23 Jun 07
Originally posted by MarinkatombFirst of all as I live near the school you refer to and read the local papers it may interest you to know that the priest has somehow managed to clear his name.
It's a Miracle! I have had an epiphany! For 28 years i have existed on this Planet and finally, i don't believe in God!
Having been born an innocent impressionable child, it wasn't long before i was sent to school to receive my education. Catholic School to be precise. From the age of 4 (i was the eldest in my year) i was taught the Gospels. I ...[text shortened]... finally realised you were me all along.
Alleluia!!
Now I have a clear memory of a fierce argument in class with a preist who said that only catholics could go to heaven and that people who committed suicide would go to hell. And the headmaster of this school - a monsignor - kept a leather strap in his desk and when boys were sent to him for misbehavior they would have to bend over a chair and get between two and eight stokes depending on the seriousness of the offence. All of this was legal and accepted practice.
Regarding proof of the existence of God I think there is a contradiction embedded in the need for proof when considering faith. To me the meaning of faith is belief without proof. So if you have proof you no longer have faith.
All these considerations stopped troubling me some years ago and I boiled it all down to a simple statement which became my own personal E=MC2 of the religious debate: God exists if you believe in God.
23 Jun 07
Originally posted by MarinkatombThere's nothing wrong with outgrowing the church. I'm just sorry your exposure to Christ had to come through Catholicism. I would probably be in the same place you are right now (hopefully) were I inundated with the same perverse indoctrination. I'm not judging you at all. All I'm saying is, be careful not to throw the baby Jesus out with the bathwater.
Listen, i have love in my heart brother! It's with me from the moment i wake up, to the moment i go to sleep!! If there is a God, then he's right here, in my heart!! But it didn't get in there from going to church, no sir. It didn't get there from reading the bible (though it's a great read, along with a heap of other literature). My experiences of faith ...[text shortened]... al difference is my thoughts are guided purely by reason. I don't believe in a God.
The Catholic church is certainly not pure, and neither is it the true church. My mother's side of the family are all Irish Catholics and she determined that my brother and I would grow up free from a Catholic upbringing, since such an upbringing, she discovered, carries with it its own heresies (child abuse, false doctrine, etc.). I'll probably get some flak from a few Catholics out there, but I know the truth about Catholicism and I know its history, on a world scale and on a familial one.
So, don't be too hard on yourself; enjoy your newfound freedom. Likewise don't be too averse to a rediscovery of Christ apart from the Catholic church. Faith and reason aren't meant to be enemies. If your concept of God pollutes your genuine experience of Nature and everyday life, then you have not been introduced as of yet to the real Jesus Christ.
Peace.
23 Jun 07
Originally posted by MahoutFirst of all as I live near the school you refer to and read the local papers it may interest you to know that the priest has somehow managed to clear his name.
First of all as I live near the school you refer to and read the local papers it may interest you to know that the priest has somehow managed to clear his name.
Now I have a clear memory of a fierce argument in class with a preist who said that only catholics could go to heaven and that people who committed suicide would go to hell. And the headmaster of t ...[text shortened]... t which became my own personal E=MC2 of the religious debate: God exists if you believe in God.
Well ain't that just dandy! Forgive me for fostering some (not inconsiderable) resentment towards this man! He abused his position of absolute trust to exercise his perversions and let there be no mistake here, it DID happen!
Now I have a clear memory of a fierce argument in class with a priest who said that only catholics could go to heaven and that people who committed suicide would go to hell. And the headmaster of this school - a monsignor - kept a leather strap in his desk and when boys were sent to him for misbehavior they would have to bend over a chair and get between two and eight stokes depending on the seriousness of the offence. All of this was legal and accepted practice.
I only missed this by a few years myself and i thank my lucky stars! Heaven knows what sort of sh;t would have went down in this place had that still been legal! It would seem we are seriously disinclined to care enough about our children to see they are not manipulated and beaten from birth by over zealous men who believe they have some God on their side!
Regarding proof of the existence of God I think there is a contradiction embedded in the need for proof when considering faith. To me the meaning of faith is belief without proof. So if you have proof you no longer have faith.
