by John Kesler 53 Replies latest watchtower bible
I think that"priestly" religion annihilates direct experience of God whenever they sniff it out.
Religion denies that there is knowledge of God independent of their control.
The sterility that results from a religion's rigid control will certainly have a powerful effect even on non-believers.
If God is an icon painted by priests--
Silly looking, impotent and flat--
Am I wrong NOT to believe
in such a ridiculous thing as that--
Was I supposed to look at colored wood?
I still believe.
I hope one day you'll allow yourself to believe
Belief first...proof never?
There is no doubt to me that if Christ touched my life like he has some of yours, I would believe, too. Until then, I must wait. It's the only honest thing to do. - LeavingWT
No problem in waiting, Jesus is wants us to come to him when we are ready and his patience is long lasting, as is his Love.
While I appreciate the sincerity of belief in these writings that you and other have, it is not enough for me to accept these stories at face value any more than I would believe fantastic stories of Muhammad, Moses, or Siddhartha Gautama.
I can understand that.
I don't question the historical fact of Jesus existence any more than that of those other "prophets." I do think that whatever Jesus said or did was embellished upon, and those embellishments were the key to the growth and acceptance of Christianity.
There is no reason to believe that, there really is no evidence to that, not in the Historical context, UNLESS you view the scriptures as innerrant.
Also, the fact that people of other religions experience "the divine" tells me that there is nothing unique about Christianity as a spiritual path.
I would disagree that there is nothing unique about Christianity.
I furthermore disagree with the premise of Christian faith which is the need for salvation though a mediator to be accepted by a god. The emotional need to believe in a particular way speaks more of the believer's culture than the validity of the path itself.
I think that, if one has heard the message and felt it to be true then yes, Jesus is needed to be One with God.
Now, if one hears the message and finds it to be false I would think that woudl depend on WHY it was found to be false.
Somehow I doubt that God and Jesus would hold it against people that have been betrayed by relgion to lose faith in them.
Leaving - You're welcome, of course.
Superpunk -
Belief first...proof never?
Not sure exactly what you're asking? I believe in faith before proof, yes. That is not to say that evidence can't lead someone to be open-minded about faith. Embracing faith would be the next step for those who want to take it, I think. For others, their faith needs no proof and very little evidence. And still others, nothing except absolute proof is enough - but then those people would not have faith, not technically, because proof would turn faith into fact. Everyone is different in what they need.
Tammy
Super punk , My youngest daughter's friend stopped by to see what news I had of her since she left home. But also she read an editorial letter about he repression of R. Franz's free worship under the WTS. She wanted to talk about it.
Conversation went to the problems we encounter a group leader uses "doctrine" to produce your relationship with God. It is a formula that corrupt the very essence of knowing God in the first place. The first part of knowing God has nothing to do with indoctrination at all.
She reflected on the experience that she had a few years ago thet has progressively separated her from her family church: Her childhood belief underwent a radical change when she had an experience of God that has put her beyond the confines of her church. She is bewildered by it. She has participated elsewhere in another faith community that recognizes this phenomenon and as a consequence has its faith gatherings in private homes and has no official ministers.
She is in a quandry since she has found that her church has no recognition of the difference that knowing God is truly is the first part of faith. And doctrine doesn't produce that ever so hard you study.
The proof is in the pudding.
And so, I think you will say that I am pudding-headed. And I won't disagree at all.
And still others, nothing except absolute proof is enough - but then those people would not have faith, not technically, because proof would turn faith into fact.
That's an incredibly interesting thing to say. And what's more, it's true, and was basically what I was saying earlier. Once proof enters the equation, it's no longer faith. Faith is, of necessity, based on nothing. Otherwise it's not faith.
She is in a quandry since she has found that her church has no recognition of the difference that knowing God is truly is the first part of faith. And doctrine doesn't produce that ever so hard you study.
The proof is in the pudding.
The Born Again Experience, I guess? Do you give credence to all faiths that experience such things? For isntance when Muslims experience Allah, do you think it is legitimate based on your knowledge of God?
Do you find it odd that God would bless us with intense cognitive abilities and then make it IMPOSSIBLE to understand him unless we FIRST suspend our critical thinking abilities - and put faith before proof? That seems antagonistic.
I have to say that it was not by suspending my "intense cognitive abilities" that allowed me to know that God(we'll call him that?) is a reality. It was having to admit that God had matched my inability to suspend critical thinking skill with a chain of circumstances that I was not able to deny without denying my ability to think and know anything at all.
Humor me by saying that the story of doubting Thomas does resonate with me.
Of course it has taken years to see that my conclusion that I should run into the first church that laid claim to being really true Biblical Christian was not just what God may have intended.
It was having to admit that God had matched my inability to suspend critical thinking skill with a chain of circumstances that I was not able to deny without denying my ability to think and know anything at all.
Sheesh that was hard to follow. So God gave you irrefutable proof, which negated your skepticism? Interesting that in this case proof preceded belief. Lots of contradictory ideas being presented in this thread.
Aren't the stories that are collected in the old and new testaments likewise varied? You say they are contradictory. But God might say there is more than one way to skin a cat.
Thomas did ask for physical evidence--and it was supplied. Paul was thrown off a horse. In the old testament Abraham had a long sojourn that seems to arise from communion that I can't see from the text---but it ends in chain of compelling events that climax on Mt. Moriah where the question of a God delusion must have been pretty acute. The affirmation when Isaac was delivered from death was that Abraham had listened to God's voice.
The sense that we may be delusional must have dogged Abraham a lot. IMO he must have lived suspended between faith and delusion fairly much of the time. What is a man to do? But he lived as a listener. It seems a great thing to me that Jesus so often in the stories that are told of him, refers most happily to Abraham's faith and the children of Abraham.
So I don't see contradiction, none at all. I am thinking that faith isn't the monoculture that I thought it was.
leavingwt There is no doubt to me that if Christ touched my life like he has some of yours, I would believe, too. Until then, I must wait. It's the only honest thing to do.
You gotta make a move dude :)
7 "Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. 8 For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened.
That said, He is looking for you Luke 15 Blessings, Stephen
