Am I welcome?

[Subbota]

Today I happened to take a note of an ad in Facebook:

"You don't believe in GOD? Join us to study the evidence of Scripture and Jesus' validity. We love you & welcome you."

I found it amusing, and yet the claim that even though I might be an unbeliever I still am welcome here piqued my interest.

During the very onset of age of reason (sometime around age of 13) I started asking myself as of what exactly Faith is and why so many of them are around me. I terrorized anyone who practiced any sort of Faith (from Orthodox Christians and Muslims to Mormons, Cultists and Krishnaists ) with incessant "Why?" As you might imagine the answers proved to be unsatisfactory - usually they would give a me a book or a booklet, which I would diligently read and have even more questions. Those almost all went unanswered.

I believe that unquestioned Truth is meaningless just like celibacy of a eunuch or courage of one who knows no fear.

Perhaps we can help each other out?

 

[amadeus2]

Today I happened to take a note of an ad in Facebook:

"You don't believe in GOD? Join us to study the evidence of Scripture and Jesus' validity. We love you & welcome you."

I found it amusing, and yet the claim that even though I might be an unbeliever I still am welcome here piqued my interest.

Someone (the poster of the ad) may have high hopes of converting someone else to his own way of believing.

Everyone probably, from one with an extremely atheistic viewpoint to the other extreme among believers in God, perhaps at times would like to convert someone. Would I like to convert you to a follower of Jesus? Yes, indeed, but I have come to believe two things in this regard... which are accord with scripture. One is that God (He, of course, may work through a person to do this) must draw the person to Jesus, and two is that the unbeliever (non-follower of Jesus) must first have a measure of belief in God before being moved closer to God.

During the very onset of age of reason (sometime around age of 13) I started asking myself as of what exactly Faith is and why so many of them are around me. I terrorized anyone who practiced any sort of Faith (from Orthodox Christians and Muslims to Mormons, Cultists and Krishnaists ) with incessant "Why?" As you might imagine the answers proved to be unsatisfactory - usually they would give a me a book or a booklet, which I would diligently read and have even more questions. Those almost all went unanswered.

And you found, of course, that few, if any, had even reasonable answers to your "whys". Those few who did probably hit you with something like, "I live by faith rather than knowledge". Therefore they admittedly that they could not prove to you and you really could not prove to them the correctness or incorrectness of what was believed.

The answer is for me (not for an unbeliever in God) is that God alone gives the "increase" in the things of God. I, for example, have more than faith toward God in me, but I, alone, am unable to prove that to a doubter or to transfer it to him.

I believe that unquestioned Truth is meaningless just like celibacy of a eunuch or courage of one who knows no fear.

Perhaps we can help each other out?

If there is really only God's Truth and a person believes in it, then anything that is brought up against it cannot overcome it. (That is where I stand.) If, as some believe, there is no God, or truth is relative, then a person may be convinced to change his mind.

 

[Subbota]

Someone (the poster of the ad) may have high hopes of converting someone else to his own way of believing.

Everyone probably, from one with an extremely atheistic viewpoint to the other extreme among believers in God, perhaps at times would like to convert someone. Would I like to convert you to a follower of Jesus? Yes, indeed, but I have come to believe two things in this regard... which are accord with scripture. One is that God (He, of course, may work through a person to do this) must draw the person to Jesus, and two is that the unbeliever (non-follower of Jesus) must first have a measure of belief in God before being moved closer to God.

Does it mean, that there are no arguments to start believing in God that will stand up to healthy critique of a mind not immersed in religion? Or is it that such critique cannot be considered healthy?
How about a mind which believes in a different God? Say a Muslim? What about multiple gods or spirits as with Hindu or Shinto religions?
I do like Shinto - the Japanese shamanistic "religion", (I put in in quotes, since it is more of a culture feature, but it has its priests and gods and mythos)
I cannot say I believe in it much, but it is a beautiful fantasy and a source of serenity in the hectic world.

And you found, of course, that few, if any, had even reasonable answers to your "whys". Those few who did probably hit you with something like, "I live by faith rather than knowledge". Therefore they admittedly that they could not prove to you and you really could not prove to them the correctness or incorrectness of what was believed.

