hasn't been a walk in the park. Losing my church community was very difficult, and as my close family are all believers, this has affected my relationship with them some as well. There have also been periods of loneliness that I have had to overcome.

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BluesBear said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BluesBear said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

I don't necessarily doubt the possibility of such a being, but I also don't know how one could be proven or dis-proven definitively. That's why I'd like to hear from some of you who do believe in God -

---

"Philosophers can argue the existence of God, but it takes me just a few Google searches to show you the existence of the Devil"

I am convinced of the existence of Satan. If he exists then it stands to reason that God, his great enemy, also is real.

---

As a former Christian, one of the first core beliefs that I deconstructed was the idea of a literal Satan. In my opinion, many of the passages that refer to Satan in the Bible are using metaphorical or symbolic language to describe abstract concepts (for example, in the book of Revelation, Satan is described as a "dragon" with "horns" and "seven heads," which may be a metaphorical description of the corrupt power structures of the Roman Empire)

I definitely agree with you though that evil exists in this world and I have no problem summarizing this collective evil as "Satan".

---

Baylorjacket...let's pray that you find God again in your life. Deny Him means an eternity in Hell...

In fact, I would challenge this to you - - - Test God. Say to God " God, if you are real, then let me see evidence of this today/this week...."

---

Shouldn't my name have been written in the book of life already?

---

But you are openly denying the existence of Christ..How would you then believe that your name is written in the book of life?

---

I was an extremely devoted Christian for about 25+ years, and my practicing denomination held the belief that once you are saved and the Holy Spirit is indwelled inside you, you will always receive eternal salvation. I'm not arguing this is a correct interpretation, but it is a pretty commonly held position in the western church.

---

The doctrine might be better phrased as 'IF saved Always Saved'

And unfortunately, your position as an enemy of Christ parallels the faith walk, such as it was, of one Judas Iscariot.

---

Ah, the classic "you were never actually a Christian" argument.

While you will probably never believe me, I can tell you that I was ALL in on being a follower of Jesus Christ. I accepted Jesus Christ as my lord and savior, was baptized, felt what I believed at the time the Holy Spirit, worshiped Jesus daily, prayed daily, spent time in the word daily, was heavily involved in Church communities, went on and led mission trips both locally and foreign, led worship, and just about anything else you can think of.

---

And Judas spent years following Christ, doubtless believing he was just as much a disciple as Peter or John or any of the others.

Feelings do not define Reality, by the way.

---

If the gospels are genuinely true and Judas first hand witnesses miracles performed by Jesus, we can agree that he certainly made a poor choice stabbing Jesus in the back.

However, we find ourselves in a much different position 2000 years later where we have to look at the evidence presented to us and make a decision in what we believe in. You can call me an apostate, heretic, lunatic agnostic, or something similar (they all are valid) - but I ask you kindly to trust me when I say I was a genuine follower of Jesus for the majority of my life.

---

The problem I see, BaylorJacket, is that we are all of us subjective, and very prone to grade our own work leniently. I'm not calling you names, by the way. If I start doing that I should be reminded by my own conscience of my own hypocrisy and weakness in my spiritual walk.

But I have been pained to see others lose their way, misled by ego, hope of an easy life or money, and of course the lure of social acceptance.

That reminds me. In an earlier post, you mentioned you were looking for 'social justice'. Can you expand on what you mean by that? What is social justice to you, and how does someone create it?

Thanks for your conversation.

---

I would absolutely agree with you that we grade our own work leniently.

Social justice to me is creating a fair and equitable society where everyone has access to opportunities and resources regardless of their race, gender, socioeconomic status, or other characteristics. It involves recognizing and addressing systemic barriers and injustices that may prevent certain groups of people from achieving their full potential and participating fully in society.

Now, creating social justice is obviously quite difficult and subjective. For me, this primarily involves fighting for equality for women as well as those who fall into the LGBTQ+ category. The methodology of trying to create social justice for these people has included me protesting, voting, and having conversations with people on both sides. Based on my personal experiences growing up in a southern evangelical community, I unfortunately witnessed a great deal of discrimination towards these groups. This is purely based on my experiences, as I know a lot of churches do some incredible work fighting for the oppressed and marginalized.

---

Was it the Christ you used to believe in failing or the church members failing?

---

quash said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

quash said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

quash said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

I've been exploring different religious and philosophical ideas lately, and I would love to hear your thoughts on what convinces you that God exists. As someone who hasn't yet been convinced by arguments for the existence of God, I'm hoping to learn more about what draws others to belief in a higher power.

I don't necessarily doubt the possibility of such a being, but I also don't know how one could be proven or dis-proven definitively. That's why I'd like to hear from some of you who do believe in God - what is it about your experience or understanding of the world that makes you believe there is a God?

Of course, I'm open to hearing from people who don't believe in God as well. I'm looking forward to hearing your thoughts!

---

Life.

No scientific explanation for living organisms is remotely viable.

---

God of the gaps argument.

---

Not that simple. Not an argument that the unknown = God.

But rather the honest admission that the unknown can = the possibility of an explanation exceeding the parameters of currently accepted science or the ability of mankind to understand.

My largest problem with evolutionary scientists is the same that I have with an "expert" in any field…….the absolute steadfast unwillingness to admit "I don't know, I might never know, the correct explanation might conflict with my existing beliefs, the correct explanation might be beyond my ability to understand, therefor my beliefs based on incomplete data and/or science are not more valid than beliefs based on something else".

It generally offends the scientific community, but I admittedly believe that useful wisdom begins with acceptance of our limitation to understand large parts of our reality.

---

Slandering science doesn't provide an actual argument against science.

And you are still firmly in the god of the gaps argument.

---

If you could read better, it was a critique of scientists, not science. There's no slander at all. And he's not saying that God is the explanation for the unknown but rather that scientists eliminate that possibility out of bias, not science. Ironically, that'd be like a "science of the gaps" argument.

---

Complete bull***** The proof of gods exists, but scientists are hiding it?

That's so 18th century.

