Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's fine. You know my point is valid, you don't have a counterpoint, so you result to name calling. Sounds about right for the internet.
That’s right - What tends to happen is we read a post and pick the part that creates a reaction from us - either for or against (it naturally happens)
We all feel strongly about our own positions and beliefs, that is part of our perspective and bias and is also a central part of religion
If someone identifies as atheist they will react negatively against the theists, and vice versa, and that is what they will look for to agree with or disagree with in any post
the same thing happens with the interaction between those who identify with the more orthodox and the liberal/heretic, they naturally react to each other and provoke each other
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sand&Salt
My husband and I got married when I was agnostic. He's always been agnostic.
I find that I cannot defend my faith and I know we are supposed to. After all the books I've read, sermons I've listened to, folks I've talked to, most of it still makes no sense to me.
When DH points out the absurdity of much of it, I secretly agree as I had all the same objections before I decided to believe anyway.
I've made peace with my decision because I realize how much of life I don't really understand. The Universe size and complexity is beyond my comprehension and so is much of science. That's OK, I can accept it. I believe in a whole lot of things I don't fully understand.
Rather than go into all the reasons for it not making sense, it's the same "argument" that Thrillobyte and Mordant so eloquently elucidate in their posts (to give two examples).
When I talk to my saintly BIL about it, he just quotes Bible verses. That does NOT help!
I wonder if anyone else has this kind of struggle, and how have you resolved it? Do you just live with it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sno0909
Picture this: you have an entity (God) that literally created the entire universe (think about that....the entire universe and everything in it). Think about how perfectly everything just works in harmony. The attention to detail. The unexplained forces (like dark matter and dark energy). All of it.
Now think about your husband. Think about the ego he must have to think he is smarter than God. Because that is what's happening here. Because his brain can't understand or comprehend things of this world, the universe, or the Bible, he thinks God must not exist.
We cannot compete with God in any facet of life. I assume your husband does not think he is smarter than Albert Einstein. Yet, he thinks he is smarter than God. It makes zero sense.
That isn’t what sand&salt is describing in the OP though
You believe in God and are theistic
Agnostic means no feeling/belief in or about there being God
Atheist means no belief in God/gods
What sand&salt is saying she can’t defend to her husband is the bibles descriptions and the doctrines and rituals that come from that, that has built the entire system of Christianity that Christian themselves inhabit and are within specific boundaries by design
The bible (Holy Scripture) is not meant as proof of Gods existence, that is a given from the beginning (Genesis) the bible has descriptions about the purpose and plan for the kingdom of God, and it will not make sense to those who have not been educated in it - and that education only goes so far as well
We are part of the natural world of creatures and and we pro-create
The one place where I genuinely believe Christian doctrine is exceedingly difficult to understand or defend is the doctrine of a supernaturally intelligent, supernaturally evil Satan and his minions being allowed to roam the globe, infuencing and deceving humans and generally wreaking demonic havoc. This theme appears, of course, in the Genesis account of Adam and Eve, at least if one buys into the notion the talking snake was Satan.
What sense does this make? If God's purpose was as I have described, why not let human free will take its natural course for better or worse - which would surely have been morally challenging and ghastly enough? Why did we need a "supernatural overlay" of demonic influence and deception? I, at least, believe it is very difficult to make Christian sense of this.
I can absolutely understand the appeal of Manichaeism, which basically posited two deities, one good and one evil, and a real war in heaven rather than the largely illusory one of mainstream Christianity. This frankly seems to me to make more sense and be a better fit with what we actually observe.
I'd be inclined to dismiss the whole "demon thing" as superstition if it were not for pretty solid evidence that supernatural evil actually does exist. But I have a very difficult time fitting it into my theology and am inclined to think there is some respect in which mainstream Christian theology is completely missing the boat on this.
