First of all I used to be a Christian since I was brought up in the faith. I think you're mostly unaware of my opinions and preferences. As my mental faculties developed, I realized that so many faiths and different interpretations made picking the correct religion impossible essentially. Who was I to say that the muslims were wrong, or that the protestants were wrong, or that the Native American animists and druids were wrong? all these people have had numerous experiences and visions. How can we possibly know which particular interpretation and faith is correct? There is no way to know for sure whatsoever. Its all up in the air. Unless God actually announces to the world what the correct interpretation is, we simply do not have the ability to know what is the correct religion. Further if God did care about our belief, he could easily have convinced us. He has the power to unambiguously show us the correct morality and the correct beliefs. It also doesn't make sense that God would provide evidence to bronze and iron age peasants in the form of various miracles and a supernatural savior whilst we're supposed to take an ancient book and everything else on faith. Those initial people and disciples received an abundant amount of evidence throughout the bible--so did people like Abraham and Isaac. Its simply inconsistent--God should be, at the minimum, providing us equivalent evidence if not more since he gave us the ability to develop the scientific method. Its clear that he doesn't care about our beliefs.
This post was formatted in such a way I had to work to make it readable.
1. I do not believe there is any such thing as a former Christian. I studied salvation for 3 years. It is my primary subject. I can give you scriptures until they come out of your ears that demonstrate that once born again it can't be undone.
2. Now as to why people claim they were "Christians". There are two kinds of faith spoken about in Christian circles. Superficial faith: meaning you may attend church, may believe you are a moral person, may even grant intellectual consent to Christian doctrine. This can be lost but it was not of much value anyway and cannot save anyone. The second kind of faith is called "saving faith" it is not to merely grant intellectual consent to biblical propositions and attend church, etc.... it is to have that truth transform you in a blinding flash on spiritual awakening. Christ said that once that occurred he will never leave nor forsake us, elsewhere it says once this happens no one (not even ourselves) can pluck us from God's hand because our salvation is guaranteed by God and God will not fail even if we do. Receiving the Holy Spirit as a possession in our hearts is specifically said to be the guranteur of our future salvation. Merely sitting in a church will no more make you a true Christian than sitting in a garage will make you a car.
The rest of your long paragraph is self refuting. Christ's message was an exclusive one. He said by no other name can any man reach God, and this is because his death provided that bridge that gets us over the infinite expanse between us and a perfect God. So if you were still wondering if Islam was correct, Buddha, etc..... was correct then your contradicting you claim to faith as a Christian. Faith in Christ necessarily entails that regions that deny or dismiss his provisional and sacrificial death are by necessity wrong if Christ be true. Does not sound like you were a Christian, sounds like you consent to the idea of the divine "in some form or another".
I actually take the least arrogant and the position requiring the least evidence. It is the most reasonable by far--i am what I call the agnostic, agnostic. This means I'm an agnostic who is agnostic about the probabilities of God's existence or the truth of any particular religion. Rather, I don't claim to know the probabilities of God or even have the ability to say what they could possibly be or what his characteristics are.
The least evidence is not the most reasonable position. However if not a Christian I can appreciate the sincerity of the agnostic position as the only honest choice left. Besides Christian faith it is the most honorable position available.
If you lack certainty in your world view, then you're closer to an agnostic than you are a christian. I mean the bible demands that you have certain faith in Christ and his salvation. You have doubt which means you're not really a true christian in my submission. Well that's another interpretation at least that many people abide by. I think that if you're not certain about your faith than you may as well just accept that you're an agnostic.
I do not lack certainty in Christ and what his death provides. All other details are distant seconds but you would be correct to say some scriptures I am agnostic about. I have met (spiritually) Christ using the Gospels as a road map and experienced what was promised by them and it is an experience so unexplainable by natural means that it can't even be fully explained by human language. That is the purpose of the bible and the universe. Now that I have got that right, arguing about whether the six days of creation were meant to be literal or allegory seems almost trivial but at least meaningful enough to consider and debate. IOW once you discover the treasure they treasure map becomes more of a curiosity than the primary focus of hope.
Whether or not you agree with any of this do you understand it?
Sorry but this is just wrong, especially today. Consider the issue of homosexuality, or stem cell research, or abortion, or condoms, or GMO foods, or thousands of other issues that easily are subject to a variety of christian interpretations. Furthermore look at all the different Christian sects. Some think that the pope is the Vicar of Christ on earth whereas others reject that entirely. I mean you only have to look at the different sects of Christians to know that there are obviously stark differences in interpretations. I'd like to see your evidence that says that 90% of Christians share mostly the same interpretations. Some believe that most of the stories are metaphorical for instance, whilst many believe that young earth creationism is true and evolution is false. I mean you must be joking when you say most christians are in alignment. You seem quite knowledgable about Christianity and yet you don't know about the vast, vast differences in interpretations. This is also partly due to the vast number of contradictory statements in the bible since it the canon was constructed by gospels and such which were compatible with the socioeconomic political cultural aspects of the time.
I assume your responding to my claim that 90% of denominations agree on 90% of doctrines. Let me amend that to say the statistics come from studies concerning core doctrines. What your mentioning are not core doctrines. I do not know how much agreement there are on these modern issues you mention. Usually it takes a new thing quite a while to be examined by theologians to make determinations on. The book of revelations written by an apostle was debated for 300 years before it was canonized. For what you mentioned I would have to act on my conscience and wait to see what biblical scholars eventually conclude. One thing I have not mentioned is that the Holy Spirit:
New International Version
But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.
