Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

I am religious and believe in free will

71 (27.6%)

I am religious and do not believe in free will

10 (3.9%)

I am not religious and believe in free will

115 (44.7%)

I am not religious and do not believe in free will

61 (23.7%)

Total Members Voted: 252

[TD1]

Sorry that you folks experience such a poor cross section of Christianity.

Christians are people, and Christianity a thing they perform at certain points of life.

The woman sings in the choir, but brags about her affairs in the pub.

The drunkard cusses passersby, but gets on his knees to pray at his mother's funeral.

The takeaway: it's not a 'poor cross section,' it's a normal sample of the human population.

[MaxTheFox]

Well somehow I felt my pure materialistic worldview wasn't right and I was looking for something to provide meaning. Christianity felt right and the other religions didn't feel right. It was an emotional decision.

This doesn't answer the question. It answers "why?" or "for what?". I asked HOW.

How do you make yourself believe something you didn't believe before simply because you think it will be beneficial for you? Not pretend to believe but actually believe.

Well I suppose it felt true to me. The others... didn't. I don't know how to explain it other than that.

[TD1]

If you want more info on how belief is created I guess look at some popular cult practices? Surrounding oneself with charismatic speakers, community, editing your personal narrative.

So on.

[McTraveller]

The takeaway: it's not a 'poor cross section,' it's a normal sample of the human population.

I should have clarified to mean poor ideology, not individuals.  Of course, I acknowledge that rating of "poor ideology" can easily suffer from white-tower syndrome, because of course the version of Christianity to which I subscribe is the correct one.   

I mean the whole discussion on "God rejected me" stems from the most fundamental axioms or core beliefs of a world view. I'd personally say that doesn't align with the overall story of the Bible - sure there are individual stories of rejection, but the overarching theme of the Bible is God being faithful to humanity (first by proxy through Israel, then in general through Christ) despite humanity basically behaving as if they were themselves gods and could just do whatever they want.

I mean so much of the Gospels at least is Jesus challenging the prevailing worldview and specifically showing how God cares for the marginalized and rejects the self-righteous.  Jesus teaching also showed how it's not about the religious practices, but about the contrition of the heart.  Essentially, knowing that God is God, and you are a human, and that, despite living in a corrupt world where we personally and we collectively as a society have tendencies to destructive and harmful behavior, God in fact doesn't reject us - but at the same time, God gives us the freedom to stay away if we want. We aren't automatons.

We choose to try to emulate Christ not out of obligation, but out of love. We put our own preferences and desires second, not because those things give us salvation, but because we are sure in our salvation already and are free from wondering "am I good enough?"

Being a Christian isn't about "going to heaven when you die¹" even though that does appear to occur - the main message of Christ wasn't "you get the kingdom of heaven when you die" it was "the kingdom of heaven is here." It's about having a restored life now, regardless of the physical circumstances.  It's "free" in the sense that you can't do anything to earn it - but it isn't "free" in the sense that you have to die to yourself; Mainstream American Christianity especially doesn't seem to be willing to do that - and even other offshoots - people want to do what "makes them happy" even though personal happiness has never really been something we are to strive for as far as I've read the Bible.

My heuristic is: does what I believe put God first? Does it put other people next? Self comes last, if at all.  This is very different than "self first" which is often promoted these days.  And note that "self last" doesn't mean "self neglect" - it just means, in all you do does it reflect the best of things, or is it just doing what you want?

¹This is one of the worst teachings of "American" Christianity - that it's only about your personal relationship with Jesus and kind of an existential insurance policy. It's taking Pascal's Wager at its worst interpretation.

[Strongpoint]

the main message of Christ wasn't "you get the kingdom of heaven when you die" it was "the kingdom of heaven is here."

It is simply untrue, Jesus was a leader of an apocalyptic cult and promised the end of the world "before the last of you will taste death" (Luke 9-27 can't be more clear)

But you are right, he didn't promise "heaven when you die.". He promised that God will come, resurrect everyone and judge both them and the currently living. And bad will go to Gehenna (Not hell or another mystical place as later Christians would twist! A real valley near Jerusalem) and burn while others will live forever in the kingdom of God

[McTraveller]

That is "simply" a statement of unfounded certainty. It's definitely not a mainstream view.  I feel like this warrants a bit of friendly exhortation to consider a different view here:

At the very least consider that your reference, the Gospel of Luke, is part one of a two part series, the second of which is Acts which centers on the arrival of the Holy Spirit and the events that proceed from that.

