The Bible influenced my disbelief

[karmakazi]

You might like this vid as much as I did?

Set Yourself Free

Yes I like most of the vids you post.

[Davros of Skaro]

Yes I like most of the vids you post.

Cool. Thanks for taking the time.

You can see the linear thinking in people that their Religion imposes on them.

[scowl]

God in his infinate mercy makes the Holy Spirit available to anyone who is humble to it.People hurting each other over variance of belief is not God's fault, but it's Man's Sinful nature at work.

That sounds great, however God directed the Israelites to violently conquer the Promised Land by massacring and enslaving the inhabitants who had been peacefully living there. Sounds like God's mercy is finite.

[Bluefinger]

Wrong. We debated the meaning of every verse in class as a community of Jews just as you described. Unlike a brainwashing cult, we all came to our own personal conclusions about what we read and every interpretation was considered equally valid.

It is not brainwashing to look to academic experts and do your own critical analysis of ancient texts. You, on the other hand, are missing out on so much more information provided in the text because you are not aware of every aspect of the text. You are just reading it and gathering your own opinions of the text. You are, in essence, robbing yourself of the opportunity to know more. Then you turn around call us academics a brainwashing cult. Get over yourself.

Please tell me what "factual data" I didn't receive from the many educated rabbis at my school who had been studying the Tanakh and other Jewish documents for their entire lives.

No. You tell me. What was the significance of Exodus 3:13-14, when God said that His name was I AM THAT I AM? Additionally, why do scholars suggest that the book of Daniel was written in the second century BCE?

While I'm at it, what is the Apocryphal book of Susanna truly about? Also, what is the literary structure of Genesis chapter one?

It is wise to consult your educated rabbis. It is not wise to ignore scholars and subject matter experts because you think it is brainwashing. If I want to know about a car engine, I will consult a mechanic. If I want to know about Jewish thinking regarding Old Testament scriptural interpretation, I will open up my Jewish Study Bible and let the rabbis do the talking. If I want to understand how to interpret New Testament writings, I will consult a theology professor at an accredited university. Simply put, I will not depend on my own logic to guide me in things I know very little about.

Oh dude, we learned the history behind every verse in the Torah in meticulous detail. You think Jewish children don't learn anything about Jewish history or culture in Hebrew school? You don't have the slightest clue what happens in these schools! They're not like afternoon Bible classes.

I came to a different interpretation than you did therefore I must be wrong. You can't explain why I'm wrong so you're arguing out of ignorance.

See where my confusion is? One second, you are saying that listening to academic leaders is brainwashing. Then you turn around and say that you listened to academic leaders. Can you blame me for taking the position that I have?

Is taking scholarly advice brainwashing? If so, then you are brainwashed too.

[scowl]

It is not brainwashing to look to academic experts and do your own critical analysis of ancient texts. You, on the other hand, are missing out on so much more information provided in the text because you are not aware of every aspect of the text.

How do you know that I'm not aware? Oh that's right -- I'm disagreeing with you and people shouldn't do that.

You are just reading it and gathering your own opinions of the text. You are, in essence, robbing yourself of the opportunity to know more.

How dare I read things and make my own opinions! My gosh, that's criminal behavior!

Then you turn around call us academics a brainwashing cult. Get over yourself.

I call anyone a brainwashing cult when they tell something their opinions are wrong because they have differing opinions. That is not the behavior of a true academic. That is what you have done and you have said nothing to convince me that my interpretations are wrong. In fact you don't even want to hear them!

No. You tell me. What was the significance of Exodus 3:13-14, when God said that His name was I AM THAT I AM? Additionally, why do scholars suggest that the book of Daniel was written in the second century BCE?

Forty years ago I could have answered all of these things but I've forgotten random Bible trivia mainly because I've rejected the text.

It is wise to consult your educated rabbis. It is not wise to ignore scholars and subject matter experts because you think it is brainwashing. If I want to know about a car engine, I will consult a mechanic.

That's a terrible shame that you are unable to understand automobile mechanics from reading the many excellent books you can find at any good book store. They're really not that complicated, at least not to me. But, hey, folks like you keep the mechanics in business!

See where my confusion is? One second, you are saying that listening to academic leaders is brainwashing. Then you turn around and say that you listened to academic leaders. Can you blame me for taking the position that I have?

