Walker wrote: ↑Tue Dec 13, 2022 4:02 amI'm addressing the principle of religious devotion and practice, called Bhakti, which is a path to God.Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Dec 13, 2022 1:05 amI see little evidence for that belief. Christianity borrowed heavily over the centuries from the Babylonians, Egyptians, Greeks, Plato, Aristotle, Cynics, and Pagan traditions, among many others.
You do miss a lot of stuff, Gary.
Sell your projections about belief somewhere else.
You're not quick enough or smart enough to pull that crap around here.
Much better to be honest in dialoguing.
You will learn more, and not complain so much.
Whatever the religion, you must follow the tenets of the religion, to get the benefits.
That's the point that you so purposely missed.
For example, you cannot be a Catholic and advocate for abortion.
That shoots the whole project right in the foot, and it's a lie to try and pull it off.
It's dishonest.
Christianity
-
Gary Childress
- Posts: 11749
- Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
- Location: It's my fault
Re: Christianity
- Immanuel Can
- Posts: 27608
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm
Re: Christianity
Biggie:
A couple of things I don't bother to do.
One is to defend arguments I've never made, such as...(as you wrote) "God does exist because it says so in the Christian Bible". What I've always said is that God does exist AND (you're right about this much) it ALSO says that He does in the Bible." The "because" part was never in any of my arguments, ever, of course. You're guilty of blatant straw-manning there. I don't think any thinking person will have missed that, if any were watching.
But secondly, I don't bother to debate with people who won't even view the evidence when it's presented right in front of their faces. Why you're afraid of the videos, I can't say...but it's clear you are. As for me, I read Nietzsche and Hume with no fear, but you can't even watch a few minutes of a video done by a thinking person from the other side?
That seems a little...uncourageous. Let's just put it that way.
Re: Christianity
I was thinking the same thing around the time you said this... and I meant to reply.iambiguous wrote: ↑Fri Dec 09, 2022 6:44 pm Let's ignore IC. His own ridiculous, circular arguments. Let's move beyond mere entertainment and examine this seriously.
Entertainment and mastery are the only reasons for engaging with certain people and circumstances. Sometimes ignoring them is best because of all the falseness they utilize to spin their webs. Their primary product is absurdity, and it's just not even worth engaging with in any serious way.
What I've learned is that it's not so much what we need to 'do', but rather what we need to stop doing. We can have more insight when we move beyond the noise and absurd beliefs. The noise keeps us hypnotized and enraged and imprisoned.iambiguous wrote: ↑Fri Dec 09, 2022 6:44 pmWhat is a mere mortal to do here given what is at stake both here and now and there and then?
Some people and organizations can't handle/survive natural and free transformation, so keeping things spun up with all the forced absurdity and lies is preferable to moving beyond it and revealing the truth.
There is more that can naturally be realized when we can listen and see with more clarity. It may seem scary at first, stepping off into the unknown and away from the noise, but new and greater awareness quickly fills in!
- iambiguous
- Posts: 11317
- Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm
Re: Christianity
Look, you either believe that the Christian Bible is the word of God or you don't. And if you do believe that and then [over and over and over again] you quote passages from it to support your arguments, I think it's reasonable to suggest that you are going around and around in circles here.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Dec 13, 2022 5:33 amBiggie:iambiguous wrote: ↑Tue Dec 13, 2022 2:29 am Note to henry quirk:
The clock's ticking. Even if you blow someone away with your bazooka just to watch him die, it's not as bad as refusing to accept Jesus Christ as your personal savior.
Unless, of course, IC is wrong.
How about joining me in demanding that once and for all he actually does prove that the Christian God resides in Heaven.
Let's try this...
IC watches all of the videos above one more time. Then he chooses what he believes is the most compelling clip demonstrating that the Christian God does in fact exist.
Also, when those like me note how arguing that the Christian God does exist because it says so in the Christian Bible is bogus circular "logic", let him introspect as long as it takes to demonstrate that it is not.
A couple of things I don't bother to do.
One is to defend arguments I've never made, such as...(as you wrote) "God does exist because it says so in the Christian Bible". What I've always said is that God does exist AND (you're right about this much) it ALSO says that He does in the Bible." The "because" part was never in any of my arguments, ever, of course. You're guilty of blatant straw-manning there. I don't think any thinking person will have missed that, if any were watching.
