Key question

[Zzyzx]

.
From another thread:

How is anyone supposed to confirm that a 2,000 year old faith based supernatural event occurred?

Second question: If it cannot be confirmed that an event occurred, why claim to know that it did or make decisions based on the assumption that it occurred?

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 10 by OpenYourEyes]

It would be good to have a comparative study between religion and non-religious based counseling.

We already have many, including the phony baloney Christian 'gay conversion' fiasco which has been thoroughly debunked, so much so that even the Christians who ran those harmful clinics have admitted they were wrong.

A Christian ministry that led the so-called ex-gay movement, which professes to rid people of their homosexuality, has announced that it will shut down, and its leader apologized extensively to gays for causing “pain and hurt.�

The ministry, Exodus International, was founded in 1976 and claims more than 200 branches, churches and counselors in the United States and Canada. It had insisted that people could overcome same-sex attraction through prayer and therapy.

Mainstream psychiatric and medical groups have said that the movement, also known as reparative therapy, is unfounded in science and can be harmful. The American Psychiatric Association said 15 years ago that it could cause depression, anxiety and self-depressive behavior in patients.

The president of Exodus, Alan Chambers, said late Wednesday on the ministry’s website that he had “conveniently omitted my ongoing same-sex attractions� but now accepts them “as parts of my life that will like always be there.�
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06 ... n-and-hurt

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 10 by OpenYourEyes]

Just my reasonable deduction. People born into Christianity were never 'converted' into Christianity. This is indisputable by definition since these people were always part of Christianity and not brought in at a later point. The people who are brought in at a later point get to experience a change and make an informed choice whereas some of the other Christians make take for granted. People born into Christianity may never really understand what Christianity is or why they should follow it beyond just going by what their parents said and did.

No. It is certainly not reasonable. It is wild and insulting speculation based on zero information. No one is "born into" Christianity. They may have had Christian parents who educated them in the faith, proselytized and brought them to church. But each child made his own decision. Those were 'informed decisions.' However, later in life when they had even more information, many realized their error and renounced their beliefs.

Do you understand how insulting this false claim is:
"People born into Christianity may never really understand what Christianity is or why they should follow it beyond just going by what their parents said and did?" You have no factual basis for continuing this insult.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

.
From another thread:

How is anyone supposed to confirm that a 2,000 year old faith based supernatural event occurred?

Second question: If it cannot be confirmed that an event occurred, why claim to know that it did or make decisions based on the assumption that it occurred?

In my case, it is because the 2,000 + year old book along with God impact lives today. To me the most powerful confirmation that God exists is the conversion experience. I've read and listened to thousands of stories, like the latest one of a prostitute who converted to Christianity where the odds of her changing her life seemed impossible since the prison system did not work nor did family.

Just to throw my theory here...
Atheists who call themselves former Christians were most likely never 'converted' into Christianity but instead were born into it. In other words, they followed Christianity for some time because that's what they were used to with their parents and throughout childhood but they did not get a chance to have the 'conversion experience' which is more profound and lasting.

Not to say that those born into Chrhistianity, like me, won't have other reasons beyond just being born into Christianity, to remain a Christian.

Apparently the hundreds of Hindu deities inherent in Hinduism and the dozens of Hindu religious works which continue to impact hundreds of millions of lives today after 4,000 years is powerful confirmation that these deities actually exist, and these religious documents are completely and thoroughly valid. And we haven't even considered the billions of Muslims and Buddhists yet.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 4 by OpenYourEyes]

Atheists who call themselves former Christians were most likely never 'converted' into Christianity but instead were born into it. In other words, they followed Christianity for some time because that's what they were used to with their parents and throughout childhood but they did not get a chance to have the 'conversion experience' which is more profound and lasting.

Wrong with regards to myself. True, I was born into a Roman Catholic family and went to schools run by the Roman Catholic Church, but (prior to my confirmation at about age 12) I made a conscious choice to serve God. I asked him to do with me what he will.
Besides, your post rings of No True [strike]Christian [/strike] Scotsman.

[JLB32168]

Second question: If it cannot be confirmed that an event occurred, why claim to know that it did or make decisions based on the assumption that it occurred?