You are not an academic leader. You have done one thing here: told me that my interpretations are wrong because they don't match yours. In a scholarly discussion you would have asked me how I came to my interpretations. That's what I and my fellow students did with rabbis for years and they were extremely helpful. You are dismissive and condescending. I'm glad to say that no rabbi ever dismissed any theory I proposed. That's because they were true academics and fostered scholarly discussion.

Edited June 30, 2014 by scowl

[Davros of Skaro]

That sounds great, however God directed the Israelites to violently conquer the Promised Land by massacring and enslaving the inhabitants who had been peacefully living there. Sounds like God's mercy is finite.

Who are you to question God's infinate wisdom?

[Davros of Skaro]

How do you know that I'm not aware? Oh that's right -- I'm disagreeing with you and people shouldn't do that.

You will know them by their Fruitcakes.

[Marcus Aurelius]

God in his infinate mercy makes the Holy Spirit available to anyone who is humble to it.People hurting each other over variance of belief is not God's fault, but it's Man's Sinful nature at work.

The only thing Man created is Sin, and every thing else is God's will.

Lol reading this one would think you've strayed into the Christian or the theist camp...or perhaps that you hit your head this morning or that someone stole your computer and/or hacked your UM account.

The only thing I would perhaps 'disagree' with this Dr. Jeckyl (?) version of yourself is that even though man has brought sin into the world, yes, it is not like humanity is ALL bad. We are still the image of God in creation, imperfect though it may be.

[Davros of Skaro]

Lol reading this one would think you've strayed into the Christian or the theist camp...or perhaps that you hit your head this morning or that someone stole your computer and/or hacked your UM account.

The only thing I would perhaps 'disagree' with this Dr. Jeckyl (?) version of yourself is that even though man has brought sin into the world, yes, it is not like humanity is ALL bad. We are still the image of God in creation, imperfect though it may be.

Yes I joke at times, or is it that I am being caught up in the Spirit?

No I joke.

[XenoFish]

What if there is no sin? Just a conflict between our base animal instincts and our higher brain functions. Let's face it, the only hunter/gather activity we do now is either off a menu or in the grocery store. Even self-pleasure is considered a sin, those repress emotions tend to build up and boil over is the most violent of ways. Love thyself. Now if God made us animals then we are fit for survival in this world. Perhaps the concept of what is actual perfection needs to be questioned. I've always felt that if there is a God or higher creative force (tag any name you like onto it) that it would be smart enough to create life on any world it chose, and that creation would be adaptable. Starting small and going through multiple changes as the ages past. I think we are in a very confused state right now. Many of us swing between faith and fact. What is and what might be. The bible is just a book, one that should be taken as a history, metaphors, philosophy. and mythology of a culture. A book of stories that teach lessons. Not something to be taken absolutely serious. Doing the best you can, living the best you can, and treating others the best you can. I don't believe any person deserves "hell" for trying to do that. Forgive thyself, make amends, and move on. I think I went off the track with this post .

[karmakazi]

If I want to know about a car engine, I will consult a mechanic.

Make sure you get references on that mechanic, you never know which ones will take you for all they can.

Since I'm a woman, mechanics often assume I don't know the first thing...but I taught myself a great deal so that I could make educated decisions and I have caught a few mechanics in outright lies.

[XenoFish]

Knowledge is power and those who have intelligence can never remain in stasis. When it comes to religion no one is absolutely correct. Because none of us were there during those events. We also don't know what is real and what was made up. You know, Jesus multiplied the loaves and fish, why didn't he teach others how to do this? Same with water to wine, even walking on water. He kept all the good party tricks to himself.

[+Link of Hyrule]

Wrong. We debated the meaning of every verse in class as a community of Jews just as you described. Unlike a brainwashing cult, we all came to our own personal conclusions about what we read and every interpretation was considered equally valid.

Please tell me what "factual data" I didn't receive from the many educated rabbis at my school who had been studying the Tanakh and other Jewish documents for their entire lives.

Oh dude, we learned the history behind every verse in the Torah in meticulous detail. You think Jewish children don't learn anything about Jewish history or culture in Hebrew school? You don't have the slightest clue what happens in these schools! They're not like afternoon Bible classes.

I came to a different interpretation than you did therefore I must be wrong. You can't explain why I'm wrong so you're arguing out of ignorance.