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

quash said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

quash said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

quash said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

I've been exploring different religious and philosophical ideas lately, and I would love to hear your thoughts on what convinces you that God exists. As someone who hasn't yet been convinced by arguments for the existence of God, I'm hoping to learn more about what draws others to belief in a higher power.

I don't necessarily doubt the possibility of such a being, but I also don't know how one could be proven or dis-proven definitively. That's why I'd like to hear from some of you who do believe in God - what is it about your experience or understanding of the world that makes you believe there is a God?

Of course, I'm open to hearing from people who don't believe in God as well. I'm looking forward to hearing your thoughts!

---

Life.

No scientific explanation for living organisms is remotely viable.

---

God of the gaps argument.

---

Not that simple. Not an argument that the unknown = God.

But rather the honest admission that the unknown can = the possibility of an explanation exceeding the parameters of currently accepted science or the ability of mankind to understand.

My largest problem with evolutionary scientists is the same that I have with an "expert" in any field…….the absolute steadfast unwillingness to admit "I don't know, I might never know, the correct explanation might conflict with my existing beliefs, the correct explanation might be beyond my ability to understand, therefor my beliefs based on incomplete data and/or science are not more valid than beliefs based on something else".

It generally offends the scientific community, but I admittedly believe that useful wisdom begins with acceptance of our limitation to understand large parts of our reality.

---

Slandering science doesn't provide an actual argument against science.

And you are still firmly in the god of the gaps argument.

---

If you could read better, it was a critique of scientists, not science. There's no slander at all. And he's not saying that God is the explanation for the unknown but rather that scientists eliminate that possibility out of bias, not science. Ironically, that'd be like a "science of the gaps" argument.

---

Complete bull***** The proof of gods exists, but scientists are hiding it?

That's so 18th century.

---

Everything has its limits. The "proof of God exists" question is outside of what science is capable of answering. No one need be hiding anything.

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BluesBear said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BluesBear said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

I don't necessarily doubt the possibility of such a being, but I also don't know how one could be proven or dis-proven definitively. That's why I'd like to hear from some of you who do believe in God -

---

"Philosophers can argue the existence of God, but it takes me just a few Google searches to show you the existence of the Devil"

I am convinced of the existence of Satan. If he exists then it stands to reason that God, his great enemy, also is real.

---

As a former Christian, one of the first core beliefs that I deconstructed was the idea of a literal Satan. In my opinion, many of the passages that refer to Satan in the Bible are using metaphorical or symbolic language to describe abstract concepts (for example, in the book of Revelation, Satan is described as a "dragon" with "horns" and "seven heads," which may be a metaphorical description of the corrupt power structures of the Roman Empire)

I definitely agree with you though that evil exists in this world and I have no problem summarizing this collective evil as "Satan".

---

Baylorjacket...let's pray that you find God again in your life. Deny Him means an eternity in Hell...

In fact, I would challenge this to you - - - Test God. Say to God " God, if you are real, then let me see evidence of this today/this week...."

---

Shouldn't my name have been written in the book of life already?

---

But you are openly denying the existence of Christ..How would you then believe that your name is written in the book of life?

---

I was an extremely devoted Christian for about 25+ years, and my practicing denomination held the belief that once you are saved and the Holy Spirit is indwelled inside you, you will always receive eternal salvation. I'm not arguing this is a correct interpretation, but it is a pretty commonly held position in the western church.

---

The doctrine might be better phrased as 'IF saved Always Saved'

And unfortunately, your position as an enemy of Christ parallels the faith walk, such as it was, of one Judas Iscariot.

---

Ah, the classic "you were never actually a Christian" argument.

While you will probably never believe me, I can tell you that I was ALL in on being a follower of Jesus Christ. I accepted Jesus Christ as my lord and savior, was baptized, felt what I believed at the time the Holy Spirit, worshiped Jesus daily, prayed daily, spent time in the word daily, was heavily involved in Church communities, went on and led mission trips both locally and foreign, led worship, and just about anything else you can think of.

---

And Judas spent years following Christ, doubtless believing he was just as much a disciple as Peter or John or any of the others.

Feelings do not define Reality, by the way.

---

If the gospels are genuinely true and Judas first hand witnesses miracles performed by Jesus, we can agree that he certainly made a poor choice stabbing Jesus in the back.

However, we find ourselves in a much different position 2000 years later where we have to look at the evidence presented to us and make a decision in what we believe in. You can call me an apostate, heretic, lunatic agnostic, or something similar (they all are valid) - but I ask you kindly to trust me when I say I was a genuine follower of Jesus for the majority of my life.

---

The problem I see, BaylorJacket, is that we are all of us subjective, and very prone to grade our own work leniently. I'm not calling you names, by the way. If I start doing that I should be reminded by my own conscience of my own hypocrisy and weakness in my spiritual walk.

But I have been pained to see others lose their way, misled by ego, hope of an easy life or money, and of course the lure of social acceptance.

That reminds me. In an earlier post, you mentioned you were looking for 'social justice'. Can you expand on what you mean by that? What is social justice to you, and how does someone create it?

Thanks for your conversation.

---

I would absolutely agree with you that we grade our own work leniently.

Social justice to me is creating a fair and equitable society where everyone has access to opportunities and resources regardless of their race, gender, socioeconomic status, or other characteristics. It involves recognizing and addressing systemic barriers and injustices that may prevent certain groups of people from achieving their full potential and participating fully in society.

Now, creating social justice is obviously quite difficult and subjective. For me, this primarily involves fighting for equality for women as well as those who fall into the LGBTQ+ category. The methodology of trying to create social justice for these people has included me protesting, voting, and having conversations with people on both sides. Based on my personal experiences growing up in a southern evangelical community, I unfortunately witnessed a great deal of discrimination towards these groups. This is purely based on my experiences, as I know a lot of churches do some incredible work fighting for the oppressed and marginalized.

---

quash said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

quash said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

quash said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

I've been exploring different religious and philosophical ideas lately, and I would love to hear your thoughts on what convinces you that God exists. As someone who hasn't yet been convinced by arguments for the existence of God, I'm hoping to learn more about what draws others to belief in a higher power.

