Let's talk here....

To help me understand a little better Hank, do you believe you have to be 'educated' about God through the Bible or can a person just discover a pure connection in their own heart? And if you believe a person can discover this for themselves, would you/do you seek them out to be guided by their lessons?

 

---------

 

I'll answer several of the comments with this one:

A-theistic--------> Not-believe in God

Not-believe in God----------> A-theistic

That's just what it means, folks. You seem insulted that I'm telling you the truth. Agnostics, whether they are just waiting for a sign or whatever, do not presently believe in God, which is the root definition of the word, 'atheist.' I suppose that since there are degrees of belief in God, there can also be degrees of disbelief. In that regard, one could be an agnostic atheist, kind of soft atheist. But one cannot be an agnostic believer in God. Where am I missing this? As I said, even if the light is dimly lit, the voltage is there, the light is on. If you do not think that what I have written applies, that's OK. I have derived this for you to consider. If you think my derivation is flawed, then if you please, tell me where I've missed it. I am glad to be challenged on this and if I am wrong in my derivation, I will declare it.

Perhaps you do not believe the terms we are talking about apply to you. That's OK too. Whereas I use Trish as an example, I do so in a general way, not to in any way condemn her, but to illustrate a point using what she has said here. Trish is a great lady.

Jim, you say that "learning rarely occurs in contentious discourse." I could not disagree more. If one is not challenged, one will not improve. Why do you think atheletes challenge themselves? Why do you think they scrimmage with one another? They do so because if they are not challenged, if the goal of the sport is not in "contention," then they will never improve. They will never learn more about the sport. Their bodies will not adapt to the skills needed to "contend" at higher levels. Why does a teacher challenge his or her students? One reason, to make them better understand the subject matter. That cannot be done without contention, challenging held positions. In my experience, the best contention is between equals. In that setting, both parties benefit. The benefit doesn't just flow from the greater to the lesser. Here, we are all equals. That is a good thing, something from which we can all benefit. So on that point, I would really disagree with you and I have given you my reason for disagreement. A point that may be inferred, that is otherwise missing here is that we can all disagree without being disagreeable. I do disagree with you. I tell you why I disagree. But I am in no way disagreeable.

Along the lines of how you describe yourself as agnostic, Jim, obviously you believe in God, or say you do. You believe in a creator, or at least in a source of creation. Your concept of infinity certainly qualifies as a belief in God and a manner in which the universe comes to its present state. You just don't know in what form God actually exists. Well, join the club, my friend. No one who has not had a manifest visitation from God has any clue regarding God's form. And for those who have had such a visitation, God's form could be the form He chose at the time. So really, in that regard there are a whole lotta folks in you same boat, me included. No, I do not see that you are agnostic at all. You just don't conform to organized religion's orthodoxy. Well, join the club there too. Organized religion has no lock on the truth of God. In some ways (Oh, I'm going to offend some other folks now) organized religion stands in the way of God's word to the world. I say this because if, say, one religion's interpretation of the Bible is correct, then that also means that other interpratations that conflict with the correct interpretation are necessarily incorrect. Spouting an incorrect interpretation of God's word, necessarily stands in the way of God's intentions giving His word to the world in the first place. So just because you don't go to church or accept any church's views on God, that does not mean that you are agnostic, atheistic. It could mean quite the opposite.

If there are any other points of yours or mine that you would like to develop, please just come back and let me know.

Old Timer, you say you do not consider yourself an atheist; yet you do not believe in God. That is a paradox that only you can solve, if you choose to solve it. All I can do is derive my points for you to consider. I do not claim that I can persuade, nor do I claim the right to do so. It is what it is and that is all it is. I mean no insult. I mean only the truth. The truth I see, I have derived for you to consider. Perhaps you consider it, perhaps not. You seem insulted with the term 'atheist.' But I do not know why. I do not consider the word an epethet. An atheist is someone who does not believe in God. That is not an insult. It is merely what it is, a truth. For any epethet thought to be implied by me due to the manner in which I have presented my case, I sincerely apologize. I mean in no way to insult. So please, if you are insulted by anything you read, know that it is not me that conveyed the insult. I do not label you. I define the terms and apply the definitions to what people have written here. I label no one. I judge no one.

Lee, everyone's journey is personal to them. I am no Bible scholar. Furthermore, I think sometimes we see in this life misguided Bible scholars. Yet the Word is there for anyone to try and make sense of it. As many times as I have tried to start at one end of the Bible and take it all the way through, I confess, I get bogged down pretty quickly. So to understand what it is all about, I confess again, I need help. I believe that life is a great teacher, but not the only teacher. I believe we get the most of life's knowledge when we actively seek it, not just get hit over the head with it. If actively seeking means that one becomes introduced to others who can aid in that endeavor, I believe we should be open to hearing what they have to say and judge it for ourselves (and try not to be offended). As we do that, we also judge what they say against what we already have come to believe. Sometimes in the process our preconceptions are shattered. Recently, some of that has happened to me. But that is a good thing, not a bad one.

Trish, when you write, "So it's all about ' us ' , the Christians, and ' them ', everyone else?" that is something you have inferred, but that I have not stated nor implied. So to answer your question, the answer I give you is 'no.' Regarding solid proof, especially in view of what you have written previously, I would like to know what proof would you accept.

Hank

 

-------

 

My understanding of the Gospel is that God will forgive the sinner whose heart asks for forgiveness and who also asks and accepts Jesus Christ as his or her lord and savior. That is my understanding. There may be others whose interpretations might vary from that to some extent. But as I say, that is my understanding. Does that answer your question?

 

-------

 

I am not insulted by being called an atheist. I may become one someday. I said I have no evidence to make me believe there is a god right now but I am open to the idea that there may be one. I just don't know. Why you can't see that as a grey area for me , an area of doubt, and therefore being different form saying I absolutlely know God doesn't exist is beyond me. but I am done trying to make you see. I simply don't care any more.

What is insulting is that you think you can make posts here that redfine people who have said they feel one way about the topic. You then condescendingly come along and tell us what we really are. When you are called on , you become trite, and innocent and becry that your motives are not to judge or insult.

Well intentions or not that is what you have done. So calling me an atheist doesn't insult me. Talking to me like you think I am stupid enough to believe your intentions does.

I'm done.