Hi Scowl,

If you don't mind, I'd like to interject in this discussion just to seek clarification in what you mean. In Hebrew School, when you and your classmates and your Rabbi's discussed the story of Job, what kind of interpretations were discussed? Was there any consensus about the intention of the narrative? Was there any discussions that bred controversy or heated discussion? If you could elaborate on this issue, it may help me better understand what you mean when you refer to interpretation and opinion.

Thanks

I call anyone a brainwashing cult when they tell something their opinions are wrong because they have differing opinions. That is not the behavior of a true academic.

And since I'm already quoting you, I'd like to add my thoughts on this point too. I say this because in my time at university interacting with academics, I was taught that differing opinions were great. Even to be expected. But if you had a different opinion you needed to back it up with evidence. You couldn't just say "this is what I think, and that's that". I'm not saying that this is definitely what you are doing, but the way you write about your time in Hebrew school, it sounds like this may be the case. Which is why I'm seeking clarification about the previous post I quoted - to find out the extent of your differing interpretations of a potentially-controversial ideas about the book of Job (any potentially-controversial passage would have been equally insightful, I just chose Job because I vaguely remember the topic being brought up earlier in this thread [if not this thread, then another equally contemporary thread]).

Again, thanks for taking the time to read (and hopefully reply)

~ Regards, PA

Edited July 1, 2014 by Paranoid Android

[Doug1029]

Knowledge is power and those who have intelligence can never remain in stasis. When it comes to religion no one is absolutely correct. Because none of us were there during those events. We also don't know what is real and what was made up. You know, Jesus multiplied the loaves and fish, why didn't he teach others how to do this? Same with water to wine, even walking on water. He kept all the good party tricks to himself.

The loaves and fishes was just the first church potluck. It sometimes does seem miraculous how many people can be fed at one.

In the search for answers we can see if the stories comport with reality as we know it. Almost every one of those Exodus "miracles" has a rational basis. Remove the magic and theatrics and you have a plausible story (actually several). Most stories have a kernel of truth in there somewhere and it is the same with the Bible.

Doug

[Grandpa Greenman]

At a beach I used to go to there was a sandbar, at low tide you could swim out and walk on it and look like you were walking on water. Then a hurricane washed it away. I guess God didn't like us horning in on his gig.

[+Liquid Gardens]

I do find it relevant because if I can't RATIONALLY articulate my faith, if I can't at least demonstrate to some extent it's plausibility, if I don't know what's out there, if I just bury my head in the sand like the people above...then I would feel like my faith is stagnant. I want to constantly be challenged and increase in my knowledge. I make it a point to read the prominent atheist writers of today, I'm very well read on the classical atheist writers as a former atheist who was influenced by them; I watch the lectures and debates just like all of you.

Hey Marcus! I appreciate you acknowledging the existence of believers of the 'upper story' existentialist, non-rational faith, and to be clear I know you are not one; it's easy to tell that you are well-read and studied, and to a large extent I do see your belief as somewhat rational. I just think that the rational parts are built from a few non-rational pillars obviously, but I think it is an intelligent belief nonetheless especially compared to, "it is true because I have faith".

You could do all that; but simply put: you are too smart for that. You are far too intelligent to make a non-rational, existential leap into the dark. I don't blame you, really.

But when we look at what constitutes 'faith', I think all too often we think of it as a purely existential leap wholly separate from reason and evidence. I just don't think that's the case, and those giants of the past and present would probably agree with me. We make it out to be 'either/or' when it should be 'both/and'.

Interesting point, as always. Again, I think I'm criticizing the 'both/and' approach, you're definitely not an either/or believer. On your excellent post on the Repentance thread, you had mostly agreed with me that you can't get all the way rationally to something as specific as 'Jesus was the son of God', you require some amount of faith, it is this non-rational component that I have an issue with. What other sorts of propositions have been also shown to be true using the 'both/and' method? Anything? We have science as a gigantic data point in this discussion, obviously an abundantly proven method at arriving at tentative truths, a method that is purposely structured to entirely eliminate anything resembling 'faith' and allows almost no acceptance of internal personal evidence outside of psychological sciences, and despite those safeguards it leads to erroneous conclusions frequently.

