As an atheist who constantly strives to learn and grow in a culture that is largely religious, I'm constantly engaging with theists of many types. Often, they provide philosophical arguments for the existence of God, but I've never met one who was convinced and converted due to these philosophical "proofs". For believers out there, how did you choose which religion you ultimately became a part of? What convinced you that it was true? How did you research it, and have you examined others? While I may engage with answers, I'm not looking for an argument as much as a discussion of ideas.
sort by best latest
What I hear you saying, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that you already believed, and used that belief to draw conclusions from experiences that you have. Is that correct?
Kind of, it's hard to approach anything from a completely neutral perspective & I'm sure that my childhood belief had a large influence. I would say more that my experiences strengthened my beliefs but I guess it always works both ways.
How did you determine where your experiences came from, or did it just naturally follow that they must have come from the belief system you already had?
I don't think that they came from my belief system but through living I discovered more about the world & myself so my beliefs were strengthened. My knowledge is limited; I can only go on what I understand but I guess that's all anyone has.
It seems like you're saying that you don't care whether or not your beliefs are true because they're comforting to you, and you want to believe them. Is that correct?
Pretty much...now I do believe there is a God, I just have this outlook where even though I believe this, there are many other religions, I don't think they all can be correct...so some body may be wrong in the end. If it's me, I won't mind bc I have
Thank you for sharing, sir. May I ask you a few follow up questions?
You can always ask me questions. I can't always answer but I try. As I said, I can only witness what I know. Speculation is another story.
When you heard the voice of god, how did you identify it? In addition, how did you decide which God it came from? How do you explain the personal experiences that happen to people in other religions? Do they justify belief in other gods?
The voice of God was different. Not the shouting voices I heard in my spirit before. It was a voice of love and peace that calmed my soul, while yet convincing me I was lost. All other gods are false, nothing personal about them.
but people from all religious beliefs claim personal experience with their gods. How are all of their experiences fake and yours is real? That sounds like confirmation bias. Why doesn't your god give personal experiences to everyone?
I bailed on the third paragraph.
Preconceived beliefs? So my original answer was not read? What I experienced was against what I believed to be true and right. I cannot answer for why God doesn't give everyone the same experience. Speculation says He does and is ignored.
Sd y once told me that u felt lost and so you just happened to be in front of a church and u went in. U have called me really nasty names bcuz ???. Many got on ur boat too. What u have said is coming from su pastor nt ur heart. Differntly obvious
LG, you have me confused with someone else. What nasty names have I called you and when?
Lying and playing innocent. Religion teaches U that. You told me once, "Satan Get Thee Behind Me". That was on one of my hubs and then on my tesitmony one you continued to tell me that I was being the one with the EGO.
I explained that to you at that time. You didn't believe me, so what. I can;t force you to know anything. I said I disagreed with your testimony. No more personal comments. I quit.
I didn't say anything about preconceived ideas. You said that there are no other gods except for yours, and that is where your experiences came from. I asked how people from every other religion have personal experiences exactly like Christians.
Well, JM, I must have the wrong definition for confirmation bias. Can you give me a definition, please?
SD when you put those comments on HP they are no longer personal. Words do hurt! My testimony was very personal and you told me that I had it all wrong. I am not your denom and it came across that U R the only one that knows the truth.
what I meant by confirmation bias had nothing to do with your conversion. It related to you asserting that all other gods are false, which would mean that personal experiences with God by those of other religions would be false while yours are real.
TY, JM. It is hard to go one god at a time so this is in general. No other God sent someone to save mankind. No other god is actually personal with those who follow him/her. There is only Jesus who paid the price to redeem mankind to God.
Even if that were true, which I don't believe it is, that is simply an assertion, and doesn't account for thousands of stories about personal experiences people from other religions have had with their gods.
Religion uses that logic (?) to keep their parishioners and to keep them in the dark at all costs. Church is a business and that it all. 1st thing they teach you is seminary is how to keep the finances and the parishioners.
JM, Allah is not personal. Vishnu is not personal, Brahma is not personal. Zeus is not personal. Mercury is not personal. Thor is not personal. Odin is not personal. There's no heaven for any of these except Allah. Noone can get close to Allah.
But that still doesn't make your claim true, and I have talked to several Muslims, although admittedly not many, who emphasize a closeness and a personal connection with Allah, and cite that as their main reason for staying in the faith.
