November 30 2004

Posted Sunday, November 29, 2009, at 8:05 PM

My mom and dad and my mom and my wife

At 2:45 on the morning of November 30 2004, my dad called me with the word that my mother had passed away something which I already knew for God told me himself.

This blog is hard for me to write, but the Lord wants me to as it may be a inspiration to someone else.

My mother and me were very close up until the last year or so, she had a long battle with epilepsy which triggered several strokes and since my father and me always got into arguments that would upset her, I stayed away alot.

Growing up mama was always the prayer warrior in the family and when I did wrong she always brought the punishment first then daddy would bring it also, but mama always prayed that I would find the Lord which I did and when she prayed the devil never had a chance

Mom fell off the porch one day with a stroke and went into the the hospital and never returned home, I was not informed until she had gone into a coma and never got to hear her say I love you one last time that is until the last night on earth.

I had gone to see her each night in the hospital avoiding my dad and brother as much as possible for her sake, since then we have drawn closer.

The choice had already been made for no life support which I wholly agreed with, but she was still holding on for something, what I did not know, that was until God spoke.

We had left the hospital and got home and was in the bed sound asleep when a voice came to me saying "Michael go see your mother one last time" I ignored, it got louder!

I woke my wife, said we were carrying the girls to her parents and going to see mama, she asked why, I stated that God told me to!

I called the nurse on duty who is a dear friend of mine who let us in to see her.

I went in and just talked out loud between the tears.

She was in a coma and never spoke, but she said it all with one tear, as I spoke and said I was sorry for all the things I had done or not done and how my father, brother and me would stay together, at least on my part brought one tear down her cheek told me she had forgiven me of my trespasses the same as God had forgiven her.

I kissed her on the cheek and told her that I loved her and I would see her again someday, which I will.

I believe with all my heart and being that is why she was holding on, she was waiting on me to say goodbye.

The was the first time I heard God's voice in a audible manner and that put me on the path I have been on ever since, not wavering from his Word!

So when I get on my soapbox on the issues, blame my mother who brought me up on the Word, yes I wandered away, but as the Word says, I came back!

I informed mom's brother, for they had not talked for 20 years because of a argument over their fathers little life insurance policy, my mom had forgave him years ago, he on the other hand had not. He never even acknowledged her death, I forgive him though.

Point is I will always have a hole in my heart that could of only been filled by hearing I love you one last time, but the tear said a whole lot more.

Don't let petty quarrels keep you from your loved ones, forgive them to clear your conscience, if they do the same God Bless, if not, you have done your Godly duty!

Mama I miss you, but I will see you again!

God Bless all!

Comments
Showing comments in chronological order
[Show most recent comments first]

Great story Michael!

Forgiving others always helps ourselves. Strange isn't it? How doing something for someone else blesses you. Just like Christ said.

But then doing what he says always works to the advantage of those who love him and are called according to his purpose.

The family unit is constantly under attack. I think that's because this is where love is first grown in our lives.

Keep up the good work. It only takes one to love.

-- Posted by Liveforlight on Sun, Nov 29, 2009, at 9:06 PM

God bless you for sharing that story.

I might add that if a person can't find it in himself to forgive (or worries that an expression of forgiveness would send the wrong message to the person who did the harm),they can ask that God provide the love and forgiveness they can't.

In this area,too,His grace can make up for what we lack.

He can take away bitterness,fear,spite,arrogance or whatever poison might hinder reconciliation.

However many years or miles or mistakes might separate us from one another,He can bridge that gap and make healing possible.

All we need to do is ask Him to step in.

We might not be in any shape to receive or grant forgiveness.

We might not even be close to deserving the soothing of the soul the balm of love provides.

But,if we reach out with love,we are giving the Lord the desires of HIS heart and He is only too glad to be our proxy in compassion until we're ready to be conduits of His grace.

It only takes one to love but,sometimes,that One has to be Love Himself because we can't manage forgiveness on our own.

We need to be as caring toward one another as is humanly possible and give even as we might wish to receive.

But,when we reach the point that is beyond our abilities,that's when we should turn to Him who can do all things.

An exchange of love can strengthen us beyond measure and eliminate obstructions that prevent us from growing spiritually.

Even if it weren't "the right thing to do",we should cast out ill feelings so our souls can prosper.

We should forgive others so that they might be cleansed of the sins that corrupt them.

We should let ourselves be forgiven even when we are have no right to expect it (or when we might be less guilty than those granting us absolution).

If not for the other person and not for ourselves,let us make things right for the One who never hesitates in putting aside past transgressions to take us unto Himself.

Let's thank Him for His love by acting like Him,in His name.

Don't ask if the other person merits your gesture before you forgive.

Just do it-for God's sake.

-- Posted by quantumcat on Mon, Nov 30, 2009, at 10:58 AM

AMEN!

-- Posted by Easton on Mon, Nov 30, 2009, at 12:19 PM

Mr. Bell,

Very uplifting testimony. One tear can tell one big warm story. Thanks for sharing.

-- Posted by Blessed Assurance on Mon, Nov 30, 2009, at 5:35 PM

Amends making and forgiveness provide for much spiritual growth in that we improve upon our humble understanding of God's love and grace for us, his children. I truly believe that God gave us rain so that it might nourish and replenish the earth. In comparison, he gave us tears that they may nourish and replenish our soul. The things you spoke of and the emotion with which you shared are priceless. God bless you Michael.

-- Posted by Tim Lokey on Mon, Nov 30, 2009, at 6:07 PM

Michael,

Thanks for such a wonderful yet heart wrenching story. I know you miss your wonderful & loving mother greatly. but thanks to her prayers and your response you will see her again and this time it will be for eternity.

I find this hard to write also, but like you, I feel I must as it may help others out there who are having problems with family members or former friends. I don't normally share things like this with others but if it will help just one person then may God receive the glory.

I have three children which I love dearly but the baby daughter and I clashed for many years. After High School she wanted to attend a private "Church College" so we sent her for three semesters. I was not liking what I saw so I elected to withdraw her and enroll her in a Community College. Long story short,she rebelled at everything I tried to do. Eventually she seemingly turned away from God. I kept praying to God that He would draw her back. No change whatsoever. One day I quit praying that He would change her, instead I started praying that he would give me back my daughter. Not too long after I quit telling God how to do his job He gave me back my daughter, for which I am eternally grateful.

I'm sure that He did a work in BOTH our hearts so that we could meet on mutual ground. This may or may not be the answer for you and your Dad but I just throw it out in case anyone is having the same type problem I had. Let's frace it, God knows a lot better way to handle a situation that I, or anyone else, does.

-- Posted by Brown Biscuit on Mon, Nov 30, 2009, at 9:51 PM

Thanks for your inspiring story Brown Biscuit.

-- Posted by michaelbell on Tue, Dec 1, 2009, at 4:25 AM

That's a touching story, Michael, but there is one thing I would like to ask you about.

You stated that you heard God's voice in audible manner. Are you trying to say you literally heard a voice speaking to you? Did your wife hear this voice as well, assuming she was in the same room? How did you know which God was speaking to you, did he say "This is the Christian God"?

The reason I'm asking is because I've never heard a voice like that, and honestly, if I did, I would probably check myself into the nearest mental institution.

So, is that how it usually works,God speaking out loud to people, or do you have special powers that most of us do not have?

-- Posted by Richard on Tue, Dec 1, 2009, at 8:54 AM

Richard, There is but one God. I will not argue with you. Go to church, read the Bible, pray, you will find what you seek. There is no reason to insult this man. If you do not like what he writes, do not read it.

Merry CHRISTmas

-- Posted by Easton on Tue, Dec 1, 2009, at 11:02 AM

The reason I'm asking is because I've never heard a voice like that, and honestly, if I did, I would probably check myself into the nearest mental institution.

Posted by Richard on Tue, Dec 1, 2009, at 8:54 AM

Understandable, even the Jews who witnessed the literal works of God firsthand yelled crucify Him.

No doubt some today would not believe even if they heard Him when the Jews of yesteryear could see Him and did not believe.

Ah though, the Power of Faith!

-- Posted by Blessed Assurance on Tue, Dec 1, 2009, at 11:12 AM

In the old testament All of God's children heard God when He spoke to them and it SCARED THEM! It scared them to the point that they did NOT want to hear God's voice ever again.