So what faith (ha!) should I really be having in faith-enhanced propositions? You acknowledge the veracity of rationality as you put a great deal of study in understanding the theological/philosophical arguments, for and against, the aspects of your belief; don't you do that because of its importance and established reliability? I think your faith relies on a strong scaffolding of rationality, and that's a good thing, but does rationality really rely on 'faith' at all? (outside of the absolute minimum level of faith required to make the world intelligible). Does that then say something about the role and supposed justification provided by faith?

Thanks for the compliments, I'm not sure how 'intelligent' I am but I'd agree that I'm probably too rational to be able to make the kind of leap that is required. But that's the thing, I can explain why I approach it that way. I obviously don't apply rationality to all propositions, specifically to topics involving emotions, but as far as ascertaining what's true about this reality it's tough to beat. More importantly, it has allowed us to bring a great deal of 'good' into our world; I don't think all the good that religion has done for the world even equals just the good to come from medical and agricultural science, let alone all the other sciences. If there is a God, why would he set it up so that tangible, undeniable progress can be made by a process that largely ignores things like faith but then turn around and require something like faith to believe in him?

Liquid Gardens, if you (hypothetically) sincerely prayed to God to answer you and to reveal Himself to you, and truly wait for that answer with an open mind...I believe there is a high probability that prayer would be answered in some supernatural or existential fashion, apart from reason or empirical evidence. But at the same time, if you turned your attention away from the cartoon characters that make up much of modern Churchianity today and instead devoted your attention to the greats like Augustine, Aquinas, Lewis and others you could (hypothetically) perhaps find some of those arguments, answers and evidence you say you are looking for as well.

Ha, I like 'churchianity', well put. I guess I believe there is a high probability that any prayer to any god, or alien, or ghost, etc, will eventually be 'answered' because our brains are incredibly good at finding patterns, even when the pattern is meaningless. I have heard a few stories of some theists' experiences with God, and a lot of them just leave me asking, 'how did you know that was from God?' and are many times, to me, 'post hoc ergo propter hoc' fallacies. I have had mystical experiences too, some, errr, 'assisted' (ahhh, college...) and some not, and I could very easily interpret those as glimpses into a divine supernatural reality, and once one starts down that path I think it's pretty easy to fit other more mundane things in life into that framework turning those things into 'evidence' also.

[Bluefinger]

Make sure you get references on that mechanic, you never know which ones will take you for all they can.

Since I'm a woman, mechanics often assume I don't know the first thing...but I taught myself a great deal so that I could make educated decisions and I have caught a few mechanics in outright lies.

That I can agree with.

[Bluefinger]

Knowledge is power and those who have intelligence can never remain in stasis. When it comes to religion no one is absolutely correct. Because none of us were there during those events. We also don't know what is real and what was made up. You know, Jesus multiplied the loaves and fish, why didn't he teach others how to do this? Same with water to wine, even walking on water. He kept all the good party tricks to himself.

I think the reason why He did not teach us to do His miracles is because the miracles themselves were teachings about things other than miracles.

[Bluefinger]

That sounds great, however God directed the Israelites to violently conquer the Promised Land by massacring and enslaving the inhabitants who had been peacefully living there. Sounds like God's mercy is finite.

What is your source for saying the people lived there peacefully?

According to the Bible, God was quite appalled by their behavior and lifestyle.

[Bluefinger]

How do you know that I'm not aware? Oh that's right -- I'm disagreeing with you and people shouldn't do that.

How dare I read things and make my own opinions! My gosh, that's criminal behavior!

I call anyone a brainwashing cult when they tell something their opinions are wrong because they have differing opinions. That is not the behavior of a true academic. That is what you have done and you have said nothing to convince me that my interpretations are wrong. In fact you don't even want to hear them!

Forty years ago I could have answered all of these things but I've forgotten random Bible trivia mainly because I've rejected the text.

That's a terrible shame that you are unable to understand automobile mechanics from reading the many excellent books you can find at any good book store. They're really not that complicated, at least not to me. But, hey, folks like you keep the mechanics in business!

You are not an academic leader. You have done one thing here: told me that my interpretations are wrong because they don't match yours. In a scholarly discussion you would have asked me how I came to my interpretations. That's what I and my fellow students did with rabbis for years and they were extremely helpful. You are dismissive and condescending. I'm glad to say that no rabbi ever dismissed any theory I proposed. That's because they were true academics and fostered scholarly discussion.