I don't necessarily doubt the possibility of such a being, but I also don't know how one could be proven or dis-proven definitively. That's why I'd like to hear from some of you who do believe in God - what is it about your experience or understanding of the world that makes you believe there is a God?

Of course, I'm open to hearing from people who don't believe in God as well. I'm looking forward to hearing your thoughts!

---

Life.

No scientific explanation for living organisms is remotely viable.

---

God of the gaps argument.

---

Not that simple. Not an argument that the unknown = God.

But rather the honest admission that the unknown can = the possibility of an explanation exceeding the parameters of currently accepted science or the ability of mankind to understand.

My largest problem with evolutionary scientists is the same that I have with an "expert" in any field…….the absolute steadfast unwillingness to admit "I don't know, I might never know, the correct explanation might conflict with my existing beliefs, the correct explanation might be beyond my ability to understand, therefor my beliefs based on incomplete data and/or science are not more valid than beliefs based on something else".

It generally offends the scientific community, but I admittedly believe that useful wisdom begins with acceptance of our limitation to understand large parts of our reality.

---

Slandering science doesn't provide an actual argument against science.

And you are still firmly in the god of the gaps argument.

---

If you could read better, it was a critique of scientists, not science. There's no slander at all. And he's not saying that God is the explanation for the unknown but rather that scientists eliminate that possibility out of bias, not science. Ironically, that'd be like a "science of the gaps" argument.

---

Complete bull***** The proof of gods exists, but scientists are hiding it?

That's so 18th century.

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BluesBear said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BluesBear said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

I don't necessarily doubt the possibility of such a being, but I also don't know how one could be proven or dis-proven definitively. That's why I'd like to hear from some of you who do believe in God -

---

"Philosophers can argue the existence of God, but it takes me just a few Google searches to show you the existence of the Devil"

I am convinced of the existence of Satan. If he exists then it stands to reason that God, his great enemy, also is real.

---

As a former Christian, one of the first core beliefs that I deconstructed was the idea of a literal Satan. In my opinion, many of the passages that refer to Satan in the Bible are using metaphorical or symbolic language to describe abstract concepts (for example, in the book of Revelation, Satan is described as a "dragon" with "horns" and "seven heads," which may be a metaphorical description of the corrupt power structures of the Roman Empire)

I definitely agree with you though that evil exists in this world and I have no problem summarizing this collective evil as "Satan".

---

Baylorjacket...let's pray that you find God again in your life. Deny Him means an eternity in Hell...

In fact, I would challenge this to you - - - Test God. Say to God " God, if you are real, then let me see evidence of this today/this week...."

---

Shouldn't my name have been written in the book of life already?

---

But you are openly denying the existence of Christ..How would you then believe that your name is written in the book of life?

---

I was an extremely devoted Christian for about 25+ years, and my practicing denomination held the belief that once you are saved and the Holy Spirit is indwelled inside you, you will always receive eternal salvation. I'm not arguing this is a correct interpretation, but it is a pretty commonly held position in the western church.

---

The doctrine might be better phrased as 'IF saved Always Saved'

And unfortunately, your position as an enemy of Christ parallels the faith walk, such as it was, of one Judas Iscariot.

---

Ah, the classic "you were never actually a Christian" argument.

While you will probably never believe me, I can tell you that I was ALL in on being a follower of Jesus Christ. I accepted Jesus Christ as my lord and savior, was baptized, felt what I believed at the time the Holy Spirit, worshiped Jesus daily, prayed daily, spent time in the word daily, was heavily involved in Church communities, went on and led mission trips both locally and foreign, led worship, and just about anything else you can think of.

---

And Judas spent years following Christ, doubtless believing he was just as much a disciple as Peter or John or any of the others.

Feelings do not define Reality, by the way.

---

If the gospels are genuinely true and Judas first hand witnesses miracles performed by Jesus, we can agree that he certainly made a poor choice stabbing Jesus in the back.

However, we find ourselves in a much different position 2000 years later where we have to look at the evidence presented to us and make a decision in what we believe in. You can call me an apostate, heretic, lunatic agnostic, or something similar (they all are valid) - but I ask you kindly to trust me when I say I was a genuine follower of Jesus for the majority of my life.

---

The problem I see, BaylorJacket, is that we are all of us subjective, and very prone to grade our own work leniently. I'm not calling you names, by the way. If I start doing that I should be reminded by my own conscience of my own hypocrisy and weakness in my spiritual walk.

But I have been pained to see others lose their way, misled by ego, hope of an easy life or money, and of course the lure of social acceptance.

That reminds me. In an earlier post, you mentioned you were looking for 'social justice'. Can you expand on what you mean by that? What is social justice to you, and how does someone create it?

Thanks for your conversation.

---

I would absolutely agree with you that we grade our own work leniently.

Social justice to me is creating a fair and equitable society where everyone has access to opportunities and resources regardless of their race, gender, socioeconomic status, or other characteristics. It involves recognizing and addressing systemic barriers and injustices that may prevent certain groups of people from achieving their full potential and participating fully in society.

Now, creating social justice is obviously quite difficult and subjective. For me, this primarily involves fighting for equality for women as well as those who fall into the LGBTQ+ category. The methodology of trying to create social justice for these people has included me protesting, voting, and having conversations with people on both sides. Based on my personal experiences growing up in a southern evangelical community, I unfortunately witnessed a great deal of discrimination towards these groups. This is purely based on my experiences, as I know a lot of churches do some incredible work fighting for the oppressed and marginalized.

---

Was it the Christ you used to believe in failing or the church members failing?

---

The church failing. I'm not trying to blanket statement all Christians - there are some incredible Christ followers out there who do indeed live out the teachings and messages of Jesus (I am sure you are one yourself), but from my personal experience it is far too common for the western church to either promote discrimination/marginalization or turn a blind eye to it.

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BluesBear said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BluesBear said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

I don't necessarily doubt the possibility of such a being, but I also don't know how one could be proven or dis-proven definitively. That's why I'd like to hear from some of you who do believe in God -

---

"Philosophers can argue the existence of God, but it takes me just a few Google searches to show you the existence of the Devil"

I am convinced of the existence of Satan. If he exists then it stands to reason that God, his great enemy, also is real.