-- Posted by Unique-Lies on Tue, Dec 1, 2009, at 11:47 AM

I think God communicates to us in the ways that work best for us as individuals.

I daresay He would prefer our being sure we were responding to Him and not our own notions,demonic influences,a stroke,hallucinogen or "undigested bit of potato".

It's likely that,when we ignore His messages,we do so because we know that we ARE hearing from Him rather than because we have doubts.

There's not much way going to see a critically ill loved one could backfire.

With less time-sensitive matters,some thought,prayer (and,perhaps,laying out a fleece or two) could insure that we were,in fact,doing God's will by taking a specific course of action.

Like any authority figure,God can be scary.

He can also be a welcome source of comfort and support.

When we *know* there is a perfect source of love and wisdom in Him,our trust allows us to relax and rejoice in our contact with him.

We can go from being "sore afraid" to walking with Him in the garden for sheer pleasure.

We can recognize His audible voice,subliminal hunches,His input in the words and actions of others and His trademark in nature and the events occurring around us.

When God is a stranger or threat,we distance ourselves from Him.

When He is Guardian,Provider and Friend,His voice and His touch are the most certain,welcome things in our lives.

The proof of their legitimacy lies in what results from that contact.

Like Jacob,we can't be touched by God (even in a struggle) without walking different afterwards.

-- Posted by quantumcat on Tue, Dec 1, 2009, at 1:27 PM

Amen

-- Posted by Unique-Lies on Tue, Dec 1, 2009, at 1:38 PM

Easton, Blessed Assurance, Unique-Lies, quantumcat :

So, have you all heard these audible voices as well, or is it just michaelbell?

-- Posted by Richard on Tue, Dec 1, 2009, at 1:47 PM

Richard, in order to hear the voice of God,you have to be able to listen.That means shutting your mouth and letting go of "I Me Mine" and opening your ears as well as your mind. I never heard the voice, but I have felt the presence, and no,I am not a Bible-thumping holy roller, I'm an ordinary Christian who doesn't go to church nearly as often as she should and wishes she were better at following God's instructions.

Sir Thomas browne wrote this poem:

If thou couldst empty all thyself of self,

Like to a shell dishabited,

Then might He find thee on the ocean shelf,

And say, "This is not dead,"

And fill thee with Himself instead.

But thou art all replete with very thee

And have such shrewd activity,

That when He comes He says, "This is enow

Unto itself -- 'twere better let it be,

It is so small and full, there is no room for me."

In other words, if you are full of yourself, there is no room for God.

-- Posted by MotherMayhem on Tue, Dec 1, 2009, at 3:06 PM

Easton, Blessed Assurance, Unique-Lies, quantumcat :

So, have you all heard these audible voices as well, or is it just michaelbell?

-- Posted by Richard on Tue, Dec 1, 2009, at 1:47 PM

Richard,

The voice of the Spirit is quite audible but probably not in the traditional manner most would think of.

You would probably be expecting a deep bass male voice if I was guessing. That's the most common expectation (along with a little thunder and a lot of lightning).

If you are only listening for what you expect, you will never hear what was actually spoken.

But to answer your question in another way...No, I have never heard a voice that resembled The Wizard of Oz and made me shake like Dorothy and the Tinman.

-- Posted by Blessed Assurance on Tue, Dec 1, 2009, at 5:30 PM

If you listen with an open mind as well as an open heart, God often speaks loudly through other people. God literally lives in the hearts and minds of man.

-- Posted by Tim Lokey on Tue, Dec 1, 2009, at 6:06 PM

I believe it was Elijah who heard the "still small voice" after seeing all kinds of miraculous signs and cowering in fear of Jezebel.

"Still small voice". Still can mean a couple of things. To be still- as when listening,. and also to remain- as in "we are still here".

I think both apply, be "still" and listen because God is "still" here.

By "audible voice" I would assume to mean something that could be captured by some type of sound recording device. The only time I personally have experienced this was through the words of one of his servants.

Now if God choses to speak to me whether "audibly" "still" or through a servant, I hope I have enough sense to discern, listen, and obey.

-- Posted by Liveforlight on Tue, Dec 1, 2009, at 6:39 PM

I have heard God speak to me many times, never in an audible voice but to my conscious. From my experience it seems that the closer I walk with God, ie,reading and meditating on his word as found in the bible, talking to him in prayer, asking him to have his way in my life, etc the more he will speak to me.

In the book of Acts chapter 9, verses 1-9 we have the story of Saul nearing Damascus to persecute the Christians when he was confronted by Christ who had already ascended into heaven. Christ spoke in an audible voice which was heard by those who were with Saul. Keep in mind that God/Christ are not limited in what they can do. Different folks require different strokes.

Quantum Cat, I enjoyed your analogy of "Like Jacob,we can't be touched by God (even in a struggle) without walking different afterwards". Got any more like that?

-- Posted by Brown Biscuit on Tue, Dec 1, 2009, at 7:35 PM

Brown Biscuit,

I'll have to see. I usually get my better ideas from books and friends.

Sometimes,I think the Holy Spirit acts as my ventriloquist.

While a Frank Oz would disappear into the background every time he had his creations speak or move,folks might look at the partners God brings to life and think

"There's no way those dummies could be doing that on their own.

Somebody else is making them seem real."

We can tell when the Lord is working through us because we're never more authentic or alive or free than when we are following His script.

I've heard more still,small voices than imitations of Charlton Heston or James Earl Jones but,unfortunately,He deals with me more like Jonah than Moses.

(No,I haven't been swallowed by anyone from Sea World but I have been nagged at and had some of my more stupid moves blocked until I slowed down long enough to get my "yes,but" in gear and start heeding what God was trying to tell me.)

We have a deal,God and I.

I have the free will to dismiss His good advice and He gets to ignore me when I tell Him how to do His job.

For some reason,it's usually obvious when I'm on my own and when I'm on Team Yahweh.

(As far as I know,no one's ever seen one of His works and said "You've been talking to quantumcat.")

He's good about sending me just the right message at the right time.

It might be a book,a song on the radio,an encounter with a friend,an opportunity or a post on these blogs but "coincidentally",I get just what I need at just the right time.

(Like Jeopardy,I often get my answer before I know my question.)

How do I know when these messages are from a divine source?

They are simple,clear,uncomplicated and RIGHT.

They are constructed of reason and peace and certainty.

Nothing feels turbulent or creepy.

They're like the "Eureka!" or "A-ha!" moments when one makes a new discovery or something finally makes sense.

It has the little thrill that comes with making a new friend or coming home.

But,they're seldom exactly what we want to hear.

They tell us things we don't know or give us advice we'd rather not heed.

(Trust me,God's logic is not my own.

I figure if doing something nice for an enemy is like dumping hot coals on his head then the reverse ought to be true,right?

But,NOOOOO...

God would tell me to put that scuttle down before I scorch something.)

God will never be confusing or mean-spirited or ask something of us that He won't help us handle.

Rather than natter on,I suggest this,Richard (and any others),ask God what He wants you to know.

I expect He'll respond in a manner that will suit your needs.

If you get nothing back or the provenance seems inadequate,then you're no worse off.

If you require an audible voice,a burning bush,a touch of spear-pierced flesh,then don't be surprised if that's what you receive.

But,God is more interested in offering truth than parlour tricks.

People say that if one summons the devil,he won't rest until he gets hold of your soul.

That goes double for God.

The difference is,God wants you free and sound and living abundantly.

He doesn't want to strip you of your independence or identity.

He wants to enhance them beyond your expectations.

Don't dare God to speak to you unless you're ready to hear His challenge to live a richer,more honorable,more liberating,meaningful and dynamic existence-however He might choose to express it.

-- Posted by quantumcat on Tue, Dec 1, 2009, at 10:02 PM

I have also heard and audible voice from God. But, maybe not in the sense of which you speak. The voice was very clear and very audible, but only inside my head-others did not hear.

However, most times God speaks to me spirit to spirit. Like others say, I know it is from God, because the instruction is always correct, and when I am obedient, the outcome is always biblically centered. But, that does not always mean that the outcome is always pleasurable, at least sometimes, not in the moment, as it may involve repentance and discipline. However, I do know that it is always good because the bible says so, and after I have been "through" whatever it may be, I am able to see the good in even the most unpleasant experience, demonstrating that Paul was right:

And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose. Romans 8:28(NASB)

-- Posted by Midnight Rider on Wed, Dec 2, 2009, at 5:42 AM

In other words, if you are full of yourself, there is no room for God.