Perhaps the answer is the final chapters of Job, the first chapters of which - God's dealings with Satan - are truly disturbing. The answer in the final chapters, of course, is basically: "Don't question me, human. I'm God and you're not." Well, OK ... I guess.
This isn't an insignificant issue. It cuts to the very heart of Christianity and the nature of God. And I have no answer that is really satisfactory to me.
The one place where I genuinely believe Christian doctrine is exceedingly difficult to understand or defend is the doctrine of a supernaturally intelligent, supernaturally evil Satan and his minions being allowed to roam the globe, infuencing and deceving humans and generally wreaking demonic havoc. This theme appears, of course, in the Genesis account of Adam and Eve, at least if one buys into the notion the talking snake was Satan.
What sense does this make? If God's purpose was as I have described, why not let human free will take its natural course for better or worse - which would surely have been morally challenging and ghastly enough? Why did we need a "supernatural overlay" of demonic influence and deception? I, at least, believe it is very difficult to make Christian sense of this.
I can absolutely understand the appeal of Manichaeism, which basically posited two deities, one good and one evil, and a real war in heaven rather than the largely illusory one of mainstream Christianity. This frankly seems to me to make more sense and be a better fit with what we actually observe.
I'd be inclined to dismiss the whole "demon thing" as superstition if it were not for pretty solid evidence that supernatural evil actually does exist. But I have a very difficult time fitting it into my theology and am inclined to think there is some respect in which mainstream Christian theology is completely missing the boat on this.
Perhaps the answer is the final chapters of Job, the first chapters of which - God's dealings with Satan - are truly disturbing. The answer in the final chapters, of course, is basically: "Don't question me, human. I'm God and you're not." Well, OK ... I guess.
This isn't an insignificant issue. It cuts to the very heart of Christianity and the nature of God. And I have no answer that is really satisfactory to me.
Perhaps Satan objected to being sentenced to the lake of fire and appealed his case and human history is the appeal phase of his trial in which Satan is trying to prove that God was unfair in sentencing him to the lake of fire. Satan isn't just running around doing things that are obviously evil. Satan also promotes many things that are humanly good but are not good from God's standpoint. For instance, much of religion is Satanically inspired. It may be that Satan is trying to prove to God that he can, as the god of this world as Jesus referred to him, run this world in an orderly manner, but is showing himself to be incapable of doing so, and so the world is in the mess we see it in.
This theological viewpoint has been called the 'angelic conflict.'
When DH points out the absurdity of much of it, I secretly agree as I had all the same objections before I decided to believe anyway.
How does one do that?
This is a serious question.
I've raised this question with regard to Pascal's Wager, but how can one *decide* what to believe? Can a person who is five feet tall decide to believe he's six foot eight? Can a person who dropped out of high school decide to believe he graduated from Yale Law School? Could I decide that I won a gold medal in the 1972 Olympics?
As I understand the facts of what I believe, they are based on either what I've been told, what I have observed, how I have evaluated the logic behind the argument. I really just can't imagine how it could be a decision.
Perhaps Satan objected to being sentenced to the lake of fire and appealed his case and human history is the appeal phase of his trial in which Satan is trying to prove that God was unfair in sentencing him to the lake of fire. Satan isn't just running around doing things that are obviously evil. Satan also promotes many things that are humanly good but are not good from God's standpoint. For instance, much of religion is Satanically inspired. It may be that Satan is trying to prove to God that he can, as the god of this world as Jesus referred to him, run this world in an orderly manner, but is showing himself to be incapable of doing so, and so the world is in the mess we see it in.
This theological viewpoint has been called the 'angelic conflict.'
I'll have to admit, this is new to me. It sounds like Michael S. Heiser on steroids, but I thought I'd read most of Heiser and don't recall it. Did he weigh in on it? (I see he has died. I knew he'd been very ill. What a loss.)
The hideousness wreaked by supernatural evil and the loss of billions of human souls is just the appeal phase of Satan's trial by God? God allows this just to prove the sentence He imposed at the trial was warranted? Eek.