Take away the Bible and what other evidence do you have? Or, perhaps, when you view those videos again, you will be able to provide us with the segment from the one that does establish that the Christian God does in fact reside in Heaven...as so many mere mortals are able to establish that the Pope does in fact reside in the Vatican
What specious crap. You dump all these videos on me. I ask you to provide me the most dramatic evidence to support your claim. Something that would prompt me to invest my own precious time in watching them.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Dec 13, 2022 5:33 amBut secondly, I don't bother to debate with people who won't even view the evidence when it's presented right in front of their faces. Why you're afraid of the videos, I can't say...but it's clear you are.
You still haven't done that.
So, I think it is reasonable to ask "why not"?
Note to others:
Has anyone here watched them? I watched this one -- https://youtu.be/hHXXacBAm2A .
As though it actually does establish the existence of the Christian God!!! At best it suggests that there are mysteries embedded in existence itself that some might use to note that a God/the God is not completely out of the question.
And I am more than willing to acknowledge that myself. Sure, God is one possible explanation for the existence of existence itself.
And then for those who argue that it is their own God, I direct them to these factors:
1] a demonstrable proof of the existence of your God or religious/spiritual path
2] addressing the fact that down through the ages hundreds of Gods and religious/spiritual paths to immortality and salvation were/are championed...but only one of which [if any] can be the true path. So why yours?
3] addressing the profoundly problematic role that dasein plays in any particular individual's belief in Gods and religious/spiritual faiths
4] the questions that revolve around theodicy and your own particular God or religious/spiritual path
Re: Christianity
I resent your implication, Walker. I do not associate with women of the church.
I respect women, and would never encourage them to go into a church.don’t encourage women to start in with the things off in church
-
tillingborn
- Posts: 1305
- Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 3:15 pm
Re: Christianity
Quite apart from the fact that it simply doesn't follow that an undetectable variation could not be "selected for" because Darwin said "natural selection" had to do the "selecting," who are you to say what nature cannot detect?Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Dec 12, 2022 11:47 pmBut because Darwin said "natural selection" had to do the "selecting," an undetectable variation could not be "selected for."
If you walk a line from sub-Saharan Africa, through north Africa, southern, central and northern Europe up to Scandinavia, you will appreciate the gradual change from dark skin to light. That is because the survival advantage of melatonin varies with latitude, not a lot, but enough that over generations, people best adapted to a particular environment became more numerous. Different adaptations apply to things like extreme cold or altitude; we're all human and we all have generations of evolutionary baggage.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Dec 12, 2022 11:47 pmIt would have to be a mutation so significant that it actually immediately delivered a survival advantage. So we're not looking for something gradual...a gradual change wouldn't be "selected for." We need a decisive improvement, instead.
We can't. Nobody thinks that is a requirement of evolution apart from you.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Dec 12, 2022 11:47 pmI asked how we could get a whole bunch of a species to mutate suddenly in a particular direction simultaneously.
That is what you have chosen to believe, but it is not true. For one there are always alternative hypotheses; the fact that you can't think of them, or entertain them doesn't make your reasoning "inescapable". The other thing is that it is not true that both halves of a mating pair have to have the same genetic adaptation for it to be passed on.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Dec 12, 2022 11:47 pmAnd if we can't, then the idea of an original mating pair is inescapable.
It is not a matter of fact. Again, it is what you choose to believe.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Dec 12, 2022 11:47 pmYou can't get the requisite "survival advantage" without a "clearly defined stage," as a matter of fact.
No we are not; it's just you.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Dec 12, 2022 11:47 pmEither the evolutionary forward-step involved sexual reproduction, or it did not. If it involved sexual reproduction, we're positing one pair as the starting point of any phase of evolving forward.
- Immanuel Can
- Posts: 27608
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm
Re: Christianity
Okay.iambiguous wrote: ↑Tue Dec 13, 2022 6:34 am Look, you either believe that the Christian Bible is the word of God or you don't.
I do...when my argument is, "this is what the Bible says." For a lot of people express confusion as to what a Christian is: and this is, in fact, the topic that started the thread, essentially. So the Bible is the main resource for answering that question.And if you do believe that and then [over and over and over again] you quote passages from it to support your arguments
But I never made the "because" out of it that you try to put into my mouth. For I know full well that many here, like you, do not believe the Bible; so even if (as I maintain) the Bible is the word of God, that's not an argument that they would believe. So I haven't made it. And I marvel that you tried to script it for me.
I gave you evidence and arguments. You won't even view what I gave you, though it's incredibly simple to do so.Take away the Bible and what other evidence do you have?
