Playing off Lent thread, what religion are you?

[HailStout]

I don’t recall ever being taught Catholics were going to hell

nor do I believe that

I definitely was. I was maybe 10 and I remember being so confused because I knew that they believed in Jesus. It was in the middle of nowhere Tennessee so really not terribly surprising

I also remember it was a thousand degrees and my clip on tie was eating into my neck

 

[paindonthurt]

I definitely was. I was maybe 10 and I remember being so confused because I knew that they believed in Jesus. It was in the middle of nowhere Tennessee so really not terribly surprising

I'm sure there are people who teach that but i don't think the southern baptist convention holds that stance.

I also remember it was a thousand degrees and my clip on tie was eating into my neck

I remember this all too well.

 

[FrontRangeDawg]

The better question for you is - what if it is true?

In all sincerity- I'd also like to know if you've given any thought to whether it was not true. I'm not stirring anything up; I spent a lot of time on this. I was raised in the Methodist church and examined my faith critically for 3 decades. I was a deacon in one of those Acts 29 guitar-band/skinny jeans churches for several years (I even wore the skinny jeans.)

I know that, for most of my life, I needed to believe that there was some master at the wheel and some overall unifying truth because I had been raised with that concept and it was mildly comforting in times of distress. I reached my conclusion that it was not true in my mid-40s. It was a tremendous relief to me personally.

So, I'm earnestly asking you and anyone who'll answer- is the idea of no god or afterlife frightening to you? Is it that the fear of hell makes belief compulsory? Is it the promise of a perfected eternity? I'm not looking for bible verses, I'm looking for personal motivations.

 

[mstateglfr]

I find it better to simply say, "That's interesting." Because it is interesting. The big bang is an interesting theory. Creation is an interesting idea. Aliens planting a seed that sprouts into humanity is an interesting thing to consider. We may see one as more probable than another, but to treat any of them as fact and the others as mere fantasy reveals an unscientific mind.

Sounds like you think all origin theories/stories should be considered, but it is OK to put weight into one more than others.
And it sounds like you think people viewing Biblical Creationism as fact means they have an unscientific mind. And same goes for people viewing Evolution as fact.

That results in a MASSIVE number of people who you think have an unscientific mind. Fair enough though, I guess.

 

[OG Goat Holder]

Yeah that’s totally what he said

Yep, you obviously didn't read the passage he quoted, just like you didn't read earlier passages that were quoted.

Lack of information, and unwillingness to gain said information, is a recurring theme for you. Is it intentional ignorance or aggressive stupidity? You choose, both appear to fit.

 

[paindonthurt]

Yep, you obviously didn't read the passage he quoted, just like you didn't read earlier passages that were quoted.

Lack of information, and unwillingness to gain said information, is a recurring theme for you. Is it intentional ignorance or aggressive stupidity? You choose, both appear to fit.

Nah I read it.

Still not what he said.

 

[seshomoru]

Science is, at it's most basic level, observing what happened and drawing conclusions. Science told us that the world was flat, until the observations changed and then we came to a new conclusion. Both flat-earth and round earth hypotheses were scientific. The science changed based on the available data. Science used to do medicine based on humors in the body. Now the data has changed, so the science changed.

We watch a football replay 28 times in slow motion and still can't decide if it's a catch, but I'm supposed to take as gospel (pun intended) that science has proven exactly how old a bone is? We aren't even sure what gasses were present, and in what quantity, in our atmosphere 3,000 years ago, much less 100K, or a million years ago. So any "scientist" that throws out theories as to the origin of the earth as fact instead of what they are, ie, theories is not really a scientist.

I find it better to simply say, "That's interesting." Because it is interesting. The big bang is an interesting theory. Creation is an interesting idea. Aliens planting a seed that sprouts into humanity is an interesting thing to consider. We may see one as more probable than another, but to treat any of them as fact and the others as mere fantasy reveals an unscientific mind.