---

As a former Christian, one of the first core beliefs that I deconstructed was the idea of a literal Satan. In my opinion, many of the passages that refer to Satan in the Bible are using metaphorical or symbolic language to describe abstract concepts (for example, in the book of Revelation, Satan is described as a "dragon" with "horns" and "seven heads," which may be a metaphorical description of the corrupt power structures of the Roman Empire)

I definitely agree with you though that evil exists in this world and I have no problem summarizing this collective evil as "Satan".

---

Baylorjacket...let's pray that you find God again in your life. Deny Him means an eternity in Hell...

In fact, I would challenge this to you - - - Test God. Say to God " God, if you are real, then let me see evidence of this today/this week...."

---

Shouldn't my name have been written in the book of life already?

---

But you are openly denying the existence of Christ..How would you then believe that your name is written in the book of life?

---

I was an extremely devoted Christian for about 25+ years, and my practicing denomination held the belief that once you are saved and the Holy Spirit is indwelled inside you, you will always receive eternal salvation. I'm not arguing this is a correct interpretation, but it is a pretty commonly held position in the western church.

---

The doctrine might be better phrased as 'IF saved Always Saved'

And unfortunately, your position as an enemy of Christ parallels the faith walk, such as it was, of one Judas Iscariot.

---

Ah, the classic "you were never actually a Christian" argument.

While you will probably never believe me, I can tell you that I was ALL in on being a follower of Jesus Christ. I accepted Jesus Christ as my lord and savior, was baptized, felt what I believed at the time the Holy Spirit, worshiped Jesus daily, prayed daily, spent time in the word daily, was heavily involved in Church communities, went on and led mission trips both locally and foreign, led worship, and just about anything else you can think of.

---

And Judas spent years following Christ, doubtless believing he was just as much a disciple as Peter or John or any of the others.

Feelings do not define Reality, by the way.

---

If the gospels are genuinely true and Judas first hand witnesses miracles performed by Jesus, we can agree that he certainly made a poor choice stabbing Jesus in the back.

However, we find ourselves in a much different position 2000 years later where we have to look at the evidence presented to us and make a decision in what we believe in. You can call me an apostate, heretic, lunatic agnostic, or something similar (they all are valid) - but I ask you kindly to trust me when I say I was a genuine follower of Jesus for the majority of my life.

---

The problem I see, BaylorJacket, is that we are all of us subjective, and very prone to grade our own work leniently. I'm not calling you names, by the way. If I start doing that I should be reminded by my own conscience of my own hypocrisy and weakness in my spiritual walk.

But I have been pained to see others lose their way, misled by ego, hope of an easy life or money, and of course the lure of social acceptance.

That reminds me. In an earlier post, you mentioned you were looking for 'social justice'. Can you expand on what you mean by that? What is social justice to you, and how does someone create it?

Thanks for your conversation.

---

I would absolutely agree with you that we grade our own work leniently.

Social justice to me is creating a fair and equitable society where everyone has access to opportunities and resources regardless of their race, gender, socioeconomic status, or other characteristics. It involves recognizing and addressing systemic barriers and injustices that may prevent certain groups of people from achieving their full potential and participating fully in society.

Now, creating social justice is obviously quite difficult and subjective. For me, this primarily involves fighting for equality for women as well as those who fall into the LGBTQ+ category. The methodology of trying to create social justice for these people has included me protesting, voting, and having conversations with people on both sides. Based on my personal experiences growing up in a southern evangelical community, I unfortunately witnessed a great deal of discrimination towards these groups. This is purely based on my experiences, as I know a lot of churches do some incredible work fighting for the oppressed and marginalized.

---

Was it the Christ you used to believe in failing or the church members failing?

---

The church failing. I'm not trying to blanket statement all Christians - there are some incredible Christ followers out there who do indeed live out the teachings and messages of Jesus (I am sure you are one yourself), but from my personal experience it is far too common for the western church to either promote discrimination/marginalization or turn a blind eye to it.

---

You are way more optimistic about me than you should be. I try but I fail daily

---

quash said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

quash said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

quash said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

I've been exploring different religious and philosophical ideas lately, and I would love to hear your thoughts on what convinces you that God exists. As someone who hasn't yet been convinced by arguments for the existence of God, I'm hoping to learn more about what draws others to belief in a higher power.

I don't necessarily doubt the possibility of such a being, but I also don't know how one could be proven or dis-proven definitively. That's why I'd like to hear from some of you who do believe in God - what is it about your experience or understanding of the world that makes you believe there is a God?

Of course, I'm open to hearing from people who don't believe in God as well. I'm looking forward to hearing your thoughts!

---

Life.

No scientific explanation for living organisms is remotely viable.

---

God of the gaps argument.

---

Not that simple. Not an argument that the unknown = God.

But rather the honest admission that the unknown can = the possibility of an explanation exceeding the parameters of currently accepted science or the ability of mankind to understand.

My largest problem with evolutionary scientists is the same that I have with an "expert" in any field…….the absolute steadfast unwillingness to admit "I don't know, I might never know, the correct explanation might conflict with my existing beliefs, the correct explanation might be beyond my ability to understand, therefor my beliefs based on incomplete data and/or science are not more valid than beliefs based on something else".

It generally offends the scientific community, but I admittedly believe that useful wisdom begins with acceptance of our limitation to understand large parts of our reality.

---

Slandering science doesn't provide an actual argument against science.

And you are still firmly in the god of the gaps argument.

---

If you could read better, it was a critique of scientists, not science. There's no slander at all. And he's not saying that God is the explanation for the unknown but rather that scientists eliminate that possibility out of bias, not science. Ironically, that'd be like a "science of the gaps" argument.

---

Complete bull***** The proof of gods exists, but scientists are hiding it?

That's so 18th century.

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BluesBear said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BluesBear said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

I don't necessarily doubt the possibility of such a being, but I also don't know how one could be proven or dis-proven definitively. That's why I'd like to hear from some of you who do believe in God -

---

"Philosophers can argue the existence of God, but it takes me just a few Google searches to show you the existence of the Devil"

I am convinced of the existence of Satan. If he exists then it stands to reason that God, his great enemy, also is real.