"My precious time"? You spend all your "precious time" arguing here, and ignoring the evidence, so I don't see that you are investing it nearly so well as you would be if you just looked at what I provided to you.What specious crap. You dump all these videos on me. I ask you to provide me the most dramatic evidence to support your claim. Something that would prompt me to invest my own precious time in watching them.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Dec 13, 2022 5:33 amBut secondly, I don't bother to debate with people who won't even view the evidence when it's presented right in front of their faces. Why you're afraid of the videos, I can't say...but it's clear you are.
But if your time is "precious," how much is your soul worth to you? Maybe you might want to invest some of that "precious time" in looking at the evidence; because if what I say is true, the most valuable thing you have is at stake.
Here's a quotation to show that to say so is Christian: [Jesus said] "For what good will it do a person if he gains the whole world, but forfeits his soul? Or what will a person give in exchange for his soul?" (Matthew 16:26) Now the question follows: He said it...is it the truth?
Re: Christianity
How can anyone be absolutely sure of that?Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Dec 13, 2022 3:15 pm so even if (as I maintain) the Bible is the word of God,
Re: Christianity
Immanuel Can wrote:
Jesus is reputed to have said that, and I believe he did say it. No matter who first said it I'd believe it to be good advice. Do you believe it because it's in The Bible, or do you believe it because it's good advice?Here's a quotation to show that to say so is Christian: [Jesus said] "For what good will it do a person if he gains the whole world, but forfeits his soul? Or what will a person give in exchange for his soul?" (Matthew 16:26) Now the question follows: He said it...is it the truth?
- Immanuel Can
- Posts: 27608
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm
Re: Christianity
Darwin said it. Argue with him, I guess.tillingborn wrote: ↑Tue Dec 13, 2022 10:53 amQuite apart from the fact that it simply doesn't follow that an undetectable variation could not be "selected for" because Darwin said "natural selection" had to do the "selecting," who are you to say what nature cannot detect?Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Dec 12, 2022 11:47 pmBut because Darwin said "natural selection" had to do the "selecting," an undetectable variation could not be "selected for."
But it makes perfect sense. If "survival of the fittest" is what drives forward evolution, then whatever is "selected for" can only be a feature that makes the organism "more fit" than its rivals. That means it has to be something important, something functional for survival, and something complete...instantaneously.
It's a problem for Darwinists...it's no problem for me.
Scientists refer to that as "microevolution." It means that a feature of the creature changes, but the creature essentially does not. And nobody, of any stripe, denies that there are modest genetic modifications (like amount of melanin) that can be produced by environment. But Darwin's theory is much more ambitious: it's about how one species becomes another. And "species" is defined by genetics and interfertility. Two animals that cannot reproduce are of different species. And Darwinianism requires that one species can convert into another.If you walk a line from sub-Saharan Africa, through north Africa, southern, central and northern Europe up to Scandinavia, you will appreciate the gradual change from dark skin to light.
All human beings, everywhere on the planet, are of the same species. They're all interfertile and genetically compatible. That should astonish us, if Darwinism were true; for we should expect that for every modern human as we know them there would be billions of evolutionary "false starts" and "other species of humanish creatures," since evolution is supposed to be a random process defined by survival of the fittest. In fact, it's not even clear that modern humans are the maximally "adaptive" version of the humanoid form; so we should expect there should be variations on that theme, as well, with some humans far more survival-adaptive than others, in quite spectacular ways.
But it is not so. And we need some mechanism, some scientific principle, that explains why that's not what we see. Something's clearly "regulating" and "defining the parameters" of what a human can be; but we have no such principle that we know or observe.
Everyone who says there was no original mating pair has to be backing a theory that requires multiple mating pairs and simultaneous mutation. No such theory works. You can see that.We can't. Nobody thinks that is a requirement of evolution apart from you.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Dec 12, 2022 11:47 pmI asked how we could get a whole bunch of a species to mutate suddenly in a particular direction simultaneously.
Apparently not. There isn't even a plausible narrative involving multiple pairs producing instant survival-advantages, even for one phase of evolution, let alone coordinated over millions of years of the necessary mutations....there are always alternative hypotheses
I didn't say they did. What I said is that they can't have it recessively, or there's trait suppression, and no adaptation manifests. So both halves must have the dominance of the genetic potential for the trait, which must manifest as a "survival advantage" in the first wave (so as to be "selected for" by nature) and both participants have to have it at the same time, and find each other...and then their progeny must do the same...for millions of years, apparently...and it all turns immensely improbable.The other thing is that it is not true that both halves of a mating pair have to have the same genetic adaptation for it to be passed on.