Look, i believed in God for 99% of my life without any proof. Having done a lot of research into it, i find that there is a lot of evidence that there is no God. There is not a single thing in Science that suggests there is a God. Science has come a LONG way to describing the process of Natural selection, in so far as the forces of evolution taking simple organisms and selecting them over millions of years into more complex organisms. This is, in my view, a complete refutation to Christianity. Read the creation story, there is no mention of any of this (as i'm sure you know). Why would God lie to man and say it happened one way, when it clearly did not happen like that at all! Without this scripture (The Bible, Genesis, etc...) we would have no reason to believe in God in the first place, we'd probably be worshipping Zeus or something like that. Do you believe in this God too? How about Ming the Merciless? I was never schooled into daily worship of Zeus, so therefore i find that idea completely ridiculous. Science does not believe anything without evidence. My beliefs rest on what evidence there is, there is none for Zeus and there is none for God either.
God exists if you believe in God
And therefore so do fairies, gremlins, Santa clause, The Yeti, the noodly spaghetti monster (or whatever it's called)...Where do you draw the line? Maybe you should think a little about why you draw the line there. What honest reason do you have for believing in God other than perhaps you just want to?
23 Jun 07
Originally posted by epiphinehasAll I'm saying is, be careful not to throw the baby Jesus out with the bathwater.
There's nothing wrong with outgrowing the church. I'm just sorry your exposure to Christ had to come through Catholicism. I would probably be in the same place you are right now (hopefully) were I inundated with the same perverse indoctrination. I'm not judging you at all. All I'm saying is, be careful not to throw the baby Jesus out with the bathwat ...[text shortened]... life, then you have not been introduced as of yet to the real Jesus Christ.
Peace.
Ok, had i not been educated into religion from birth, i would not have found Christ in my childhood. How many kids are gonna read the Bible? So i'd have to at least be in my teens. From my experience of adult converts to religion (which i freely admit is very very limited, it's almost unheard of in London) they are generally converted after some crisis or other. This may sound over simplistic, it probably is, but this is my experience.
One guy I met recently converted when he was in his mid-20's. He had been a drug dealer in college and had spent many years abusing, amongst other things, ecstasy. He reached a point in his life where all of his friends had out grown him. They were all off getting jobs and houses and he was still sleeping all day and doing drugs all night. He hit a deep depression and felt guilt about the way he'd lived his life. This guilt was crushing him and the church gave him a way to forgive himself. He went to his family and told them about everything he had done (and i mean everything!) He made pains to try and repair the damage he had done and vowed to live his life with integrity! He is a great guy and i have great respect for him. He did the hard thing, he admitted his mistakes and tried to make amends.
In this regard, I would never claim anything other than the Church did him a lot of good! It gave him strength to fulfill his convictions. His life has improved and he is happy now. However, i notice his practise of his faith has nose dived. In fact it is pretty much non-existent. I'm tempted to draw conclusions from this, i think i'll let people draw their own.
The Catholic church is certainly not pure, and neither is it the true church
Friend, my father and my brother were very nearly blown up by the IRA towards the end of 'the troubles' (my brother was very close twice actually, he was on the train following the one which was blown up on 7/7 too). I have little time for partisan interpretations of religion. Catholic/protestant/mormon/muslim, why should i believe one over the other? What makes one better or truer than another? They are all as baseless as each other.
..don't be too averse to a rediscovery of Christ apart
I just don't need it man, sorry. I am in no way knocking the general morality of the Bible (though peoples interpretations are so inconsistent i doubt Jesus would recognise his faith was he to pop in for tea) but i never had a reason to believe this stuff and i still don't. If i am honest to myself (as this is all i can hope to do) I simply don't believe in God. I am not certain i know anything meaningful about jesus at all. The Gospels are almost a complete fabrication, if you don't believe me then i suggest you look into it further. I learnt this from a theologian (as i mentioned in my original post) so this is not some atheist propaganda opinion, it is the churches! That means the only thing i have to base my faith on is men of the church. I could train to be a priest in a few years if i wanted. What place would i have telling people about a God of which i have never met, only read about in a book that has been embellished over two millenia and whom i have no means of proving exists at all!
Where have you actually put your faith.