Unfortunately to hear that truth you must be an obedient Christian and most of us are not. If I had a need to decide something about the issues you mentioned I would do as I did with salvation. Cut off the cable, through the VCR in the lake, turn off the computer and pray until I felt sure I correctly heard the Holy spirit clearly.
You seem to wrongly conclude that unless God gave us a book that emphatically covered every moral decision anyone would ever make (which would fill all the libraries on earth). Then we should give up the whole ship and dismiss God. He is smarter than that, he gives believers the ability to directly petition him, by most of us are too lazy, sinful, or pre-occupied to use that gift.
Almost all bible scholars and historians recognize that a variety of different humans wrote various gospels and scriptures which were added to the bible. Various filters were then added and the bible came about as a conglomeration that depended on a variety of factors like politics at the time and the opinions of the religious leaders. You make it sound like God wrote this book and that was that. Nope. It was much more complicated than that and developed over the course of many years. Furthermore, how can you then say, based on all of this, that the bible was written by God? Clearly it was written by men.
Over 100 scholars edited the NIV. With the exception of Hebrews (coincidentally the most textually accurate book) and parts of the Pentateuch they all agree with the traditional authors. In historical matters in general earlier is better, the Church fathers agreed with traditional authorship, I think you are incorrect about scholarly conclusion concerning biblical authorship. Look it up on the most trusted biblical site on the net. Blue letter bible. There you will find what the consensus of NT scholars conclude. And btw there is not one I was there and this did not happen record from the time to be found anywhere. Even if authorship was questionable it seems what was recorded has no contemporary critic writings refuting it. Each subject you bring up would require several entire posts to properly cover, so I always left with a thousand things I could and should say to counter your points. Could you break these up somewhat?
Like I said, things these coincidences as well as feelings do not suggest whatever that you know the mind of God etc. Its simply a non sequitor. For all you know it could be allah who's trying to communicate to you to switch over or something entirely different, which although unlikely is possible, like an alien intelligence from another solar system who's doing an experience. And that would explain alien abduction experiences as well!
Well that was 100% dismissal by category. It involves taking something good and labeling something bad and then dismissing it simply because you relabeled it Your also ignoring a statement I made specifically to avoid what you did. I am not arguing to a certainty. I am arguing to a best explanation. For example is the spiritual experience better explained by epilepsy (which can create false theological visions) or God. Well since the percentage of people with epilepsy is small and the numbers who have been born again in the billions epilepsy is not the best explanation. What about Paul leaving to imprison Christians and arriving as one better explained by temporary insanity or meeting a risen Christ. Since he never wavered in his faith and never showed signs of insanity the best explanation is spiritual. Do you have a better explanation as to why the apostles who would have known for a fact gave up everything to teach a risen Christ. One of the greatest experts on testimony and evidence (Simon Greenleaf actually wrote text books on it and cofounded Harvard law) said there is not even a distant secondary motivation to consider beyond their sincerity.
What you're doing reflects type 1A thinking errors mainly. THis occurs when you presume an intelligence is at work when there is no evidence that such an entity or intelligence is actually doing anything. It is entirely possible that these events could happen to you in a universe devoid of an intervening God. When you start looking for patterns and evidence you'll necessarily find certain things which fit the pattern. Think about how many times when you haven't had these coincidences or feelings. Because you're attuned to things which support Christianity though, you remember all the instances which support Christianity. Its known psychologically as the confirmation bias. I would be more amazed if there werent any coincidences because there are so many different events which have occurred in your life. I
And what your doing would have snuffed out modern science. The scientific revolution occurred because those Christian scholars believed a rational God would create a rational universe, they then set out to decode that rationality from the universe. Modern abstract science was born. BTW 78% of Nobel's are awarded to Christians.
Is Fred Hoyle making thinking errors in saying: "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature."
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/nave-html/faithpathh/hoyle.html
How does it require an impossibility? I have no need for objective morality. I know that society needs an effective morality in order to function. Murder is wrong because our society wouldn't work without it. I wouldn't want to live in a society where murder, theft, etc was acceptable. I couldn't live the life I enjoy now. It would be an awful kind of survival of the fittest world. Utilitarianism can be a basis for morality--what works best for societies. You cannot know if objective morality exists regardless though, or if you're actually following the correct objective morality. Morality changes and adapts all the time so what are the odds that you're actually following the objective morality that God aligns with?
Because nature can never tell anyone the way a thing should be. The universe can only tell us the way things are. It is called the "is/ought" dilemma and can be found in any philosophical encyclopedia. No molecule or collection of them contains a moral property. You may invent some ethics or legality if you wished but none or you laws or ethics would reflect objective moral fact.
1. The book has an inconsistent morality that often justifies genocide and slavery and the stoning of homosexuals and human sacrifice. Morality today depends on secular decisions based on utilitarianism which is a much more functional and pleasant morality.
Argument by classification. Classify it as inconsistent and dismiss it. Your going to have to show it is inconsistent first.
2. Many people do not ahve a conscience.
Almost all do. We disagree about what is right or wrong, but almost all medically in tact humans believe that at least one thing is right or wrong.
Unless your 4000 years old and in certain places and times your objection is meaningless.
4. It often isn't and depends on the culture and time period. Many cultures like the Aztecs thought the God's wanted murder and human sacrifices--some cultures can justify murder. They have no inherent way of knowing they're wrong.
It does not require universal agreement among which morals are right or wrong. The mere fact we almost universally believe something's are mallum in se (wrong by their nature alone) that points to a God. Because without a God nothing what so ever would be.
I can see that if practiced by a culture God's morality would make that culture the most successful of all. Imagine a culture that did not murder, commit adultery, did not lie, were united by a belief in charity, had no alcoholism, etc.......beats any society we ever created by leaps and bounds.
