I am a non-believer and have some questions

[The Transcended Omniverse]

I'm new here so, please, name 2 or 3 reasons you reject Christianity. Btw, I have had my own fair share of questions and doubts the last couple years. But, I've never rejected or denied Jesus is God. I simply cannot get passed all of the evidence for Him. I mean, Jesus predicted electricity, TVs and satellites. That is tough to deny or reject- and the crazy part is most folks never notice He said it.

If you wish to reply to my previous post I just made to you, then you are free to do so anytime and carry on this debate with me. I think you might of skipped and missed that previous post of mine.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I'm new here so, please, name 2 or 3 reasons you reject Christianity. Btw, I have had my own fair share of questions and doubts the last couple years. But, I've never rejected or denied Jesus is God. I simply cannot get passed all of the evidence for Him. I mean, Jesus predicted electricity, TVs and satellites. That is tough to deny or reject- and the crazy part is most folks never notice He said it.

First, if you think that Jesus "predicted electricity, TVs and satellites," then I have to tell you that you can only make that claim on the basis of wildly imaginative and inaccurate readings of what the Gospellers wrote about what Jesus said.

I do not accept the notion of "original sin," or that I nor anybody can be tainted by the sin of somebody else, and need salvation from it. It's a repugnant notion, and every human law (wisely) shuns it as the anathema that it is. And yet it is central -- absolutely central - to Christianity.

I do not accept that any omnipotent and omniscient god has any need whatsoever of making itself know the way that the Bible (and the Qur'an, for that matter) claim. If a god can make its will known to Adam, to Noah, to Abraham, to Moses, to Jesus, to Paul -- then that god can makes its will known to everybody else. To do it in the fashion claimed by Christianity -- considering that it has led to religious wars killing literally millions, and to 38,000 so-called "Christian" sects, all vying for air-time -- would mean that the god who did so is literally insane. To know that something will fail utterly, and do it anyway, doesn't seem very "god-like" to me.

The very idea of the creation of physical humans by a spiritual god, for the purpose of having them die and sorting them out spiritually after-the-fact into winners and losers is ludicrous. If God wants souls in heaven (He already had angels, so we're told) he could create them directly. There is zero purpose served by incorporating a kind of "larval stage" to see what will go wrong or right. It is a fundamentally silly notion.

Christians find all sorts of ways to try and pretend it isn't true, or it means something else, but the plain fact is, Jesus said His kingdom was coming, and coming soon (while some standing before Him would still be alive). And to make matters worse, He reinforced that by telling us all not to save for the future, not to care for family, not to bother about anything other than getting our little souls all tidied up before we were judged to ugly to visit the Big Kahuna. This is (especially in the light of over 2,000 years of it not happening -- and every Christian I've ever met disobeying everything that Christ said about not saving and caring for family) utterly dumb.

And on that last point, let me say just one thing: because all the Christians in history (with the exception of a tiny number of religious zealots) likewise did not believe what Jesus told them. Because they did, and do, save for the future. They do worry about their families -- present and future. So, if Christians don't believe what their own "Saviour" told them, why on earth would I?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

If one looks only for reasons to doubt or find flaw and ignores those things that cannot be explained, then that person will remain a doubter.

I do not need every question or mystery answered to remain confident in the supernatural manifestations over history since the first Jews.

And that's the key difference between us. If -- as you yourself said -- a thing "cannot be explained" -- then I do not pretend to have an explanation. The religious, on the other hand, seem to do just that: first say it is unknowable and then tell us that they know --- and lay it out in detail!

And what is a "supernatural manifestation" anyway? Only something you've seen for which you don't have an explanation. Instead of calling it supernatural, I belong to that mind-set that would rather say, "I don't understand that, so I think I'll try to find out."

 

[Valerian]

And that's the key difference between us. If -- as you yourself said -- a thing "cannot be explained" -- then I do not pretend to have an explanation. The religious, on the other hand, seem to do just that: first say it is unknowable and then tell us that they know --- and lay it out in detail!

And what is a "supernatural manifestation" anyway? Only something you've seen for which you don't have an explanation. Instead of calling it supernatural, I belong to that mind-set that would rather say, "I don't understand that, so I think I'll try to find out."

I could expound on the words I just said, but I cannot improve on them. The difference between how you and I look at things is stark. So it appears it may stay that way.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I could expound on the words I just said, but I cannot improve on them. The difference between how you and I look at things is stark. So it appears it may stay that way.