---

As a former Christian, one of the first core beliefs that I deconstructed was the idea of a literal Satan. In my opinion, many of the passages that refer to Satan in the Bible are using metaphorical or symbolic language to describe abstract concepts (for example, in the book of Revelation, Satan is described as a "dragon" with "horns" and "seven heads," which may be a metaphorical description of the corrupt power structures of the Roman Empire)

I definitely agree with you though that evil exists in this world and I have no problem summarizing this collective evil as "Satan".

---

Baylorjacket...let's pray that you find God again in your life. Deny Him means an eternity in Hell...

In fact, I would challenge this to you - - - Test God. Say to God " God, if you are real, then let me see evidence of this today/this week...."

---

Shouldn't my name have been written in the book of life already?

---

But you are openly denying the existence of Christ..How would you then believe that your name is written in the book of life?

---

I was an extremely devoted Christian for about 25+ years, and my practicing denomination held the belief that once you are saved and the Holy Spirit is indwelled inside you, you will always receive eternal salvation. I'm not arguing this is a correct interpretation, but it is a pretty commonly held position in the western church.

---

The doctrine might be better phrased as 'IF saved Always Saved'

And unfortunately, your position as an enemy of Christ parallels the faith walk, such as it was, of one Judas Iscariot.

---

Ah, the classic "you were never actually a Christian" argument.

While you will probably never believe me, I can tell you that I was ALL in on being a follower of Jesus Christ. I accepted Jesus Christ as my lord and savior, was baptized, felt what I believed at the time the Holy Spirit, worshiped Jesus daily, prayed daily, spent time in the word daily, was heavily involved in Church communities, went on and led mission trips both locally and foreign, led worship, and just about anything else you can think of.

---

And Judas spent years following Christ, doubtless believing he was just as much a disciple as Peter or John or any of the others.

Feelings do not define Reality, by the way.

---

If the gospels are genuinely true and Judas first hand witnesses miracles performed by Jesus, we can agree that he certainly made a poor choice stabbing Jesus in the back.

However, we find ourselves in a much different position 2000 years later where we have to look at the evidence presented to us and make a decision in what we believe in. You can call me an apostate, heretic, lunatic agnostic, or something similar (they all are valid) - but I ask you kindly to trust me when I say I was a genuine follower of Jesus for the majority of my life.

---

The problem I see, BaylorJacket, is that we are all of us subjective, and very prone to grade our own work leniently. I'm not calling you names, by the way. If I start doing that I should be reminded by my own conscience of my own hypocrisy and weakness in my spiritual walk.

But I have been pained to see others lose their way, misled by ego, hope of an easy life or money, and of course the lure of social acceptance.

That reminds me. In an earlier post, you mentioned you were looking for 'social justice'. Can you expand on what you mean by that? What is social justice to you, and how does someone create it?

Thanks for your conversation.

---

I would absolutely agree with you that we grade our own work leniently.

Social justice to me is creating a fair and equitable society where everyone has access to opportunities and resources regardless of their race, gender, socioeconomic status, or other characteristics. It involves recognizing and addressing systemic barriers and injustices that may prevent certain groups of people from achieving their full potential and participating fully in society.

Now, creating social justice is obviously quite difficult and subjective. For me, this primarily involves fighting for equality for women as well as those who fall into the LGBTQ+ category. The methodology of trying to create social justice for these people has included me protesting, voting, and having conversations with people on both sides. Based on my personal experiences growing up in a southern evangelical community, I unfortunately witnessed a great deal of discrimination towards these groups. This is purely based on my experiences, as I know a lot of churches do some incredible work fighting for the oppressed and marginalized.

---

Was it the Christ you used to believe in failing or the church members failing?

---

The church failing. I'm not trying to blanket statement all Christians - there are some incredible Christ followers out there who do indeed live out the teachings and messages of Jesus (I am sure you are one yourself), but from my personal experience it is far too common for the western church to either promote discrimination/marginalization or turn a blind eye to it.

---

You are way more optimistic about me than you should be. I try but I fail daily

---

I'm pretty sure God is pleased with you, Lib. I'm pretty sure God allows me to continue for the comedy value.

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

quash said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

quash said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

quash said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

I've been exploring different religious and philosophical ideas lately, and I would love to hear your thoughts on what convinces you that God exists. As someone who hasn't yet been convinced by arguments for the existence of God, I'm hoping to learn more about what draws others to belief in a higher power.

I don't necessarily doubt the possibility of such a being, but I also don't know how one could be proven or dis-proven definitively. That's why I'd like to hear from some of you who do believe in God - what is it about your experience or understanding of the world that makes you believe there is a God?

Of course, I'm open to hearing from people who don't believe in God as well. I'm looking forward to hearing your thoughts!

---

Life.

No scientific explanation for living organisms is remotely viable.

---

God of the gaps argument.

---

Not that simple. Not an argument that the unknown = God.

But rather the honest admission that the unknown can = the possibility of an explanation exceeding the parameters of currently accepted science or the ability of mankind to understand.

My largest problem with evolutionary scientists is the same that I have with an "expert" in any field…….the absolute steadfast unwillingness to admit "I don't know, I might never know, the correct explanation might conflict with my existing beliefs, the correct explanation might be beyond my ability to understand, therefor my beliefs based on incomplete data and/or science are not more valid than beliefs based on something else".

It generally offends the scientific community, but I admittedly believe that useful wisdom begins with acceptance of our limitation to understand large parts of our reality.

---

Slandering science doesn't provide an actual argument against science.

And you are still firmly in the god of the gaps argument.

---

If you could read better, it was a critique of scientists, not science. There's no slander at all. And he's not saying that God is the explanation for the unknown but rather that scientists eliminate that possibility out of bias, not science. Ironically, that'd be like a "science of the gaps" argument.

---

Complete bull***** The proof of gods exists, but scientists are hiding it?

That's so 18th century.

---

If THAT's how you interpreted what I said, then you have to be either dishonest or stupid.