In Jesus or the Church?
In my opinion you cannot separate the two.
23 Jun 07
3 edits
Originally posted by MarinkatombWhat do you find inseparable about the two? One can follow the teachings of Jesus without the Church. For that matter, one can follow the teachings of Jesus without necessarily believing in God. One can also look at God from a secular viewpoint. God as truth. God as love. God as justice. God as compassion. Jesus has much to say about all these characteristics.
Where have you actually put your faith.
In Jesus or the Church?
In my opinion you cannot separate the two.
23 Jun 07
Originally posted by MarinkatombAll any christian can say in response is well done. You have obviously struggled with so much in your life . However , I couldn't help feeling that the god you said goodbye to wasn't the God I particularly recognise really. You have obviously been indoctrinated into a particular type of faith (that I was lucky enough not to have experienced) .
It's a Miracle! I have had an epiphany! For 28 years i have existed on this Planet and finally, i don't believe in God!
Having been born an innocent impressionable child, it wasn't long before i was sent to school to receive my education. Catholic School to be precise. From the age of 4 (i was the eldest in my year) i was taught the Gospels. I ...[text shortened]... finally realised you were me all along.
Alleluia!!
As an aside I would guess that the God I am familiar with (as opposed to the god you said goodbye to) would have been rejoicing at your decision to leave the church and all that behind. He would have been wanting you to be rid of all that guilt and fear c**p long before you ever got there. The way I read your story it was as if you had finally undoctrinated yourself and were now back to a more objective way of looking at things. But to me (who never believed in the god you said goodbye to ) it all sounds a bit strange. It's a bit like someone telling you that they have finally said goodbye to wineafter many years when what they are describing sounds like black currant juice ...you just think to yourself "are you sure you've ever tasted wine?"
23 Jun 07
Originally posted by epiphinehasWhy did the baby Jesus uniquely create a kiddy fiddler, pray tell?
There's nothing wrong with outgrowing the church. I'm just sorry your exposure to Christ had to come through Catholicism. I would probably be in the same place you are right now (hopefully) were I inundated with the same perverse indoctrination. I'm not judging you at all. All I'm saying is, be careful not to throw the baby Jesus out with the bathwat ...[text shortened]... life, then you have not been introduced as of yet to the real Jesus Christ.
Peace.
23 Jun 07
6 edits
Originally posted by MarinkatombThe Gospels are almost a complete fabrication, if you don't believe me then i suggest you look into it further. I learnt this from a theologian (as i mentioned in my original post) so this is not some atheist propaganda opinion, it is the churches! That means the only thing i have to base my faith on is men of the church.
All I'm saying is, be careful not to throw the baby Jesus out with the bathwater.
Ok, had i not been educated into religion from birth, i would not have found Christ in my childhood. How many kids are gonna read the Bible? So i'd have to at least be in my teens. From my experience of adult converts to religion (which i freely admit is ve ur faith.
In Jesus or the Church?
In my opinion you cannot separate the two.
You learned this from "a theologian"? Just one? My friend, there are countless theologians, and the opinion that the Gospels are a complete fabrication is hardly mainstream among them; far from it. Is this really your old church's position!?! That is a straight up lie.
BTW, I don't understand why such a lie necessarily entails that "the only thing [you] have to base [your] faith on" are men of the church? How so? The truth I've learned is the exact opposite: the only thing I have to base my faith on is the word of God, and that I should always test the words of men against it.
What place would i have telling people about a God of which i have never met, only read about in a book that has been embellished over two millenia and whom i have no means of proving exists at all! Where have you actually put your faith. In Jesus or the Church? In my opinion you cannot separate the two.
I didn't seek out a church until I had lived with the bible privately for about five years, researching and studying according to the leading of the Holy Spirit. Consequently, I can't imagine trusting the words of just one teacher over the apostolic authority of the Gospels. No way.
The word of God was written by people under the power of the Holy Spirit, and the Spirit of God Himself can be found in the very words of scripture. As Christ says, "The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life" (John 6:63). That is, the purpose of the word of God is not simply meant to tell a story, but more significantly to set one in contact with God Himself through the very texts themselves. "For the word of God is alive and powerful..." (Hebrews 4:12).
