Christians - Your Testimonies Please

C20, If God "chose" you, than how does this make Christianity welcome to all people. To me it sounds like it a religion for the elite choosen. May I've misinterpreted something...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes I agree this is a tough one and maybe the theologians can help me out a bit?

I kind of think of it like this ...

Imagine you are a new teacher taking your first class. You look around for the troublemakers. Pick them out and make a note of their names. You are a good teacher and believe that these delinquents can be educated because of your skill as a teacher despite the fact that they are flicking bits of chewed up paper at the kid in front of them and apparently have no respect for you and no respect for education.
You have 'chosen' them for intense education.
The good kids will receive their education in the normal way and if they pay attention and dont waste their opportunities they are bound to do well and receive their rewards commensurate with their effort.

The delinquents dont stand a chance without special treatment. Some wont make it of course but that goes for the chosen kids AND the normal kids.
No one is excluded from the class however. Everyone can sit the class.

peace

c20 :m:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

But it's like the techer choose to have the trouble makers in his class, because God allows people to come into existance, right?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

He didnt choose to have the trouble makers in his class. What Teacher would choose to have trouble makers in the class?
They were just troublemakers.
All those whose names were down for the class attended.

 

So God didn't make people?

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

ty

It is actually a real priveledge to be able to share this stuff. I cant take credit for any wisdom there if you know what I mean

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Yeah, God made people. He made people so they could learn from Him and be like him and live in peace. Some chose not to or they didnt know that that was what they were supposed to be doing, some didnt care, some did care, some found it really really hard, some easy. God still makes His sun shine on everyone no matter what!
Everyone takes the class!

 

So, if God makes people and trouble makers are people, than doesn't that mean that he chose to allow them in his class/world? As you can tell, I am very confused.

 

The thing is you and I may see trouble makers, we may even be troublemakers however God sees people made in His own image and knows the potential every human being has to pass the class so to speak.
If we dont pass the class it would not be fitting to move to higher education.
If your saying did God purpously create the trouble makers as well as those who did not cause trouble then the answer is yes he did 'create' them however he gave everyone 'free will'. Some people liked causing trouble, some had seen no other example set as they grew up and so only ever knew how to cause trouble. God says look, no matter what you are like or what you have done, I love you. He says ' I am no longer angry that you have turned your back on me and cause trouble all the time and never learn anything!'. In the old testament we see God being angry at the sin / trouble in His world and created a flood to destroy all of mankind bar Noah and his Wife ( He shut the school since it was so completly over run with wickedness) He then says ' I make a new deal with you. I will reopen the school and will send my very own Son to teach you. If you listen to Him and follow his teachings, you will pass the class'. When the Teacher first came to the school, some of the troublemakers had kind of gotten used to the fact that the school had been closed and enjoyed their freedom to do what they wanted. When the school reopened and lessons began, they resented even being asked to attend because their troublemaking was profitting them outside of the school gates. Some of the big kids were exploiting the smaller ones and no one seemed to do anything about it. They resented the new Teacher so much that they plotted to kill him. When the newly reopened class was underway everyone received new study books. In their study books it was predicted that the Teacher would be killed by some of the troublemakers among them. Also in the study book was a promise that the Teacher would send another Helper to help them to continue their study after He was killed. Those plotting to kill Him didnt even hear this amazing prediction because they were too busy plotting to even see or hear. Before he was killed the Teacher confirmed that what they saw in the study book was true and although he would be killed, He would be raised from the dead again and would go to Heaven to be with God His Father. When He was there he could then send the Helper to those that wanted to study and eventually join Him in Higher education. Some of those that closely followed His teachings witnessed his murder and burial. They also saw His empty tomb 3 days later and saw their Teacher in His new body and they believed on Him and He was pleased and told them to make His teaching available to as many willling students as possible. They then saw Him ascend to Heaven to be with His Father as predicted. Not long after that they received the Helper ( Holy Spirit) as promised and went out to share their gift with all those who would listen.
Some of the big boys killed those students because they were afraid they would have to give up exploiting people if this new teaching caught on. One of those big boys was struck down by God with blindness and was shown a vision (Saul on the road to Damascus). Saul later 'Paul' became one of the greatest messengers of the teachings of Christ because he repented of his mission to kill Christians. It took a long time for the normal kids to accept that this big time trouble maker had changed but they came to trust him.

peace

c20 :m:

 

Amen! I especially like how you describe Paul as a bully - he always sounded to me like one, even after his conversion - you could tell he wasn't someone to be messed with, but that just makes the love God proclaimed through him all the more clear.

Being chosen is like receiving a letter saying you have been accepted into Harvard with a full bursary. It doesn't automatically transport you into Harvard, but now you have a legitimate reason to go there, and no excuse not to. Unless you're someone like Van Wilder.