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

quash said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

quash said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

quash said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

I've been exploring different religious and philosophical ideas lately, and I would love to hear your thoughts on what convinces you that God exists. As someone who hasn't yet been convinced by arguments for the existence of God, I'm hoping to learn more about what draws others to belief in a higher power.

I don't necessarily doubt the possibility of such a being, but I also don't know how one could be proven or dis-proven definitively. That's why I'd like to hear from some of you who do believe in God - what is it about your experience or understanding of the world that makes you believe there is a God?

Of course, I'm open to hearing from people who don't believe in God as well. I'm looking forward to hearing your thoughts!

---

Life.

No scientific explanation for living organisms is remotely viable.

---

God of the gaps argument.

---

Not that simple. Not an argument that the unknown = God.

But rather the honest admission that the unknown can = the possibility of an explanation exceeding the parameters of currently accepted science or the ability of mankind to understand.

My largest problem with evolutionary scientists is the same that I have with an "expert" in any field…….the absolute steadfast unwillingness to admit "I don't know, I might never know, the correct explanation might conflict with my existing beliefs, the correct explanation might be beyond my ability to understand, therefor my beliefs based on incomplete data and/or science are not more valid than beliefs based on something else".

It generally offends the scientific community, but I admittedly believe that useful wisdom begins with acceptance of our limitation to understand large parts of our reality.

---

Slandering science doesn't provide an actual argument against science.

And you are still firmly in the god of the gaps argument.

---

If you could read better, it was a critique of scientists, not science. There's no slander at all. And he's not saying that God is the explanation for the unknown but rather that scientists eliminate that possibility out of bias, not science. Ironically, that'd be like a "science of the gaps" argument.

---

Complete bull***** The proof of gods exists, but scientists are hiding it?

That's so 18th century.

---

If THAT's how you interpreted what I said, then you have to be either dishonest or stupid.

---

Or maybe just mistaken.

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BluesBear said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BluesBear said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

I don't necessarily doubt the possibility of such a being, but I also don't know how one could be proven or dis-proven definitively. That's why I'd like to hear from some of you who do believe in God -

---

"Philosophers can argue the existence of God, but it takes me just a few Google searches to show you the existence of the Devil"

I am convinced of the existence of Satan. If he exists then it stands to reason that God, his great enemy, also is real.

---

As a former Christian, one of the first core beliefs that I deconstructed was the idea of a literal Satan. In my opinion, many of the passages that refer to Satan in the Bible are using metaphorical or symbolic language to describe abstract concepts (for example, in the book of Revelation, Satan is described as a "dragon" with "horns" and "seven heads," which may be a metaphorical description of the corrupt power structures of the Roman Empire)

I definitely agree with you though that evil exists in this world and I have no problem summarizing this collective evil as "Satan".

---

Baylorjacket...let's pray that you find God again in your life. Deny Him means an eternity in Hell...

In fact, I would challenge this to you - - - Test God. Say to God " God, if you are real, then let me see evidence of this today/this week...."

---

Shouldn't my name have been written in the book of life already?

---

But you are openly denying the existence of Christ..How would you then believe that your name is written in the book of life?

---

I was an extremely devoted Christian for about 25+ years, and my practicing denomination held the belief that once you are saved and the Holy Spirit is indwelled inside you, you will always receive eternal salvation. I'm not arguing this is a correct interpretation, but it is a pretty commonly held position in the western church.

---

The doctrine might be better phrased as 'IF saved Always Saved'

And unfortunately, your position as an enemy of Christ parallels the faith walk, such as it was, of one Judas Iscariot.

---

Ah, the classic "you were never actually a Christian" argument.

While you will probably never believe me, I can tell you that I was ALL in on being a follower of Jesus Christ. I accepted Jesus Christ as my lord and savior, was baptized, felt what I believed at the time the Holy Spirit, worshiped Jesus daily, prayed daily, spent time in the word daily, was heavily involved in Church communities, went on and led mission trips both locally and foreign, led worship, and just about anything else you can think of.

---

And Judas spent years following Christ, doubtless believing he was just as much a disciple as Peter or John or any of the others.

Feelings do not define Reality, by the way.

---

If the gospels are genuinely true and Judas first hand witnesses miracles performed by Jesus, we can agree that he certainly made a poor choice stabbing Jesus in the back.

However, we find ourselves in a much different position 2000 years later where we have to look at the evidence presented to us and make a decision in what we believe in. You can call me an apostate, heretic, lunatic agnostic, or something similar (they all are valid) - but I ask you kindly to trust me when I say I was a genuine follower of Jesus for the majority of my life.

---

The problem I see, BaylorJacket, is that we are all of us subjective, and very prone to grade our own work leniently. I'm not calling you names, by the way. If I start doing that I should be reminded by my own conscience of my own hypocrisy and weakness in my spiritual walk.

But I have been pained to see others lose their way, misled by ego, hope of an easy life or money, and of course the lure of social acceptance.

That reminds me. In an earlier post, you mentioned you were looking for 'social justice'. Can you expand on what you mean by that? What is social justice to you, and how does someone create it?

Thanks for your conversation.

---

I would absolutely agree with you that we grade our own work leniently.

Social justice to me is creating a fair and equitable society where everyone has access to opportunities and resources regardless of their race, gender, socioeconomic status, or other characteristics. It involves recognizing and addressing systemic barriers and injustices that may prevent certain groups of people from achieving their full potential and participating fully in society.

Now, creating social justice is obviously quite difficult and subjective. For me, this primarily involves fighting for equality for women as well as those who fall into the LGBTQ+ category. The methodology of trying to create social justice for these people has included me protesting, voting, and having conversations with people on both sides. Based on my personal experiences growing up in a southern evangelical community, I unfortunately witnessed a great deal of discrimination towards these groups. This is purely based on my experiences, as I know a lot of churches do some incredible work fighting for the oppressed and marginalized.

---

Was it the Christ you used to believe in failing or the church members failing?