The answer is for me (not for an unbeliever in God) is that God alone gives the "increase" in the things of God. I, for example, have more than faith toward God in me, but I, alone, am unable to prove that to a doubter or to transfer it to him.

Can you describe what it gives to you? As poetic or down to earth as you please - I will not be trying to catch you by the word, I merely am curious.

If there is really only God's Truth and a person believes in it, then anything that is brought up against it cannot overcome it. (That is where I stand.) If, as some believe, there is no God, or truth is relative, then a person may be convinced to change his mind.

Something tells me that we are talking about different meanings of "Truth". For me Truth constitutes an observable fact, or the best explanation as for why the facts happen to be observed in the way they do. In science it's called a Theory.
Untested Theory is called a Hypothesis.

What do you call "God's Truth"? Is it specific piece of information or simply anything that you take on Faith?

Disclaimer: I have been called insensitive in my curiosity on occasion, so if you think I have no right to ask some or all of the questions - feel free to let me know. I will apologize. If you can explain what and how I said wrong - that's even better, I will appreciate the education. Also my English grammar (particularly punctuation) leaves much to be desired, especially if I am in a hurry - English is not my first language, nor second, nor third. Corrections will be taken gracefully.

 

[Rev T.S.Perkins]

Yes you are welcome..the word is very specific on this ....whomsoever will believe..! I can tell you that if Saul of tarsus can be become Paul the believer and defender of the faith ...yes you are welcome here ! Rev

 

[amadeus2]

Originally Posted by amadeus2:

Everyone probably, from one with an extremely atheistic viewpoint to the other extreme among believers in God, perhaps at times would like to convert someone. Would I like to convert you to a follower of Jesus? Yes, indeed, but I have come to believe two things in this regard... which are accord with scripture. One is that God (He, of course, may work through a person to do this) must draw the person to Jesus, and two is that the unbeliever (non-follower of Jesus) must first have a measure of belief in God before being moved closer to God.

Subbota: Does it mean, that there are no arguments to start believing in God that will stand up to healthy critique of a mind not immersed in religion? Or is it that such critique cannot be considered healthy?
How about a mind which believes in a different God? Say a Muslim? What about multiple gods or spirits as with Hindu or Shinto religions?

There are arguments which can start a person toward God, but the source of those arguments, I believe, must be God, Himself. Looking at the other side of the coin (atheistic viewpoint) should not shake the faith of person who really believes in God, unless the person is already walking on very unstable ground.

From my standpoint, any one who does not believe in the One God already does believe in a "different god". That which you believe in is your god.

Subbota: I do like Shinto - the Japanese shamanistic "religion", (I put in in quotes, since it is more of a culture feature, but it has its priests and gods and mythos)
I cannot say I believe in it much, but it is a beautiful fantasy and a source of serenity in the hectic world.

Well, I know just about nothing about Shinto so I won't apply any of my yeas or nays to it.

And you found, of course, that few, if any, had even reasonable answers to your "whys". Those few who did probably hit you with something like, "I live by faith rather than knowledge". Therefore they admittedly that they could not prove to you and you really could not prove to them the correctness or incorrectness of what was believed.

The answer is for me (not for an unbeliever in God) is that God alone gives the "increase" in the things of God. I, for example, have more than faith toward God in me, but I, alone, am unable to prove that to a doubter or to transfer it to him.

Subbota: Can you describe what it gives to you? As poetic or down to earth as you please - I will not be trying to catch you by the word, I merely am curious.

There is available for me an inner peace when outside situations are pressing me in adverse ways. It gives me comfort when the outside situation offers pain and discomfort. Does this mean that I do not feel physical pain? No, but I am not ruled by the pain when it is there. For example, right now I have a severe pain in my shoulder, which when left alone makes me nauseous. Without the presence of God in me, I would be unable to focus on the screen and word written there.

This peace and comfort is not the most important thing for me.

Amadeus:
If there is really only God's Truth and a person believes in it, then anything that is brought up against it cannot overcome it. (That is where I stand.) If, as some believe, there is no God, or truth is relative, then a person may be convinced to change his mind.

