Total Posts:45|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

A dwingling testimony

kasmic
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2015 1:37:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I was raised LDS. In my life I have had many doubts in regard to religion. However, I have always remained actively engaged in my faith. I seem to be becoming an atheist. I do have a few observations/questions I would like input on from both theists and atheists.

1) Faith is inherently irrational

I am bothered by the concept that if I doubt I am questioning God or blaspheming. There is no rational way to contend with a religious concept that requires "faith."

Does this bother other theists?

2) Literalism

I have long sense stopped believing in scripture as literal or historical. But to do so seems to undermine the entire concept. If I don't believe the bible to be literal what reason do I have to believe Christ's suffering brings salvation.

Thought on this?

3) The atonement itself

How can Justice be satisfied by the suffering of someone innocent? Even if I grant the story true, the idea that an innocent sacrifice had to be made on my behalf to save me from "sin" seems odd and immoral. Not only am I unsure the atonement happened... I am no longer sure I want it to be true.

Thoughts on this?

In anycase, these are just my thoughts on the matter currently. I am not really sure what I am looking for in a response but have at it....
"Liberalism Defined" http://www.debate.org...
"The Social Contract" http://www.debate.org...
"Intro to IR An Open Discussion" http://www.debate.org...

Check out my website, the Sensible Soapbox http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
My latest article: http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2015 1:56:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/12/2015 1:37:39 PM, kasmic wrote:
I was raised LDS. In my life I have had many doubts in regard to religion. However, I have always remained actively engaged in my faith. I seem to be becoming an atheist. I do have a few observations/questions I would like input on from both theists and atheists.

1) Faith is inherently irrational

I am bothered by the concept that if I doubt I am questioning God or blaspheming. There is no rational way to contend with a religious concept that requires "faith."

Does this bother other theists?

I would run away as fast as possible from any church that teaches questioning your faith is blasphemy. That's not a orthodox teaching.

2) Literalism

I have long sense stopped believing in scripture as literal or historical. But to do so seems to undermine the entire concept. If I don't believe the bible to be literal what reason do I have to believe Christ's suffering brings salvation.

Thought on this?

I do not believe the bible to be perfect or infallible alone, in the end it is book. That problem comes from the problem of interpretation without authority. It has lead so many churchs/sects away from Christ and His Church.

3) The atonement itself

How can Justice be satisfied by the suffering of someone innocent? Even if I grant the story true, the idea that an innocent sacrifice had to be made on my behalf to save me from "sin" seems odd and immoral. Not only am I unsure the atonement happened... I am no longer sure I want it to be true.

Thoughts on this?

I feel that it was the only way. It goes back to what we experience everyday in our own lives. A wrong must to be made right and something that is broken needs to be fixed. This is another example of sects of christianity losing orthodox teachings and simply confusing so many with with faulty interpretations.


In anycase, these are just my thoughts on the matter currently. I am not really sure what I am looking for in a response but have at it....

It's hard to respond to this because you are blaming the things you think Christianity teaches based on what one sect of Christianity teaches. Do some other research into other Church's teachings if you really are turning to atheism because of the teachings of the LDS. If you are really going towards atheism for any other reason than just own up to it and stop trying to blame Christianity.
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
kasmic
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2015 2:01:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I would run away as fast as possible from any church that teaches questioning your faith is blasphemy. That's not a orthodox teaching.


I'm not saying my particular church says this, rather I feel it is implied everywhere. Faith requires believing something that cant be proven. So bringing up a rational concern is dismissed by saying just have faith.

I do not believe the bible to be perfect or infallible alone, in the end it is book. That problem comes from the problem of interpretation without authority. It has lead so many churchs/sects away from Christ and His Church.

That my point... either its infallible which can easily be proven not the case or its up to anyones interpretation.

It's hard to respond to this because you are blaming the things you think Christianity teaches based on what one sect of Christianity teaches. Do some other research into other Church's teachings if you really are turning to atheism because of the teachings of the LDS. If you are really going towards atheism for any other reason than just own up to it and stop trying to blame Christianity.

Its not LDS doctrine alone I have issue with... its the core tenets of Christianity.

God's existence, Biblical authority, etc...
"Liberalism Defined" http://www.debate.org...
"The Social Contract" http://www.debate.org...
"Intro to IR An Open Discussion" http://www.debate.org...

Check out my website, the Sensible Soapbox http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
My latest article: http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2015 2:04:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/12/2015 1:37:39 PM, kasmic wrote:
I was raised LDS. In my life I have had many doubts in regard to religion. However, I have always remained actively engaged in my faith. I seem to be becoming an atheist. I do have a few observations/questions I would like input on from both theists and atheists.

1) Faith is inherently irrational

I am bothered by the concept that if I doubt I am questioning God or blaspheming. There is no rational way to contend with a religious concept that requires "faith."

Does this bother other theists?