Scowl, I don't recall ever talking about your interpretations. I recall discussing your methods.

[XenoFish]

In the search for answers we can see if the stories comport with reality as we know it. Almost every one of those Exodus "miracles" has a rational basis. Remove the magic and theatrics and you have a plausible story (actually several). Most stories have a kernel of truth in there somewhere and it is the same with the Bible.

I like to look at the bible as a book of stories, historical fiction that teaches lessons through metaphors. Something that shouldn't be taken so literally. Having faith like a mustard seed and moving mountains. To me it's a metaphor for life. Even with the smallest amount of belief/faith (in yourself), you can move mountains (obstacles).

Edited July 2, 2014 by XenoFish

[scowl]

What is your source for saying the people lived there peacefully?

What is your source that they did not?

According to the Bible, God was quite appalled by their behavior and lifestyle.

Yes, they worshiped other Gods, therefore they must all be killed.

[scowl]

Scowl, I don't recall ever talking about your interpretations. I recall discussing your methods.

Yes, you ignored my interpretations because they disagreed with yours. You made it clear that your interpretations are 100% correct and were not up for discussion.

Instead of starting a productive discussion about my Biblical interpretations, you immediately dismissed them then out of absolute ignorance you questioned my ability to interpret anything in the Tanakh. You then claimed that the Hebrew school in which I formed these interpretations did not have "academics" (your definition of them anyway) and did not teach me about the culture or history of Jewish people during Biblical times.

You then tried to show off your "qualifications" by engaging me in a Biblical trivia contest which is not the behavior of an academic. I've never had a chemistry professor show off his knowledge of the periodic table.

I have no desire to argue with a fool.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Liquid Gardens,

Wow thanks for another awesome reply, my friend. Sorry I'm just now getting to it.

I just think that the rational parts are built from a few non-rational pillars obviously, but I think it is an intelligent belief nonetheless especially compared to, "it is true because I have faith".

Yeah, and I don't think I can really dispute that point. Nevertheless, I can't help but think that atheism itself requires a kind of faith unto itself; but notice I am not saying agnosticism. I think agnosticism by contrast is a much more intellectually honest position.

On your excellent post on the Repentance thread, you had mostly agreed with me that you can't get all the way rationally to something as specific as 'Jesus was the son of God', you require some amount of faith, it is this non-rational component that I have an issue with. What other sorts of propositions have been also shown to be true using the 'both/and' method? Anything? We have science as a gigantic data point in this discussion, obviously an abundantly proven method at arriving at tentative truths, a method that is purposely structured to entirely eliminate anything resembling 'faith' and allows almost no acceptance of internal personal evidence outside of psychological sciences, and despite those safeguards it leads to erroneous conclusions frequently.

These are excellent points, and there are so many angles with which I could approach this subject, it is hard to simply pick one. First, let me look at it like this: I would counter and argue that the philosophy of naturalism is governed by the same principles as theistic 'faith'; once again, a kind of both/and. I say this because science provides us a certain amount of data; demonstrable truths about the world around us; but at the same time it is a cataloging of the data. It measures natural causes, but it cannot tell us why these causes exist and nor can it prove or disprove the possibility of things outside of the natural realm or even a causal agent behind it all; but yet many dyed-in-the-wool naturalists or atheists substitute science as a kind of religion; so saying that "no supernatural cause for any phenomenon is possible"; they presuppose that we live in a closed system; and this I feel, requires the same kind of 'leap of faith' as me saying "Jesus is the Son of God." You know, in one of my debates with an atheist in real life, the gentleman told me that we can't verify something like a miracle empirically; we have no way to test it or duplicate it...to which I said "precisely!" because if you could, it wouldn't BE a miracle.

I suppose my overarching point here is that science and the philosophy of naturalism are two separate things; and I feel that naturalists have just as many non-rational components as theists do.

In fact, I feel that this is part of the problem in our present age. On the one hand, you have religious fundamentalists who seem to think science and religion are in conflict, and on the other you have naturalists that also think religion and science are in conflict. It is my opinion that both are wrong, and that science and religion don't have to be in conflict at all.

I think your faith relies on a strong scaffolding of rationality, and that's a good thing, but does rationality really rely on 'faith' at all? (outside of the absolute minimum level of faith required to make the world intelligible). Does that then say something about the role and supposed justification provided by faith?