Subbota: Something tells me that we are talking about different meanings of "Truth". For me Truth constitutes an observable fact, or the best explanation as for why the facts happen to be observed in the way they do. In science it's called a Theory.
Untested Theory is called a Hypothesis.

Yes, different yet not completely different. The trouble I see, for example, with the scientific method, is that it does make certain assumptions. All of us make certain assumptions and we live in a large measure based on those assumptions. I do not exclude me from the group that does this. We all presume things based on our 5 natural senses and, in effect, build on that platform. I move outside of the that box (what comes from the 5 senses) or hope to do so and/or strive to do so...

Subbota: What do you call "God's Truth"? Is it specific piece of information or simply anything that you take on Faith?

God's Truth is all that He is and has created, which is all "very good". God alone is "good". Anything that is "good" as God understands good, must consist, at least in part, of God Himself.

Subbota: Disclaimer: I have been called insensitive in my curiosity on occasion, so if you think I have no right to ask some or all of the questions - feel free to let me know. I will apologize. If you can explain what and how I said wrong - that's even better, I will appreciate the education. Also my English grammar (particularly punctuation) leaves much to be desired, especially if I am in a hurry - English is not my first language, nor second, nor third. Corrections will be taken gracefully.

Communication is sometimes difficult between two people who speak only one language. I am somewhat familiar with two languages other than English and find sometimes that that familiarity is helpful in communication.

I won't say that you will not offend me no matter what, but for the momemt I will try to answer your questions without taking offense, or at least without unnecessarily manifesting offense.

 

[Dovegiven]

There's a principle involved that keeps people from easily sharing something precious to one, but not precious to most. I learned that long before trying to explain faith or anything else of the Bible. At about age 12 my family moved to an area rich in rocks, minerals, semiprecious gems. Being fascinated over them I collected hundreds of pounds of samples. A relative gave me a used copy of Dana's System of Minerology meant for college students. I studied the book, greatly enhancing my reading level, and was able to identify all rocks, minerals, many fossils, etc. upon discovering a wealth of textbooks in the city library. Not one person in my family cared to hear about my achievements, griping over the ton of stones they graciously moved. Moving to a new state I soon discovered no high school teacher or student would pay attention. By age 17 I ran out of things to learn about the subject, having a great knowledge of geology too. My new peers began taunting me as being weird, made worse when I submitted a science fair project demonstrating the piezoelectric properties of quartz crystals. A judge had it removed thinking the minerals were radioactive or somehow too dangerous. This was all before the internet was invented. Information came out of textbooks, libraries, etc. But my knowledge was branded "Much ado about nothing".

It was extremely disappointing for me to receive such negative response to my hobby. But before that school year was finished I met a National Park Ranger Naturalist who noticed me studying the mineral collection in their museum. The man soon had no doubt that I knew as much about the field as he did, starting a great friendship and going on field trips to dig some amazing sites. Along the way I learned a lot of new things that helped me get high grades in school, subjects I neglected like biology, physics, chemistry. My sudden surge in proficiency in the subjects caught the attention of my teachers, wanting to know how it happened. I told my story, then the school interviewed the Ranger. The Ranger was invited to visit to present interesting lessons, who had me stand up and called his field research assistant. That helped ease tensions among a few students, but also went against me in many ways. I was even more a "nerd" then, but at least not considered dangerous. In college I easily aced several subjects I knew too well to have to study, so at least got a grade evaluation of my knowledge gained from youth. My mineral collection belongs to museums now, a new one well underway.

When I became a Christian at age 31 I found the whole process start back up. I was considered weird again, unable to convince anyone of any value of the knowledge I claimed to have. Over time that has improved. Like finding the Ranger at a good time in my life, I know now I met the Lord of the Bible at a good time in life, and have enjoyed a relationship with Him like some people in the Bible did. Could I convince you of my experience through mere bits and bytes on this forum? I don't really expect that. I've learned that isn't my job. Mine is to display the word of God and perhaps preach some understanding with it, practicing "apologetics". It is God who gives enough faith to every person to let down whatever barriers to truth they have erected around themselves, then begin following Jesus by faith. Part of apologetics is to show people with objections to the Bible that most of their arguments are illogical beliefs based on untruths and half-truths, and even sometimes a poor knowledge of history, science, grammar, etc.