One can claim to know if one received direct revelation from God that it occurred. I haven’t received that information but some have alleged they did. I suppose the response would be “Why should anyone believe them?� My response would be “Why should I chuck them?�
The same would go for “Why make decisions based upon the assumption that it occurred� as if the believer, who already accepts the supernatural exists, should hold all supernatural claims "highly suspect" if not "probably false."

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 10 by OpenYourEyes]

Just my reasonable deduction. People born into Christianity were never 'converted' into Christianity. This is indisputable by definition since these people were always part of Christianity and not brought in at a later point. The people who are brought in at a later point get to experience a change and make an informed choice whereas some of the other Christians make take for granted. People born into Christianity may never really understand what Christianity is or why they should follow it beyond just going by what their parents said and did.

No. It is certainly not reasonable. It is wild and insulting speculation based on zero information. No one is "born into" Christianity. They may have had Christian parents who educated them in the faith, proselytized and brought them to church. But each child made his own decision. Those were 'informed decisions.' However, later in life when they had even more information, many realized their error and renounced their beliefs.

Do you understand how insulting this false claim is:
"People born into Christianity may never really understand what Christianity is or why they should follow it beyond just going by what their parents said and did?" You have no factual basis for continuing this insult.

Aye. I made a conscious decision to serve God as a child. I prayed, I asked God to come into me, to use me as his servant/tool, to do with me as he would. From where I'm sitting, this is just what Christians say I should do now, in order to experience/receive God.
And yet, nothing happened. Nothing at all.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 15 by JLB32168]

I suppose the response would be “Why should anyone believe them?� My response would be “Why should I chuck them?�

Because, if one is interested in being a logical consistent being, they would NOT ask "Why should I chuck them?" Your way, if followed consistently, would lead you to believing ALL claims until disproven, which would include mutually exclusive claims.
For example - I have a real fire breathing dragon in my living room. My landlady has a real cyclops, like from Greek legend, in her living room.
Will you chuck these claims? If not, why do you believe them? Do you believe both? If not, why one and not the other?

[Zzyzx]

.

Second question: If it cannot be confirmed that an event occurred, why claim to know that it did or make decisions based on the assumption that it occurred?

One can claim to know if one received direct revelation from God that it occurred.

That reduces “knowing� to include any delusion one might have. It might be convincing to the person and fellow believers, but has no place in honorable debate. “Revelations� have not been shown to be anything more than human imagination in overdrive.

I haven’t received that information but some have alleged they did. I suppose the response would be “Why should anyone believe them?� My response would be “Why should I chuck them?�

If one is inclined to believe tales of “revelations� they should, to be consistent, believe ALL tales of “revelations� – whether from gods or spirits or spaghetti monster – UNLESS one can show sound reason to accept some “revelations� and chuck others.

The same would go for “Why make decisions based upon the assumption that it occurred� as if the believer, who already accepts the supernatural exists, should hold all supernatural claims "highly suspect" if not "probably false."

If the Believer already accepts that the supernatural exists they have no sound reason to dismiss other, competing, supernatural claims – with anything more substantial than “My God is better than your god.�


A rational position might be that something(s) supernatural may exist and be beyond our comprehension. Therefore, speculation (ancient or modern, Christian or Non-Christian) is baseless. There is no assurance that one's favorite ancient writers knew anything more about gods than anyone else.

[Danmark]

.

Second question: If it cannot be confirmed that an event occurred, why claim to know that it did or make decisions based on the assumption that it occurred?

One can claim to know if one received direct revelation from God that it occurred.

That reduces “knowing� to include any delusion one might have. It might be convincing to the person and fellow believers, but has no place in honorable debate. “Revelations� have not been shown to be anything more than human imagination in overdrive.

Reinforcing this point, I think we have heard from most Christians on this forum that if they received what appeared to be a message from God to sacrifice their children like Abraham, they would refuse to do it.

But, perhaps I am in error. Christians who would kill your own child if God told you to, please let us know.

[PghPanther]

[Replying to OpenYourEyes]

I don't agree.......