I'm not sure where I want to take my response to this, frankly. It's one of those things that's harder to put into writing; I could probably express this more appropriately in actual conversation; but let me put it like this: how are we defining the word 'faith' to begin with? See, I think many skeptics misunderstand the way a theist defines their faith. In some of the videos I've watched by Dawkins and others, I see this sort of...mistake or misdiagnosis. Faith is seen by many as always being a non-rational leap; a belief apart from all reason and evidence...thus as you say: to warrant this belief I have to apply a strong scaffolding of rationalizing; but I would say that faith is it's own justification, it's own reason and evidence, in a sense. Romans 3:11 says "there is no one who has understanding, there is no one who seeks God." Simply put, every theistic religion in the world states that man is hardwired to UNbelief; so for me to have faith at all requires some sort of prior action on the part of God. It is like He comes into the room and flips the light-switch on, and now, only because of that action...do I have 'faith.' So if you ask me, both faith and rationality are and should be interwoven together into the same scaffolding. They are part of the same building materials.

I don't think all the good that religion has done for the world even equals just the good to come from medical and agricultural science, let alone all the other sciences. If there is a God, why would he set it up so that tangible, undeniable progress can be made by a process that largely ignores things like faith but then turn around and require something like faith to believe in him?

I see what you mean, but I should point out that it was often religious people who pioneered such things. The origin of hospitals, for example, were Christian. Indeed, let's shift to the other side of the coin for a moment. Let's assume there is no God. Under this model life ultimately has no meaning; thus why should I feel obligated to do 'good?' As long as I am happy, what difference does it make? I could be a perfect hedonist who cares not one whit about the well-being of others; and this would be perfectly valid. The lifestyle of Caligula would be just as worthy as Mother Teresa.

Religion takes what is in the sciences and in the medical realm etc. and says all of it has MEANING, you have meaning.

Why does God require faith? God does not impose Himself on you. He does not force you to believe. Basically, would you rather have a dictator who forces his rule on you, or would you rather have a choice in the matter?

But again, I don't think faith is something that is entirely apart form reason. It requires a different evaluation of both words, yes; but I do believe the two walk together.

Ha, I like 'churchianity', well put. I guess I believe there is a high probability that any prayer to any god, or alien, or ghost, etc, will eventually be 'answered' because our brains are incredibly good at finding patterns, even when the pattern is meaningless. I have heard a few stories of some theists' experiences with God, and a lot of them just leave me asking, 'how did you know that was from God?' and are many times, to me, 'post hoc ergo propter hoc' fallacies. I have had mystical experiences too, some, errr, 'assisted' (ahhh, college...) and some not, and I could very easily interpret those as glimpses into a divine supernatural reality, and once one starts down that path I think it's pretty easy to fit other more mundane things in life into that framework turning those things into 'evidence' also.

How do you know that was from God? A very important question, my friend. Let me try to answer that for you as best I can.

Perhaps you have heard of the great Saint Teresa of Avila. She was known to be a mystic and a visionary; in fact most of her writings, these profound meditations sprang up from visions. She asked this same question, too, and I think she gives us a solid answer.

1. If a vision or mystical experience is from God, it should bear fruit. This means that these experiences don't simply happen just to edify the believer or the receiver of the vision. God has these things happen to us for a reason, and if it happens to us it requires some kind of action on our part. It should move us to do something if it is from God.

2. You get little confirmations and it won't go away. Saint Teresa of Avila used to doubt many of her own visions; but if it was from God He would find little ways to remind her. It would creep up in her daily life. She would have the same vision again, or the vision would expand or continue.

Do you mind if I share a personal story? I don't do this very often, but the conversation here warrants it. As you know, I am a seminarian who is planning on becoming a minister. This whole thing got started as a vision...yes...a vision lol

I was at a crossroads in my life. I went through a personal crisis that uprooted my life as I knew it, and my personal life crept into my professional life and before I knew it, I was out of a job. You may have read this in my 'testimonial' blog entry on this forum; but this is a cliff notes version. I was struggling, and I knew I had to pick myself up and get moving again. I had decided that I wanted to go back to school, that I was going to pursue a degree in business. I thought this would make my family happy because most of them are in business. I was thinking one day I might help out in the family business and/or start my own. So I went to a well known school in my area, I liked their program and was on the verge of being accepted, was even looking into financial aid...when one day on an afternoon nap I had a dream in which God, in no uncertain terms told me that I was to be in ministry, that I had been chosen for this.