I think you can see: it's much easier to say, "There was one original mating pair that had the genetic trait, and it was an immediate survival advantage." So that's the story you're going to have to go with, if you want to go with Darwin. The alternative is so immensely complex that it defies narration altogether.
- Alexis Jacobi
- Posts: 8301
- Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am
Re: Christianity
Let's take a more penetrating look. But let's also recognize that if I (for example) left this forum and came back in a month, a year, or ten years, the same type of conversational log-jam would still be going on. You, Iambiguous, have one post that you post and repost. You say the same thing time and time again with no variation. And Immanuel responds in exactly the same way because he has no other option. Immanuel can best be understood as a Roly-Poly Toy:iambiguous wrote: ↑Tue Dec 13, 2022 6:34 amLook, you either believe that the Christian Bible is the word of God or you don't. And if you do believe that and then [over and over and over again] you quote passages from it to support your arguments, I think it's reasonable to suggest that you are going around and around in circles here.
Take away the Bible and what other evidence do you have? Or, perhaps, when you view those videos again, you will be able to provide us with the segment from the one that does establish that the Christian God does in fact reside in Heaven...as so many mere mortals are able to establish that the Pope does in fact reside in the Vatican.
A roly-poly toy, round-bottomed doll, tilting doll, tumbler, wobbly man, or wobble doll is a round-bottomed toy, usually egg-shaped, that tends to right itself when pushed at an angle, and does this in seeming contradiction to how it should fall. The toy is typically hollow with a weight inside the bottom hemisphere. The placement of this weight is such that the toy has a center of mass below the center of the hemisphere, so that any tilting raises the center of mass. When such a toy is pushed over, it wobbles for a few moments while it seeks the upright orientation, which has an equilibrium at the minimum gravitational potential energy.
Let's face the facts here: there is no argument that will ever overturn the Roly-Poly man. It seems necessary to notice then that his entire purpose (here) is not to be overturned. That is where his will is 'centered' (in reference to a low center of gravity).
But there is something that needs to be discerned. It will seem unpopular within the general trend of this thread but here goes: Christianity is a container for a wide group of ideas that were never the 'possession' of Christians. A tremendous number of these were 'borrowed' -- and borrowed from pagan sources. If this is true it means that these ideas can be recovered from out of Christianity and its 'imperiousness' and they can be reestablished on a different footing.
Though no one has to go along with me, and some certainly don't, it seems to me there must be a way out of this never-ending mess. A perpetual-motion machine of fruitless argumentation. But to do that requires, as I do not tire of saying, a sort of cataloguing, a list-making, a sort of map-making of how each person who writes here got to the place where he is. This is especially important because each person writing here has and writes from a position of relationship to the Christian religion and construct. There is a quote out of the Wilhelm-Baynes translation of The Chinese Book of Changes: Hate is a subjective form of attachment by which one is bound to the hated object.
So it seems to me -- this came up recently when it was proposed that Nietzsche 'hated' Christianity and thus 'hated' Jesus of Nazareth -- that we have to go more deeply inside this contempt for Christianity and, if possible, sort things out. I say that as one a) involved in expressions of contempt for Christian imperiousness and an intense contempt for the 'destructive' side of Christianity (inherited from Judaism, but b) as one who recognizes that the reference to Christianity, and what Christianity contains, is not one thing but trends of ideas, trends of concepts, that were prevalent in those early centuries. My assertion is that we can never 'get away' from this. We could never 'dissolve' or 'disband' Christian concepts because in fact they contain all sorts of concepts that are more pertinent to the pagan world than meets the eye.
The problem, presented to me by the *spectacle* that is rehearsed here, is that I am given no choice but to try to discern the difference between what is destructive and contemptible and to try to bring out, highlight and even *rescue* what is of genuine importance.
It is also fair to notice, simultaneously, that Immanuel *loves* to play the masochist. Put another way I might say that, as a committed Christian, if he were not getting oodles of opposition (from among the god-rebellious and those who drive the present trend in culture-wide rebellion) he could not be said to be *doing his Christianity right*. Deeply ensconced in the Christian psyche is the desire and the need to be validated through martyrdom. That *slap* toward which one then *turns the other cheek* is sought-out. This also, necessarily, implies that there is also *joy* (or satisfaction) derived from bashing a Christian over the head (speaking metaphorically). And so the masochist seeks out a worthy sadist . . .