This is why I say that only simple faith can demonstrate the truth of God's word, because only simple faith allows one to receiving the infillling of the Holy Spirit through God's word. "But the hour is coming, and is now here, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father is seeking such people to worship him. God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth" (John 4:23-24), "the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him" (John 14:17).
Until you've encountered the Spirit of God in his word, you will be constantly subject to the doubts raised by the world as to the reliability of the texts. Once you have received the Spirit of Truth, then you will be able to tell people about him, because you will know you have met him. "When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth" (John 16:13), "he [will] dwell with you and will be in you" (John 14:17), "the Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit" (Romans 8:16).
The faith which I have is not of myself, "it is a gift of God" (Ephesians 2:8). That is, faith is not something I have in myself, it is given to me by God.
The same must apply to you (if you are willing, of course). You can't learn it from men, or muster it up by yourself. Simple faith in God's word is the only way to find it. And you don't need the church for that...
23 Jun 07
2 edits
Originally posted by epiphinehasOk, my thoughts are brought to the end of your post, but i will try to address it all...
[b]The Gospels are almost a complete fabrication, if you don't believe me then i suggest you look into it further. I learnt this from a theologian (as i mentioned in my original post) so this is not some atheist propaganda opinion, it is the churches! That means the only thing i have to base my faith on is men of the church.
You learned this fro only way to find it. And you don't need the church for that...[/b]
"When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth" (John 16:13)
If this is the case, then why didn't Christianity make mention of evolution? If feeling God in your heart will lead you to all truth, why has the Church persistently put forth the story of Creation which is obviously wrong! The church has consistently preached man not to question Gods creation. Whenever he does he discovers something new that the church never advocated, at which point the church changes it's stance, putting this new found discovery at the feet of God. How many times does this have to happen before we question whether God is actually responsible or whether the whole idea of God is in fact a figment of our collective imagination?
I didn't seek out a church until I had lived with the bible privately for about five years, researching and studying according to the leading of the Holy Spirit. Consequently, I can't imagine trusting the words of just one teacher over the apostolic authority of the Gospels. No way.
Are you reading some text, written by Jesus, that i am somehow unaware of? Please let me know which bible you are talking about, my experiences are with the King James Bible which is agreed (after much bloodshed i understand) to be the accepted text in the UK.
The word of God was written by people under the power of the Holy Spirit, and the Spirit of God Himself can be found in the very words of scripture. As Christ says, "The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life" (John 6:63).
Christ says 'the words i have spoken to you are spirit and life,' so therefore john is writing 'under the power of the Holy Spirit'...? How does that follow? I don't want to argue semantics about scripture. I'm really not read up enough to take issue with particular verses, etc... It is deeply frustrating to me actually, because to talk about scripture meaningfully, you first have to believe in it absolutely. As soon as you want to look at it critically, you are accused of not having the Holy Spirit, so therefore you are incapable of understanding it. I don't know if you quite realise what a brilliant 'get out of jail free card' this constitutes for religion! It is exactly the kind of thing that really pisses me off actually (not you in particular i might add, just the tendency of the argument). Using scripture as your defense of religion is like basically speaking another language to the one used in every day acquaintance. 'You will taken as given everything the Book says' Well i don't take it as given at all actually, quite the opposite in fact.
24 Jun 07
2 edits
Originally posted by MarinkatombThe church has consistently preached man not to question Gods creation. Whenever he does he discovers something new that the church never advocated, at which point the church changes it's stance, putting this new found discovery at the feet of God.
Ok, my thoughts are brought to the end of your post, but i will try to address it all...
"When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth" (John 16:13)
If this is the case, then why didn't Christianity make mention of evolution? If feeling God in your heart will lead you to all truth, why has the Church persistently put ' Well i don't take it as given at all actually, quite the opposite in fact.
Again, 'the church' is getting in the way of things. Who gives a hoot what the church has to say? Is the church inerrant? No. Approach Genesis carefully and you will notice there are two creation stories; one is spiritual, and one is not.