Science moves forward. When we discovered the world was round, it didn't mean the accepted thought before that was necessarily wrong. Based on the observable it was just what we knew. Observable evidence at one time led to the conclusion the sun revolved around the earth. Then we found out it was the other way around. Science just expands our understanding based on what we can observe at that time. Also, no one is just throwing theories as to the origin of earth out there. It is based on observable information at this time, without belief. It is just reason-based conclusions based on what we know right now. The consensus changing just means we are learning more.

The "big bang" is definitely not a fact; however, it is the best explanation we have based on what we know right now. That can change and science leaves an opening for it to change. There's a lot of research around dark energy right now and it's fascinating. It is sort of the catch all term right now for whatever it is that is making the expansion of the universe accelerate. They used to think expansion would decelerate based on Einstein's theory of relativity. They now have observable proof (dimming super novae) that it is speeding up and are trying to find out what is causing cosmic acceleration. Is it an energy field type thing? Is it a flaw in the fabric of space? Is there a flaw in the theory of general relativity that doesn't scale to the observable universe? It's very interesting stuff and way above my understanding right now, but the point is, science is exploring it and is open to change and advancement.

 

[DesotoCountyDawg]

I respect your opinion. I wonder if you’re humble enough to acknowledge that speculation as to the origin of the universe is just that. We don’t have a control universe by which to compare ours. So any definitive statements about how exactly everything came from nothing are either faith based or comforting fantasies dressed up as science.

The story of creation is fascinating to me when you try to place it in the context of science. I am a Day Age Creationist.

I fully believe that God created everything but the story of creation was written the way it was from God to Moses to make the story of the origins of earth and life more simple to understand for the Israelites. Also Gods time is not on our time. A blink of an eye to God is thousands of years.

When you look at the days of creation it lines up in an “evolutionary” path, specifically when you get to the animals in Days 5 and 6.

Day 5 is the “fish and fowl”. This can be easily interpreted as dinosaurs because we see that birds of today have the bone structure of many of the dinosaurs.

It’s just my personal belief and I don’t push this on anyone and anyone is free to think for themselves but that’s just how I’ve interpreted it over the years.

 

[FreeDawg]

Ah, so you believe the Catholic church is some type of demonic off shoot? Gotcha.

No sense further discussing this.

Respectfully, 1 Timothy 4:3 and the pre- and post- text is absolutely clear (and fitting this time of year) that the first church wasn’t “Catholic.”

This is something I talked about earlier in the understanding the distinction between the Epistles that’s key. 1 Timothy is a Pauline epistle. It’s a letter from Paul to a specific congregation of gnostics addressing specific issues they were having. The Pauline epistles are not considered authoritative in the sense that they are addressing broad whole church issues like the Catholic epistles written by James, Peter, John, and Jude. Paul was whipping a specific congregation in to shape who were starting to do weird stuff.

This text is often incorrectly portrayed as condemning the Catholic Church (priest celibacy and fasting) but to do so you have to remove all context of the goals of Paul’s letter here. You have to make massive jumps to make this interpretation imo. Further, most believe Paul didn’t even write this letter and it was written after his death although it is essentially unanimously classified as a Pauline epistle.

 

[OG Goat Holder]

The story of creation is fascinating to me when you try to place it in the context of science. I am a Day Age Creationist.

I fully believe that God created everything but the story of creation was written the way it was from God to Moses to make the story of the origins of earth and life more simple to understand for the Israelites. Also Gods time is not on our time. A blink of an eye to God is thousands of years.

When you look at the days of creation it lines up in an “evolutionary” path, specifically when you get to the animals in Days 5 and 6.

Day 5 is the “fish and fowl”. This can be easily interpreted as dinosaurs because we see that birds of today have the bone structure of many of the dinosaurs.

It’s just my personal belief and I don’t push this on anyone and anyone is free to think for themselves but that’s just how I’ve interpreted it over the years.

There is also evidence that time is measurable at different altitudes......very small......but measurable. Now this blows most people's minds completely because it's something we cannot experience, even moreso than the speed of light.