Followers learn what that faith is along the way. It is entirely up to you to respond to God when He calls out to you. Putting that off too many times hardens your "inner man" to the point of being spiritually deaf to that call.
Jim

 

[Subbota]

From my standpoint, any one who does not believe in the One God already does believe in a "different god". That which you believe in is your god.

I heard this notion, but I am not sure I can agree to it. "Belief" in the context usually means "taking things on Faith", whereas I tend to be highly skeptical of things I accept as true. Doesn't mean I find it impossible to new things, but in my mind all facts end up sort of compartmentalized: peer reviewed physical theories, observable facts and logically proven Pythagorean theorem go on one side, while assumptions, my own hypotheses and those of my students and of course my mother's panicky e-mails with a fresh urban legend go into "to be tested" pile. There's also an extensive library of sci-fi, fantasy, tested urban myths, wild conspiracy theories and considerable amount of holy books including half a dozen editions of Bible. I cannot really discard knowledge, but I can separate it from my decision making. Probably one thing I take on faith is my own code of conduct, which at some point I developed based on the repeating patterns from all the holy books, which is: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

There is available for me an inner peace when outside situations are pressing me in adverse ways. It gives me comfort when the outside situation offers pain and discomfort. Does this mean that I do not feel physical pain? No, but I am not ruled by the pain when it is there. For example, right now I have a severe pain in my shoulder, which when left alone makes me nauseous. Without the presence of God in me, I would be unable to focus on the screen and word written there.

This peace and comfort is not the most important thing for me.

I had my share of broken bones from the wild youth, and had to deal with an assortment of pain on regular basis, so I can appreciate that.
I would never try to take it away from you, but I learned to cope with mine in my own way, so I will need to find another reason for myself.

Yes, different yet not completely different. The trouble I see, for example, with the scientific method, is that it does make certain assumptions. All of us make certain assumptions and we live in a large measure based on those assumptions. I do not exclude me from the group that does this. We all presume things based on our 5 natural senses and, in effect, build on that platform. I move outside of the that box (what comes from the 5 senses) or hope to do so and/or strive to do so...

Well but of course. One can never have complete data on any subject. But the scientific method is based on the very principle of minimizing assumptions, and questioning those that left with the most skeptical scrutiny. According to scientific method the only assumptions worth keeping are not those that you can make, but those that are impossible not to make. And of course once someone manages to prove the assumption wrong - the entire theory built on it is considered no more than a mathematical model, if it's sound and gets completely discarded if there's no better use for it. Ptolemaic epicycles make for an excellent example of the former.
I cannot say it's the best way, for there's nothing to compare with as I do not know another effective method of seeking Truth and discarding anything that only looks like it.

God's Truth is all that He is and has created, which is all "very good". God alone is "good". Anything that is "good" as God understands good, must consist, at least in part, of God Himself.

Confusing. God's Truth is God=good and good=God? Does it merge well with the fact that we were created in His image? If it's "good" in God's way of understanding it - how are we to understand what is in fact good when His will is ineffable? Or am I missing something? Sorry, I really am confused.

I won't say that you will not offend me no matter what, but for the momemt I will try to answer your questions without taking offense, or at least without unnecessarily manifesting offense.

That is solemnly appreciated. I will do my best not to try your patience unduly.

...
But my knowledge was branded "Much ado about nothing".

.... I was even more a "nerd" then, but at least not considered dangerous.
....

We have a great deal of similarity between us. General population tends to misunderstand and as a result fear a questing mind. I too was considered all kinds of a nerd and a weirdo in high school, which I completed at the age of 16 and entered university on the first try. The minor difference is - my hobby was physics in all of its forms and applications, but I wouldn't pass up any sort of knowledge to absorb. I understand what you went through, so maybe you can understand my skepticism. It's not impossible that I have "deafened my inner man" either, because with every new holy book read - taking each seriously became harder and harder.