-- Posted by MotherMayhem on Tue, Dec 1, 2009, at 3:06 PM

I don't think it's a matter of me being self-centered. Actually, I think I would be more "full of myself" if I believed I was so special that God chose to communicate with me the way Michael described, or if God intervened to keep me from dying as a child, or if a holy spirit grabbed the steering wheel to prevent me from having a wreck, while obviously not doing the same for most others. I don't think I'm special enough to get that type of special treatment. Apparently michaelbell is if you take all of his claims at face value.

I'm open minded enough to believe that michaelbell had some type of experience. I don't dispute that at all, and I'm willing to believe that many of you have had significant, even life-changing personal experiences. What I will dispute is the alleged source of these experiences.

I was once a Christian myself. I attended church regularly for many years, and I will admit they I had many intense experiences as a Christian that at the time I thought were religious experiences. Nothing like michaelbell described, but the inner experiences like the rest of you have had.I "felt the presence" of God, prayed and sometimes had prayers answered. But at some point in my life, as I began to examine my beliefs and look at them with evidence and reason instead of my emotions, I realized that no matter how convincing or intense these inner experiences were, I had absolutely no reason to believe that they had a supernatural cause as opposed to a natural one, and that I only interpreted these feelings as God because that is how I had been taught to interpret them.

Even if you could attribute these inner experiences with a supernatural being, they are no better evidence for Jesus than the Hindu's strong inner experiences are for Vishnu, or the Muslim's for Allah. Millions of people from other religions and New Age superstitions have the same stories to tell as Christians.They have experienced miraculous healing, answered prayers, amazing coincidences, powerful visions, unexplainable phenomena, spiritual experiences, and fulfilled prophecies. They have felt the presence of their Gods just as strong as you have felt yours. Since most of these religions are incompatible with Christianity, obviously someone has to be mistaken.

-- Posted by Richard on Wed, Dec 2, 2009, at 12:32 PM

obviously someone has to be mistaken.

-- Posted by Richard on Wed, Dec 2, 2009, at 12:32 PM

Obviously!

So is your life better with or without God? What if it is you that is wrong? Do you still experience the things you did as a Christian?

Let me try to reason with you from a "Godless" perspective.

I would rather live in obedience to God's word and die to find out he does not exist, than to live without him and die to find out that he does exist.

We all have to make this choice. Choose this day whom you will serve, worldly values or Godly values.

-- Posted by Liveforlight on Wed, Dec 2, 2009, at 1:42 PM

Liveforlight,

To answer your first question, I think my life is better without having religious faith. Contrary to what many Christians like to believe, it is possible to have a happy, satisfying, and fulfilling life without believing in or worshiping a God.

"What if it is you that is wrong?"

There is a possibility that any of us could be wrong. I don't claim to have certainty. I only question your certainty. What if you are wrong about any of the other Gods that you must reject to be a Christian?

"Do you still experience the things you did as a Christian?"

Sure, I just believe these thoughts,feelings,and emotional responses come from my human brain, not a supernatural God.

"I would rather live in obedience to God's word and die to find out he does not exist, than to live without him and die to find out that he does exist."

Again, you are assuming there are only two possibilities, your God or no God, and that the odds are 50/50. The problem is that there are hundreds, if not thousands of different Gods people have believed in that we really cannot disprove conclusively, and if we add all of those Gods to the equation, Christianity is not safe bet by any means. What if the muslims or hindus are correct? Should you become one just in case?

-- Posted by Richard on Thu, Dec 3, 2009, at 12:37 AM

- Posted by Richard on Wed, Dec 2, 2009, at 12:32 PM

What evidence do you have to prove that the things you say you experienced were not from God? You said they were intense and convincing. What evidence dissuaded you, other than your own "logic"?

As for what Micheal has described, it is not all that uncommon for Christians to experience God's audible voice.

I am more of an opposite of you. Although, I was "taken" to church as a young boy, our family also quit going by the time I was eight years old. I was never "taught" to interpret any of my experiences or feelings as coming from God. However, at some point, I also began to examine my life, and realized that my experiences and feelings were from God. My evidence? The same as yours, faith! Because, it truly does take just as much, if not more faith, for you to believe there is no God, as it takes for me to believe their is a God.

And, I believe that God is the God of the bible, because we do have evidence that Jesus was real, walked the earth, and performed miracles that only God could perform.

I also have tangible evidence in my own life, in the way that it has been completely transformed. And, I don't use God as some sort of "emotional crutch". I can give 3 accounts of God intervening in my life that prevented me from certain death in order to complete His transformation of my life to be His servant in a foreign country. I also believe that the last instance was God telling me son, it's now or never. Because after the first two instances, I considered it to be of God, but continued to seek after my own self interests.

So, know matter how much you doubt the personal experiences of others, it is not credible evidence that these experience were not of God.

So, here are a couple of questions I would like you to answer, if you don't mind.

1. What Hindu or Muslim prophecies have been fulfilled?

2. How do you know that the miraculous healings, answered prayers, and amazing coincidences were not from God, seeking to call them unto him?

3. How do you account for unexplained phenomena?

Stuff doesn't just happen. At least not in a universe that is clearly ordered. God has a reason and purpose for everything, He just does not always make us privy to His thought process. That is why is it is often difficult to explain why seemingly crappy things happen to Godly people and seemingly great things happen to Godless people.

Even now as a christian, I have experienced some very tragic things in my life, but after coming out on the other side, I can see the good that God has wrought from them.

Finally, I don't and can't know the condition of your heart in those days you went to church, but according to the bible you are dangerously close to great peril:

4. For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, 5. nd have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come,6. and then have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame. Hebrews 6:4-6(New American Standard)

Let me leave you with this:

6.Therefore, since it remains for some to enter it, and those who formerly had good news preached to them failed to enter because of disobedience,7. He again fixes a certain day, "Today," saying through David after so long a time just as has been said before, "TODAY IF YOU HEAR HIS VOICE, DO NOT HARDEN YOUR HEARTS."

Hebrews 4:6-7 (New American Standard)

-- Posted by Midnight Rider on Thu, Dec 3, 2009, at 12:55 AM

michaelbell, I imagine most hearts will accumulate plenty of "holes" while maturing. It could be though that they do not represent true "holes" at all, but a shifting of the mass to create altogether new dimensions of your heart. I am hoping that your strength, family and faith will all help you to smooth out the rough spots, particularly through the holidays.

Richard, I understand your comments, and do not necessarily disagree with you. I am honestly curious though what force it is that you believe makes our human nature so universally human, and so much a part of our basic nature.

For example, Mr. Bell's blog post could be well understood by any person within any culture, with any religious or political world-view or living in any time. Why is that? It is hard to suggest that self preservation motivates these sentiments. It is even harder for me to imagine that our conditioning through either primeval or modern socialization always produces the same basic morality that has existed from the beginnings of recorded history.

What I am trying to get at is, why do you act, think and feel the way that you do? Why do we all? Pointing to our human brain reacting to external stimuli and internally motivated demands, as opposed to "receiving a message from God" does not even come close to a better explanation. As a matter of fact, as far as I can tell, they are the very same explanation.

-- Posted by memyselfi on Thu, Dec 3, 2009, at 4:55 AM

Back in the day,I noticed there were pretty much three ways of interpreting how the world worked.

1. The magical version

This presupposes that everything can be manipulated.

The right ingredients,the correct ritual,etc. can cause anything to take on the nature desired by the one working the spell.

2. The materialistic version

It all boils down to matter and energy.

Every thought,every feeling can be reduced to an exchange of sodium and potassium ions.

Whether we know a "truth",whether a species,nation,planet or universe ceases to be has no significance.

3. The theistic version

What we think,feel and do matters immeasurably and we have no guarantee that our input will be appropriate or effective.

Duhhh...

So,why have people offered up their lives for one of the least convenient,air-brushed lifestyles known to human history?

I'd guess for the same reason folks come back to that loathsome eating plan that suggests people use all food groups to eat the nutrients and calories needed to maintain their bodies in an optimum fashion.