And to those who wonder whether you have to have an experience like c20 or Saul had before you can believe - you don't. While I would love to have had something like it, and sometimes feel my own testimony would be stronger and more convincing with something like it, I have to remind myself it's not true.

What I believe and what c20 experienced comes from the same source. I mean, even while Jesus was performing his miracles and healing people, people were still looking for signs and wanted him to almost forcefully open their eyes - as if against their will. And from c20's and many others' testimonies it's clear that God wants you to come to Him free will and all. Why do people imagine they would like it to receive faith against their will, against their reason, and against everything God wants them to be? If you had no choice but to believe, what would "belief" mean? Just a new form of slavery all over again.

 

C20,

Pretty close although I have never called Christians liars. That seems to be a term attributed to me that I have never used.

No not really. The primary issue is the irrational methodology, or rather lack of a methodology, used to reach a conclusion in pretty much any aspect of Christianity and religion. The testimony aspect is troublesome because it encourages and reinforces the baseless idea that intense emotional experiences can have a supernatural cause.

Not quite, I do not believe religion is the cause of trouble – the cause is ignorance and irrational thought. Religion is simply the inevitable result of ignorance and irrationality.

Damming? Merely pointing out that they are indistinguishable from nonsense.

Dream on.

I don’t think you mean that – no one makes any money out of this, right?

Sure why not. But you won’t get my attention until you can show at least a shred of credible evidence for your claims.

Kat

 

Thank you for clarifying your points and I'm sorry if I made assumptions along the way but I was really trying to understand where you were coming from. I dont think I could have put it as well as you have or with the degree of accuracy but thats cos I'm not you

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The only evidence I have is that I am a changed person since that day. I appreciate that this is probably not conclusive for you and I am not sure how to overcome that for you. I am just being honest.
I do thank you though for giving me the time that you have.

peace

c20

 

Hathor,

It’s called the placebo effect. Something that has no active ingredients but where a measurable benefit comes purely from a strong belief that it is true, when really there is no truth. But just like religion, the placebo has only a temporary effect because when there is a real problem then real cures are needed. Religion and something like Christianity is the inevitable result of an evolving civilization where ignorance is widespread at the start and which is slowly being replaced by knowledge through science. But religion has outstayed its welcome and has been and still is offering serious hindrance to scientific progress. Christianity in the past has actively dissuaded and persecuted actual and potential scientists and has almost certainly delayed scientific progress by many centuries. This evil far outweighs the temporary warm and fuzzy feelings people acquire by believing an imaginary super being exists and is looking after them.

LOL – I neither seek nor expect any apologies. Your offer seems very pompous and condescending – are you a Christian by any chance?

Don’t be silly, you are stretching your claim past breaking point now. Enthusiasm? Disdain and disgust seem more fitting.

They are strong negative comments and opinions made about the post and not the poster specifically – do you see the difference? I have no qualms about my disgust for religion and Christianity and their tactics, and I will voice my strong opinions whenever possible. If the protagonists cannot defend their claims then why should I show them sympathy?

Except for those who believe they have strong valid arguments. Why is that a bad thing? If I have dissuaded posters from posting more gibberish then I have succeeded.

But doesn’t that reflect society in general since this is an open forum with no artificial restrictions?

At a simplistic level that appears to be true but I have found that over the longer term reality is different. Very few have the courage to objectively accept a strong opposing argument and admit they are wrong or might be wrong. Debates are very competitive and to admit an error for an apparent strong belief is often perceived as an unacceptable weakness. However, people do leave these discussions having had their views seriously questioned and it makes them think more carefully and people do change their ideas because of such interactions – but it usually takes time and a strong mind.

I was once a strong active Christian and I have been debating for many decades now. My doubts about my beliefs came through intense discussions and bible study – as I switched sides I found that my new perspective simply grew stronger and stronger, especially in the light of an utter and continuing absence of any scrap of evidence to support Christian claims.

I have tried every variation – I’d like to think that the carefully and logically reasoned friendly arguments are the best approach, but radical shock tactics stir the emotions much more and make people think even harder – that is good.

And then there is the truth – I do find puerile baseless Christian personal testimonies quite sickening, and that Christianity appeals more to the weak and dull minded, and I have little doubt that Christianity is a deadly cancer that threatens the future of mankind.

If Christians are offended by my comments then so be it, but what attempt do they make in restraining themselves so that I am not upset? Condescending politeness makes me vomit even more.

Enjoy
Kat

 

To answer objectively is to give an answer without you in it, therefore you have answered subjectively since the experience happened to you and you have used yourself as a reference point. As long as your answer is honest then don't worry if you answered the questions correctly. It was your experience, and if it makes you a better person, then we are better as a group to have you with us, no matter who we are.