Ask those muslims to show it from their book. Nothing in their book says you can get close to Allah, to my knowledge. The Holy Bible talks of closeness to God from the beginning to the end.
If its not in the book it's not true? There are a lot of Christian doctrines and practices that came about later too that can sort of be interpreted from the Bible, but a lot is added to it, so is all that untrue too
If it goes against the Holy Bible, yes it is untrue. I am not trying to convince you that the Holy Bible is true. Only trying to answer questions you ask. Too may think God to be MPD when, in fact, He is only 1 and only one Word of God.
ppl don't always read everything i that Bible either. They take things way out of context. Do u have facts that prove ur claim to any other God/s? How about the Pagans who were stolen by the Christians and the Egyptian where commands similar to ..
Let me throw out an example in the trinity. The doctrine of the trinity does not exist in that wording in the Bible, and Jesus did not seek worship, always claiming the father was god, not him, etc. There is some support, not outright though.
How about we use the word Godhead instead of trinity. Speaking of Jesus, Col 2:9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
theotēs Thayer Def.
1a) the state of being God, Godhead Was Jesus God accordingly?
That the rub, In some parts of that Bible Jesus said that he was the son of man and in others the son of God. Then he asks who do you think that I am. Was he playing (mind/head) games with thsoe of his time? We are sons/daughters of God from begin
So you agree that trinity is not in the Bible. The verse you quoted was not Jesus speaking, nor was it someone that ever met Jesus. In the gospels, Jesus deferred to god the father in everything, did he not? Do you pray to your equals?
The word trinity is not in the Bible but Jesus was fully God while being fully man at the same time. Those who met Jesus as a man thought of Him as man alone. They glorified Jesus as a man but Jesus corrected them saying God deserves the glory.
God, the kingdom of God and all the things in his kingdom and that includes you and Jesus and Satan are Within you, not outside of you. We are all equal even Jesus and God. The master is not above the slave and vice versa. Nobody is better.
I understand that's the christian belief now, but it wasn't always. Christology evolved over several hundred years, and low christology was originally prevalent and had scriptural support as well. What is popular now may not equate to truth.
Never heard of low christology before. Can you elaborate? Will you agree that truth is truth no matter who does or does not believe it? I will be gone for a short time, so you can take your time if you need to.
Christology is the theological field of who Christ was. Low christology, believed by the early church believed Jesus was a man who was adopted by god at the moment of his baptism. Truth is truth Yes, but if it can't be demonstrated to be true...
A Low Christology focuses more on the humanity of Our Lord, while in no way excluding his divinity. http://www.ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage.asp?numbe...
According to the link, low does not negate high christology.
There's a lot more to low christology than can be fit in this Lele box. It doesn't rule out his divinity, no, but it also does not posit that he is divine, at least in its original forms believed by the early church.
That link is to a Catholic site. They are to keep us in the dark at all costs. I have an opn mnd about Christianity and other belief systems. We r all here on this planet. We soon better stop the Holier Than Thou system cuz it isnt doing us good
JM, both studies must be taken into account to come to a conclusion. To know Jesus is different than just knowing about Him. many speak and sing about Him but do not know Him on a personal level. I hate these little boxes too.
I understand. Church leadership determined that he was fully human and fully divine and part of a separate but equal trinity so that's what you believe, but that doesn't make it true or factual in light of early beliefs and practices.
SD, who told you that and why would you believe them over what Jesus states in that Bible? You better read it again and without interpretation from a church that is similar to a cult.
Mat 16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
But that was written sometime between 70-100 ad by someone who doesn't even claim to be an eyewitness, and Jesus changes drastically from mark (earliest) to John (latest) this is due to different christology.
Isa 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Prophesied before His birth.
it seems like you're reaching now. I don't accept prophecy as evidence because almost none of it meets the criteria that would actually make it a prophecy. Islam had prophecies that are more specific, do you believe they prove Allah?
SD Jesus never claimed that he was the prince of peace. That would be church teacnings. Why would the state that when it is not in the Bible at all? Manipulation for what?
For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. (Jesus)
JM - what are criteria for prophecy?
Jesus said: Luke 12: 51-53. Who got that prophesy wrong?
Jesus only meant that people would come to disagree over Him; that families would divide into believers vs. non believers. He is the POP because he will bring peace to new earth!
Star, they are too in depth to mention here, but I am writing a hub on it. It's Jesus called the Prince of peace because of isaiah? If so, it's self fulfilling. He never called himself that - or any of the others
Joh 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. Joh 14:7 If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.
I don't know how we devolved to posting verses with no discussion. By the time John was written, christology had evolved. That's why the Jesus in John says things that the Jesus in mark never would.
JM, limited space, christology brought up by you. Verses showing Jesus is God. It is what it is.
But verses don't mean Jesus was god. They evolved over time, with christology, from the first gospel mark through the lady John. Many early Christians did not view Jesus as god, it evolved. That is historical fact.
Peter said to Jesus, You are the Christ, the son of the Living God." Mat_16:16 and in John Joh_6:69. In Mark 8:29 Peter said, "You are the Christ." Greek-Christos Messiah. OT says God alone saves. God alone forgives sins.
Do you not see it as even possible that the writers of the gospels understood evolving and changing theological positions in the first hundred years after Christ and wrote in accordance with them?
I used to think things like that. All 4 gospels mention the temple being destroyed and Jesus building it back in 3 days, speaking of His body. Jesus brought Himself back from death. Notice, He did it Himself, not the Father.
SD have you read the hub about King David by Celeste here. Very enlightening about the Magic and Psychic abilites of that person and how Jesus would have acquired them through generation.
All four gospels mention the temple being destroyed because they were written after it was destroyed and fit that into their narratives as "prophecy". It's really easy to write a prophecy about an event after it's happened.
JM, Jesus was speaking of His own body. It was torn down and dead but He (Jesus) raised it up again. John 2:21 But he spake of the temple of his body.
Sure, that's the interpretation and your belief. That doesn't make it fact, just because that's how it's interpreted. There is no evidence of the resurrection aside from 5th hand biblical accounts, and there's no reason to believe them.
I agree with Julie on this one. If you read my answer you will understand why. Jesus has no birth or death records. Some things just dont add up and I started questioning them too. U still dont believe that evrythng is WITHIN U even though U quot
OK. I quoted directly from the Holy Bible. The same one used in the first century Church and beyond. Jesus' own words. I am done here for now and going to un-follow.
The first thing when changes come is denial, then anger and sometimes you can go back and forth with them. Run Virgil, Run! When you have nowehre else to go, go home within you. The answers you seek ore there, not church or other men. U must Love U
There was no Holy Bible in the first century, Dent. It wasn't collected and canonized until the second or third centuries. In addition, it's just what people say are Jesus words, by people who never actually met him.
I quote from that Bible too and am told that I do not use scripture. I stopped doing that because there are all kinds of interpretations. 4 that I am told that I dont know anything. He will not read my stuff. I dont know why. I do not convert.
Lady G, can I ask you a simple question: What does being a minister mean to you? Do you have a ministry?
Star you need to ask that on my nswer to Julie's question, not on SirDent's answer. Read my answer in full first though.
Star, your question has nothing to do with the subject being discussed in my question.
Thank you Julie, she is goading me. She has asked many questions on HP to get me to bite and I won't. All she wants to do is argue and fight. I am done with all that.
Sorry J, I was just curious about the "I do not convert" statement. I wondered how one could call oneself a minister but have no ministry? Or is it just a thing on paper? No desire for a fight. Just need clarification.
You and I then have very different ideas of what a ministry is. It's purpose is to Minister to the needs of its followers. Evangelism is conversion, not a ministry. How do you Minister to someone by telling them how wrong they are?
Some roles of the minister include establishing new churches and encouraging others to come to God. Is that happening here if one tells others that God is within us, we are gods, and that there should be no churches?
JM, you see, she only wants to start a fight. Her description of what a Minister does and is is far from what Jesus's description is. I am NOT going to FIGHT WITH HER i HAVE NO IDEA WHY SHE CHOSE ME TO PICK A FIGHT WITH.
The roles of a minister according to whom? You?
According to Wikipedia.
Wikipedia is an authoritative, biblically supported source now? Sheesh, I learn something new every day.
JM, I wrote this a couple of years ago and it explains what a Minister does: http://thedivinedispatch.blogspot.com/2015/03/what...