Have You Always Believed As You Do Now?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
101

[quote]makkun wrote:
I think this may be so, because most of us come from initially religious backgrounds, we often have contemplated (sometimes struggled with) religious questions a lot - which is how we often came to our current views. This doesn’t really mean that we suddenly lose the interest in spiritual or religious questions - it’s mostly a change of perspective.[/quote]

This is true for me. I’m a bit of a puzzle for some believers. Usually, they write off agnostics/atheists as people that have never thought deeply enough about eternal questions, or who have never humbled themselves, read the scriptures, and sought God through earnest prayer. When I tell them that not only did I do all of those things, but I actually received deeply personal and poignant answers to those prayers, they don’t have a response.

It’s hard for them to wrap their minds around someone that really has experienced God in the same way they currently experience God, but then moves to a significantly different perspective at a later point in life. All they can really say is, “Well, you didn’t really experience the same God that I experience.”

102

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
For your paragraph to remain logically consistent, the last sentence should have read “It’s one thing to perform an act because you believe a god wants you to do so, and another thing to do the act for the sake of the voice inside your head.”

Deriving good and bad internally does not lead to doing an act for the sake of an act. You are doing it for the sake of your internal mystical conscience.

Don’t you get it? You may not believe in an external mystic being, but you do believe and put your faith in an internal one. You, in essence, are your own god. (not being critical of your beliefs, just making the observation)[/quote]

I see what you’re saying, and have actually gone through that thought process in defining my own values and beliefs. When I realized that we don’t have all the answers, I had to reconsider all the values that had been informed by the fake answers that I held most of my life.

Most of the values stayed the same, but I asked myself WHY that was the case. WHY did I continue to value love if there is no god or no afterlife? The best answer I could come up with is that my values are informed by my genetics and the way I was raised, irrespective of my religious beliefs. When you consider environmental influences, you can’t truly say that all of your values are internally derived. I agree with you on that point.

All I can say is that even after considering that my values are a product of my genetics and environment, I still derive happiness and meaning from them. They are still important to me. The difference is that I at least recognize this, rather than loving people out of the belief that a supernatural being is going to reward or punish me if I don’t.

I’ve at least discarded the environmental influence of religion on my life, so in that sense my values are more “internally derived” than they were before. That said, why should you deserve kudos for acting more according to your genetics than your environment? :slight_smile:

103

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

What translation is this? I have never heard this passage with out the word “love” in it. This doesn’t even read the same.

First Epistle Of Saint Paul To The Corinthians

Charity is to be preferred before all gifts.

1 If I speak with the tongues of men, and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. 2 And if I should have prophecy and should know all mysteries, and all knowledge, and if I should have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. 3 And if I should distribute all my goods to feed the poor, and if I should deliver my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing. 4 Charity is patient, is kind: charity envieth not, dealeth not perversely; is not puffed up; 5 Is not ambitious, seeketh not her own, is not provoked to anger, thinketh no evil;

6 Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth with the truth; 7 Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things. 8 Charity never falleth away: whether prophecies shall be made void, or tongues shall cease, or knowledge shall be destroyed. 9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. 10 But when that which is perfect is come, that which is in part shall be done away.

11 When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child. But, when I became a man, I put away the things of a child. 12 We see now through a glass in a dark manner; but then face to face. Now I know in part; but then I shall know even as I am known. 13 And now there remain faith, hope, and charity, these three: but the greatest of these is charity.

This reads better, but still does not say ‘love.’ It’s the Douay-Rheims Bible
[/quote]

I have not heard of this translation, this is the way I have always heard this reading, in most translations I have read, even the ESV bible which is the closest to the origional texts that I know of:

If I speak in human and angelic tongues 2 but do not have love, I am a resounding gong or a clashing cymbal.

2

And if I have the gift of prophecy and comprehend all mysteries and all knowledge; if I have all faith so as to move mountains but do not have love, I am nothing.

3

If I give away everything I own, and if I hand my body over so that I may boast but do not have love, I gain nothing.

4

3 Love is patient, love is kind. It is not jealous, (love) is not pompous, it is not inflated,

5

it is not rude, it does not seek its own interests, it is not quick-tempered, it does not brood over injury,

6

it does not rejoice over wrongdoing but rejoices with the truth.

7

It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

8

4 Love never fails. If there are prophecies, they will be brought to nothing; if tongues, they will cease; if knowledge, it will be brought to nothing.

9

For we know partially and we prophesy partially,

10

but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away.