And if you consider the parabolic effect of the Big Bang's explosion, I could see how time could moved more slowly way back when. Which explains 'billions of years' as we know it.

So while I do think overall the expansion of the universe is getting slower, the separation of the galaxies is also farther apart than ever before and I believe some of that explains why they think the acceleration is increasing.

 

[Maroon Eagle]

I’m a Christian — specifically a Christian universalist.
I believe Jesus is Lord and Savior, and that in the end God will reconcile and restore all things through Christ’s incarnation, death, and resurrection.

Oh, really?

Actually you’re the one hiding in your comfort zone and refusing to go “outside.” I simply asked a clear, logical, real world edge case that has zero to do with “inside church comfort zones”. It is actually the most outside question possible- it strips away every cultural, emotional, intellectual, and denominational layer and forces the core issue. But if you don’t want to engage it, that’s perfectly fine.

Actually I was engaging your question. It required a longer test than your “simple question” hypothesis…

Apparently the only unforgivable sin here on sixpack is asking what happens to retarded people who can’t comprehend the gospel or “faith”.

…And you failed.

How can someone who be as you claim be considered a Christian?

You’re not.

You’re just an ignorant doofus poser who lacks critical thinking skills.

After reading your last few replies, I’m seriously starting to consider Calvinism. Not because of the theology- but because if God sovereignly ordained someone as smug, condescending, and dodgy as you to exist, then maybe double predestination isn’t such a bad idea after all.

That might not be a good idea for you either.

I don’t think you’d ever be one of the select few…

You’re just a Nobody like the other 8+ billion of us…

 

[Slow Natives]

Let’s not flame. There is an important distinction there. The distinction is the Pauline epistles (all written by Paul) are very narrow letters written to specific congregations. The Catholic Epistles were written by James, Peter, John, & Jude were much more broad in scope and considered more authoritative because they were written to address the whole church if you will. None of these books diminishes or contradicts the other. It’s a great insight to the early church and the discussions that were being hashed out (which still goes on today).

And i think Peter (the rock) being given authority by Jesus (binding) is pretty clear as is the passage about strengthening the apostles. There are good faith arguments that that doesn’t equal papacy but thats up to the individual to either go with or not.

I think it’s fair to acknowledge the sticking point we’re having, because it’s the central sticking point of Protestant & Catholicism: sola scriptura. Tradition vs it being spelled out word for word in the bible. I know you can have a good faith argument for your pov and mine is the first 325 years of the church leading up to the council of Nicea (325 ad). Christianity was an oral tradition and they had to get together and hash out what they believed. Although there was a ton of internal debate, that stood for over 1,000 years until the schism where orthodox stopped supporting the papacy but in actuality Catholics & orthodox are dang near the same as far as ultra tradional. Then another 500 some odd years until Martin Luther made a lot of the arguments we’re discussing here. I guess my point is, if the church has no authority, what do we do with the first 1000 or 1500 years of Christians? Are they all heretics? Are their traditions invalid?

It’s hard for me to square that when you read how the early church fathers were basically all martyred in horrific ways. They weren’t martyred over any solas, just belief in Jesus. I hope this comes off as respectful and good faith discussion.

Consider the RCC's heavy focus on Mary and not one single letter explaining the Christian life even said her name? I realize you're belief in the church tradition or ex cathedra (which the Mormon's modeled their "revelation" after,) but it's just too problematic that the veneration of Mary is so important to the RCC's that it wouldn't be until 1854 and 1950 that some major news concerning her and her impact of the christian life would come. Yes, there was veneration before that, but there was no ex cathedra before those dates. It just doesn't make sense to me.

You said "They weren't martyred over any solas, just belief in Jesus." While that sounds nice we have no record of what exactly each one said that drew the line in the sand and got them martyred. Like Jesus, Paul provoked many with his teachings. In Galatians he called down curses on the Judiazers who added works to grace.

Ex Cathedra also creates a contradiction with Scritpure.
Acts 17:11 Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.
- It's the Scriptures that we use to examine what is true. How can we use them to examine truth if revelation comes in other ways that are not in Scripture?

2 Timothy 3:16-17 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.
- What else do we need if the God breathed Scriptures are able to make us "complete"?

I admit, it would be great if the church had one voice and if there were no denominations it would add to the testimony of the people of God. However, like Martin Luhter said - "My conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and will not recant anything, for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. Here I stand. I can do no other. God help me. Amen”

 

[Slow Natives]

In all sincerity- I'd also like to know if you've given any thought to whether it was not true. I'm not stirring anything up; I spent a lot of time on this. I was raised in the Methodist church and examined my faith critically for 3 decades. I was a deacon in one of those Acts 29 guitar-band/skinny jeans churches for several years (I even wore the skinny jeans.)

I know that, for most of my life, I needed to believe that there was some master at the wheel and some overall unifying truth because I had been raised with that concept and it was mildly comforting in times of distress. I reached my conclusion that it was not true in my mid-40s. It was a tremendous relief to me personally.

So, I'm earnestly asking you and anyone who'll answer- is the idea of no god or afterlife frightening to you? Is it that the fear of hell makes belief compulsory? Is it the promise of a perfected eternity? I'm not looking for bible verses, I'm looking for personal motivations.

I have attempted deconstruction a few times. I decided to not let fear or even hope of an afterlife persuade me and wonder if I would still believe in God. The answer was over and over a resounding yes. The first thing that I can't get past is that from nothing, nothing can come. If that is the case, something must come from what is outside of space, time, and matter. Second, there is no animal on earth like humans. Good and Evil are present throughout our history. This makes sense of the "seed of the serpent vs the seed of the woman." The Bible explains to me perfectly why I can't be as good as i want to be. For some reason, there is something within me that wants to rebel to what is good. This can be said for the human race. There are many more human traits that are explained by a God.

Lastly, I have a longing for purpose in my life. Why would a bunch of atoms clanking around long for purpose? An honest athest once said the universe has a "blind, pitless indifference."

 

[POTUS]

The story of creation is fascinating to me when you try to place it in the context of science. I am a Day Age Creationist.

I fully believe that God created everything but the story of creation was written the way it was from God to Moses to make the story of the origins of earth and life more simple to understand for the Israelites. Also Gods time is not on our time. A blink of an eye to God is thousands of years.

When you look at the days of creation it lines up in an “evolutionary” path, specifically when you get to the animals in Days 5 and 6.

Day 5 is the “fish and fowl”. This can be easily interpreted as dinosaurs because we see that birds of today have the bone structure of many of the dinosaurs.

It’s just my personal belief and I don’t push this on anyone and anyone is free to think for themselves but that’s just how I’ve interpreted it over the years.

I've heard of this before. It's interesting. Like the appearance of age argument, to me it is something worth considering.

My main point is that when it comes to the origin of the universe, there isn't one possible explanation that doesn't require some faith, including a purely evolutionary view.

 

[bulldoghair]

Oh, really?



Actually I was engaging your question. It required a longer test than your “simple question” hypothesis…



…And you failed.

How can someone who be as you claim be considered a Christian?

You’re not.

You’re just an ignorant doofus poser who lacks critical thinking skills.



That might not be a good idea for you either.

I don’t think you’d ever be one of the select few…

You’re just a Nobody like the other 8+ billion of us…

Instead of recycling the same insults to me, you should go back and read my actual reply to @DoggieDaddy13 on page 8. If you read it, it might help you understand more. If you’ve already read it, but you still don’t care to answer or ask to understand more, then that’s kinda the point here- that you’re just being an *** because someone asked you a hard question. And you’re probably throwing a tantrum right now because you’re spoiled and I don’t cater to you like you’re used demanding from everyone else.

Btw, I don’t think anyone else in this thread has addressed DoggieDaddy13’s questions #2 and #3. Ultimately, those are the only questions that really matter.

 

[CEO2044]

Consider the RCC's heavy focus on Mary and not one single letter explaining the Christian life even said her name? I realize you're belief in the church tradition or ex cathedra (which the Mormon's modeled their "revelation" after,) but it's just too problematic that the veneration of Mary is so important to the RCC's that it wouldn't be until 1854 and 1950 that some major news concerning her and her impact of the christian life would come. Yes, there was veneration before that, but there was no ex cathedra before those dates. It just doesn't make sense to me.

You said "They weren't martyred over any solas, just belief in Jesus." While that sounds nice we have no record of what exactly each one said that drew the line in the sand and got them martyred. Like Jesus, Paul provoked many with his teachings. In Galatians he called down curses on the Judiazers who added works to grace.

Ex Cathedra also creates a contradiction with Scritpure.
Acts 17:11 Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.
- It's the Scriptures that we use to examine what is true. How can we use them to examine truth if revelation comes in other ways that are not in Scripture?

2 Timothy 3:16-17 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.
- What else do we need if the God breathed Scriptures are able to make us "complete"?

I admit, it would be great if the church had one voice and if there were no denominations it would add to the testimony of the people of God. However, like Martin Luhter said - "My conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and will not recant anything, for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. Here I stand. I can do no other. God help me. Amen”

There are only 2 ex cathedra teachings ever (that I can find a record of), and they are both about Mary. In the history of the church.

There is evidence of her veneration in the early church and many miracles involving her.

 

[CEO2044]

Speaking on Mary, just a few things I have thought about over the years:

I don't believe God would use an imperfect vessel for His Son. It makes so much sense to me that she was full of grace and free from original sin.

I love that God asked Mary to be the Mother of God- He certainly didn't have to. IMO, He is modeling veneration for us in that moment.

Finally- microchimerism. We know babies leave cells behind in the mother's womb. If Jesus were fully human, He would have left His cells behind in hers. I think that perfectly lends to her Assumption. Her body had to be incorrupt and would not have been permitted to stay on this Earth.

 

[HailStout]

 

[FrontRangeDawg]

I have attempted deconstruction a few times. I decided to not let fear or even hope of an afterlife persuade me and wonder if I would still believe in God. The answer was over and over a resounding yes. The first thing that I can't get past is that from nothing, nothing can come. If that is the case, something must come from what is outside of space, time, and matter. Second, there is no animal on earth like humans. Good and Evil are present throughout our history. This makes sense of the "seed of the serpent vs the seed of the woman." The Bible explains to me perfectly why I can't be as good as i want to be. For some reason, there is something within me that wants to rebel to what is good. This can be said for the human race. There are many more human traits that are explained by a God.

Lastly, I have a longing for purpose in my life. Why would a bunch of atoms clanking around long for purpose? An honest athest once said the universe has a "blind, pitless indifference."

Thanks for responding with sincerity. I appreciate your viewpoint.

I think it's interesting how people can grapple with the same concepts and come away with such varied answers. Personally, I have found more purpose in the last 5-10 years than I had when I was wrestling with faith; almost like believing in an afterlife was a scapegoat for being actively engaged in this one. For me, believing that this life is limited and singular has given me a great deal of purpose and made everything much more profound. The love of my wife, kids and friends is more profound, as is every interesting thing that I'm lucky enough to experience.

Again, thanks for the perspective.

 

[Maroon Eagle]

Instead of recycling the same insults to me, you should go back and read my actual reply to @DoggieDaddy13 on page 8.

It doesn’t matter to me what you say because you’re already established that you are a Fake.

As far as my responses to Questions 2 & 3:

2. My experience as someone who is differently wired and very logical is that Jesus might be alright with me ($1 to the Doobies) but Ignorant Churchgoers do not want people like myself who have different perspectives at their churches.

3. I’ve lived in Mississippi for almost 60 years. I probably could handle another 3.8 billion more. **

 

[TroyMcClure2025]

This is something I talked about earlier in the understanding the distinction between the Epistles that’s key. 1 Timothy is a Pauline epistle. It’s a letter from Paul to a specific congregation of gnostics addressing specific issues they were having. The Pauline epistles are not considered authoritative in the sense that they are addressing broad whole church issues like the Catholic epistles written by James, Peter, John, and Jude. Paul was whipping a specific congregation in to shape who were starting to do weird stuff.

This text is often incorrectly portrayed as condemning the Catholic Church (priest celibacy and fasting) but to do so you have to remove all context of the goals of Paul’s letter here. You have to make massive jumps to make this interpretation imo. Further, most believe Paul didn’t even write this letter and it was written after his death although it is essentially unanimously classified as a Pauline epistle.

I thoroughly understand it was Paul’s letter to Timothy to deal with a congregation of baptized believers (Acts 2) who were doing any and every thing they could to divert from the faith. All scripture is inspired or no scripture is inspired.I believe all is indeed.

If it isn’t referencing the Catholic church (which didn’t exist at the time) then I’m reading facts incorrectly. You can play the context game. Make it murky or convoluted. If so, I’m curious as to who he was talking about? I see zero interpretation needed at all. No jumps. It’s clear as crystal. Perhaps “most” are Catholic, hence their denial of black and white language? The only people arguing about Paul’s authority are those who deny his words.

 

[TroyMcClure2025]

Ah, so you believe the Catholic church is some type of demonic off shoot? Gotcha.

No sense further discussing this.

I believe the Bible. Not your opinion. At no point have I stated such about the Catholic church.

 

[POTUS]

I haven't been reading all the back and forth, but color me shocked we are on page NINE of a religion thread on the pack. I don't know whether we should be proud or disappointed in ourselves. But I'd wager this thread doesn't even happen if our basketball team wasn't so disappointing. Here's hoping we can fix that next year.

 

[seshomoru]

My main point is that when it comes to the origin of the universe, there isn't one possible explanation that doesn't require some faith, including a purely evolutionary view.

Faith isn't necessary for an acceptance of evolution, cosmic or biological. Evolution isn't a viewpoint. It's a conclusion reached based on science and research. They are just the current consensus explanations and theories based on actual physics, genomics, chemistry, etc. In other words, they put all the knowledge and discoveries together to develop them. If observation ever led to a real and quantifiable possibility that a higher power was part of the equation, it would be added to it. If ANY new discoveries or knowledge come about that change the consensus, then it will change.

Any theory that begins with a creative deity requires faith. You "know" who/what did it, but now you have to either fit current knowledge into it or disregard that knowledge altogether. There is no equation without a higher power, and you have to have faith that it's there.

In other words. I don't believe in evolution. I accept it as the best theory at this time based on current scientific knowledge and research of our planet and universe.

 

[FrontRangeDawg]

I haven't been reading all the back and forth, but color me shocked we are on page NINE of a religion thread on the pack. I don't know whether we should be proud or disappointed in ourselves. But I'd wager this thread doesn't even happen if our basketball team wasn't so disappointing. Here's hoping we can fix that next year.

Other than the petty back and forth-ing, there is some good discussion in this thread. It's nice to have a reasonable discussion about a topic that is so central to everyone in one way or another.

 

[seshomoru]

I haven't been reading all the back and forth, but color me shocked we are on page NINE of a religion thread on the pack. I don't know whether we should be proud or disappointed in ourselves. But I'd wager this thread doesn't even happen if our basketball team wasn't so disappointing. Here's hoping we can fix that next year.

You had to bring up hoops didn't you? Lock it up.

 

[bulldoghair]

It doesn’t matter to me what you say because you’re already established that you are a Fake.

As far as my responses to Questions 2 & 3:

2. My experience as someone who is differently wired and very logical is that Jesus might be alright with me ($1 to the Doobies) but Ignorant Churchgoers do not want people like myself who have different perspectives at their churches.