I don't agree with the premise that faith is irrational, or that having doubts is blasphemy.

http://philochristos.blogspot.com...

2) Literalism

I have long sense stopped believing in scripture as literal or historical. But to do so seems to undermine the entire concept. If I don't believe the bible to be literal what reason do I have to believe Christ's suffering brings salvation.

Thought on this?

I think it's a mistake to say one ought to read the Bible as if the whole thing were literal, and it's also a mistake to read the whole thing as if it were not literal. The Bible is a library of different books of different genres, and you should interpret each part of it according to its intended genre.

http://philochristos.blogspot.com...

3) The atonement itself

How can Justice be satisfied by the suffering of someone innocent? Even if I grant the story true, the idea that an innocent sacrifice had to be made on my behalf to save me from "sin" seems odd and immoral. Not only am I unsure the atonement happened... I am no longer sure I want it to be true.

Thoughts on this?

Since God is the one who whom the debt of sin is owed, God has the right to say what sort of payment he will accept. And since Jesus is God, not just an innocent uninvolved bystander, no injustice is being done, especially when he chooses to glorify himself in the demonstration of his love by dying for his elect.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2015 2:09:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/12/2015 1:37:39 PM, kasmic wrote:
I was raised LDS. In my life I have had many doubts in regard to religion. However, I have always remained actively engaged in my faith. I seem to be becoming an atheist. I do have a few observations/questions I would like input on from both theists and atheists.

1) Faith is inherently irrational

I am bothered by the concept that if I doubt I am questioning God or blaspheming. There is no rational way to contend with a religious concept that requires "faith."

Does this bother other theists?

2) Literalism

I have long sense stopped believing in scripture as literal or historical. But to do so seems to undermine the entire concept. If I don't believe the bible to be literal what reason do I have to believe Christ's suffering brings salvation.

Thought on this?

3) The atonement itself

How can Justice be satisfied by the suffering of someone innocent? Even if I grant the story true, the idea that an innocent sacrifice had to be made on my behalf to save me from "sin" seems odd and immoral. Not only am I unsure the atonement happened... I am no longer sure I want it to be true.

Thoughts on this?

In anycase, these are just my thoughts on the matter currently. I am not really sure what I am looking for in a response but have at it....

You're experiencing rational thought and the inherent irrationality of religion in general (Blasphemy for doubting) and Christianity in general (literalism and blood atonement) has been revealed by the bright light of reason. I will be interested to see what some of the more, shall we say, vehement theists have to say to this.
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2015 2:13:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/12/2015 2:01:15 PM, kasmic wrote:
I would run away as fast as possible from any church that teaches questioning your faith is blasphemy. That's not a orthodox teaching.


I'm not saying my particular church says this, rather I feel it is implied everywhere. Faith requires believing something that cant be proven. So bringing up a rational concern is dismissed by saying just have faith.

I think you implying it upon yourself because I've always been taught to question my faith, faith is not real until it is tested earnestly.

Find and read "Mother Teresa: Come Be My Light". This woman doubted half her life.......there is nothing wrong with testing your faith.

I do not believe the bible to be perfect or infallible alone, in the end it is book. That problem comes from the problem of interpretation without authority. It has lead so many churchs/sects away from Christ and His Church.

That my point... either its infallible which can easily be proven not the case or its up to anyones interpretation.

That's the problem, interpretations coming from those without the ability to interpret. But if one falls victim to that then there is no one to blame but themselves.


It's hard to respond to this because you are blaming the things you think Christianity teaches based on what one sect of Christianity teaches. Do some other research into other Church's teachings if you really are turning to atheism because of the teachings of the LDS. If you are really going towards atheism for any other reason than just own up to it and stop trying to blame Christianity.

Its not LDS doctrine alone I have issue with... its the core tenets of Christianity.

God's existence, Biblical authority, etc...

Bible authority? Never heard of it. Does the bible list the books that are canon? In which chapter and verse does it list the authoritative books of the bible? If there is none than who decided which books held authority and which do not?
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2015 2:26:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/12/2015 2:13:27 PM, jharry wrote:
At 6/12/2015 2:01:15 PM, kasmic wrote:
I would run away as fast as possible from any church that teaches questioning your faith is blasphemy. That's not a orthodox teaching.


I'm not saying my particular church says this, rather I feel it is implied everywhere. Faith requires believing something that cant be proven. So bringing up a rational concern is dismissed by saying just have faith.

I think you implying it upon yourself because I've always been taught to question my faith, faith is not real until it is tested earnestly.

Can you detail just how you tested it?

Find and read "Mother Teresa: Come Be My Light". This woman doubted half her life.......there is nothing wrong with testing your faith.

I do not believe the bible to be perfect or infallible alone, in the end it is book. That problem comes from the problem of interpretation without authority. It has lead so many churchs/sects away from Christ and His Church.