Yes, it may. But let me give you an example of thinking about things -- even things like stories in Genesis.

The Bible claims that Eve was created out of a "rib" taken from Adam, yes? An interesting story, highly creative. And you might ask how the writers came up with it. I do NOT assume that they were stupid -- quite the opposite. I think those writers were clever, had a considerable amount of knowledge about the world they lived in, but lacked a lot of the stuff we know today. And really, for obvious reasons: knowledge is cumulative, and we've had 2900 years to gain a bit more than they had.

But let's look at what they knew back then:

• Every mammal that they were aware of was possessed of a bone that helped maintain the male's erection. It is called a "baculum" (and I'd like you to note that the word used to mean rib in Genesis really means "support"). Every mammal except one: humans. What they did not know, because there were no specimens available at the east of the Mediterranean, is that Spider Monkeys are likewise free of a baculum, and like us, use only hydraulics.
• They were aware that every male person has what surely looks exactly like a scar running between their anus and their scrotum. This is called a "raphe." It is actually the evidence of the sealing up of the original opening that all foetuses have before they resolve in the womb into male and female.

Now, if you know those two things, do you not actually think it was an extremely clever guess by the ancients to suppose that Adam originally had what all other animals had -- a baculum (support) -- and that to create Eve, God put Adam to sleep, took out the baculum (try to keep in mind that this is part of the male reproductive system) and used it to create Eve, even "closing up" Adam's wound, leaving the raphe?

Frankly, I think it's wonderfully clever. But it is also, for all that, quite wrong.

(I'm editing this post to add: I am not criticising the ancients, nor calling them ignorant or stupid. They appear to me to have been genuinely inquisitive, genuinely knowledgeable within the context of their time, and truly creative. The effort to try and explain (as in the case of the rib/raphe/Eve story above), is the exact equivalent to science -- using the best tools that you have available to you. So please don't think I'm knocking the Genesis writers on that score.)

 

[sayak83]

I was speaking of the modern world (so I stand corrected, for not saying that). Of course Greece, Rome, Egypt and others that came before them were superpowers in their day. And none were Christian-based bc it didn't exist. But, that, too, was designed. How could Jesus have come to this world and His words be spread all over the world if not for a previously instituted plan by God for Rome to exist and build and expand that set the stage for peace and safe passage, by and large, for the soon-to-be Apostles to travel? I see God's hand in everything. No other religion or movement has had such a powerful and long-lasting impact on civilization or mankind than Christianity.

So says all religions that happen to dominate at a certain point in history. One can as well say God planned the British empire so that His favored language, English, becomes the dominant language of the world.

 

[David T]

Actually, I wish I understood the Bible better. But, I do believe that one, especially a professing Christian, should never contradict clear Scripture. I have found no other or better explanation for Creation. There is, in point of fact, only two options for creation- God designed the Universe or everything magically went from nothing to something living all by itself and then, as if that wasn't insane enough, that once-dead-nothing that burst into living started to automatically and w/o choice or knowledge change and become something else- such as a worm turned into a snake into a rabbit into a dog into a...human. I find it takes far more faith to believe in the religion of evolution than Christianity. In Mad Max, the kids only knew what they were taught/told. In real life each of us can research and investigate things- life, history, Geography, etc. We are w/o excuse for studying everything to learn except learning the truth about which religion has the true God. There can be only one, by default.

Not knocking you at all. We wrote a story long ago and the story we wrote was that God himself came in flesh, walked amongst us raised people from the dead walked in water and those of us who were his closest followers had no clue to what he was talking about. He had to perform a rather interesting miracle for those of us whom were baffled by his teachings".

That's the story, so if they had a hard time I would say dealing with 2000 of books about books about a man who never wrote a single word but is the author of the text, is tricky tricky tricky in the very least. Sort of have to kind keep discovering and trust. I may understand the text but if I do, and God himself couldn't explain it in person I have even less of a chance here!! Peace

 

[David T]

Yes, it may. But let me give you an example of thinking about things -- even things like stories in Genesis.

The Bible claims that Eve was created out of a "rib" taken from Adam, yes? An interesting story, highly creative. And you might ask how the writers came up with it. I do NOT assume that they were stupid -- quite the opposite. I think those writers were clever, had a considerable amount of knowledge about the world they lived in, but lacked a lot of the stuff we know today. And really, for obvious reasons: knowledge is cumulative, and we've had 2900 years to gain a bit more than they had.