Now if you read my blog, you would know that I flirted with the ministry before. But dude, that had been over a decade ago; and I had no intentions whatsoever of doing anything like that. When I had that dream it totally threw me for a loop. I didn't want to get into ministry anymore; I hadn't for years. I looked at that as a stupid and youthful dream. So naturally my response to this vision was a big 'hell no!!' But then, I couldn't get AWAY from it. A day later I was hanging out with a friend, he asked me some sort of question about the Bible and after I answered him, he said "man, you should be a pastor." I'd met him years after my flirting with the ministry, and I'd never told him about it.

Then I went out with another close friend, who is an atheist and I told him about my plans to get a business degree. He told me I was crazy to pursue that because I had no interest in business whatsoever and he said (we had lost touch for a number of years) "I was actually surprised you hadn't become a pastor or a theologian. Your interest was always in religion, and you know I don't believe any of that...but I always thought you were good at it, and I think you should consider taking that up again." From an atheist!! Lol, he and I had spent many a nights over a beer arguing about the existence of God...and now here he was telling me I should be doing THAT.

A few days later I was waiting at the barber shop to get a haircut. I was bored waiting, so like anyone else, I was playing around with my phone. I checked my emails and I noticed I had in my inbox a devotional from a website that I hadn't seen in ages. I thought they'd either stopped sending me those devotions altogether or that they were kicked into my spam folder. Curious as to why it was in my inbox, I clicked it and it had the words of Psalm 32:8: "I will instruct you and teach you in the way you should go; I will counsel you with my loving eye on you." The devotional was about how God would direct our paths in times of uncertainty, and that we should listen to His voice and follow His direction. By this point I was just thunderstruck. It was just one thing after another!

Finally I said "all right God, if Circleville Bible College is still around, I will look into this." This was the school I had wanted to go to over a decade ago to pursue a degree in ministry. When I got home after the barber shop, I checked the mail and there was a pamphlet in there for Ohio Christian University and their adult degree programs. I'd never heard of the school. Maybe I was getting it because of looking at colleges online?

I looked up Circleville Bible College and there was nothing. I thought to myself, ha! ha here is proof that this is crap; that I'm not supposed to be in ministry. I was about to email the financial aid adviser at the business school when I saw that....Circleville Bible College had BECOME Ohio Christian University; the same pamphlet that was sitting on my table in front of me. Not only did they have a brand new adult degree program in ministry, but they had a campus about ten minutes from where I lived.

It was one thing after another after another. I couldn't outrun that vision, and believe me, I tried. That first night of class at Ohio Christian, the professor asked each of the new students what brought them there. My response was "I have no idea. I THINK I'm following God's will." Now 4 years later I have two degrees in ministry with honors and I'll be working towards two Masters degrees starting in the fall. I've become really active in the ministry; I teach and preach, I lead Bible Studies that pack a full house, I'm a Stephen Minister, and I'm active in a prominent interfaith group. Right now I'm helping plan an interfaith prayer service at my local Mosque during Ramadan, in which Christians, Jews and Muslims will all share a meal and break a day long fast together. In short, I'm doing things now I would have never imagined four years ago...all because I followed that one vision. I'm bearing the fruit, as St.Teresa would say.

The experience I had, Liquid Gardens, completely changed the course of my life; steering me in a direction I thought I would never again go; and yet my life is the better for it. I'm happier than I've ever been and I feel a greater sense of purpose than I ever have. Can I prove to you that my experiences are really from God and don't have some, as you say, mundane explanation that I'm reading too much into? I suppose not; but to me it is as real as the breaths that I draw.

Blessings, and thanks as always for the conversation.....

[Davros of Skaro]

Yeah, and I don't think I can really dispute that point. Nevertheless, I can't help but think that atheism itself requires a kind of faith unto itself; but notice I am not saying agnosticism. I think agnosticism by contrast is a much more intellectually honest position.

Yes it takes faith not to believe in Thor, not logic and research.