 

Thank you. I'm afraid my command of the English language is not very good and I make mistakes in what I am trying to say lol

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I think what I was trying to say is that I would be honest and not try and gloss anything up. I certainly felt I did that and I guess I was saying to the person who asked me the questions 'Hope you take me at my word.'

I should refrain from using words I dont fully understand huh lol

lesson learnt

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

peace

c20

 

What led you to believe that a "rational methodology" is the only path to a rational conclusion? C20 didn't change his life because of an "intense emotional experience", but because of a life-changing event. He didn't attribute it to a supernatural cause for the lack of a better explanation either, but because there was no doubt where it came from. When a car runs you over you can be pretty sure you've been run over by a car - you don't need much rational methodology unless you want to figure out later they why's, where's and what's involved. I'm certain c20 didn't change his life in favour of a baseless emotional experience, but that it changed the way he rationalises things.

How did you reach the conclusion that reason is the only reasonable path to knowledge? Through reason?

What about psychosomatic illnesses? A life changed is hardly a placebo effect.

Do you really still believe that? Progress is progress, with or without religion. You can't ignore the progress Jews, Christians, or Muslims have made in favour of those that pure naturalists have made. Neither can you ignore the detriental effects war and hatred has on progress no matter what beliefs were involved. Besides, scientific progress for the sake of progress and in total disregard to human needs is imperialism all over again, this time in the name of science instead of "civilization". Science as an idealism can be just as prohibitive as socialism, marxism or capitalism to human well-being, if it elevates itself beyond common responsibility.

And do you represent the strong and sharp-minded? The only reasonable cure for a society where people testify how their lives have changed beyond to expectations of reason?

 

Jenyar,

If you use an irrational methodology how do you know the conclusion is valid? Can you demonstrate an alternative proven better method for establishing truth and knowledge?

And people in insane asylums have vivid images and hear voices and they also have no doubt of what they are seeing or hearing. If we are seeking truth then a personal testimony is inadequate without independent verification. Otherwise how do you distinguish the claim from the more credible and believable answer that it is a delusion?

And here you have the rather clear evidence of a car that can be independently verified, the result and a conclusion can be formed by a rational argument based on real evidence. The claim that “voices spoke to me from above” has alternative and more credible natural explanations. Without any form of independent verification there is no logical reason to believe the claim, and every reason not to.

But that doesn’t make it true that a god did it? It is simply a non-credible and unverifiable claim.

Can you prove there is a better method?

A real effect created by belief that in this case has a negative effect. What’s your point? Doesn’t this prove my point that effects can be the result of mental aberrations or the conviction that something false is true?

Why not? If you firmly believe that something false is actually true then you will change your life accordingly.

Absolutely.

There can be no progress if religion ruled everything since the only answer religion offers is that God did it and there is little point looking any further. Progress has only occurred when individuals have questioned the status quo and looked deeper. There are cases however where monks had been allowed to conduct research in order to better reveal the wonders of the lord. Their findings, of course had to fit in with Church doctrine. Unfortunately Galileo and those of similar ilk paid the ultimate price for defying the church and insisting on truth rather than fantasy.

? Sentence structure? What does that mean?

Strangely enough the greatest technological developments were achieved because of wars and not the reverse. Although I wish it were the opposite.

Well now I have not said anything like this. This is your particular perception and biased opinions of what is meant by “progress”. Let me make my view plainer – I want the same as every theist – immortality. You think you will get it by believing in your particular fantasy hero, and Muslims, Jews, Hindus, etc, all have their own fantasy figures for achieving it. Since these are all fantasies then it seems pretty certain that not too long in the future you will simply cease to exist. By scientific progress I expect developments either in the biological sciences or in other technology based sciences that will massively improve the quality of human life, longevity, and solve the problem of involuntary death. That is real progress and there are plenty of signs to show we are headed in that direction. Now if we could convince the billions of idiots who have placed all their hope on fantasy religious ideas, and have them switch over to the biological sciences then I would expect a real solution in a matter of weeks.

Yeah well that’s just gibberish.

? Sentence structure again – this didn’t make sense.

Kat

 

The scientific world you propose Kat seems very sterile to me at least. What are the guidlines for living in this sterile world? I imagine you have thought about this carefully since you propose immortality of the flesh through biological means. I assume you will deal with the resulting population issues that would occur as a result. I guess we could inhabit other planets ...
How would you deal with power struggles among a people that do not die of natural causes? Would war take care of them? Would peadophiles, rapists and murderers be permitted to live for ever or would you have them terminated?
Please tell me about your world. The world that seems right to you. If I am deluded please tell me the benefits to living in your world so that there will be no doubt in me when I accept your 'way'. How will I be assured that your way is right? What logic should I apply? How should I measure my happiness?


thanks

c20

 

Why does God allow, and even want us to com to Him?

 

So that we can have a relationship with him and get to know him so that we can be witnesses to His glory and share in that glory.

peace

c20 :m: