Religion got you down

[bluewater2]

I write this because I know that this site gets visited by many who are really searching for answers to their restlesness, sense of confusion or perhaps dissatisfaction with their current spiritual path. Certainly, by perusing the posts here there is very little help. All that there seems to be is bickering about which brand of christianity is the "correct" interpretation of scripture.

Is it possible that these ongoing and never ending battles over scripture point out the obvious? Is it possible that the bible is nothing more than a very large, very old, endlessly edited and ancient text that is not the truth, any more that any other book of parables, fables and historical events blended with fiction? No wonder there is so much confusion over what it says.

I think that it is only natural for someone to grow up in any part of the world without any teaching about god, the bible, islam, hinduism or any other man-made spiritual entity and develop an appreciation and admiration for nature and the world around us. Our desire to have some sort of meaningful connection to these things and what our place might be is important since we are part of this universe. Christianity seems to have the answer: believe that someone named Jesus died for your sins and you will get eternal life. If that was all there was to it, there would not be all of this aguing. Do you believe in sin and do you believe that there is such a thing as eternal life? If so, there is more than one religion
for you.

How about Islam? Are you the type to believe that there are 20 virgins waiting for you in heaven if you push all the right buttons? Maybe Islam is for you.

Do you believe that Joseph Smith stumbled across some golden tablet out in the middle of the desert? If so, maybe Mormonism is for you.

I know, it's never ending. Might I suggest the words of Thomas Jefferson.

Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear.

I suggest that each one of these belief systems should, if valid, stand up to reasonable questioning, the demand for proof. I suggest that when someone says, "You must have faith to believe" it be viewed as a red flag.

I am not saying that all religions are dangerous cults, but certainly, they are all cults in one respect or another.

Certainly, agnosticism is niether arrogant or timid, but simply the lack of a need to know whether god exists or not. If there were a god, would it not be enough that you live good and productive lives? If the god as embraced by one of the man made religions demands more, question "with boldness" that belief system. It is likely made by man.

"Man once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities the most monstrous, and like a ship without rudder, is the sport of every wind."

If you are confused or feel that you might be in the grips of a cult I suggest that you "Run from religion to get closer to god." God will not mind.

[searchlight86]

Since you suggest belief systems should, if valid, stand up to reasonable questioning and demand for proof, let's start by asking what the proof is for the cult of atheistic evolutionary naturalism?

Atheism simply means belief in "no god" (which is philosophically and logically irrational as we have discussed before), so it seems you have changed your label to 'agnostic'. However, agnosticism simply means (Gr.) "a gnosis", which is that one doesn't know. If one doesn't know, it follows that an agnostic cannot know the God of the Bible does not exist.

"Run from religion and get closer to god"? Well I agree the one true God and Creator hates all works-based religion that feeds man's ego and wants us to humbly receive His unspeakable gift of new life through Christ in a living, loving relationship. From much study, conscience and personal experience, I know this is the only reasonable place to run to for this life as well as the next.

But tell me, how does an "atheist" or "agnostic" such as yourself know what god he is even running to and how one could know it's the right or true one? What god are you talking about, that you say will not mind??

Moreover, since you believe your mind is the product of random chance, how do you know it evolved correctly and is capable of any rational thought whatsoever?

(Message edited by searchlight86 on October 24, 2007)

[bluewater2]

"Atheism simply means belief in "no god" (which is philosophically and logically irrational as we have discussed before), so it seems you have changed your label to 'agnostic'." I don't remember my agreeing with you that atheism is logically irrational, but I do not expect others to feel as I do. I am an atheist, but regardless of my lack of belief in god, I'm sure you will agree that you have as much proof that there is one, or should I say lack of proof, as I do proof that there is not. That said, agnosticism can be the only intellectually honest position to be in.

"However, agnosticism simply means (Gr.) "a gnosis", which is that one doesn't know. If one doesn't know, it follows that an agnostic cannot know the God of the Bible does not exist." Just as a bible believer cannot know the the god of the bible does exist. It is something you choose to believe.