I was born into a Christian family but never really followed or cared about the Christian faith. Then when I was 17 I had a born again experience at a Billy Graham rally and became passion in my walk with the lord for over 40 years after that.

Prior to my acceptance of Christ as my personal savior, I would have considered myself a deist or perhaps agnostic but never an atheist.

During my born again experience and thereafter, I felt the sense and presence of the Holy Spirit throughout my life...

I had never questioned the historical documentation of the resurrection because

1) I felt the presence of the Holy Spirit in my life as all the conviction that I needed to validate that Christ was real today as much as anytime in history past.

2) The clergy and other spiritually mature Christians I respected assured me that ample historical evidence existed both within and extra Biblical to validate this event so that I never doubted it occurring.

3) I saw many successful adults within the church I attended whom where gifted/ intelligent and all believed in the resurrection. As a result, I presumed they must have looked into this and found out what the clerical folks knew that it was true so there was never a need for me to consider doing that....

But over time some problems occurred.................

1) I was passionate about my study of science/engineering as a student. and the more I learned about earth/space sciences along with anthropology/sociobiology the more I struggled to maintain a world view based on my Biblical beliefs with the growing empirical evidence of science in direct conflict with that. However, I learned to accept science but not let it tread on my faith or that which I felt the Holy Spirit revealed to me........

But something else came up that began the process leading to where I am today.

I was born in 1954 and all through most of my decades as a Christian my faith was never challenged, questioned or debated by others in my surroundings.........but over the last decade or two with the growth of the Internet and other social media others have approached me and asked or challenged why I believe what I do (I was evangelical enough with what I believed that everyone knew that about me......I didn't try to beat people over the head with a Bible but I took every opportunity to witness the Gospel to others when I felt the Holy Spirit lead me to a situation like that.........

So when all these people began to approach me I remembered 1st Peter 3:15 and realized that I had to be ready to provide an answer to anyone asking about why I believe in what I do......

.....most of my questions came about the history of the manuscripts and canonization process of scripture of which I knew little about since I had relied on other Christians to tell me about this in a very general sense.

But since I had no way to answer those who asked about this, I began to study the process of Biblical history and the process of information exchange of the event claimed in the Bible not only from a Christian's prospective but also from a secular prospective as well to "get the other side" so to speak. I also, felt that my faith was strong enough and that if the resurrection was a fact that it would stand up to any kind of skeptical challenge so I looked at that side of the issue as well with the confidence in what I believed.

I presumed all along and it was implied in my church that the Gospels for instance were written by the people that had their names associated with them..........I envisioned them all sitting around a campfire with Christ at the end of everyday and taking down the notes of what happened in the days activities like a daily diary..........When I found out the truth of their writings from scholarly sources both Christian and secular......I was in shock........

Another factor was my relationship with the Holy Spirit............What ever truth this aspect of the triune God was suppose to reveal to me through inspiration or the words of the Bible, sometimes came up against doctrine and understanding that was in direct conflict (often with even essential salvation doctrine) with other Christians claiming their Holy Spirit revelation.........

I began to understand that I placed my faith in manuscripts of information processing that is no better than those oral stories related by people passionate in what they believe......... not for the purpose of documenting history. Like how UFO groups claim with the Roswell crash site for instance....

And I knew that the inner voice in my head was my own conscious and not something supernatural simply because there was no consistency among Christians of this revelation.

Much more along these lines challenged me about what really was going on in my effort to defend my faith and it took very little time for me to discard it after 40 plus years.....

The only lasting piece that I struggled to discard was my fear of hell..............which evidentially became nothing more than a myth like everything else once exposed to the reality of historical study.

There is not earthshattering change to my life now as I hold the world view of a scientific rationalist which sees me defined as an atheist to most I talk to about the subject..............just that I have a lot more time on Sunday mornings which I volunteer to do clean ups of the environment and help with abandoned pets and such. Otherwise, morally and socially I'm the same person but without the baggage of the an adult Santa Claus belief................

Sorry for the digression, but I think its important to know that many atheist were once born again Holy Spirit filled committed Christians at one time as well.

Not just lukewarm or social Christians..........