11

When I was a child, I used to talk as a child, think as a child, reason as a child; when I became a man, I put aside childish things.

12

At present we see indistinctly, as in a mirror, but then face to face. At present I know partially; then I shall know fully, as I am fully known.

13

5 So faith, hope, love remain, these three; but the greatest of these is love.

[/quote]

Well, I would post the scripture from the Latin Vulgate Bible, but I am not sure that anyone would be able to read the Latin. But the Douay-Rheims (DRB) is translated from the Latin Vulgate Bible and was translated in 1906 with authority of the Church. And since my faith is Divine faith, my religion comes from the Church and not the Bible, and the Church has said that the Latin Vulgate is correct beyond the Greek and Hebrew Bibles, and the DRB is next, plus it has all 7 of the books left out by Protestants, and was made before the KJV 1611, which has many errors (up to 30,000) so that is my reasons for using the DRB when needing an English translation.

104

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
Each and every so-called “Atheist” worships a deity. [/quote]

How do you define “deity”?

105

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
Really? I never looked at the King James version, I must admit, but I have looked at various translations and never seen the word “charity” in place of “love”.
Recently, a bunch of scholars and experts in the translations of Aramaic, Hebrew, greek and Latin, painstakingly revisited the original texts in their original languages and translated as close as they could, in to English. I really like how they did it. Where there was confusion on a word or phrase, they noted the other phrasing in the footnotes.
It’s actually quite interesting how passages read differently in the more literal translation of the original text.
I don’t know much about the King James version, but if that passage you pasted is an example, I’d say they took some liberties.
I know there are “intent” translations, vs. literal ones. I wonder if King James was one of them?
That passage as you pasted means nothing to me, and I think it one of the most profound things a hard ass like Paul has ever written. Love matters a whole lot more than charity. Charity is a component of love.[/quote]

I agree that some of the newer translations can be clearer, and in some cases, more accurate. I like the KJV for the beauty of the language, but I can see how someone that wasn’t raised with it would find it obscure.[/quote]

Except the Preachers of the Protestant religions, world acknowledged scholars of the Protestant faiths have made many volumes of the errs of the Protestant Bibles.

106

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

Well, I would post the scripture from the Latin Vulgate Bible, but I am not sure that anyone would be able to read the Latin. But the Douay-Rheims (DRB) is translated from the Latin Vulgate Bible and was translated in 1906 with authority of the Church. And since my faith is Divine faith, my religion comes from the Church and not the Bible, and the Church has said that the Latin Vulgate is correct beyond the Greek and Hebrew Bibles, and the DRB is next, plus it has all 7 of the books left out by Protestants, and was made before the KJV 1611, which has many errors (up to 30,000) so that is my reasons for using the DRB when needing an English translation. [/quote]

What I posted was from the New American Bible, from the Vatican website.

I think you would like the ESV. There is even a Catholic version:

What they did is go back to the original texts so that this translation is one degree removed from the original manuscripts. It’s the closest you can get with out knowing Aramaic, Greek, Latin and Hebrew.

107

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]makkun wrote:
I think this may be so, because most of us come from initially religious backgrounds, we often have contemplated (sometimes struggled with) religious questions a lot - which is how we often came to our current views. This doesn’t really mean that we suddenly lose the interest in spiritual or religious questions - it’s mostly a change of perspective.[/quote]

This is true for me. I’m a bit of a puzzle for some believers. Usually, they write off agnostics/atheists as people that have never thought deeply enough about eternal questions, or who have never humbled themselves, read the scriptures, and sought God through earnest prayer. When I tell them that not only did I do all of those things, but I actually received deeply personal and poignant answers to those prayers, they don’t have a response.

It’s hard for them to wrap their minds around someone that really has experienced God in the same way they currently experience God, but then moves to a significantly different perspective at a later point in life. All they can really say is, “Well, you didn’t really experience the same God that I experience.”[/quote]

Well, do you blame them for being confused? You just said you prayed to God and got answers, then you decided you donâ??t know if he really exists. If you said you did that stuff, and it didnâ??t do shit, it would make more sense. But if you claimed to have interacted with God and then say you donâ??t believe he exists anymore, this will confuse people.

108

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
Otherwise, you simply answered my questions and were plainly outclassed and got in hot water pretty quickly - not because I’m smarter, but because you think you’re a lot smarter than you in fact are; and because you obviously haven’t thought very much or deeply about this stuff.

