Do you believe ...

by AhHah 89 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Theophilus

  Hi Carmel,

  I just wanted to let you know that I do respect your position. I would not presume to
  force my views or ideas on anyone. I am merely responding to an open forum from
  my point of view. If something that I posted offended you, or if you feel that I
  misrepresented you, then I apologize and would like to know any points of offense
  so that I can provide explanation or apology.

  I agree that we need to establish objective criteria for the evaluation of ideas and
  perceptions. Experience alone is inadmissable as an explanation. If our beliefs are
  founded on subjective experience, then we limit our ability to find the truth. I've
  begun posting the initial questions to establish that objective criteria and would
  certainly value your input.

  Why do I say that I'm not "religeous?" I am a follower of Jesus Christ, whom I
  believe is the messiah promised from God to bring salvation. When I say this, I mean
  that I follow Christ, not the institution. In other words, my faith is not founded by
  mindlessly regurgitating what a person in "authority" tells me. It is founded on the
  study of the documents (and their history) that reveal the character and purposes of
  God.
  I examine what is put before me as truth. That's how I found this site to begin with. A pair of JW's visited my home, presented to me what they claim to be truth, and I am researching it and finding it lacking.

  It's difficult to write so that my heart may be known and understood. I know that I have a tendency to write in a way that seems cold, I assure you that is not my heart.
  You are all honest and open about where you are at in your lives and what you are thinking. I hope that I am percieved to be the same. I cast no judgement. I am sharing my views as those who have predceded me have also done.
• 

  Carmel

  Theo,

  Be assured I was not offended. Nothing you said was offensive and was taken as you intended as an expression of your heartfelt beliefs. We have obviously walked different paths in our individual searches and so are at different places with our certitude as to what is reality. I'm okay with that since nearly 5 billion others disagree with me too! :-)

  I should tell you that even though I realize these subjects of religion/beliefs/philosophies are interesting and serious matters, I have spent so much time with it that it has become somewhat an amusement. So I often take things with a lot of humor and light heartedness. Please don't take offense if I happen to step on your favorite shibboleth.

  carmel
• 

  Theophilus

  It's VERY difficult to offend me. Humor is great.

  Is it safe to assume from your previous posts that you believe the universe was created?
• 

  AhHah

  Tell me, what aspects of the universe lead you to believe that there is a creator and what the character of that creator would be.

  Intelligence superior to humans and life forms that interact with symbiotic relationships seem to indicate planning and purpose.

  The fact that we are sentient and capable of pondering our own existence, is in itself intriguing and at the same time disconcerting.

  The universe is at once both a warm and nurturing cradle of life and a cold and heartless engine of recycled energy, seemingly without care for the individual and yet perpetually renewing. The breathtaking wonder of the cycles of death and rebirth inspire both awe and solemn resignation to the laws and powers that elude our ability to discern their greater significance and our individual relevance.

  We seem to cry out for permanence, for immortality. The universe seems to shout back at us that only renewal is important; the individual must surrender to the eternal order.

  As we contemplate our eventual death and insignificance, we rebel. We shall not go quietly into the night! We shall prevail! Death is not our master! We shall simply transform from our ephemeral state and meet our Creator in the resplendent purity of his same essence!

  We seek confirmation of our grand illusion and find only what has been for eons, the relentless cycles of death and rebirth.

  Is this just a small step in our journey to rejoin our Creator? Or are we another vibration of energy, ever changing, and never destroyed, cycling through the eternal vortices of time and space?

  Edited by - AhHah on 16 October 2000 16:47:37
• 

  Carmel

  Theo,

  Yes I do. Unlike many witnesses who left the WT, I followed neither of the two extremes of going atheist or going fundamentalist. I honestly had to admit that I did not know a whole bunch about alot of things including whether or not the universe was a "happy accident" or was the emination from an intelligent being. My agnosticism lasted for nearly two decades through a masters degree in Zoology and several minors. I've always considered myself enrolled in the university of life and will keep learning to the last breath I take. It was the wonders of the biological world that convinced me that causality was more than haphazzard random chance and that the argument against design that the popular Neo-darwinists promote is inadequate and unconvincing.

  Unlike many, I do believe in both evolution and creation and as such manage to offend vertually everyone. The evolution that I find reasonable is one that has a creative force behind it, building into the system at the molecular level the requirments for life and on a macro level generating the conditions or milue that will trigger the creation of life and the forms it takes.

