If you don't follow a/the Church...

[Willum]

If you claim to believe in the Christian god, but do not follow or believe in the practices of any church, and have your own unique perspective of this God, how can you distinguish this from a god you have simply made up?

In other words, how can you know your beliefs about God are better than a churches?
In other words, how do you know, of all the perspectives and interpretations of God, your's are correct? Or that God is what you have imagined?
And if not, how do you justify inventing or imagining a God in defiance of the certainly greater wisdom of a congregation?

If you are wrong, is it not CERTAINLY blasphemy to invent details of God you have no basis for believing are true?

[JehovahsWitness]

Readers, note how I'm actually asking about a belief that JW holds.

This isnt really the subforum to speak about personal beliefs. I am happy to state them if their relevance to the OP is made clear (which I do not feel is the case), but if you really would like to learn more about my beliefs and ask me in a more appropriate forum, I shall certainly consider responding .




HERE is where I usually DEBATE theology.
viewforum.php?f=38

[TRANSPONDER]

Readers, note how I'm actually asking about a belief that JW holds.

This isnt really the subforum to speak about personal beliefs. I am happy to state them if their relevance to the OP is made clear (which I do not feel is the case), but if you really would like to learn more about my beliefs and ask me in a more appropriate forum, I shall certainly consider responding .




HERE is where I usually DEBATE theology.
viewforum.php?f=38

Your evasions as always, are noted. When I arrived here and started to learn the knots and splices, I noticed that Mods were rather relaxed about drifting way off topic and engaging in all kinds of general discussion, Which seemed to suit or Biblical pals down to their sandals. They only referred to the rules as an excuse not to answer.

As I say - noted

[brunumb]

That is why Christianity is a dumpster fire of nonsense.

No need to stop at just Christianity.

[TRANSPONDER]

That is why Christianity is a dumpster fire of nonsense.

No need to stop at just Christianity.

Indeed. On my previous board there was an Islam apologetics thread, which we left alone until a challenge was thrown out. It was great We debunked the 'low place' prophecy and developed a theory (hypothesis) of how the Quran could be written without it being the words of Allah. We also had fun with the split moon and the mixing of fresh and salt water and even got them to admit that the fly's wing cure wasn't true, (but it didn't matter as it was in the Hadiths, not the Quran)

Personally I had a stab at Buddhism (for various reasons) but in the end found serious doctrinal and logical problems with it. Partly because if you sin too much that you can't be saved, the 'punishment' you get is a free life. Yep, if you take Pascal's wager, the religion Not to bet any money on is Buddhism, because if your horse goes down, you get your money back. Also I concluded that Buddhism is a Theism. Because karma only works if it has discrimination. Thus Karma is not just a sinsorting natural mechanism, but has to be a discriminating Cosmic Mind. Which makes it a god. In Buddhism, Karma has to be a god, therefore it is a theism. Whether any one of the millions of shaven -headed savants that claim to be experts in it know this or not. It's the old (and serious) problem with Religious experts; they cannot think outside the box.

Problem I continually run up against with Bible apologists - they cannot start with the hypothetical position that the Bible isn't true and needs to be validated. Thus they use bits of the Bible to validate other bits - the ultimate circular argument. I know and accept that the Holy Books are prima facie evidence which has to be considered. But first 'inerrancy' goes, and then factual credibility. That's when the burned .... Burden..of proof shifts onto them.

[Difflugia]

Yep, if you take Pascal's wager, the religion Not to bet any money on is Buddhism, because if your horse goes down, you get your money back.

There are a few religions like that. Mormonism is another one. It's not quite "try again," but the doctrine is that simply being wrong about Mormonism ("blinded by the ways of men") puts one in the "Telestial Kingdom" in the afterlife, which is still better than the Earth is now.

[Difflugia]

Yep, if you take Pascal's wager, the religion Not to bet any money on is Buddhism, because if your horse goes down, you get your money back.

There are a few religions like that. Mormonism is another one. It's not quite "try again," but the doctrine is that simply being wrong about Mormonism ("blinded by the ways of men") puts one in the "Telestial Kingdom" in the afterlife, which is still better than the Earth is now.

Sorry, I got my "degrees of glory" mixed up. That should have been "Terrestrial Kingdom."

[TRANSPONDER]

Yep, if you take Pascal's wager, the religion Not to bet any money on is Buddhism, because if your horse goes down, you get your money back.

There are a few religions like that. Mormonism is another one. It's not quite "try again," but the doctrine is that simply being wrong about Mormonism ("blinded by the ways of men") puts one in the "Telestial Kingdom" in the afterlife, which is still better than the Earth is now.

That's a relief. Because I was seriously bothered by the beliefs of the LDS, because the Book of Mormon is so stunningly convincing and Joseph Smith such a model of trustworthy honesty. *koff..Abraham papyrus..koff*)

[Difflugia]

That's a relief. Because I was seriously bothered by the beliefs of the LDS, because the Book of Mormon is so stunningly convincing and Joseph Smith such a model of trustworthy honesty. *koff..Abraham papyrus..koff*)

I know you're joking (and with good reason), but I think the Book of Mormon should be required reading for anyone that wants to understand Christian Scripture.

The Book of Mormon reads like fantasy adventure fiction, much like the Gospels and Acts do. Knowing Joseph Smith's backstory, I find it hilarious that Nephi's big brothers pick on him and God smites them around for it. So, did Joseph Smith ever tell his story as fiction or did he always assume that his audience was gullible? Were all of the Christian Gospel authors one or the other? Was there a mix? Joseph Smith intentionally mimicked his impression of the King James Bible to give it the "feel" of Scripture. It looks like Mark may have mimicked a colloquial, Hellenistic way of speaking when writing his Gospel. Reading the Doctrine and Covenants reminds me in many ways of reading the Pauline Epistles. How much of Joseph Smith's advice was that of a charlatan and how much was delusional, even assuming as I do that he didn't actually talk to God? The parallels run far deeper than the surface. I'm unironically a huge fan of the Book of Mormon, even though I don't believe a word of it in any historical sense.

[TRANSPONDER]

Yes. I can see this turning into an LDS debate, but I was Approached by a couple of Elders in my 20's and given a copy of the book of Mormon to study; which i did and told him what my impressions were when he came to the door a week later. He snatched the book out of my hands and snarled the Good Old Mementra "Well If I'd known, I wouldn't have wasted my time!" After which I have never wasted my time on Mormons. Ever. Except to debate. Though it's a gratuitous waste of effort as Mormon is not Really the major problem. And they wriggle and evade just like any Genesis -literalist. On the last board back in the 90's I debated the Abraham papyrus with one and she reverted (after shifting retreat - excuses) to claiming that J Smith had been receiving mental truth which he wrote down and the papyrus was only a sort of medium and no 'translation' was involved at all. And a few years later debating the lack of Hebrew DNA in any America native peoples and she simply denied the evidence.

But the initial impressions of the Book of Mormon was a collaboration between John the evangelist and James Fennimore Cooper with saintly apostles breaking out of jails and local Nephi or Lamanite woodsmen assaulting logbuilt forts on the frontier. I got a red flag on page I where the writer beheld a maiden with a sign saying 'Virgin' hanging round her neck or how he knew she was one, i have no idea. And the monetary system was the daftest thing I ever heard. But it was a clever bit of work, I must admit as I only found one contradiction in the names of two brothers (which any half -smart apologist could explain away). And of course the story of the early church did not impress, nor the Democratic polygamists' people's Republic ruled by Brigham Young.

And it's always entertaining to hear from one of the frequent deconverts fuming over how they just swallowed all the stuff they were given by the controllers of the creed.

[Difflugia]

He snatched the book out of my hands and snarled the Good Old Mementra "Well If I'd known, I wouldn't have wasted my time!"

It hardly matters, but I'll just say that hasn't been my experience. They sometimes get bored quickly and leave when I want to talk LDS theology, but I don't think I've had any that were dismissive or nasty.

After which I have never wasted my time on Mormons. Ever. Except to debate. Though it's a gratuitous waste of effort as Mormon is not Really the major problem. And they wriggle and evade just like any Genesis -literalist. On the last board back in the 90's I debated the Abraham papyrus with one and she reverted (after shifting retreat - excuses) to claiming that J Smith had been receiving mental truth which he wrote down and the papyrus was only a sort of medium and no 'translation' was involved at all. And a few years later debating the lack of Hebrew DNA in any America native peoples and she simply denied the evidence.

Fundamentalist apologetics is fundamentalist apologetics. No matter the stripe, it involves squinting just right and ignoring that bit over there. One big disadvantage for Mormon apologists is that the language is American English, so there's only so much, "now this word really means something else."

But the initial impressions of the Book of Mormon was a collaboration between John the evangelist and James Fennimore Cooper...

If you've never read it, I recommend Mark Twain's take on it in his lesser-known book Roughing it.

The book seems to be merely a prosy detail of imaginary history, with the Old Testament for a model; followed by a tedious plagiarism of the New Testament. The author labored to give his words and phrases the quaint, old-fashioned sound and structure of our King James's translation of the Scriptures; and the result is a mongrel—half modern glibness, and half ancient simplicity and gravity. The latter is awkward and constrained; the former natural, but grotesque by the contrast. Whenever he found his speech growing too modern—which was about every sentence or two—he ladled in a few such Scriptural phrases as "exceeding sore," "and it came to pass," etc., and made things satisfactory again. "And it came to pass" was his pet. If he had left that out, his Bible would have been only a pamphlet.

If you find that amusing, the whole chapter's a treat.

And it's always entertaining to hear from one of the frequent deconverts fuming over how they just swallowed all the stuff they were given by the controllers of the creed.

Especially the ones that didn't enjoy the experience of being missionaries.