(No more and no less.)

People find fault with Christianity.

Its history,scriptures and practioners are too unglamorous and pragmatic.

They dare to make us fit the faith rather than have us customize our beliefs to accommodate our whims.

Very few of the "alternatives" have even a hint of that clumsy,uncompromising taint known as reality.

Certainly,the people of the Book have tried to put fancy spins on their theology and legends.

They've borrowed from their neighbors and encrusted the Word with various flavors of self-serving hype.

But,somehow,those things haven't "taken".

They have fallen away while the core of the faith with its emphasis on Love has remained to touch the hearts of the educated,the iniquitious,the down-trodden and the innocent.

The message of the Holy Spirit has resonated in souls too content and unsullied to be looking for change and too injured or malignant to seek anything better than their current state.

While it is true that some have lived comfortable lives without the Judaeo-Christian God and some have fallen away from their faith,some have existed without most any positive thing one can name (literacy,freedom,any of the five senses,etc.) and some have turned their backs on love in any form,disdain learning or disparage the material world and its wonders.

I don't necessarily condemn those who harbor doubts about God or anything else.

I think that they may be en route to a personal,eyes-wide-open experience that is more valid than second-hand belief or indoctrination.

Whether they come away with a strong bond with the God I know or reject Him,it can be based more on free will and honest,serious thought than what they had before.

The God who became human to save us (yet offered us the freedom to toss away every gift He ever gave us) prefers that a soul be lost than shackled to him by a lack of informed choice.

I don't think anyone truly rejects Him without knowing (at least,on a visceral level) whether or not He is real and worth a committment.

I don't understand why a spirit would knowingly and willingly reject the pure,unambiguous Love that is truth itself.

But,if the Lord didn't give people that option,then He wouldn't be worthy of the belief He more than deserves.

-- Posted by quantumcat on Thu, Dec 3, 2009, at 5:44 AM

However, at some point, I also began to examine my life, and realized that my experiences and feelings were from God. My evidence? The same as yours, faith! Because, it truly does take just as much, if not more faith, for you to believe there is no God, as it takes for me to believe their is a God

Posted by Midnight Rider on Thu, Dec 3, 2009, at 12:55 AM

Richard, Midnight Rider pretty much summed it up for me.

Concerning the 50/50 I was only speaking theoritically. I have studied some of the muslim beliefs as well as other religions. They do not represent the truth of God as I have come to know it. But, those are MY beliefs.

He is not my God, I am his servant. He does not owe me anything, I owe him my life.

The Bible says that this is all foolishness to those who are perishing.

Do you have any hope for eternal life or does your hope lie in not having to humble yourself to divine authority of any kind?

Faith is the substance of things hoped for and we all have faith. Even the atheist BELIEVES he is right and God pours the rain and sun on them the same as he does me.

Love conquers all, it is just a matter of what it is we truly love.

Blessings to all,

-- Posted by Liveforlight on Thu, Dec 3, 2009, at 6:42 AM

Richard,

It just occured to me! Perhaps you never experience GOD but instead experienced RELIGION.

I will pray that God touchs you physically and audibly so that you may have unwavering faith greater than mine.

-- Posted by Liveforlight on Thu, Dec 3, 2009, at 6:50 AM

1. What Hindu or Muslim prophecies have been fulfilled?

2. How do you know that the miraculous healings, answered prayers, and amazing coincidences were not from God, seeking to call them unto him?

3. How do you account for unexplained phenomena?

-- Posted by Midnight Rider on Thu, Dec 3, 2009, at 12:55 AM

1. The point I was trying to make is that there are many things that believers of other religions could point to as evidence of their Gods, and you would not be the least bit convinced. Just like I'm sure if you've ever read Greek mythology, you never thought for even a second that any of those Gods were real. Millions of people believed it, and millions of people died believing it. Why don't you? To quote Stephen Roberts, "When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."

2. Couldn't they say the same thing, that their God is trying to reach you? If there is one true God who can reveal himself to anyone, why are the demographics of the major religions they way they are? In other words, why does God seem to prefer people in certain parts of the world?

3. There was a time when floods, diseases, earthquakes, lightning, many other things were unexplained phenomena and were believed to be magical. As we have learned more about the universe, thousands of these magical explanations have been replaced by natural explanations. But so far, the reverse has never happened. That is, a natural explanation has never been replaced by a magical one -- at least, not one supported by so much evidence that it is accepted by most people. So I think I'm justified in believing that everything that is considered unexplained phenomena today most likely has a natural explanation.

"What I am trying to get at is, why do you act, think and feel the way that you do? Why do we all?"

-- Posted by memyselfi on Thu, Dec 3, 2009, at 4:55 AM

That is a good question. Basically, I believe that basic morality is a product of human social evolution. We simply couldn't survive without rules, so the evolution of the ability to create and follow rules should be expected. I think the similarities of basic morality across cultures helps support this idea.

"Do you have any hope for eternal life or does your hope lie in not having to humble yourself to divine authority of any kind?"

-- Posted by Liveforlight on Thu, Dec 3, 2009, at 6:42 AM

My beliefs are not based on my hopes, but according to what I have a reason to believe. I don't have any reason to believe in an afterlife. It has nothing to with not wanting to be held accountable to any God.

"I have studied some of the muslim beliefs as well as other religions. They do not represent the truth of God as I have come to know it. But, those are MY beliefs."

-- Posted by Liveforlight on Thu, Dec 3, 2009, at 6:42 AM

I'm curious to know what criteria did you use to decide that Christianity is right and all the others are wrong?

-- Posted by Richard on Fri, Dec 4, 2009, at 8:33 AM

I'm curious to know what criteria did you use to decide that Christianity is right and all the others are wrong?

-- Posted by Richard on Fri, Dec 4, 2009, at 8:33 AM

LOVE!

-- Posted by Liveforlight on Fri, Dec 4, 2009, at 10:29 AM

Richard,

I have struggled with many of the same things you mention. The one thing that helped me more than anything is the study and the full meaning of the Ressurrection. When I look at the cataclysmic changes it made in men who even though they had walked with Christ before His death were changed beyond measure afterwards by a risen Christ my Faith is strenthened.

I think Paul did a wonderful job in 1 Corinthians 15 explaining the importance of the Ressurrection. Unlike any of the other faiths, Christianity rides on the Ressurrection. Without the Ressurrection, Christianity would be nothing more than another mere religion. It is what seperates it more than anything. If there was no ressurrection then everything is in vain.

14And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.

15Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not.

16For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised:

17And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.

Their is Power in the Ressurrection.

My faith hinges on it.

One of the best books I read on the subject was "Who Moved the Stone" if my memory serves me right. There is no doubt, even historically that a Jesus did live almost 2000 years ago, was crucified, buried, and the stone was moved revealing an empty tomb. The book looks at all the possible motives and eye witness accounts and testimony. When you examine what the apostles and others gave up in defending their testimony without denial or recanting you are literally left with no choice but to deem them the most credible witnesses. No one will defend a lie with their very life. They all held true even in the very face of death with their story.

Even the disciple of these men such as Polycarp and others would not recant even when being burned at the stake in the next century after the ressurrection. They knew what they had experienced and joyfully gave up their earthly life without faultering during death.

There are vast numbers of other similar books out there that deal with the key seperating issue of Christianity which is the Glorious Ressurrection. Maybe through the prayers of others on here also who would like to see your faith restored abundantly to you, it may come to be.

-- Posted by Blessed Assurance on Fri, Dec 4, 2009, at 10:43 AM

a natural explanation has never been replaced by a magical one

My beliefs are not based on my hopes, but according to what I have a reason to believe.

Posted by Richard on Fri, Dec 4, 2009, at 8:33 AM

I agree Richard, we are not talking about magic. We are talking about natural. God is super natural to us because we don't understand what is natural to him.

It is like ESP (extra sensory perception) for example; A dog can hear things that humans cannot. It doesn't mean the sound doesn't exist just because we can't hear it. It may even seem magical to see the dog respond to someone who didn't know any better.

Has science or anyone been able to prove the Bible false after thousands of years of close scrutiny? Not magic, just truth.

I also agree that beliefs are not based on hope. That is the reverse order. It is from faith (beliefs) that hope comes.

I am also curious, how do explain our existence?

-- Posted by Liveforlight on Fri, Dec 4, 2009, at 11:14 AM

-- Posted by Richard on Fri, Dec 4, 2009, at 8:33 AM

Nice side-step, you never answered the questions directly, but tried to answer by asking another question.So, what evidence would they use?

The fact is, that there are dozens of biblical prophecies that foretold the coming, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, with stunning accuracy in the details. So, this is not some "made up" belief system based on a God who has never been seen or heard from as opposed to the mythical Greek gods, who were never seen or heard from. And with all due respect to people of other faiths, the hope they have in their gods, are in gods who have never been seen or heard from.

The thing with Jesus is that there is historical evidence of Him. So, while Mr.Roberts quote might seem enlightened, it is really rather unenlightened considering the facts.

As for unexplained phenomena, I have no problem attributing the explanations to God. There are numerous instance in the bible where he has used earthquakes, floods, diseases, lightning and many other things to accomplish his purposes.

God created the universe and set the order to it, stars and planets in place, the natural fault lines, the deep ocean springs. So, it is very logical to think that he could use what we call "natural explanations" for the accomplishment of His purposes.

That he used these things and that they are recorded in the Old Testament would indicate that man was and is looking for ways to justify their desire to live Godless lives. That is a choice He gives us, but He has also explained that their are dire consequences and patiently gives us every chance to come to Him willingly.

Much of what God does, I can't really explain, but, I much of what God does I can see, and it is so amazing that I can't attribute it to any "natural explanation" nor ever think that man could ever know it without the help of God.

You appear to be a thinking man. Are you really open to discovering truth? Here is a link to an interesting dissertation on being able to logically and reasonably put our faith in God. Although, I don't believe in God because of the evidence or explanations. Rather, I believe the evidence and explanations because of my faith in God.

I hope you will go and read this. I don't expect just this to change your mind (although, with God, anything is possible, and I do pray for your mind and heart to be changed.) But, I think you will have to admit, that the story of the penguin, the sailor and the scientist will give you some things to ponder. This is a lengthy article and their stories are towards the middle, but I hope you will read the entire article. Here is the link: http://www.rzim.org/JustThinkingFV/tabid...

-- Posted by Midnight Rider on Fri, Dec 4, 2009, at 11:19 AM

"Much of what God does, I can't really explain, but, I much of what God does I can see, and it is so amazing that I can't attribute it to any "natural explanation" nor ever think that man could ever know it without the help of God."

Two things here in this paragraph I would like to correct. The first part of the sentence should read: "Much of what God does, I can't really explain, but, much of what God does I can see,

In the second part, I use "natural explanation" in the sense that those who want to discount God's active role often tell us that there must be some sort of "natural explanation" As I said earlier, I think attributing seemingly unexplainable things to God is a viable natural explanation, although, as LiveforLight says, we can also consider it super natural.

I find it interesting, maybe an "amazing coincidence" that Blessed Assurance, LiveforLight, and I were all probably typing our response to you all at the same time with similar responses to different aspects of your argument. As for me, I can assure you that I don't know either one of them from their pen names, and have no contact with them, so we did not conspire to put this "amazing coincidence" together.

And, although, left unsaid, I would imagine that LiveforLight is also praying for you, as well as many other Christians who are reading this blog. I just pray that we have represented a Christian attitude well. I have not tried to be in "attack" mode, rather, I am just trying to be as straightforward as possible in present biblical truths as I understand them.

"But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth ; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak ; and He will disclose to you what is to come. John 16:13 (NASB)

-- Posted by Midnight Rider on Fri, Dec 4, 2009, at 11:56 AM

I agree that none of us need to be in "attack mode".

That never accomplishes anything worthwhile.

I think what we're all asking is for some thought about what we believe and why.

I am a Christian and,as such,I believe that we are given free will and the ability to think for a reason.

I believe that living a life based on love is rewarding in the here and now as well as preventing too much "culture shock" at such time as we enter Heaven.

The blessing of eternal life lies in the part about LIFE rather than the part about eternity.

It's not about "pie in the sky when you die" or having a cache of magic tricks at one's disposal.

Much about living a Godly life is inconvenient and unpopular.

This faith wouldn't have much merit if it could only be sold as a pretty story.

But,it is simple and easily acquired.

It belongs to the elite and the most humble.

It can challenge a Muggeridge,Frankl or Teillhard de Chardin yet be comprehensible to a toddler.

It can awaken us to a sense of meaning and purpose to our existence that takes away the emphasis on the length of our lives (whether we seek to survive at any cost or rid ourselves of life at the earliest opportunity) and focuses on the *depth* of those lives.

It removes our insistence on limiting "miracles" to show-stopping gimmicks and returns the definition to "something that points toward God."

By that light,all of creation is a miracle.

The person next to us is a gift rather than a random biological event or a mistake.

Every moment in time is a challenge and an opportunity.

The still,simple,ordinary hours are as rich as those full of elaborate plot turns.

Does a person HAVE to have an intimate relationship with God to have a happy,meaningful, constructive life?

Perhaps,not.

But,it seems to me that such a bond makes that life easier to come by.

I'd go further to say that every time we make the world a better place or enjoy a sense of wonder,we come closer to knowing God and welcoming His presence.

As trite as it may be,I keep coming back to "What have you got to lose?"

A person who dies and ends up as nothing more than compost has still gained if he lived his life as if there were a holy intent behind his being here.

A person who ends his mortal life and finds that he was more than so much matter may wish he had been a better steward of his intangible self.

But,I think we make a mistake if we seek God to avoid hell,gain temporal prosperity or "superpowers" or have an idyllic after life.

What more is there?

I don't know.

I haven't explored it all yet.

So far,I've worked on emulating William Blake.

"To see a world in a grain of sand

Heaven in a wildflower

hold Infinity in the palm of your hand

and Eternity in an hour."

(Your mileage may vary.)

But,again,I suggest that we ask God who He is,IF He is and why living according to His will would be a good thing.

(All I know is that even the miseries suffered by those who know Him have held more significance than joys without Him.)

Ask Him to reveal Himself.

(One can always turn Him away.)

Should one have such an encounter and choose to live for and in Him,the answers to these questions should be provided along with more blessings than we could ever comprehend.

A personal belief grounded in reality is always a trade-up from whatever we have exchanged for it.

For the intellectually honest,the question of belief in God will not be excluded from that search for truth.

(Just don't be surprised should God convince you that He is real and we can be also.)

-- Posted by quantumcat on Fri, Dec 4, 2009, at 3:05 PM

Perception is not always truth.

-- Posted by nathan.evans on Sat, Dec 5, 2009, at 9:47 AM

Perception is not always truth.

-- Posted by nathan.evans on Sat, Dec 5, 2009, at 9:47 AM

Even when it is,it's not one-size-fits-all.

If I look at a flower,it may appear to be solid blue with a white center.

A bee could see that same flower as yellow with blackened-green tips and a center of rusty-red.

So,who's right-me or the bee?

Birds see more acutely than humans do.

One birder might find that being still,hiding one's glances and wearing inconspicuous earth-toned or camo clothing enables him to observe birds more easily.

Another might find that blending in triggers the birds' awareness that something (like a potential predator) is hidden and only glimpsed in unnerving snatches.

Thus,there would be birds who are calmer around bright colors and broad movements because THEN they can easily observe the blatant observer.

We know so little and,then,only in certain contexts.

Dr. Oliver Sacks has told of how different people taking in a political speech drew a variety of conclusions based on how their brains were hard-wired.

(Shades of the Kennedy-Nixon debates!)

As speeches are evaluated differently based on whether they were experienced from television or radio,t.v. viewers see a different speech if they are left-brained,right-brained or have frontal lobe injuries.

(In Sacks' account,the audience in the hospital t.v. room were all less-than-impressed with the speaker-but noted a variety of disparities among his words,his body language and the content of his talk.)

Because of their impairments,they were immune to the carefully cultivated tricks used to manipulate and make points.

All they had was their own segments of objective reality.

Who got the speech "wrong" - or did the narrowed focus of these individuals give them a surer sense of what (if anything) was actually being said?

Discovering God goes beyond the example of the blind men and the elephant.

There can be a single,objective reality concerning God.

That doesn't mean we will experience Him in the same way or on the same timetable.

Our sight,taste,touch and hearing may not catch the music a constellation makes,feel the rough texture of a water-bear's hide,see a fractal in the ultraviolet range or taste PTC,Sodium benzoate or thiourea but those things exist apart from our ability to perceive-or misperceive them.

Some of our perceptions can be invalid.

Others can be ignored or lead to inaccurate conclusions.

Some perceptions and reactions to what's perceived will be accepted as valid.

Others will seem delusional.

Perhaps,the lack of uniformity and certainty exists to pique our interest-and keep us honest.

Perhaps,it makes us appreciate the intangible while reminding us that we don't know as much as we think we do about the world we can handle and observe-or any other.

Maybe,the too much and too little information we receive prompts us to find our evidence in less than obvious places.

People see or don't see God in the Who,What,When and How of the universe but folks have seen or not seen shapes in clouds.

(Linus sees British Honduras and the stoning of St. Stephen. Charlie Brown sees "a ducky and a horsy".)

Perhaps,it's better to look for Him in the Why.

Why are things the way they are?

Why does it matter?

Why do we even ask Why?

A word from God may seem like a fevre dream or proof of a chemical imbalance or cerebral lesion but what makes us have a mind instead of just a brain anyway?

What we see apart from the flesh may be the nature of God and the proof of His existence.

He could be a part of our imagination but the very fact that we can and do imagine,deduce,invent and feel urges me to conclude that we are products of His creativity.

The mystical and ontological parts of our lives just don't seem necessary enough to evolve otherwise.

I think they go beyond traits like beauty or fun or awareness in response to something else...something *more*-or Someone.

I call Him God but He seems less interested in what He's called than whether He's called and whether we respond when He communicates with us in whatever time,place or fashion He may choose.

-- Posted by quantumcat on Sun, Dec 6, 2009, at 12:14 PM

Blessed Assurance,

I think the historical case for the Resurrection of Jesus is extremely weak, and the resurrection story has all the characteristics of a legend that was embellished over time. All the "evidence" is based on the assumption that the Bible is historically accurate, which I do not believe is true. To use a book that is claiming that the resurrection is true as evidence that it DID happen is circular reasoning.

The facts are the the Gospel writers were anonymous, they were Greek speakers, none of them were eyewitnesses, and the earliest we have was written at least 40 years after Jesus' death. Even reading the four gospels in the order they were written, you can see how the story was embellished and enhanced over time. Are we really to believe that divinely inspired authors couldn't get their stories straight?

Don't you think that the events described in the Bible as happening during and after the death of Jesus (earthquakes, mid-day darkness, undead prophets walking the streets, etc.)would show up in extra-Biblical records of the time? They don't.

"They knew what they had experienced and joyfully gave up their earthly life without faultering during death."

-- Posted by Blessed Assurance on Fri, Dec 4, 2009, at 10:43 AM

So did the 9/11 hijackers. They had no doubts that there was a paradise with 72 virgins waiting for them. What someone is willing to do for their religion doesn't validate their beliefs.

"The thing with Jesus is that there is historical evidence of Him. So, while Mr.Roberts quote might seem enlightened, it is really rather unenlightened considering the facts."

-- Posted by Midnight Rider on Fri, Dec 4, 2009, at 11:19 AM

There may be historical evidence of a MAN, but that doesn't really mean anything, as Blessed Assurance already pointed out. Jesus wasn't the first person on Earth to claim to be God. Jewish historians wrote about several others around the same period who were crucified for claiming to be the messiah.

Even in the modern information age we live in today, charismatic people like Jim Jones or David Koresh can attract hundreds, or even thousands of followers, despite the fact that the are obviously charlatans to most outsiders. On what grounds do you excuse peasants and sheep herders living in such a superstitious age from being fooled the same way?

"As trite as it may be,I keep coming back to "What have you got to lose?"

-- Posted by quantumcat on Fri, Dec 4, 2009, at 3:05 PM

I don't think believing something is a voluntary action, at least it shouldn't be. What if you were told that if you believe in fairies, you will get a big reward. But if you don't believe in them, you will face a terrible punishment. Could you do it? Can you force yourself to believe something? Could you just close your eyes and say, ok, now I believe in fairies. No, you could only pretend. I refuse to do that. I take the most honest position I feel I can take.

-- Posted by Richard on Wed, Dec 9, 2009, at 4:06 AM

The facts are the the Gospel writers were anonymous, they were Greek speakers, none of them were eyewitnesses, and the earliest we have was written at least 40 years after Jesus' death.

-- Posted by Richard on Wed, Dec 9, 2009, at 4:06 AM

The "facts" are that none of the writers are anonymous. They all have names, and John and Matthew were both eyewitnesses, as they were two of the original apostles. Matthew wrote his account within 50 years. Most accept that John wrote his gospel around 70 A.D.

Luke was physician who wrote an historical account,much in the same way that a Ph.D would write an account of some historical account. By reviewing letters, and other historical writings. However, Luke had one advantage in that he was able to interview eyewitnesses. Luke is generally accepted to have been written around A.D. 60-61

Mark was also a personal companion to Peter, an eyewitness (Peter is the eyewitness) to all of the events. The accepted range of Mark's writing is between A.D. 50-70

All the "evidence" is based on the assumption that the Bible is historically accurate, which I do not believe is true.

-- Posted by Richard on Wed, Dec 9, 2009, at 4:06 AM

Other than your "belief" what proof can you offer the bible is not historically accurate?

-- Posted by Richard on Wed, Dec 9, 2009, at 4:06 AM

Jim Jones and David Koresh are irrelevant examples when compared to the ministry of Jesus.

Because Jesus lived His life according to Old Testament scripture and was clearly seen by those who he taught as a wise teacher. Why was He considered wise? Because there was no deceit that could be found in Him.

If the people who followed Jim Jones and David Koresh would have looked, they would clearly know they were false prophets, and I hesitate to call them prophets because about the only thing they might have tried to prophesies was the end of time,and anyone who has read the bible would know that it clearly says that no man know the appoint hour or time. Whereas the things that Jesus taught could be found to be true when compared to the Old Testament Scripture.

I won't bother trying to convince you with all of the with the dozens of prophecies fulfilled by the birth, life, death and resurrection of Christ. But, I will ask you again, other than your own "belief", what proof do you have that this is all a fairy tale?

"There may be historical evidence of a MAN, but that doesn't really mean anything,"

-- Posted by Richard on Wed, Dec 9, 2009, at 4:06 AM

So, then you are willing to admit that Jesus existed as a person? Then I pray that you will continue to ponder the existence of God instead of just flatly denying He exists. He can't be both a fairy tale and a real person.

I sense a bitterness in your writings and responses. I will continue to pray for you.

-- Posted by Midnight Rider on Wed, Dec 9, 2009, at 10:56 AM

Richard,

As I have said before, I can relate to the struggles you are having. I still challenge you to study the Ressurrection, which is really what seperates Christianity from other religions.

Even Paul confessed that all is in vain without the Ressurrection.

I see from your writings that you believe that Jesus existed in the form of a man. You are half way there. Don't stop though with that admission. Carry your study and thoughts further toward what happened after the burial. Once you come to accept the Ressurrection and what it means you will be filled with Peace and Joy that is beyond comprehension. You will know it when you get it and you will recognize others by this fruit (Peace and Joy) that they can not help but bear.

I have received it and my biggest want is for everyone to receive what I have been so graciously given. My heart breaks when I see so many who stumble over the free gift. Tommorrow may not come for many who missed it today.

Focus on the Ressurrection and the value of it.

-- Posted by Blessed Assurance on Wed, Dec 9, 2009, at 3:00 PM

"Jim Jones and David Koresh are irrelevant examples when compared to the ministry of Jesus."

-- Posted by Midnight Rider on Wed, Dec 9, 2009, at 10:56 AM

You stated that you believe Christianity over other religions because there is evidence of Jesus existing as a person. My point was that many people have existed who claimed divinity and have convinced many people, but that doesn't mean they were really divine. You didn't answer my question of why you believe a bunch of sheep and goat herders living in the Bronze Age were less likely to be deceived than the Branch Davidians or the people of Jonestown living in modern times?

"He can't be both a fairy tale and a real person."

-- Posted by Midnight Rider on Wed, Dec 9, 2009, at 10:56 AM

In my opinion, it is plausible that Jesus could have existed, or at least the legend was based on a real person. Perhaps he was a wise teacher who taught morality in a time of great immorality as other great men have done in the past. But does that mean he was the son of God who was born of virgin and rose from dead?

-- Posted by Richard on Thu, Dec 10, 2009, at 9:59 AM

What I meant by "What have you got to lose?" was what has one lost by giving something or someone a fair shot?

If they come up short,they can be set aside with a clear conscience.

If they show merit,one can proceed from there.

Even the completely worthwhile can be (and is often) rejected by a free will.

We have every right to cling to our preferences and prejudices if a thorough and objective examination of the subject at hand reveals it to be deserving of our respect but not to our liking.

We don't need to pretend to believe or disbelieve even if it were possible or even if we never attempt to deceive anyone apart from ourselves.

But,if we refuse to examine something for fear we might not like the answers we get,we are trading the truth and all its blessings for the dubious pleasures of remaining within our comfort zones.

Thus,I reccommend keeping an open mind.

It is possible that more truth will fall in than verities or misconceptions will fall out.

-- Posted by quantumcat on Fri, Dec 11, 2009, at 12:35 AM

What I meant by "What have you got to lose?" was what has one lost by giving something or someone a fair shot?

Posted by quantumcat on Fri, Dec 11, 2009, at 12:35 AM

But Richard or anyone for that matter could reason back with.....why not give Mohhamad or Budda a fair shot, what have I got to lose?

I don't think the answer is giving just any and everybody a shot.

I think careful study of the seperating factors has to be done before giving anything a shot. If not you just might shoot up the whole thing before you get the good shot.

-- Posted by Blessed Assurance on Fri, Dec 11, 2009, at 7:22 PM

You didn't answer my question of why you believe a bunch of sheep and goat herders living in the Bronze Age were less likely to be deceived than the Branch Davidians or the people of Jonestown living in modern times?

-- Posted by Richard on Thu, Dec 10, 2009, at 9:59 AM

I did answer the question, but before I repeat it, let me ask you why is it that you assume His followers were only sheep and goat herders?

Either you have not read much of the bible, or you conveniently leave out the Roman soldiers, officers and the some of the Jewish rulers who also placed their faith in Him. By the way your reference to the time being the "Bronze Age" is incorrect. Even so, that would not exactly make people devoid of the ability to think and reason rationally as you seem to be implying by comparing them to what I guess you are calling the enlightened followers of Jim Jones and David Koresh.

That is not the way you originally framed the question, but even so, my answer to the original way you posed the question would be the same to how you now pose the question.

I won't bother trying to convince you with all of the with the dozens of prophecies fulfilled by the birth, life, death and resurrection of Christ.

But, I will ask you again, other than your own "belief", what proof do you have that this is all a fairy tale?

-- Posted by Midnight Rider on Tue, Dec 15, 2009, at 10:18 AM

Midnight Rider,

After reading your comments over again, I think I understand why we're not getting anywhere with this discussion. You believe your personal experiences with God are genuine because they are biblically centered. You believe in Jesus because his teachings agree with the Old Testament, and other Gods do not fit scripture.

Don't you see what you are doing? You are using the Bible as the only criteria to decide what is true or false, which relies completely upon the validity of that religious system. You are ultimately assuming the truth of what is supposed to be proven, and what I dispute.

I have trouble believing that you have applied the same amount of skepticism to your own religion as you have to the other religions you easily dismiss.

There may be people who became Christians after carefully examining a variety of world religions, deciding which one is best supported by evidence, and choosing to follow that one. I've never met them. Instead, the vast majority of believers I know had their beliefs chosen for them at a young age, and were taught to follow those beliefs without skepticism or doubt. Even those who converted later in life, I find that in the overwhelming majority of cases, the decision was made for reasons other than a critical comparison of the options.

"Even so, that would not exactly make people devoid of the ability to think and reason rationally as you seem to be implying"

-- Posted by Midnight Rider on Tue, Dec 15, 2009, at 10:18 AM

No, I was implying that we should be skeptical that an ancient, primitive tribe, with no notion of science and whose beliefs about many other things we now know to be rank superstition, managed to penetrate the most profound secrets of the universe.

"But, I will ask you again, other than your own "belief", what proof do you have that this is all a fairy tale?"

-- Posted by Midnight Rider on Tue, Dec 15, 2009, at 10:18 AM

Name a set a criteria which would convince you that Christianity is false, and I'll be glad to provide proof. What sort of evidence do you need?

-- Posted by Richard on Wed, Dec 16, 2009, at 3:58 AM

Name a set a criteria which would convince you that Christianity is false, and I'll be glad to provide proof. What sort of evidence do you need?

-- Posted by Richard on Wed, Dec 16, 2009, at 3:58 A

Nice, avoid answering the question by asking another question. I have been courteous enough to answer your question, please answer mine.

You are the one who has said after careful study that you have come to the conclusion it is all a fairy tale. I have just challenged you to tell me what it is, other than your own belief, that gives you "proof" that this is all a myth and superstition. Which, you refuse to do.

I freely admit, that my personal experience and faith in scriptures are the center of my thought process. However, you are wrong in your assumption of my critical analysis and how I arrived at my beliefs.

Just a brief synopsis: The God of Judaism and Christianity are one in the same. The difference is that most(not all) refuse to believe that Jesus was the Messiah, despite the overwhelming evidence in their own Scriptures.

With all due respect to the Hindu, who have 3 main powerful Gods, they also have over 330 million deities, none of whom have demonstrated any basis in reality.

Buddhism, which is an offshoot of Hinduism, says there is no God, that we become gods, and both Hindu and Buddhism claim that we do life over until we get it right (reincarnation).

In Islam, there is no one but Mohamed who has any revelation, which was long after Christ died. They regard the Old Testament (for the most part to be true, and even say that it will be Jesus that comes back in the end times, although, he is not God, just a prophet)

Like I said, that is just a brief synopsis, and I have not had time to go back through my study materials at this point, so, I apologize if I have made some errors in what I have said.

You make a lot of assumptions. What critical comparisons have you done. How many believers have you polled? To say that a believer was taught to to believe with out skepticism and doubt, and to imply that is the rock solid foundation for their beliefs is a little simplistic, especially, when you consider the number of Christians in all of the different nations. Kool Aid, Kool Aid, tastes great, wish I had some - can't wait!

I will admit that in the time of Christ, there were people with superstitions, just as there were before He lived, and just as there are now people with superstitions unrelated to religion. There always will be, but to say that they were devoid of any "scientific notion" is fallacy

The point remains, they heard him teach with wisdom, saw the miracles performed and knew that no one else but God could do these things and became believers. From there, they saw Him die, get buried, and return to life as witnessed by his disciples and others according to Paul, at least 500 others.

So, if you want some criteria, prove all of the above to be false. :)

So, to deny Christ is to deny God, to deny God is to deny creation. I am curious, what is your theory on how the universe came into existence, and how did life begin?

-- Posted by Midnight Rider on Wed, Dec 16, 2009, at 11:45 AM

So, if you want some criteria, prove all of the above to be false. :)

-- Posted by Midnight Rider on Wed, Dec 16, 2009, at 11:45 AM

I don't see how Jesus teaching wisdom is relevent, so I'll start with the miracles, but first I would like to share a Hindu miracle story with you:

"Saint Jnanadeva is revered for his Bhagavad Gita translation and commentary in the Maharastrian language. Among several miracles that established this 13th-century saint's reputation, the most famous involved a water buffalo. Challenged by the arrogant brahmins of Paithan that he was not qualified to recite the Vedas, Jnanadeva replied, 'Anyone can recite the Vedas.' He placed his hand upon a nearby water buffalo, which proceeded to correctly chant Vedic verses for more than an hour."

I don't believe this story and I'm assuming neither do you, but the fact is that seven hundred years later, we can't know for sure whether a water buffalo spoke on one occasion in the 13th century. But we don't need to be able to prove it didn't happen because the burden of proof is not on the doubter to disprove. The burden of proof lies on the person making the claim.

If any miracle could be repeated, tested, under reliable and controlled conditions by independent observers, that would be something. But, so far, no religion has come anywhere close to meeting this high burden of proof. Therefore, these stories offer no grounds for making a decision among all the faiths that promote them.