But let's look at what they knew back then:

• Every mammal that they were aware of was possessed of a bone that helped maintain the male's erection. It is called a "baculum" (and I'd like you to note that the word used to mean rib in Genesis really means "support"). Every mammal except one: humans. What they did not know, because there were no specimens available at the east of the Mediterranean, is that Spider Monkeys are likewise free of a baculum, and like us, use only hydraulics.
• They were aware that every male person has what surely looks exactly like a scar running between their anus and their scrotum. This is called a "raphe." It is actually the evidence of the sealing up of the original opening that all foetuses have before they resolve in the womb into male and female.

Now, if you know those two things, do you not actually think it was an extremely clever guess by the ancients to suppose that Adam originally had what all other animals had -- a baculum (support) -- and that to create Eve, God put Adam to sleep, took out the baculum (try to keep in mind that this is part of the male reproductive system) and used it to create Eve, even "closing up" Adam's wound, leaving the raphe?

Frankly, I think it's wonderfully clever. But it is also, for all that, quite wrong.

(I'm editing this post to add: I am not criticising the ancients, nor calling them ignorant or stupid. They appear to me to have been genuinely inquisitive, genuinely knowledgeable within the context of their time, and truly creative. The effort to try and explain (as in the case of the rib/raphe/Eve story above), is the exact equivalent to science -- using the best tools that you have available to you. So please don't think I'm knocking the Genesis writers on that score.)

That's a really good example how observational science works. Is the text that? no!! It's ultimately psychological along with narrative like science fiction. Create a reality that seems reasoned and create the psychological story in that. Where the real meat and potatoes is subliminal, the sub conscious the unconscious and true, the surface is fictional which is what some in religion and harsh atheism trend towards.

 

[David T]

That's a really good example how observational science works. Is the text that? no!! It's ultimately psychological along with narrative like science fiction. Create a reality that seems reasoned and create the psychological story in that. Where the real meat and potatoes is subliminal, the sub conscious the unconscious and true, the surface is fictional which is what some in religion and harsh atheism trend towards.

Btw contemporary evolutionary theory is science fiction on the sutface but deeper its truth. Family of god.

 

[Valerian]

Yes, it may. But let me give you an example of thinking about things -- even things like stories in Genesis.

The Bible claims that Eve was created out of a "rib" taken from Adam, yes? An interesting story, highly creative. And you might ask how the writers came up with it. I do NOT assume that they were stupid -- quite the opposite. I think those writers were clever, had a considerable amount of knowledge about the world they lived in, but lacked a lot of the stuff we know today. And really, for obvious reasons: knowledge is cumulative, and we've had 2900 years to gain a bit more than they had.

But let's look at what they knew back then:

• Every mammal that they were aware of was possessed of a bone that helped maintain the male's erection. It is called a "baculum" (and I'd like you to note that the word used to mean rib in Genesis really means "support"). Every mammal except one: humans. What they did not know, because there were no specimens available at the east of the Mediterranean, is that Spider Monkeys are likewise free of a baculum, and like us, use only hydraulics.
• They were aware that every male person has what surely looks exactly like a scar running between their anus and their scrotum. This is called a "raphe." It is actually the evidence of the sealing up of the original opening that all foetuses have before they resolve in the womb into male and female.

Now, if you know those two things, do you not actually think it was an extremely clever guess by the ancients to suppose that Adam originally had what all other animals had -- a baculum (support) -- and that to create Eve, God put Adam to sleep, took out the baculum (try to keep in mind that this is part of the male reproductive system) and used it to create Eve, even "closing up" Adam's wound, leaving the raphe?

Frankly, I think it's wonderfully clever. But it is also, for all that, quite wrong.

(I'm editing this post to add: I am not criticising the ancients, nor calling them ignorant or stupid. They appear to me to have been genuinely inquisitive, genuinely knowledgeable within the context of their time, and truly creative. The effort to try and explain (as in the case of the rib/raphe/Eve story above), is the exact equivalent to science -- using the best tools that you have available to you. So please don't think I'm knocking the Genesis writers on that score.)

Yes, well fine, you can’t buy it, and oddly enough, even the Catholic Church says many stories in the Bible are not required to accept as literal. But science has not answered many other perplexing manifestations, that was my point. And I already conceded you will find incongruities that you will reject any truth to the matter. So I see no reason to go episode by episode with you. You are focused on the improbables. No problem.