In Genesis 1 is the record of creation which is quite accurate in terms of evolution; first there were plants, then the seas brought forth living things, followed by living creatures on dry land, and it wasn't until the 'sixth day' that God created man. Obviously there was a progression involved (an evolution?). The 'days' delineate the order of God's creation plan, but the actual amount of time it took and the processes involved aren't mentioned, leaving open the possibility that God indeed took 15 billion years to construct the universe and evolve the planet sufficiently for his purposes.
Move on to Genesis 2 and we have a separate account of God's creation; a spiritual one. Before the earth was completely formed, God breathed his spirit into man, making him into a living being, placing him in the Garden of Eden (Garden of Delight), a spiritual place. This is consistent (the two creation stories) with the precept that physical reality mirrors spiritual reality, and that the Spirit is preeminent before all things. God's creation, the physical world we are familiar with, is shaped by the events in the spirit realm (the fall, incarnation, etc.).
These two accounts of creation seem to be at odds, but what is really being conveyed is the manifold aspect of God's creation, which is both physical and spiritual. Evolution, in my mind, is therefore not inconsistent with creationism.
Are you reading some text, written by Jesus, that i am somehow unaware of? Please let me know which bible you are talking about, my experiences are with the King James Bible which is agreed (after much bloodshed i understand) to be the accepted text in the UK.
I love the KJV of the bible, but it is not a perfect translation. There are many other great translations which have taken advantage of the discovery of older texts and the comparison of documents, not to mention a more modern approach to English, giving clearer understanding of the original Hebrew and Greek. The best I'm aware of is the New Revised Standard Version, but I also use the New Living Translation and the Amplifed Bible with that. It's also helpful at times to go directly to the Greek/Hebrew originals and engage in various word studies as well.
Christ says 'the words [b]i have spoken to you are spirit and life,' so therefore john is writing 'under the power of the Holy Spirit'...? How does that follow?[/b]
Christ's words are right there for anyone to read, whether or not they were recorded by John or someone else. And they are Christ's words, and still therefore "spirit and life". His spirit is not impeded nor lost through the process of accounting or translation. The essential meaning survives quite well! After all, how can you misinterpret, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me" (John 14:6). That statement is what it is. (Notice, he did not say, "no one comes to the Father except through the Catholic church, then through me." )
Using scripture as your defense of religion is like basically speaking another language to the one used in every day acquaintance. 'You will taken as given everything the Book says' Well i don't take it as given at all actually, quite the opposite in fact.
Be that as it may, these are our limitations when seeking the wisdom of God and his Truth. Truth is not a matter of intellectual but of intuitive knowledge. Intuition is a function of the human spirit, being that in us which 'knows' rather than that which arrives at knowledge through a process of understanding, which is the realm of the intellect. It is through the intuition that the Spirit reveals to us the deeper things of God, otherwise our understanding will always be dry and unyielding.
"The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned" (1 Corinthians 2:14).
This is not a clever 'get out of jail free card', it is entirely consistent with the way God operates; he reveals himself to those who sincerely and persisitently seek him. "He is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him" (Hebrews 11:6).
24 Jun 07
Originally posted by epiphinehasOut of interest, before i dig through the internet to look up all the things you've mentioned, at what point did this interpretation of scripture (ie, that Genesis somehow explains evolution) come about? Was it before Origin of Species, or after?
[b]The church has consistently preached man not to question Gods creation. Whenever he does he discovers something new that the church never advocated, at which point the church changes it's stance, putting this new found discovery at the feet of God.
Again, 'the church' is getting in the way of things. Who gives a hoot what the church has to say ...[text shortened]... rewarder of them that diligently seek him" (Hebrews 11:6).[/b]
24 Jun 07
Originally posted by MarinkatombThese are the tentative conclusions which I've arrived at through prayer and study, and I'm not aware of anyone else who has considered Genesis in this way. By no means take my word for it. I, too, of course, have wrestled with people's declarations about what the word says and what it actually says. It is remarkable to me that people overlook what are clearly two separate creation accounts in the same book. How can they both be true? If God's word is spiritually discerned, then obviously there is far more here to grasp.
Out of interest, before i dig through the internet to look up all the things you've mentioned, at what point did this interpretation of scripture (ie, that Genesis somehow explains evolution) come about? Was it before Origin of Species, or after?