For those who may be interested, here is a thorough discussion: [url]https://www.wenstrom.org/downloads/written/doctrines/satanology/angelic_conflict.pdf[/url]
As I said above, I've accepted that a tidy, connect-the-dots Christianity just isn't possible - at least one that I am constitutionally capable of believing. The angelic conflict doctrine sounds very much like an effort to preserve a connect-the-dots Christianity. As with many such doctrines, I'll have to say that I neither believe it nor disbelieve it. I'll just be content with a Christianity that leaves room for considerable mystery and even absurdity. (By absurdity, of course, I simply mean "It doesn't make sense to me and I'm not constitutionally capable of believing it," but I also realize and accept that God's truth doesn't have to make sense to me.)
I've raised this question with regard to Pascal's Wager, but how can one *decide* what to believe? Can a person who is five feet tall decide to believe he's six foot eight? Can a person who dropped out of high school decide to believe he graduated from Yale Law School? Could I decide that I won a gold medal in the 1972 Olympics?
As I understand the facts of what I believe, they are based on either what I've been told, what I have observed, how I have evaluated the logic behind the argument. I really just can't imagine how it could be a decision.
Can someone clarify this?
This is just my thoughts on it
Sand&salt was brought up in a religious household and basic indoctrination/education happens at that early stage, then she became agnostic, her much later decision to believe was not in a vacuum it was more about an acceptance of what she had inherited via her religious upbringing
May I suggest you read “Mere Christianity” by CS Lewis and “Pilgrim’s Progress” by John Bunyan? Both are profound explanations of Christianity. “Pilgrim’s Progress” is the story of a reluctant spouse who eventually becomes a Christian.
May I also suggest you pray daily for your spouse? My father, long an agnostic, became a Christian at age 85. My mom and our family prayed for him for decades.
I've read all of C.S. Lewis' books. All good and helpful. Read "Pilgrim's Progress" as a teen. I've read scholarly academic tomes and light-weight books on Christianity.
I do pray for him. Encouraging about your father! 85! My pastor has a similar story about his father, finally came around just before death in his 80s.
I'll have to admit, this is new to me. It sounds like Michael S. Heiser on steroids, but I thought I'd read most of Heiser and don't recall it. Did he weigh in on it? (I see he has died. I knew he'd been very ill. What a loss.)
The hideousness wreaked by supernatural evil and the loss of billions of human souls is just the appeal phase of Satan's trial by God? God allows this just to prove the sentence He imposed at the trial was warranted? Eek.
As I said above, I've accepted that a tidy, connect-the-dots Christianity just isn't possible - at least one that I am constitutionally capable of believing. The angelic conflict doctrine sounds very much like an effort to preserve a connect-the-dots Christianity. As with many such doctrines, I'll have to say that I neither believe it nor disbelieve it. I'll just be content with a Christianity that leaves room for considerable mystery and even absurdity. (By absurdity, of course, I simply mean "It doesn't make sense to me and I'm not constitutionally capable of believing it," but I also realize and accept that God's truth doesn't have to make sense to me.)
Thanks, I really appreciate this post, Darby. I am seeing from this thread that I am not alone in struggling with "absurdity". This honesty means a lot to me.
Never heard of this "angelic conflict". Fascinating. Michael Heisner died? I was intrigued by his videos and have a couple books of his.
This is just my thoughts on it
Sand&salt was brought up in a religious household and basic indoctrination/education happens at that early stage, then she became agnostic, her much later decision to believe was not in a vacuum it was more about an acceptance of what she had inherited via her religious upbringing
Correct. I have an extended family of about 200 and every single one is a conservative Christian who (seems) to accept it all at face value with no questions. Or if they have them, they never share them and don't want to hear mine, lol.
I thought we'd have all these deep talks once I relented and "came back". But no one wants to discuss. I find that very strange. So I come here....
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