Outside of personal eye witness some may never concede God is. But I would be willing to wager if any of them sat in on a Catholic exorcism they would be rethinking it all.

ps – You understandably remain incredulous Eve could ever biologically come from a rib, then pardon us for being far more unbelieving an entire human could come from its ancient ancestors which were nothing more than dirt or soup, all by chance, no supreme designer.

 

[Altfish]

Where is your proof the Bible is false or man-made? I have seen prophecies in the Bible that were fulfilled. Only a book inspired by someone who could actually see (or be present in) the future could make such predictions and know those things would happen.
Also, fulfilled prophecies that were given 1,000 or 2,000 or more years before they came true. There is no way many of the prophecies could have been known in 'that' day- no electricity, no running water, no TV, etc., etc. The Bible states the earth is round/circular before anyone knew it was- even then (500 years ago) people taught the earth was flat. Also, Jesus predicted (prophesied) electricity, satellites and TVs. And, other Apostles/Prophets predicted other things that either have or we can see are about to happen. The evidence is there but we have to look for it. Plus, we have faith that is based on facts and not simply blind-faith like all of the others have.

There is much evidence that large portions of the Bible are plagiarised from previous gods. Just google something like "Evidence that the bible is false" and many articles come up, here's one...
The Bible is Fiction: A Collection Of Evidence

For an example looking solely at the story of Jesus...and I quote...

Jesus’s Story is an Obvious Rehashing Of Numerous Previous Characters
Perhaps even more compelling is the story of Christ himself. As it turns out it’s not even remotely original. It is instead nothing more than a collection of bits and pieces from dozens of other stories that came long before. Here are some examples.

1. Asklepios healed the sick, raised the dead, and was known as the saviour and redeemer.
2. Hercules was born of a divine father and mortal mother and was known as the saviour of the world.
3. Dionysus was literally the “Son of God”, was born of a woman who had not had sex with a man, and was depicted riding a donkey. He was a traveling teacher who performed miracles, and was killed and resurrected, after which time he became immortal.
4. Osiris did the same things. He was born of a virgin, was considered the first true king of the people, and when he died he rose from the grave and went to heaven.
5. Osiris’s son, Horus, was known as the “light of the world”, “The good shepherd”, and “the lamb”. He was also referred to as, “The way, the truth, and the life.” His symbol was a cross-like symbol.
6. Mithra‘s birthday was celebrated on the 25th of December, his birth was witnessed by local shepherds who brought him gifts, had 12 disciples, and when he was done on earth he had a final meal before going up to heaven. On judgment day he’ll return to pass judgment on the living and the dead. The good will go to heaven, and the evil will die in a giant fire. His holiday is on Sunday (he’s the Sun God). His followers called themselves “brothers”, and their leaders “fathers”. They had baptism and a meal ritual where symbolic flesh and blood were eaten. Heaven was in the sky, and hell was below with demons and sinners.
7. Krishna had a miraculous conception that wise men were able to come to because they were guided by a star. After he was born an area ruler tried to have him found and killed. His parents were warned by a divine messenger, however, and they escaped and was met by shepherds. The boy grew up to be the mediator between God and man.
8. Buddha‘s mother was told by an angel that she’d give birth to a holy child destined to be a saviour. As a child he teaches the priests in his temple about religion while his parents look for him. He starts his religious career at roughly 30 years of age and is said to have spoken to 12 disciples on his deathbed. One of the disciples is his favourite, and another is a traitor. He and his disciples abstain from wealth and travel around speaking in parables and metaphors. He called himself “the son of man” and was referred to as, “prophet”, “master”, and “Lord”. He healed the sick, cured the blind and deaf, and he walked on water. One of his disciples tried to walk on water as well but sunk because his faith wasn’t strong enough.
9. Apollonius of Tyana (a contemporary of Jesus) performed countless miracles (healing sick and crippled, restored sight, casted out demons, etc.) His birth was of a virgin, foretold by an angel. He knew scripture really well as a child. He was crucified, rose from the dead and appeared to his disciples to prove his power before going to heaven to sit at the right hand of the father. He was known as, “The Son of God”.

The problem, of course, is that these previous narratives existed hundreds to thousands of years before Jesus did.

 

[Tabu]

I have read some of your posts above , @MattMVS7
Well Matt , each one us has different experiences through life , thereby reaching to different conclusions.
Through your personal experiences and pondering and analyzing over them you feel it isn't fair that a loving God should have created Hell as a place of eternal torture in the first place , and should not have set conditions for entering Heaven , though you feel there should be some moral standards to abide by and temporary punishments as a means of rebuking to return back to the right track as a Mother would do to reprimand her child . An Eternal Hell would be an hopeless situation which serves no other purpose than vengeance and you cannot accept a loving God to have such a dark side.
I totally agree with your reasoning, its not faulty , but a strong point against such disheartening beliefs , and God has to strengthen souls not weaken them .
We see Hell as the darkest part of the night after which there is daylight , a beautiful new morning for Mankind .
We see this temporary Hell not as God's punishment but a fulfilment of The Law of Karma , The last days as a result of heavy accumulation of past Karmic accounts are going to be the toughest and we call this as Hell.
Even from here God who is the Comforter of Hearts, shows us the ways to lessen these punishments.
We see the soul as intrinsically good , and Happiness , peace , power , purity and knowledge to be the original nature of the soul and the soul gets thirsty for these as much as our bodies get thirsty for water when its levels dip .
So these are the compositions which make the Soul healthy and it is absolutely natural to seek for them , but one just needs to know from where you can have the refill of happiness and peace , and identify what weakens the soul , they are the five vices of body consciousness namely , lust , anger , attachment , greed and ego. Even attachment to a religion is considered a bodily attachment and hence considered ego , otherwise why would people feel hurt , lose their stability, turn argumentative and intolerant when religious beliefs are discussed.
As is your belief that we are images of God , so is ours , but it isn't the body but the soul which is the image of the Supreme Soul and He is the reservoir of all these power ,The Sun of Knowledge who can move aside the earthly shades of materialistic attachments from your soul and light it up to its original splendor of Happiness and peace.
As for religions, all of them have a time limit , starting as pure and ending as impure , so we believe this is that time where religions are reaching that stage of impurity, pollution and degradation. People would cling to the word but sprit would have been lost.

 

[The Transcended Omniverse]

I have read some of your posts above , @MattMVS7
Well Matt , each one us has different experiences through life , thereby reaching to different conclusions.
Through your personal experiences and pondering and analyzing over them you feel it isn't fair that a loving God should have created Hell as a place of eternal torture in the first place , and should not have set conditions for entering Heaven , though you feel there should be some moral standards to abide by and temporary punishments as a means of rebuking to return back to the right track as a Mother would do to reprimand her child . An Eternal Hell would be an hopeless situation which serves no other purpose than vengeance and you cannot accept a loving God to have such a dark side.
I totally agree with your reasoning, its not faulty , but a strong point against such disheartening beliefs , and God has to strengthen souls not weaken them .
We see Hell as the darkest part of the night after which there is daylight , a beautiful new morning for Mankind .
We see this temporary Hell not as God's punishment but a fulfilment of The Law of Karma , The last days as a result of heavy accumulation of past Karmic accounts are going to be the toughest and we call this as Hell.
Even from here God who is the Comforter of Hearts, shows us the ways to lessen these punishments.
We see the soul as intrinsically good , and Happiness , peace , power , purity and knowledge to be the original nature of the soul and the soul gets thirsty for these as much as our bodies get thirsty for water when its levels dip .
So these are the compositions which make the Soul healthy and it is absolutely natural to seek for them , but one just needs to know from where you can have the refill of happiness and peace , and identify what weakens the soul , they are the five vices of body consciousness namely , lust , anger , attachment , greed and ego. Even attachment to a religion is considered a bodily attachment and hence considered ego , otherwise why would people feel hurt , lose their stability, turn argumentative and intolerant when religious beliefs are discussed.
As is your belief that we are images of God , so is ours , but it isn't the body but the soul which is the image of the Supreme Soul and He is the reservoir of all these power ,The Sun of Knowledge who can move aside the earthly shades of materialistic attachments from your soul and light it up to its original splendor of Happiness and peace.
As for religions, all of them have a time limit , starting as pure and ending as impure , so we believe this is that time where religions are reaching that stage of impurity, pollution and degradation. People would cling to the word but sprit would have been lost.

I have already looked into all the information out there, but I have to remain undecided and it is my final and honest mindset. I will point out here again that just because something sounds very plausible and just because everything seems to add up to there being a Christian God and Jesus or any other god for that matter, that does not make it so. There are plenty of things in this world that sound just as plausible or even more plausible, but that does not make them so either.