If someone were to come to you today and say, "I am God!", what would you do?

Of course, you would immediately ask for proof- real, solid, tangible proof. No normal person would accept anything less than that from a person who claims to be God.

Imagine that someone, today, were to come up to you and say, "I am God, and I will prove that I am God by healing the sick and turning water into wine!" What would you say?

Be honest. You would not believe this person. Everyone has seen all sorts of "faith healers" who can "heal" the sick, and we all know this sort of "healing" is quackery. Turning water into wine sounds like something a wannabe magician would do in a nightclub act, and there are dozen ways to stage things to make it look like water is turning into wine.

It is as simple as that. If someone claimed to be God today, you would never believe it if the evidence consisted of faith healing and magic tricks. Never.

Jesus doesn't get a pass because he lived 2000 years ago.

Next, you mentioned the resurrection. According to the story, there is only one way for Jesus to prove that he rose from the dead. He had to appear to people. As you already mentioned, according to Paul, he appeared to hundreds of people.

Looking at these Bible passages, there is a question that comes to mind - Why did Jesus stop making these appearances? Why isn't he appearing today? Obviously Paul benefitted from a personal meeting with the resurrected Christ. So, why doesn't Jesus appear to everone the same way he appeared to Paul? If Paul (and all the other people in the Bible) needed a personal visit to know that Jesus was resurrected, then why not you and me?

We are told by the Bible that Jesus appeared to hundreds of people. We therefore know that it is OK for Jesus to appear to people - it does not take away their free will, for example. We know that it would be easy for Jesus to appear to everyone all through history, since Jesus is all-powerful and timeless. Yet, we all know that Jesus has not appeared to anyone in 2,000 years.

As you think about this, simply look at Paul's story like any judge in a courtroom would. What his story is suggesting is entirely unprecedented- a man dead three days with mortal wounds come back to life. Yet there is absolutely no evidence that the story is true. There are many alternative explanations for what Paul is saying. Paul could be fabricating the story, Paul could have hallucinated or dreamed the meeting, Paul could have seen an imposter, etc. In addition, no one is seeing Jesus today, even though it would be trivial and obvious for Jesus to appear to people today just like he did with Paul.

Given this evidence, rational people would conclude that Paul's story in the Bible is untrue.

-- Posted by Richard on Thu, Dec 17, 2009, at 1:50 AM

Given this evidence, rational people would conclude that Paul's story in the Bible is untrue.

-- Posted by Richard on Thu, Dec 17, 2009, at 1:50 AM

Not hardly.

I believe a "rational" person would have recanted a false story at the first sign of punishment and persecution.

Would you defend a lie with your life and hide?

He sure paid a heck of a price to defend this story.

All the apostles, possibly barr John, did and even he was exiled for his Faith. Sometimes seperated by hundreds of miles, where no one could here their recantation, they held firm in their Faith and accepted the punishment without recanting.

-- Posted by Blessed Assurance on Thu, Dec 17, 2009, at 9:02 AM

Richard, again, you have just given your own reasoning, no evidence to refute any of what is written in the bible. And, that is ok, just say it is your own reasoning. But don't say that you have examined evidence when all you have really done is chosen not to believe what has proven to be reliable documentation. Otherwise, I continue to challenge you to produce this "evidence".

Your quote, just in case you have forgotten:

"But at some point in my life, as I began to examine my beliefs and look at them with evidence and reason instead of my emotions"

There is a way which seems right to a man,

But its end is the way of death. Proverbs 16:25

-- Posted by Midnight Rider on Sat, Dec 19, 2009, at 10:28 AM

Midnight Rider,

When I wrote "examine my beliefs and look at them with evidence and reason", I was referring to evidence for Christianity, and my conclusion that religious beliefs are primarily emotional, and not based on evidence, reason, or rational thought.

In my opinion, your comments have indicated that there are two fundamental principles of rationality you don't seem to understand, and this leads me to believe that you are not thinking critically about your beliefs.

The first one is the prinicple of burden of proof: a person who makes a positive claim has an obligation to support it if they wish others to believe them. It is not the responsibility of others to prove that claim false. If a person makes an extraordinary claim, we don't have to search the whole universe to disprove it - we just have to ask that person how they know that, what facts they have that led them to believe in that way. If they can't produce such facts, then we're justified in concluding that they don't know what they're talking about, and there's no reason to believe them.

By contrast, a lack of belief in a given proposition requires no positive justifying evidence, only the absence of evidence to the contrary. Therefore, it is the default position, and does not incur any special burden of proof.

All you have done on this blog is try to shift the burden of proof on me, when I am not the one making the claims. I have only tried to offer my perspective, my opinions, and yes, my reasoning of why your evidence is not sufficient to justify your religious beliefs.

The second principle you don't seem to understand, which is closely related to burden of proof, is the concept of falsifiability, or whether it is possible to disprove a given idea. There are many propositions that aren't falsifiable. A proposition is falsifiable if there is at least one definitive test that could refute it. If there are no such tests, then it is useless to consider or believe.

That is why I asked you to name a set of criteria, because I believe it is an unfalsifiable claim unless you give me a definitive test to refute it.

The existence of unfalsifiable claims further underscores why the person making the positive claim has the responsibility to support it. Otherwise, we would have to believe in an infinity of crazy ideas just because we can't disprove them. Someone could claim to have invisible unicorn. You can't see it? That just proves it is invisible!

You merely asserting that an idea can't be disproven is pointless and absurd.

-- Posted by Richard on Mon, Dec 21, 2009, at 3:55 AM

"When I wrote "examine my beliefs and look at them with evidence and reason", I was referring to evidence for Christianity, and my conclusion that religious beliefs are primarily emotional, and not based on evidence, reason, or rational thought."

Perhaps you should learn to express yourself more clearly. I believe, given the context of that particular post, most would have reached the same conclusion that you had other evidence and reason to doubt your beliefs. Maybe you should have written that you "as I began to examine the evidence for Christianity".

As for the the burden of proof, you are the one that said the belief in God is not based on evidence, or rational thought, when, quite to the contrary, there is a large body of evidence to support such belief. You, just choose not to believe the evidence based on your own reasoning and logic. That is your choice. Just say, "I have examined the evidence put forth and I reject it as invalid".

But it is pretty arrogant of you to claim that everyone who believe is an emotional cripple, incapable of critical thinking. Especially, when you don't even know them. Absolute knowledge must be a heavy burden.

25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength. 1rst Corinthians 1:25

-- Posted by Midnight Rider on Mon, Dec 21, 2009, at 8:36 AM

A proposition is falsifiable if there is at least one definitive test that could refute it.

"If there are no such tests, then it is useless to consider or believe."

Posted by Richard on Mon, Dec 21, 2009, at 3:55 AM

Note that falsifiable does not mean "falsified" or "false" any more than breakable means "broken."

http://science.jrank.org/pages/7691/Fals...

Mr. Popper, stating "myths may be developed, and become testable; that historically speaking all--or very nearly all--scientific theories originate from myths, and that a myth may contain important anticipations of scientific theories."

He then went on to state:

"I thus felt that if a theory is found to be non-scientific, or "metaphysical" (as we might say), it is not thereby found to be unimportant, or insignificant, or "meaningless," or "nonsensical." But it cannot claim to be backed by empirical evidence in the scientific sense--although it may easily be, in some genetic sense, the "result of observation."

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/Critical_th...

Just for the record, I have never said that existence of God could be proven through empirical science. I told you from the beginning that my beliefs were rooted in the same thing your beliefs are rooted in, Faith!

-- Posted by Midnight Rider on Mon, Dec 21, 2009, at 9:35 AM

View From the Crossroads

Michael Bell

- Recent posts
- Archives
- Blog RSS feed

- Comments RSS feed

- Login

A man getting to the roots of his faith.

Hot topics

Daddy's Rules For Dating My Daughters!
(25 ~ 8:26 PM, Aug 15)

Southern Traditions
(66 ~ 3:31 PM, Jun 14)

The Implosion From Within
(9 ~ 10:26 PM, Jun 11)

The Crumbling!
(71 ~ 10:14 PM, Jun 11)

IN HONOR OF ALL VETERANS!
(6 ~ 9:08 AM, Jun 1)

Home