"Well I agree the one true God and Creator hates all works-based religion that feeds man's ego and wants us to humbly receive His unspeakable gift of new life through Christ in a living, loving relationship." Again, that is the belief system you have chosen to embrace. It is a belief, however, that, based on what is seen here on this board, leaves room for much argument and disagreement, even among fellow believers. No one loses anything by chosing an agnostic position and doing good works. The fact is you embrace a religion that was designed by man, anthropocentic if you will. I say this because since man has, in his quest to control and define god, limited god and god's accessibility to all.

"From much study, conscience and personal experience, I know this is the only reasonable place to run to for this life as well as the next." I use the same tools you do, study, conscience and personal experience to come to the conclusion that all religions are man made, all flawed, all god limiting and that the amount of faith required to believe in life after death surpasses that needed to believe that it is not likely.

"But tell me, how does an "atheist" or "agnostic" such as yourself know what god he is even running to and how one could know it's the right or true one? What god are you talking about, that you say will not mind??" Let me just say that it stands to reason that if one can remove themselves from the dogmatic and reason stunting mechanisms of religious indoctination, if there is a god, he, she, it will become more apparent and accessable. I certainly do not expect you to agree, because I know where you are coming from. My post was directed to those that have questions or confusion, who see the constant back and forth, nasty at times, between fellow christians. You are obviously very secure in your beliefs. Perhaps you could spend a moment, rather that attacking my statement, by making a case for the benefits for your belief system, benefits that are not available to agnostics. There really is only one: promised, but not logically or reasonably likely, life after death. Nothing more. I have no problem with those that have no doubt that is possible. I only aim to help those that see the unlikeyhood of that but have not had the benefit of another point of view.

"Moreover, since you believe your mind is the product of random chance, how do you know it evolved correctly and is capable of any rational thought whatsoever?" I am comfortable with what I know.

[searchlight86]

“I'm sure you will agree that you have as much proof that there is one, or should I say lack of proof, as I do proof that there is not. That said, agnosticism can be the only intellectually honest position to be in.”

I don’t agree. Evidence is used to support belief or disbelief in God based on one’s perspective and selective use of evidence as well. To the extent one can separate objective evidence from religious and anti-religious dogma (which is not completely possible), actual evidence is strongly in favor of God’s existence. Agnosticism based on ignorance is sometimes an honest position, but not when it is willing ignorance.

Many who are willingly ignorant use intellect as a cover-up for rejecting God from the heart for reasons other than lack of information, and most typically this is pride. People are often not aware how self-centered pride is the core basis of their perspective, so that they are hardened and unreceptive to information that logically reveals God’s existence. A rare few, however, are aware this is their real reason for rejecting God, and courageous enough to admit it openly.

Please take a look at the following links regarding creation/evolution:
http://www.cultbusters.com.au/index.php?topic=158.msg18040#msg18040

http://www.cultbusters.com.au/index.php?topic=158.msg18350#msg18350
(through p.34, Reply #993)

… fulfilled Biblical prophecy:
http://www.cultbusters.com.au/index.php?topic=158.msg18447#msg18447
(through p. 34, Reply #1011)

… and why people reject God:
http://www.cultbusters.com.au/index.php?topic=145.msg19161#msg19161
(through p. 122, Reply #3635)

I am aware you are not a fan of CultBusters, but please consider the information there in this specific case, independent of its location. It’s not ethical for me to copy it here, but I would like to hear your comments on it, and we can continue the discussion here on FACTNet. Let’s stay on topic and not turn this into a referendum on CultBusters or FACTNet, as I’m sure there are other threads for anyone interested in that discussion.

“Just as a bible believer cannot know the the god of the bible does exist. It is something you choose to believe.”

Yes, belief in the existence of the God of the Bible is a choice. Belief that there is no God is also a choice. When it comes down to it, belief in anything is a choice. I hope you agree we should be guided by objective truth, and go wherever the evidence leads, putting aside our individual biases as much as humanly possible to determine what is true and what isn’t.

[searchlight86]

“No one loses anything by chosing an agnostic position and doing good works. The fact is you embrace a religion that was designed by man, anthropocentric if you will. I say this because since man has, in his quest to control and define god, limited god and god's accessibility to all.”

If God exists, one eventually loses everything by alienating themselves from Him, since He is the only source of life and goodness. God is indeed accessible to all in every age, but as you know we mean different things by the term ‘God’. I refer to a unique, self-existent (and theocentric) Creator and subsequent Savior of His universe, while you presumably refer to an anthropocentric god that any and every man is free to define for himself.

We should do all good we can to everyone, but good includes honor and thanks to the Creator for His love and all the good things he has given us. If the Biblical God exists (and He does), His standard for goodness is absolute, none of us come close to meeting it, and regeneration via new life in Christ is absolutely essential. One cannot even begin to approach perfect goodness no matter how hard we try to do good works, and deceiving ourselves to think we are good is only relative to and based on paltry anthropocentric standards. Compared to an absolute standard, we are all corrupt to an immense degree, if we are honest.

“all religions are man made, all flawed, all god limiting and that the amount of faith required to believe in life after death surpasses that needed to believe that it is not likely”

I agree all ‘religions’ are man made, but again we mean different things by the term ‘religions’. It seems we agree ‘religion’ is anthropocentric, but what I am saying is that there is one unique belief system that is not anthropocentric, based on the genuine God, and this is orthodox Christianity. That is where we disagree. Regarding evidence, I look forward to your reply about information in the above links.

“if one can remove themselves from the dogmatic and reason stunting mechanisms of religious indoctination, if there is a god, he, she, it will become more apparent and accessable. I certainly do not expect you to agree, because I know where you are coming from.”

Surprise! I completely agree. God hates ‘religion’, and it is one of the primary tools of the Enemy to deceive, enslave and condemn people. Jesus Christ was hardest on the hypocritical religious elite of his day, and He was derided by them for reaching out to the outcasts of this world. Again, I know we mean different things by the term ‘religion’, and this is addressed above.

[searchlight86]

“Perhaps you could spend a moment, rather that attacking my statement, by making a case for the benefits for your belief system, benefits that are not available to agnostics. There really is only one: promised, but not logically or reasonably likely, life after death.”

This is a valid question, but at the same time it is not just about selfish benefits to us. It is about all those we are related to and influence as well, including our husbands and wives, parents, children, friends, others around us, and most importantly God also. There are no spiritual benefits at all to anthropomorphic belief systems, including ‘religions’, agnosticism and atheism (which some such as the Supreme Court have classified as religion also), since they are all deceptions to alienate us from the genuine Creator and Savior.

If God exists, and eternal life is a reality, this dramatically changes what it takes to live a good and meaningful life here. When one is regenerated, God gradually transforms us from the inside out because His Holy Spirit is alive inside us. This is based on His power, although the extent to which people avail themselves of God's transforming power varies substantially. This is the exact opposite of ‘religion’, which falsely claims to perfect and transform one from the outside in. There is a vast difference from having a temporal vs. eternal perspective. When one is regenerated through Christ, then and only then are they in a position to glorify God in this life and do good that has any eternal value. This certainly includes, but is not limited to, the issue of salvation and eternal life for us and our loved ones. Christ said “For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?” (Mark 8:36)

“I am comfortable with what I know.”
I know, but why? I wouldn’t be, if I knew my brain’s unimaginably complex functioning was a product of random chance.

[nabashalam]

Why wont God heal amputees?

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/your-delusion.htm

[searchlight86]

The world we live in today isn't the 'very good' world God originally created. It is a cursed world full of suffering and death as consequences of our own corrupt natures, and the Bible refers to it as 'this present evil world'.

God will restore the universe to a flawless state at His good and chosen time (including healing of amputees!), and the reason He waits is He wants everyone to be saved, and to come to knowledge of the Truth. He wants no one to be eterntally seperated from Him in Hell, but this is the inevitable result for all those who proudly reject His unspeakable gift of new life in Christ.

For now though, God is not our servant genie who must grant our every wish. This reverses the roles of God and man, in that the individual becomes sovereign god, and God becomes a slave to man's whims. We need to get aligned with God's perspective, not Him to ours.