3. I’ve lived in Mississippi for almost 60 years. I probably could handle another 3.8 billion more. **

That’s not an answer to DoggieDaddy13’s questions #2 and #3 on page 8. I actually don’t know what you’re addressing? And that’s zero engagement with anything I’ve said. Just more insults and more self absorbed rambling.

 

[dudehead]

In all sincerity- I'd also like to know if you've given any thought to whether it was not true. I'm not stirring anything up; I spent a lot of time on this. I was raised in the Methodist church and examined my faith critically for 3 decades. I was a deacon in one of those Acts 29 guitar-band/skinny jeans churches for several years (I even wore the skinny jeans.)

I know that, for most of my life, I needed to believe that there was some master at the wheel and some overall unifying truth because I had been raised with that concept and it was mildly comforting in times of distress. I reached my conclusion that it was not true in my mid-40s. It was a tremendous relief to me personally.

So, I'm earnestly asking you and anyone who'll answer- is the idea of no god or afterlife frightening to you? Is it that the fear of hell makes belief compulsory? Is it the promise of a perfected eternity? I'm not looking for bible verses, I'm looking for personal motivations.

I grew up Methodist and got sober in my early 40s which led to a completely new relationship with a power greater than myself. About 10 years ago I left my conservative Methodist church and moved to the Episcopal church. Several years ago as a part of my 12 step practice, I let go of/dropped my concept of God and the mainstream Christian faith with which I grew up but nevertheless surrendered fully to God and what might follow. The next couple of years were bumpy at times in a "hell in the hallway" sort of way, but over the last year I have enjoyed a wonderful relationship with God. Is it the same God many talk about here? I don't know; I'll leave that to others to ponder. I've wasted too much time trying to figure out religion and God and now greatly prefer just practicing principles that gives me experiences or awareness of the Great Reality within - my favorite name for God in our Big Book.

As for the fear of no God and after-life, I believe that God is a part of everything (panentheism) so God is always present, it's just that there are times when I am not aware of that presence. Those are the rough times - the times I experience fear or resentment/anger. I believe when I die that my consciousness will continue on and merge fully back into the collective unconsciousness - the ground of being or communion of saints, if you will.

Best to you.

 

[QuaoarsKing]

.

Science is, at it's most basic level, observing what happened and drawing conclusions. Science told us that the world was flat, until the observations changed and then we came to a new conclusion. Both flat-earth and round earth hypotheses were scientific. The science changed based on the available data. Science used to do medicine based on humors in the body. Now the data has changed, so the science changed.

Sorry, but this paragraph is blatantly untrue. "Science" never "told us the world was flat." The Earth has been widely known to be [approximately] spherical for thousands of years, from ancient times through medieval and early modern times. The idea that people used to believe it was flat is a myth that sprung up in the 1800s.

More importantly, the scientific method wasn't developed until around the 1600s, so "science" didn't "tell us" anything before then, other than isolated incidents of people happening to follow its principles earlier than that.

 

[DesotoCountyDawg]

I haven't been reading all the back and forth, but color me shocked we are on page NINE of a religion thread on the pack. I don't know whether we should be proud or disappointed in ourselves. But I'd wager this thread doesn't even happen if our basketball team wasn't so disappointing. Here's hoping we can fix that next year.

Because this whole thread except for a few posts has been a conversation with no vitriol. A difference in opinions for sure but just conversation.

 

[Maroon Eagle]

That’s not an answer to DoggieDaddy13’s questions #2 and #3 on page 8. I actually don’t know what you’re addressing? And that’s zero engagement with anything I’ve said. Just more insults and more self absorbed rambling.

Those are my answers which address his questions.

If you don’t understand them, tough.

I’ve also not insulted you. I actually think you are a Fake.

And you know I’m an introvert, SO OF COURSE I’M SELF-ABSORBED!

INTROVERTS THINK INWARDLY!

YOU ARE AN OBTUSE IDIOT SINCE YOU’VE NOT EVEN CONSIDERED THAT!