Prolly that’s what you mean by my “tactics.”
[/quote]

No, what I meant was that you set up a strawman argument which you then proceeded to knock down, so you could crow victory. It’s a tactic that I’ve seen over and over again on this forum. [/quote]

It’s telling that rather than provide an example of my actually employing a “strawman” argument, you instead merely accuse me (which is, incidentally, also a bit of a habit around here) of making one. If true, wouldn’t an example be a far stronger argument?

If most “moral systems” agree on this, it should be quite easy to prove it then, wouldn’t it?

And OTOH, you’re probably right in this sense- that that’s what “most people think.”

Personally, I thank God every day that I don’t base life on what “most people think.”

And, in this particular case, as I’ve shown above, it’s deeply mistaken - which you obviously cannot refute so you empty accusations about my employing “strawman” arguments.

109

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
Each and every so-called “Atheist” worships a deity. [/quote]

How do you define “deity”?[/quote]

A deity is the object of your worship.

110

And now, I shall worship me some boobies at “The Small Boob Thread.”

111

[quote]pat wrote:
Well, do you blame them for being confused? You just said you prayed to God and got answers, then you decided you donâ??t know if he really exists. If you said you did that stuff, and it didnâ??t do shit, it would make more sense. But if you claimed to have interacted with God and then say you donâ??t believe he exists anymore, this will confuse people.[/quote]

I can see how it confuses them, given their world view. Since they believe God is real, they can’t understand how someone could hear the voice of God and later decide that it really wasn’t the voice of God.

112

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
A deity is the object of your worship.
[/quote]

Fair enough. By your broad definition, I’m not an agnostic/atheist. Essentially, you’re saying that anyone that places value on anything is a theist.

113

[quote]forlife wrote:
[…]
This is true for me. I’m a bit of a puzzle for some believers. Usually, they write off agnostics/atheists as people that have never thought deeply enough about eternal questions, or who have never humbled themselves, read the scriptures, and sought God through earnest prayer. When I tell them that not only did I do all of those things, but I actually received deeply personal and poignant answers to those prayers, they don’t have a response.

It’s hard for them to wrap their minds around someone that really has experienced God in the same way they currently experience God, but then moves to a significantly different perspective at a later point in life. All they can really say is, “Well, you didn’t really experience the same God that I experience.”[/quote]

To be fair, I think it’s impossible to quantify and compare the depth of the very personal emotional impact religious experience leaves. So, in a sense you haven’t experienced the same god as they have. It may also be affected in part by the heartfelt pain of a true believer (in pretty much anything for that matter) when someone else declares ‘this is not for me, I think you are mistaken’. I’ve experienced some christians trying to nudge me more into the agnostic direction - but I think the impulse is (except for Katzenjammer perhaps) in principle benevolent, as the overarching theme of christianity is one of mercy and salvation - which doesn’t really work, if you declare that you simply don’t want to be saved (anymore).

Makkun

114

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
I don’t understand what you mean. Please 'esplain.[/quote]

An example is moths and their tendency for self immolation. You might ponder why they do so? Why do they go out of their way to burn themselves to death? Well, that’s the wrong question. What people usually fail to notice is the other moths successfully using a source of light that isn’t man made (the stars and moon) to navigate. The self immolation behavior is simply a misfiring of a normal function. Religion merely hijacks sexual lust and love to suit it’s own ends.[/quote]

Okay, so in order to discuss whether “love” can be diverted towards ends that are destructive to the person (is that what you mean?) we will have to have some agreed upon definition of love.

We’re liable to get bogged down forever here, so let’s just throw out what we’ll call “provisional and working definitions of love.” Okay? I say that love is a self-giving act. What say you? [/quote]

I say it’s an evolutionarily controlled survival mechanism, selected by trial and error and proven to have helped us survive by forming cohesive groups (family, tribes, etc.).

We are likely to get into a large discussion on our individual interpretations of the word here.

115

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:

[quote]Bunyip wrote:
katzenjammer, entertaining as your Socratic routine was, what is the point you are trying to make? Can you please state it as simply and clearly as possible?[/quote]

Each and every so-called “Atheist” worships a deity. [/quote]

lmao

116

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
Each and every so-called “Atheist” worships a deity. [/quote]

How do you define “deity”?[/quote]

A deity is the object of your worship.

[/quote]

Pointless semantics.

117

[quote]pat wrote:
No, it cannot. Even if scientists knew the exact bio-electro-chemical make up of some one that is feeling love and could replicate it, they cannot make some “love”. It is more than chemistry, electricity and biology.
[/quote]

How exactly did you establish this?

118

[quote]makkun wrote:
To be fair, I think it’s impossible to quantify and compare the depth of the very personal emotional impact religious experience leaves. So, in a sense you haven’t experienced the same god as they have. It may also be affected in part by the heartfelt pain of a true believer (in pretty much anything for that matter) when someone else declares ‘this is not for me, I think you are mistaken’. I’ve experienced some christians trying to nudge me more into the agnostic direction - but I think the impulse is (except for Katzenjammer perhaps) in principle benevolent, as the overarching theme of christianity is one of mercy and salvation - which doesn’t really work, if you declare that you simply don’t want to be saved (anymore).
[/quote]

I agree, on both counts. My point was that quite a few believers have told me that I didn’t experience a true conversion, else I never would have subsequently left my faith. It’s hard for them to reconcile a person who deeply, sincerely knows that there is a God and regularly communicates with this God, who at a later point in life takes a step back and reinterprets those spiritual experiences in a very different light.

On your second point, I have never doubted the benevolence of people trying to (re)convert me to Christianity or other belief systems. Given the way they see the universe, it makes sense for fundamentalists to want others to believe as they do. I served a full time mission for two years trying to do just that.

119

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]makkun wrote:
I think this may be so, because most of us come from initially religious backgrounds, we often have contemplated (sometimes struggled with) religious questions a lot - which is how we often came to our current views. This doesn’t really mean that we suddenly lose the interest in spiritual or religious questions - it’s mostly a change of perspective.[/quote]

This is true for me. I’m a bit of a puzzle for some believers. Usually, they write off agnostics/atheists as people that have never thought deeply enough about eternal questions, or who have never humbled themselves, read the scriptures, and sought God through earnest prayer.

When I tell them that not only did I do all of those things, but I actually received deeply personal and poignant answers to those prayers, they don’t have a response.

It’s hard for them to wrap their minds around someone that really has experienced God in the same way they currently experience God, but then moves to a significantly different perspective at a later point in life. All they can really say is, “Well, you didn’t really experience the same God that I experience.”[/quote]

I am a believer, and I would also say that you didn’t experience the same God that I know. You say you were a devout Christian for over 35 years and yet say that you were “loving people out of the belief that a supernatural being is going to reward or punish me if I don’t”. This is not Christianity friend.

No wonder you walked away from this. This is living in fear of punishment. God is perfect love, and there is no fear or punishment in love - 1 John 4:18 “There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves punishment, and the one who fears is not perfected in love.”

If you thought you had to love others or else be punished, it wouldn’t take you long to figure out that you have a lot of punishment coming your way because you don’t do so well in the love department.

For example, let’s take the 1 Cor 13 definition of love that has been discussed here and see how we do with keeping the commandment to love others. We’ll put “I am always” or “I never” in place of the word “love”.

I am always patient (need we go any further?), I am always kind , I am never jealous, I never brag, I am never arrogant, I am never rude, I never seek my own interest, I am never easily angered, I never keep records of wrongs, I never rejoice in unrighteousness [laugh at dirty jokes]. How did we do on that?

If you are trying to keep commandments and rules in order to gain God’s acceptance, you are living under the law. As we’ve just demonstrated we can’t keep the law. The law is righteous, holy, and good, but the problem is I can’t keep it. The law kills me because the wages of sin is death (Rom 6:23).

The good news is that Christ has freed us from the law, and we are no longer under the law.
Rom 7:6 “We have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.”
Gal 5:1 “It is for freedom that Christ has set you free. Stand firm then and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery [to the law].”

Christ is the end of the law.
Rom 10:14 “Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.”
John 1:17 “For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.”

The 1 Cor 13 definition of love can only be produced by Christ. John 15:4 “I am the vine; you are the branches. If a man remains in Me and I in him, he will bear much fruit [such as love]; apart from Me you can do nothing.”

120

MBH, your thoughts and convictions reflect my own during my years of Christianity. I didn’t mean to imply that I only loved people out of fear of punishment or desire for reward. I’m sure nobody is that shallow :slight_smile:

The best way I’ve found to convince Christians that it is possible to be a true believer and subsequently “fall away” (per their world view) or gain “spiritual maturity/enlightenment” (per my new world view) is by sharing this passage from Hebrews:

[quote]Hebrews 6:4-6
For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God, and put Him to open shame.[/quote]