These are excellent points, and there are so many angles with which I could approach this subject, it is hard to simply pick one. First, let me look at it like this: I would counter and argue that the philosophy of naturalism is governed by the same principles as theistic 'faith'; once again, a kind of both/and. I say this because science provides us a certain amount of data; demonstrable truths about the world around us; but at the same time it is a cataloging of the data. It measures natural causes, but it cannot tell us why these causes exist and nor can it prove or disprove the possibility of things outside of the natural realm or even a causal agent behind it all; but yet many dyed-in-the-wool naturalists or atheists substitute science as a kind of religion; so saying that "no supernatural cause for any phenomenon is possible"; they presuppose that we live in a closed system; and this I feel, requires the same kind of 'leap of faith' as me saying "Jesus is the Son of God." You know, in one of my debates with an atheist in real life, the gentleman told me that we can't verify something like a miracle empirically; we have no way to test it or duplicate it...to which I said "precisely!" because if you could, it wouldn't BE a miracle.

Science deals with evidence and vets out the best hypothesis on that evidence.People of Religion believe what they want to believe despite what the evidence is.

There is no documented case of regrown limbs, or 100% fatal diseases in the final stages being reversed.These would be miracles, but those promoting miracles give only examples of where things just like it happen anyway because known odds favor it.

I suppose my overarching point here is that science and the philosophy of naturalism are two separate things; and I feel that naturalists have just as many non-rational components as theists do.

In fact, I feel that this is part of the problem in our present age. On the one hand, you have religious fundamentalists who seem to think science and religion are in conflict, and on the other you have naturalists that also think religion and science are in conflict. It is my opinion that both are wrong, and that science and religion don't have to be in conflict at all.

Right.Just keep Religion out of science where it does not belong to begin with.

I'm not sure where I want to take my response to this, frankly. It's one of those things that's harder to put into writing; I could probably express this more appropriately in actual conversation; but let me put it like this: how are we defining the word 'faith' to begin with? See, I think many skeptics misunderstand the way a theist defines their faith. In some of the videos I've watched by Dawkins and others, I see this sort of...mistake or misdiagnosis. Faith is seen by many as always being a non-rational leap; a belief apart from all reason and evidence...thus as you say: to warrant this belief I have to apply a strong scaffolding of rationalizing; but I would say that faith is it's own justification, it's own reason and evidence, in a sense. Romans 3:11 says "there is no one who has understanding, there is no one who seeks God." Simply put, every theistic religion in the world states that man is hardwired to UNbelief; so for me to have faith at all requires some sort of prior action on the part of God. It is like He comes into the room and flips the light-switch on, and now, only because of that action...do I have 'faith.' So if you ask me, both faith and rationality are and should be interwoven together into the same scaffolding. They are part of the same building materials.

Faith is rational because who wants to go against an angry sky wizard's laws and miss out on the ever lasting worship of him.

Romans 1:18-21

God’s Wrath on Unrighteousness

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.

I see what you mean, but I should point out that it was often religious people who pioneered such things. The origin of hospitals, for example, were Christian. Indeed, let's shift to the other side of the coin for a moment. Let's assume there is no God. Under this model life ultimately has no meaning; thus why should I feel obligated to do 'good?' As long as I am happy, what difference does it make? I could be a perfect hedonist who cares not one whit about the well-being of others; and this would be perfectly valid. The lifestyle of Caligula would be just as worthy as Mother Teresa.

Early hospitals were temples of Egyptian and Greek deities with personified attributes of healing.

In the OT the imperfect were not allowed anywhere near the Temple, and read Leviticus 14 for a fine cure for Leprosy. Jesus's prescription was cast a Demon out and call him on the third day.

People who need superstition to do good or behave have psychotic problems.

Religion takes what is in the sciences and in the medical realm etc. and says all of it has MEANING, you have meaning.

Religion just clamps people's minds with a default meaning.

Why does God require faith? God does not impose Himself on you. He does not force you to believe. Basically, would you rather have a dictator who forces his rule on you, or would you rather have a choice in the matter?

Who needs a dictator when many of it's minions are trying to the job for it as if it was not there in the first place  even though they say it's there.

But again, I don't think faith is something that is entirely apart form reason. It requires a different evaluation of both words, yes; but I do believe the two walk together.

No...One just completely takes over the other and you are a prime example.

Can I prove to you that my experiences are really from God and don't have some, as you say, mundane explanation that I'm reading too much into? I suppose not; but to me it is as real as the breaths that I draw.

A  lie for the cause of Jesus is a good lie.