(Now normally the previous sentence would be an insult, but this time… it is the truth…)

have a good evening…

 

[HailStout]

I really am jealous of those of you who have faith and it brings you peace. Seriously. My life unfortunately has taken me down a road where faith in a higher power is something I will never again have. I have made my peace with that.

aa

 

[Maroon Eagle]

I really am jealous of those of you who have faith and it brings you peace. Seriously. My life unfortunately has taken me down a road where faith in a higher power is something I will never again have. I have made my peace with that.

It’d be easier for us if we did have faith…

But I’d rather do the right thing than the easy thing.

 

[leeinator]

Yep.

Part of the problem with living in the Bible Belt is people truly cannot understand not being all about Jesus. It’s like you tell them you don’t eat or breathe. It doesn’t make sense to them. Because of that the conversations are often condescending. Not on purpose, but they are.

a

It makes sense. Jesus said either be hot for me, or cold for me......but even worse to him was to be lukewarm.....or basically wishy washy. Cold or lukewarm obviously will not have good eternal outcomes.....but I guess he didn't like people talking out of both sides of their mouth when it came to believing in him and who he was. So yeah, most Christians certainly know there are lots and lots of people that aren't all about Jesus. Jesus clearly said only very few would ever enter the Kingdom of Heaven. How many that is.....I don't know, but most Biblical scholars seem to think 25% or less.

 

[POTUS]

It’d be easier for us if we did have faith…

But I’d rather do the right thing than the easy thing.

This may be a grass is greener situation. The people of faith in the bible don’t seem to have easy lives. In fact, quite the opposite. One cannot read the bible and think God wants his people to have their best life now, or at least not in the same way that Olsteen cat with the creepy smile seems to think.

 

[Maroon Eagle]

Jesus clearly said only very few would ever enter the Kingdom of Heaven. How many that is.....I don't know, but most Biblical scholars seem to think 25% or less.

Definitely less out of this message board.

After all, @Lucifer Morningstar is a beloved SixPacker…

 

[Lucifer Morningstar]

Definitely less out of this message board.

After all, @Lucifer Morningstar is a beloved SixPacker…

As my mom would say any complement goes in the scrap book.

 

[bulldoghair]

Those are my answers which address his questions.

If you don’t understand them, tough.

I’ve also not insulted you. I actually think you are a Fake.

And you know I’m an introvert, SO OF COURSE I’M SELF-ABSORBED!

INTROVERTS THINK INWARDLY!

YOU ARE AN OBTUSE IDIOT SINCE YOU’VE NOT EVEN CONSIDERED THAT!

(Now normally the previous sentence would be an insult, but this time… it is the truth…)

have a good evening

You literally just said “those are my answers” while providing zero actual answers to @DoggieDaddy13’s questions #2 and #3 on page 8.

You didn’t address:

2. Has every human being that ever lived really had an opportunity to know Christ in order to accept or reject him?

3. If God is Love and that love unconditional, why create anyone predestined to be tortured for eternity?

You gave some vague personal anecdote about churchgoers not liking “differently wired” people and then a random “I’ve lived in Mississippi for 60 years” flex.

That’s not an answer. That’s nothing. That’s zero engagement with anything he’s said or anything I’ve said. Oh, and you claimed you “haven’t insulted” me, then immediately called me an “obtuse idiot” in the middle of your ALL CAPS temper tantrum lol.

I change my mind, I think you’d fit right in, in one of those hard core Pentecostal churches. You’d be THAT guy everyone prays for during the “deliverance” part of service. Every service.

 

[Maroon Eagle]

You literally just said “those are my answers”

That’s correct.

Answers are responses to questions.

Re-read.

If you don’t understand, continue to re-read until you gain knowledge.

Oh, and you claimed you “haven’t insulted” me, then immediately called me an “obtuse idiot”

That’s not an insult; the truth is you are an obtuse idiot.

 

[bulldoghair]

That’s correct.

Answers are responses to questions.

Re-read.

If you don’t understand, continue to re-read until you gain knowledge.



That’s not an insult; the truth is you are an obtuse idiot.

Nm