This can result, and seems to result, in a *game* that is enjoyable to all parties. It was never intended to *go anywhere* and serves an immediate psychological function -- a sort of pleasure -- and so it edges and creaks on (for months, for years).
It seems to me that this itself needs also to be examined more closely. I.e. in order to see its *function*.
I can only continue to make statements about *where I am at* on a trajectory or continuum. I have lost the capability of distinguishing exactly what, for myself, I could value or would value in a religious practice. However, I am certain that a religion, in its most profound sense, the most profound sense possible, is a statement that is made directly to the questions What is this life? Why am I here? What is this life? And what must be done? So it is with these core questions in mind that one can, as a student of 'comparative religion', examine a wide range of religious structures to try to discern out of them what is the basic purpose of them.
If we have lost this sense of the purpose of our let's say inherited and received religion it can then only become an empty and ultimately absurd genuflection.
So what is it then that gives vital power to a religious and an existential commitment?
- Alexis Jacobi
- Posts: 8301
- Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am
Re: Christianity
OK, OK! Let's face it people!! Adam & Eve in Genesis is 'the original mating pair'.
Allow me a slight modification:
"Man, validate his fucking Adam & Eve 'original mating pair' assertion!!"
Allow me a slight modification:
"Man, validate his fucking Adam & Eve 'original mating pair' assertion!!"
- Immanuel Can
- Posts: 27608
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm
Re: Christianity
"Absolutely sure"? Well, is that our epistemic demand? Is that reasonable? Is there anything we are ever "absolutely sure" about, outside of things like maths, which are closed systems?Harbal wrote: ↑Tue Dec 13, 2022 3:20 pmHow can anyone be absolutely sure of that?Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Dec 13, 2022 3:15 pm so even if (as I maintain) the Bible is the word of God,
Consider that science itself is empirical. That means it's probabilistic, not absolute. The scientist who has done a thousand experiments to prove his theory has still never done the one thousanth and first experiment; so he's not absolutely sure no data can ever appear to contradict his theory. But he thinks it's improbable that such thing would happen, so he goes with the theory. Still, scientists have been definite about theories that later turned out to be wrong before; so he's never absolutely sure.
Human knowing is never "absolutely sure." Human beings are creatures that rely on probabilistic estimations. If something seems to them highly improbable, they don't invest belief (or faith) in it. If it seems very likely, they do. That's the basis on which you get out of bed in the morning; it seems immensely probable to you that you won't be subject to a painful accident or savagely murdered today, if you do. So you do. But there will be people who will be injured, and some will die. And you know that. You're just pretty much certain it won't be you; so you invest your faith in the day.
So I don't think you can mean "absolutely sure." Don't you mean, "Sure enough to warrant my belief," or "sure enough that, as a rational person, I'm not left in significant doubt"? And if that's what you really mean by "absolutely sure," I don't think you're asking too much.
I'll tell you what I know.
When I wanted to know for myself, what I did was this: I decided to take Jesus Christ seriously, and investigate. I was not at all convinced yet; but I was wanting an answer badly enough that I thought that I could at least listen to Him, consider His way, and then, if nothing appeared convincing to me, reject it for good reasons. Reject Him, essentially. I would say I was in a state of considerable skepticism; just not so skeptical that my search was inauthentic or that I had closed my mind completely before I began. I was prepared to be convinced, but not easily, not for no good reasons. I just thought there was a chance He had something to show me.
What had set me off, ironically, was an encounter with skeptical literature and thought. I was at university. But one question had been bothering me for a long time: why was this world so screwed up? I might have added, in all honesty, "Why am I so screwed up?" And I wanted a serious answer, because the question was very serious to me: really, I wanted an explanation for evil. It wanted to know how the world I was expected to live in could be so bad, so disappointing, so morally corrupt, so confused and so anxious.
The skeptics got me going. And it was because their answers to that question were so bad. They all said some variation of something like this: "Your problem is that the world isn't actually bad; see it another way, and it won't bother you." I knew that was a dodge. Or they said, "The world is screwed up because you were born at the wrong time in history; and it's inevitable, so just accept it." I found I could not. Some sad answer like that was all any of them seemed to have. I was impressed most by the stoical types who just said, "Yes, the world is screwed up, but just shake your fist and die." They were at least honest about what I was seeing, but their counsel was cold...it seemed I was fated to misery, and these men (and women) were telling me I'd run out of prospects.