There is a big distinction between something actually being plausible as opposed to something just sounding very plausible, but not actually being plausible. The latter is what skepticism is based upon. In other words, the skeptics are not just simply denying and dismissing all the claimed evidence out there for Christianity and for the afterlife/paranormal out of foolish arrogance. Rather, it could very well be the case that these things just sound very plausible, but actually aren't and do not qualify as actual evidence even though it really gives the impression that it is all compelling evidence.

There is no point in presenting to me anymore information and trying to convince me. My decision is undecided and that is final.

 

[Katzpur]

For ex. Mormonism teaches that Joseph Smith, its founder/1st prophet, is a God equal to God in many ways and that JS did more than Jesus. Yet, a quick look at what JS did proves he never created a single thing and that he lied a LOT.

You've been getting your information on Mormonism from a pretty disreputable source, Sonny. Something tells me, though, that you'd kind of prefer to believe what you do than to get your facts straight.

 

[Sonny]

It's because I don't ever become convinced like you or anyone else. Rather, I keep an open mind the whole 9 yards. In other words, it does not matter what claimed evidence or arguments are presented to me, I will still continue to have an open mind to skeptics as well as believers. But as I said before, I do disagree with the moral standards set by the Christian God as being love and holy/righteous.

So, let me see if I understand you. Facts do not affect you at all in life, right? You are guided by... what, exactly"- your feelings, other people's feelings, our culture, societal pressures, or, maybe, only the things you can imagine, perhaps? Those who live by feelings (JWs, LDS, Scientologists, Christian Scientists, etc) never accept facts regardless of how profound or obvious. I'm not sure why you'd want to debate something you either have no interest in or reject out of hand as not true. You appear to be an activist (apologist) for humanism or atheism. I don't see why you even care. If you had valid questions you wanted answered or valid points that, you feel, would shake a certain religion, that would be one thing. But you don't. You only want to hear that you're right and nothing anyone says is valid, worthy or true but your POV. I can't discuss that which you refuse to even consider as possible. It's pointless.

 

[The Transcended Omniverse]

So, let me see if I understand you. Facts do not affect you at all in life, right? You are guided by... what, exactly"- your feelings, other people's feelings, our culture, societal pressures, or, maybe, only the things you can imagine, perhaps? Those who live by feelings (JWs, LDS, Scientologists, Christian Scientists, etc) never accept facts regardless of how profound or obvious. I'm not sure why you'd want to debate something you either have no interest in or reject out of hand as not true. You appear to be an activist (apologist) for humanism or atheism. I don't see why you even care. If you had valid questions you wanted answered or valid points that, you feel, would shake a certain religion, that would be one thing. But you don't. You only want to hear that you're right and nothing anyone says is valid, worthy or true but your POV. I can't discuss that which you refuse to even consider as possible. It's pointless.

Why do you claim that I am going by feelings? I am not. I am going by my own honest and genuine mindset. There are many different types of facts out there. But deciding what is actually true is not an easy task. Truth seeking is a very difficult endeavor and I have tried to seek the truth all I can and just have to remain undecided. Whether that truth is the Christian God is real, that the skeptics are right, or that the truth is that there is no definite answer; I do not know. I do not know what the actual truth (fact) is. I have searched and searched with an honest, genuine, and open mindset and I have to remain undecided.

 

[Sonny]

You've been getting your information on Mormonism from a pretty disreputable source, Sonny. Something tells me, though, that you'd kind of prefer to believe what you do than to get your facts straight.

Having lived in Utah for over 33 years (St. George for 26) I'm pretty sure my 'personal' research is spot on. And, I have the old LDS books to prove it. But, I'm willing to listen and discuss the fact of Mormonism with you (anyone). One thing, though- don't get mad at my knowledge of the Mormon Church and your lack of it or the extent of it to which 'others' have told you it was true and run off when you don't like your church's truth, OK? I will show you things from accepted, taught, printed and published LDS books that will astound you (the vast majority of LDS, anyway). I have mottos I live by. One of them is- I follow the facts- whatever they say, wherever they lead. I don't accept a person's feelings as facts. And, neither should anyone else, including LDS. So, let's talk, Katzpur.