---

The church failing. I'm not trying to blanket statement all Christians - there are some incredible Christ followers out there who do indeed live out the teachings and messages of Jesus (I am sure you are one yourself), but from my personal experience it is far too common for the western church to either promote discrimination/marginalization or turn a blind eye to it.

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

quash said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

quash said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

quash said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

I've been exploring different religious and philosophical ideas lately, and I would love to hear your thoughts on what convinces you that God exists. As someone who hasn't yet been convinced by arguments for the existence of God, I'm hoping to learn more about what draws others to belief in a higher power.

I don't necessarily doubt the possibility of such a being, but I also don't know how one could be proven or dis-proven definitively. That's why I'd like to hear from some of you who do believe in God - what is it about your experience or understanding of the world that makes you believe there is a God?

Of course, I'm open to hearing from people who don't believe in God as well. I'm looking forward to hearing your thoughts!

---

Life.

No scientific explanation for living organisms is remotely viable.

---

God of the gaps argument.

---

Not that simple. Not an argument that the unknown = God.

But rather the honest admission that the unknown can = the possibility of an explanation exceeding the parameters of currently accepted science or the ability of mankind to understand.

My largest problem with evolutionary scientists is the same that I have with an "expert" in any field…….the absolute steadfast unwillingness to admit "I don't know, I might never know, the correct explanation might conflict with my existing beliefs, the correct explanation might be beyond my ability to understand, therefor my beliefs based on incomplete data and/or science are not more valid than beliefs based on something else".

It generally offends the scientific community, but I admittedly believe that useful wisdom begins with acceptance of our limitation to understand large parts of our reality.

---

Slandering science doesn't provide an actual argument against science.

And you are still firmly in the god of the gaps argument.

---

If you could read better, it was a critique of scientists, not science. There's no slander at all. And he's not saying that God is the explanation for the unknown but rather that scientists eliminate that possibility out of bias, not science. Ironically, that'd be like a "science of the gaps" argument.

---

Complete bull***** The proof of gods exists, but scientists are hiding it?

That's so 18th century.

---

If THAT's how you interpreted what I said, then you have to be either dishonest or stupid.

---

Or maybe just mistaken.

---

Offer an explanation how what I said can honestly be mistaken in that way.

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

quash said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

quash said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

quash said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

I've been exploring different religious and philosophical ideas lately, and I would love to hear your thoughts on what convinces you that God exists. As someone who hasn't yet been convinced by arguments for the existence of God, I'm hoping to learn more about what draws others to belief in a higher power.

I don't necessarily doubt the possibility of such a being, but I also don't know how one could be proven or dis-proven definitively. That's why I'd like to hear from some of you who do believe in God - what is it about your experience or understanding of the world that makes you believe there is a God?

Of course, I'm open to hearing from people who don't believe in God as well. I'm looking forward to hearing your thoughts!

---

Life.

No scientific explanation for living organisms is remotely viable.

---

God of the gaps argument.

---

Not that simple. Not an argument that the unknown = God.

But rather the honest admission that the unknown can = the possibility of an explanation exceeding the parameters of currently accepted science or the ability of mankind to understand.

My largest problem with evolutionary scientists is the same that I have with an "expert" in any field…….the absolute steadfast unwillingness to admit "I don't know, I might never know, the correct explanation might conflict with my existing beliefs, the correct explanation might be beyond my ability to understand, therefor my beliefs based on incomplete data and/or science are not more valid than beliefs based on something else".

It generally offends the scientific community, but I admittedly believe that useful wisdom begins with acceptance of our limitation to understand large parts of our reality.

---

Slandering science doesn't provide an actual argument against science.

And you are still firmly in the god of the gaps argument.

---

If you could read better, it was a critique of scientists, not science. There's no slander at all. And he's not saying that God is the explanation for the unknown but rather that scientists eliminate that possibility out of bias, not science. Ironically, that'd be like a "science of the gaps" argument.

---

Complete bull***** The proof of gods exists, but scientists are hiding it?

That's so 18th century.

---

If THAT's how you interpreted what I said, then you have to be either dishonest or stupid.

---

Or maybe just mistaken.

---

Offer an explanation how what I said can honestly be mistaken in that way.

---

Fast reading, not thinking.

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

quash said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

quash said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

quash said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

I've been exploring different religious and philosophical ideas lately, and I would love to hear your thoughts on what convinces you that God exists. As someone who hasn't yet been convinced by arguments for the existence of God, I'm hoping to learn more about what draws others to belief in a higher power.

I don't necessarily doubt the possibility of such a being, but I also don't know how one could be proven or dis-proven definitively. That's why I'd like to hear from some of you who do believe in God - what is it about your experience or understanding of the world that makes you believe there is a God?

Of course, I'm open to hearing from people who don't believe in God as well. I'm looking forward to hearing your thoughts!

---

Life.

No scientific explanation for living organisms is remotely viable.

---

God of the gaps argument.

---

Not that simple. Not an argument that the unknown = God.

But rather the honest admission that the unknown can = the possibility of an explanation exceeding the parameters of currently accepted science or the ability of mankind to understand.

My largest problem with evolutionary scientists is the same that I have with an "expert" in any field…….the absolute steadfast unwillingness to admit "I don't know, I might never know, the correct explanation might conflict with my existing beliefs, the correct explanation might be beyond my ability to understand, therefor my beliefs based on incomplete data and/or science are not more valid than beliefs based on something else".

It generally offends the scientific community, but I admittedly believe that useful wisdom begins with acceptance of our limitation to understand large parts of our reality.

---

Slandering science doesn't provide an actual argument against science.

And you are still firmly in the god of the gaps argument.

---

If you could read better, it was a critique of scientists, not science. There's no slander at all. And he's not saying that God is the explanation for the unknown but rather that scientists eliminate that possibility out of bias, not science. Ironically, that'd be like a "science of the gaps" argument.

---

Complete bull***** The proof of gods exists, but scientists are hiding it?

That's so 18th century.

---

If THAT's how you interpreted what I said, then you have to be either dishonest or stupid.

---

quash said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

quash said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

quash said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

quash said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

I've been exploring different religious and philosophical ideas lately, and I would love to hear your thoughts on what convinces you that God exists. As someone who hasn't yet been convinced by arguments for the existence of God, I'm hoping to learn more about what draws others to belief in a higher power.