Their emptiness convinced me I had to take one shot at figuring out if Jesus Christ was any different. I had to investigate, if only to eliminate that possibility; because if I put him in my rear-view mirror before knowing if He had anything to say, I realized I could doom myself by failing to consider a possibility that might turn out to be right. And I didn't want to make that mistake; the stakes seemed too high. I really did want answers.
So I thought I would read one gospel, one time, and for the first time in my life, take careful consideration for what He said, which I remembered sounded somewhat different from the skeptics and cynics I had been reading...thought I couldn't really tell you how it was different, at the time.
I had that little an amount of faith...just enough to squeak me through, as it turned out. For the more I read about Him, the more inclined I became to think about Him, and then to speak in my thoughts, informally, as if sort of addressing Him. I know now that was the beginning of prayer; but to me, it was not much more than an impulse for Him to show me more than I had at the time...a kind of inchoate yearning, more than an assemblage of prepared thoughts. But I began to "pray" in that fashion and to read...a chapter a day, from the gospel of Matthew. And then I went on with my regular day, and consciously didn't think about it again, for the most part.
What I found is this: if you start talking to God, He starts 'talking' to you. Not in an audible way, I mean, but in the private chamber of your own heart. You begin to "live with" Him...He begins to "speak back" into your experience. And dipping into that pure stream of moral clarity starts to change you...you start to think about Him more, putting your life in context of His thoughts. And things start happening in your life; things start changing, both in you and in the way you view the world. And you start to "see" God in things. You begin to indwell His life, and He begins to indwell yours.
The time comes when you have to make a decision, then; will you live His way, or the way you were living before you met Him? And that's the moment of conversion. That's when either you turn and walk away, or you walk out into the wide field of the activity of God...not merely as an observer but as a participant in that life. And it changes you utterly; not all at once, of course, because becoming always takes time. But you start unbecoming yourself, and becoming a new and better person, as your knowledge of Jesus Christ expands.
That's when you know. That's when you become sure that you absolutely will not be going back to where you came from. That's when your suspicion God might exist converts into a deep conviction that He does, that He loves you, and that He walks with you. That's when you really start to grow.
That's when the Bible really speaks to you, and speaks in a way that nothing else does. I've read a variety of other "holy books," just out of a desire to know if my experience was reproducible in them. I found it's not. Nothing like the Bible exists...I'm now quite sure of that. Only the Bible has Jesus Christ. In Him, I find God. And in His Word, I hear the voice of God.
Am I certain? I might even say "absolutely."
That was my process. I think it may be the process that others find. Some come to God by a more spectacular route, I know. Paul, they say, got a light from Heaven on the road to Damascus. I don't have any such experience, myself; but I know many a person converted straight from alcohol or drug abuse, from violence and crime, from sexual deviancy and mental illness, from all sorts of dramatic things. My experience has been more subtle; and whichever route works for you, that's the one you need to take if you want to find certainty.
But my suggestion would be simple: start talking to God. Just start. Take maybe five minutes a day, and talk to Him honestly, informally, in your own words and way. And read a bit of what He has left us to read in the Bible. I started with the gospels: maybe that's a good kind of starting place. But I'd try it for a month or so, just as an experiment, and see what you get.
And if it's nothing, you get your full skepticism back, no charge.
Re: Christianity
I don't think of the world as being screwed up, and that might be why I've never been "set off". The world is just what it is. I must say, though, that anyone who lives in the civilised West and is prepared to make a bit of an effort hasn't got it all that bad. I certainly can't complain, and I have never even made much effort. To be honest, I don't feel that there is anything God shaped missing from my life.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Dec 13, 2022 4:16 pm What had set me off, ironically, was an encounter with skeptical literature and thought. I was at university. But one question had been bothering me for a long time: why was this world so screwed up? I might have added, in all honesty, "Why am I so screwed up?" And I wanted a serious answer, because the question was very serious to me: really, I wanted an explanation for evil. It wanted to know how the world I was expected to live in could be so bad, so disappointing, so morally corrupt, so confused and so anxious.
Stop it at once, IC.But my suggestion would be simple: start talking to God. Just start. Take maybe five minutes a day, and talk to Him honestly, informally, in your own words and way. And read a bit of what He has left us to read in the Bible. I started with the gospels: maybe that's a good kind of starting place. But I'd try it for a month or so, just as an experiment, and see what you get.
Thanks for your explanation.
Re: Christianity
Brilliant!