 

[Sonny]

Why do you claim that I am going by feelings? I am not. I am going by my own honest and genuine mindset. There are many different types of facts out there. But deciding what is actually true is not an easy task. Truth seeking is a very difficult endeavor and I have tried to seek the truth all I can and just have to remain undecided. Whether that truth is the Christian God is real, that the skeptics are right, or that the truth is that there is no definite answer; I do not know. I do not know what the actual truth (fact) is. I have searched and searched with an honest, genuine, and open mindset and I have to remain undecided.

If feelings don't drive you, what does? Facts seem unacceptable to you. Emotion seems to be your guide, to me at least. I have offered fulfilled prophecies, which no one can honestly or factual deny or refute but you ignore them. If the truth is not your guide in life what is?
Do you believe the earth is round? Why? Who told you it was? And why did you believe that? The same could be asked of a million different things you accept as fact. Is grass green? How do you know? Did you simply accept it bc someone told you it was (but refuse to accept Christianity based on the same basis) or did you investigate the color green to find out its origins and to make sure green is really green and grass is the correct name for that which grows in yards and parks? My point is, have you, really, done such intense research into everything you believe before accepting it as such or did you accept it bc others said it? And, since you almost certainly just accepted most things in life, that you believe in, as fact why is it so hard to accept Christianity when it has evidence up the wa-zoo for it being real and true. You are either one Gung-Ho guy (which is cool) or you pick and choose your facts based on what you feel or what others have told you, or so it seems to me.

 

[The Transcended Omniverse]

If feelings don't drive you, what does? Facts seem unacceptable to you. Emotion seems to be your guide, to me at least. I have offered fulfilled prophecies, which no one can honestly or factual deny or refute but you ignore them. If the truth is not your guide in life what is?
Do you believe the earth is round? Why? Who told you it was? And why did you believe that? The same could be asked of a million different things you accept as fact. Is grass green? How do you know? Did you simply accept it bc someone told you it was (but refuse to accept Christianity based on the same basis) or did you investigate the color green to find out its origins and to make sure green is really green and grass is the correct name for that which grows in yards and parks? My point is, have you, really, done such intense research into everything you believe before accepting it as such or did you accept it bc others said it? And, since you almost certainly just accepted most things in life, that you believe in, as fact why is it so hard to accept Christianity when it has evidence up the wa-zoo for it being real and true. You are either one Gung-Ho guy (which is cool) or you pick and choose your facts based on what you feel or what others have told you, or so it seems to me.

You claim that Christianity and the Christian God being real is as obvious as the Earth being a sphere, but I am not seeing that. Take note that I have really kept an open mind to the skeptics and have really read into what they had to say. I have read into what the skeptics had to say about the things you have claimed to make the Christian God so obviously real that you would have to be a Flat Earth believer to not be convinced.

But I am just not seeing that. I am not seeing where I would have to be as dumb as someone who thinks the Earth is flat to not be convinced of the evidence you claim is undeniable for God's existence. I do not see how these skeptics are just as dumb as those people who think the Earth is flat. These are highly intelligent skeptics after all and I honestly and truly do not see that what you are claiming is true. I have done deep research and I just have to remain undecided.

 

[Sonny]

How do you square this with people who have never heard of Christianity or live in an area that is culturally a different religion? Is a person who is raised in a southern Christian home in the US that is sprinkled with holy water at 3 days old and had the idea of Jesus drilled into their head somehow an objectively better person than the one who grew up in Islam and was taught that Christianity is wrong? Or the same thing to Hindus, Jews and all other religions?

A common answer is that somehow Christianity is just objectively true and better in the eyes of all people and yet if that were true why do we still see so many people following other religions? Why is it purely cultural? Why does what we are raised in have a profound impact on which religion we choose if Christianity was some kind of obvious answer?

I can't square it at all. But I know that God says He will judge each of us on what we do with what we know. And, since He put a knowledge of Him in all of us, kinda hard-wired it in our design, it is our responsibility to follow Him to the best of our ability and knowledge. Very few places in the world today have not heard about Christ. And, clearly, Christianity/Christians has actively sought ways to reach those who have not heard. But very few, if any, in America can say they haven't heard or can't find info about Jesus/Christianity. It is those folks (who have heard) that are at greatest risk of danger should they pass w/o accepting Him. God is just, fair and always right. He is not going to damn anyone for not knowing about Him. Well, God doesn't damn anyone ever. We decide where we will spend eternity. Folks don't like that bc they now have to be held accountable for everything they say and do and think. We are rebellious by nature, especially Americans, and don't want anyone 'telling us' anything. But God is love and only wants our very best. That makes serving Him worth it all.