  More of an answer than your simple question called for, but then what the hey, now you know where I'm coming from. We can discuss pluralism some other time.

  carmel
• 

  AhHah

  I was hoping for some comment/discussion on my post on page 3. Is anyone out there?

  Posted: Oct 15, 2000 5:15:55 PM
  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Carmel,

  I also have a difficult time trying to reconcile the exclusivity of some religions -- we are right and everyone else is wrong -- we have eternal life and non-believers do not.

  Why would God choose to exclude vast portions of the world's population from a relationship or acceptable worship, only because those cultures do not have ready access to the exclusive religion?

  Those who believe in Christianity would state (as Theo did) that God will eventually make "The Way" known to every person on the planet so that the true religion, the true God, is obvious to all -- although convincing the world of such would seem difficult. For example, how many Christians would be prepared to abandon their whole concept of God and religion if God suddenly revealed to mankind that Islam is the true faith? Most would not even seriously consider the possibility, let alone accepting it. Would not every faithful religious person think that any miraculous intervention was proof of their own faith?

  If religion is more than just salvation (as has been argued recently), if it is about daily spirituality and peace of mind, then it would seem to me all the more unlikely that God would limit this opportunity to only a portion of the world's population. When it comes to thinking about all those billions of Buddhists and Hindus, etc. that are alive right now, most Christians seem to think about them only in terms of whether or not God in his mercy will murder them on judgment day for being unbelievers. What about their day-to-day spirituality, happiness, and peace of mind right now? Why don't they also qualify for his daily blessing? Only because they have never heard of Christ or read the Bible?

  I realize that the Bible itself encourages such exclusivity -- the us and them mentality. That is why I have a difficult time accepting all of it as from God. It seems so childish and unloving to me personally. I would think that an all-powerful, loving God should not be so insecure and jealous.

  Isn't it possible that God is available to everyone who seeks him, regardless of any belief system that they may or may not be aware of?

  Isn't it possible that God blesses the efforts of those sincere individuals to become more spiritual, regardless of their currently limited attempts to know him through any religion? And that their salvation is just as assured as everyone else's?

  Isn't it possible that God has not authored the Bible and other holy books -- even though they all contain some truths in common, and may have been written by sincere, God-fearing persons promoting their own concept of God?

  Doesn't this more open concept of God allow us to be responsible for our own spirituality and efforts to know God, without the divisive human need to validate our own faith at the expense of condemning the "unbelievers"?

  Doesn't this allow God to be responsible for others, while we content ourselves with being responsible only for our own spirituality?

  That is just my opinion. I could be wrong. What do you think?
• 

  Theophilus

  Looking at the universe through the laws of cause and effect; that no effect can be greater than it's cause and that an effect can only contribute to it's subsequent effect that which it contains, would you agree that the universe (and all that it contains)is a good starting point in objectively establishing some rudimentary and essential characteristics of it's creator?
• 

  AhHah

  Theo,

  Since, hopefully, the point of this forum is to simply to share any thoughts that we would like to offer for consideration and discussion by anyone interested,

  allow me to kindly propose, if you will, that I will completely agree with any and all premises, assumptions, constraints or conditions that you would like to impose upon any thought that you would like to share.

  Edited by - AhHah on 17 October 2000 1:9:21
• 

  Carmel

  Theo,

  I don't want to split hairs, but would you not agree that the "laws of cause and effect" are but a human construct that may or may not lead us to a fuller understanding of reality? For instance, some times phenomena that occur in rapid temporal sequence are often though to be in the realm of cause and effect when in fact unidentified additional causes or uncontrolled variables may be a work. The same with proximity. We associate in embryology some tissues are triggered to develop into certain organs in the body. Only when experiments isolating these tissues and they developed away from proximity of other tissues we realized that either they have built in systems to regulate development or some other trigger is at work.

  I only raise these issues to caution one to be careful assigning effect when one never knows for sure the totality of the cause.

  the servant's servant
• 

  AhHah

  Theo,

  Also (in addition to Carmel's statement) who would not argue that the effect of splitting an atom is much greater than the cause (the energy required to split the first atom)?

  I would be interested in hearing your thoughts, however, regardless of the premise.

  Edited by - AhHah on 17 October 2000 0:35:2

  Edited by - AhHah on 17 October 2000 1:10:25