I don't necessarily doubt the possibility of such a being, but I also don't know how one could be proven or dis-proven definitively. That's why I'd like to hear from some of you who do believe in God - what is it about your experience or understanding of the world that makes you believe there is a God?

Of course, I'm open to hearing from people who don't believe in God as well. I'm looking forward to hearing your thoughts!

---

Life.

No scientific explanation for living organisms is remotely viable.

---

God of the gaps argument.

---

Not that simple. Not an argument that the unknown = God.

But rather the honest admission that the unknown can = the possibility of an explanation exceeding the parameters of currently accepted science or the ability of mankind to understand.

My largest problem with evolutionary scientists is the same that I have with an "expert" in any field…….the absolute steadfast unwillingness to admit "I don't know, I might never know, the correct explanation might conflict with my existing beliefs, the correct explanation might be beyond my ability to understand, therefor my beliefs based on incomplete data and/or science are not more valid than beliefs based on something else".

It generally offends the scientific community, but I admittedly believe that useful wisdom begins with acceptance of our limitation to understand large parts of our reality.

---

Slandering science doesn't provide an actual argument against science.

And you are still firmly in the god of the gaps argument.

---

If you could read better, it was a critique of scientists, not science. There's no slander at all. And he's not saying that God is the explanation for the unknown but rather that scientists eliminate that possibility out of bias, not science. Ironically, that'd be like a "science of the gaps" argument.

---

Complete bull***** The proof of gods exists, but scientists are hiding it?

That's so 18th century.

---

If THAT's how you interpreted what I said, then you have to be either dishonest or stupid.

---

"scientists eliminate that possibility out of bias"

Your words, not mine. If you would like to use different words now feel free.

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

quash said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

quash said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

quash said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

I've been exploring different religious and philosophical ideas lately, and I would love to hear your thoughts on what convinces you that God exists. As someone who hasn't yet been convinced by arguments for the existence of God, I'm hoping to learn more about what draws others to belief in a higher power.

I don't necessarily doubt the possibility of such a being, but I also don't know how one could be proven or dis-proven definitively. That's why I'd like to hear from some of you who do believe in God - what is it about your experience or understanding of the world that makes you believe there is a God?

Of course, I'm open to hearing from people who don't believe in God as well. I'm looking forward to hearing your thoughts!

---

Life.

No scientific explanation for living organisms is remotely viable.

---

God of the gaps argument.

---

Not that simple. Not an argument that the unknown = God.

But rather the honest admission that the unknown can = the possibility of an explanation exceeding the parameters of currently accepted science or the ability of mankind to understand.

My largest problem with evolutionary scientists is the same that I have with an "expert" in any field…….the absolute steadfast unwillingness to admit "I don't know, I might never know, the correct explanation might conflict with my existing beliefs, the correct explanation might be beyond my ability to understand, therefor my beliefs based on incomplete data and/or science are not more valid than beliefs based on something else".

It generally offends the scientific community, but I admittedly believe that useful wisdom begins with acceptance of our limitation to understand large parts of our reality.

---

Slandering science doesn't provide an actual argument against science.

And you are still firmly in the god of the gaps argument.

---

If you could read better, it was a critique of scientists, not science. There's no slander at all. And he's not saying that God is the explanation for the unknown but rather that scientists eliminate that possibility out of bias, not science. Ironically, that'd be like a "science of the gaps" argument.

---

Complete bull***** The proof of gods exists, but scientists are hiding it?

That's so 18th century.

---

If THAT's how you interpreted what I said, then you have to be either dishonest or stupid.

---

Or maybe just mistaken.

---

Offer an explanation how what I said can honestly be mistaken in that way.

---

Fast reading, not thinking.

---

Not thinking is being stupid.
Especially when you're committing to a rebuttal so strongly and comprehensively, i.e. "that's complete bull****!"

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

quash said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

quash said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

quash said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

I've been exploring different religious and philosophical ideas lately, and I would love to hear your thoughts on what convinces you that God exists. As someone who hasn't yet been convinced by arguments for the existence of God, I'm hoping to learn more about what draws others to belief in a higher power.

I don't necessarily doubt the possibility of such a being, but I also don't know how one could be proven or dis-proven definitively. That's why I'd like to hear from some of you who do believe in God - what is it about your experience or understanding of the world that makes you believe there is a God?

Of course, I'm open to hearing from people who don't believe in God as well. I'm looking forward to hearing your thoughts!

---

Life.

No scientific explanation for living organisms is remotely viable.

---

God of the gaps argument.

---

Not that simple. Not an argument that the unknown = God.

But rather the honest admission that the unknown can = the possibility of an explanation exceeding the parameters of currently accepted science or the ability of mankind to understand.

My largest problem with evolutionary scientists is the same that I have with an "expert" in any field…….the absolute steadfast unwillingness to admit "I don't know, I might never know, the correct explanation might conflict with my existing beliefs, the correct explanation might be beyond my ability to understand, therefor my beliefs based on incomplete data and/or science are not more valid than beliefs based on something else".

It generally offends the scientific community, but I admittedly believe that useful wisdom begins with acceptance of our limitation to understand large parts of our reality.

---

Slandering science doesn't provide an actual argument against science.

And you are still firmly in the god of the gaps argument.

---

If you could read better, it was a critique of scientists, not science. There's no slander at all. And he's not saying that God is the explanation for the unknown but rather that scientists eliminate that possibility out of bias, not science. Ironically, that'd be like a "science of the gaps" argument.

---

Complete bull***** The proof of gods exists, but scientists are hiding it?

That's so 18th century.

---

If THAT's how you interpreted what I said, then you have to be either dishonest or stupid.

---

Or maybe just mistaken.

---

Offer an explanation how what I said can honestly be mistaken in that way.

---

Fast reading, not thinking.

---

Not thinking is being stupid.
Especially when you're committing to a rebuttal so strongly and comprehensively, i.e. "that's complete bull****!"

---

Sometimes not thinking is being efficient.

---