The more accepted view, and the one you get if you consider all the Gospels, not just pieces of one, is that the "end" you're talking about is the arrival of the Spirit and the "birth of the church." It literally is God coming and dwelling with(in) us.  Also don't forget that Jesus's favorite teaching method is parables; if you're taking anything merely literally you're probably missing something, because that style is not meant to be taken literally.

[Robsoie]

Also don't forget that Jesus's favorite teaching method is parables; if you're taking anything merely literally you're probably missing something, because that style is not meant to be taken literally.

Indeed, there's also the whole temptation in the desert ( in Matthew 4 and Luke 4 ) that is also a warning about taking verses litterally by ignoring their spirit and quoting then them against someone else to fillfull your own agenda.

[hector13]

In the various interpretations and translations in the thousands of years since these books were written, do you think all the translators and teachers held to that?

Edit: also a bit of an oddity you can’t take the word of god literally.

[MorleyDev]

I still like the Gnostic interpretation The (very) tldr for most gnostic variants is 'God' is a delusional asshole, the material world is a prison, mankind was denied rightful knowledge and the serpant freed us from ignorance, but Jesus was totes cool though.

It appeals to my atheist prejudices, plus makes for a way better inspiration for writing stories than the mainstream view xD

[Strongpoint]

The more accepted view, and the one you get if you consider all the Gospels, not just pieces of one, is that the "end" you're talking about is the arrival of the Spirit and the "birth of the church." It literally is God coming and dwelling with(in) us.

Of course, there are theologian explanations why Jesus's words don't mean what they mean (else it would mean that he lied\was mistaken). And yes this one is common.


If you look at the character of Jesus as he is written in the Gospels, he was preaching the end is near, that people should stop caring about worldly things and prepare themselves for the new kingdom. It is my main problem with the character of Jesus.

[MaxTheFox]

Literalism is completely untenable and results in logically inconsistent ideas like YEC. Essentially no actual theologians or even well-educated Christians are literalists-- guess why?

In the various interpretations and translations in the thousands of years since these books were written, do you think all the translators and teachers held to that?

What others think is irrelevant to my beliefs.

[Strongpoint]

What others think is irrelevant to my beliefs.

Then why do you even participate in this thread?

[Schmaven]

If you look at the character of Jesus as he is written in the Gospels, he was preaching the end is near, that people should stop caring about worldly things and prepare themselves for the new kingdom. It is my main problem with the character of Jesus.

It's 100% accurate though if you consider our own personal end, which is likely at most 100 years from now.  Fairly soon in the grand scheme of time.  Since we will quite soon depart this world, would it be wise to care deeply and primarily about worldly things?   Or might our mental energy be better spent on developing our inner qualities instead? 

What others think is irrelevant to my beliefs.

Then why do you even participate in this thread?

To be fair, the overall feel I get of this thread (possibly the internet in general) is that no one cares about anyone else's beliefs other than to destroy them.

I am curious, how one makes a decision to start believing something?

Everyone has beliefs now that they didn't have as a child.  How did they develop?  Usually observation of the world around oneself, hypothesizing, testing those hypotheses, and refining them based on the results.  Communication with others is also a big factor, as it gives us other perspectives and views to consider.

Russel Brand has an interesting personal story of how he began believing in things.  I think it depends on having some imagination and flexibility of mind to consider new ideas, and how they might impact one's quality of life.  Based on considering the pros and cons of a particular belief, one can do mental gymnastics to briefly hold that belief, and see how it feels.  Then, if it does indeed improve life, it gets easier to hold that belief.  Through applying it, and refining it, gradually it feels more natural, and the scaffolding of forced views begins to fall away, as a more complete and functional belief develops in its place.  Initial new beliefs are almost always wrong in various ways, but serve as stepping stones to more accurate views that can only be arrived at through experience with applying that belief. 

[MaxTheFox]

What others think is irrelevant to my beliefs.

Then why do you even participate in this thread?

Because I want people to understand my worldview. I know anything I say most likely won't make any of the militant atheists here ease up either (and you know it too).

[McTraveller]

I don't want to destroy any beliefs. I just want honest discussion, not statements of unfounded certainty.

For example, there's a difference between saying "that's true/false and if you think otherwise you're a fool" and "based on this evidence or line of thought, this makes sense to me."

The former is divisive, the latter is illuminating.