That my point... either its infallible which can easily be proven not the case or its up to anyones interpretation.

That's the problem, interpretations coming from those without the ability to interpret.

Who determines which interpretation is correct? No one can legitimately claim to have exclusive knowledge that assures there interpretation is any more valid than another.
But if one falls victim to that then there is no one to blame but themselves.


It's hard to respond to this because you are blaming the things you think Christianity teaches based on what one sect of Christianity teaches. Do some other research into other Church's teachings if you really are turning to atheism because of the teachings of the LDS. If you are really going towards atheism for any other reason than just own up to it and stop trying to blame Christianity.

Its not LDS doctrine alone I have issue with... its the core tenets of Christianity.

God's existence, Biblical authority, etc...

Bible authority?

Uh, the Bible is the holy book of Christianity. It's the entire instruction manual for the faith. If it has no authority, why does anyone even attempt to follow the precepts contained therein?

Never heard of it. Does the bible list the books that are canon? In which chapter and verse does it list the authoritative books of the bible? If there is none than who decided which books held authority and which do not?

Good questions. Something else I'm waiting for the more 'devout' Christians on this forum to reply about.
kasmic
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2015 2:28:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I don't agree with the premise that faith is irrational, or that having doubts is blasphemy.

I check out your blog later, I cant view it at work for some reason.

How would you define faith?

Since God is the one who whom the debt of sin is owed, God has the right to say what sort of payment he will accept. And since Jesus is God, not just an innocent uninvolved bystander, no injustice is being done, especially when he chooses to glorify himself in the demonstration of his love by dying for his elect.

Sure so I guess that's my problem. If God can set the terms, why set them in such a way that innocents must suffer. Why is blood the price to be paid? Could God forgive the debt? Could we not live the same gospel and be forgiven with out Christ's sacrifice?
"Liberalism Defined" http://www.debate.org...
"The Social Contract" http://www.debate.org...
"Intro to IR An Open Discussion" http://www.debate.org...

Check out my website, the Sensible Soapbox http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
My latest article: http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
kasmic
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2015 2:30:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I "will" check out your blog later, I cant view it at work for some reason.
"Liberalism Defined" http://www.debate.org...
"The Social Contract" http://www.debate.org...
"Intro to IR An Open Discussion" http://www.debate.org...

Check out my website, the Sensible Soapbox http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
My latest article: http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2015 2:34:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/12/2015 2:28:07 PM, kasmic wrote:
I don't agree with the premise that faith is irrational, or that having doubts is blasphemy.

I check out your blog later, I cant view it at work for some reason.

How would you define faith?

Belief in or trust in a person.

Since God is the one who whom the debt of sin is owed, God has the right to say what sort of payment he will accept. And since Jesus is God, not just an innocent uninvolved bystander, no injustice is being done, especially when he chooses to glorify himself in the demonstration of his love by dying for his elect.

Sure so I guess that's my problem. If God can set the terms, why set them in such a way that innocents must suffer. Why is blood the price to be paid? Could God forgive the debt? Could we not live the same gospel and be forgiven with out Christ's sacrifice?

Only one innocent suffered, and that was God himself. And as I said, he did so to demonstrate his love. I suppose God could've chosen to do it some other way, but your original question was about the justice in it.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2015 2:37:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/12/2015 2:26:10 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 6/12/2015 2:13:27 PM, jharry wrote:
At 6/12/2015 2:01:15 PM, kasmic wrote:
I would run away as fast as possible from any church that teaches questioning your faith is blasphemy. That's not a orthodox teaching.


I'm not saying my particular church says this, rather I feel it is implied everywhere. Faith requires believing something that cant be proven. So bringing up a rational concern is dismissed by saying just have faith.

I think you implying it upon yourself because I've always been taught to question my faith, faith is not real until it is tested earnestly.

Can you detail just how you tested it?

Lol....one great way is to come here. I have had dozens with brilliant atheists on this site. Mostly in the earlier days of the sote but not so much now a days.

I also studied in detail every faith that had a teaching on eternity.

I studied the arguments against religion and deities.

Find and read "Mother Teresa: Come Be My Light". This woman doubted half her life.......there is nothing wrong with testing your faith.

I do not believe the bible to be perfect or infallible alone, in the end it is book. That problem comes from the problem of interpretation without authority. It has lead so many churchs/sects away from Christ and His Church.

That my point... either its infallible which can easily be proven not the case or its up to anyones interpretation.

That's the problem, interpretations coming from those without the ability to interpret.

Who determines which interpretation is correct? No one can legitimately claim to have exclusive knowledge that assures there interpretation is any more valid than another.

The same Church that decided which books of the bible that held truth and were deemed canon. If you do not know who what or when then you know very little about the bible.
But if one falls victim to that then there is no one to blame but themselves.


It's hard to respond to this because you are blaming the things you think Christianity teaches based on what one sect of Christianity teaches. Do some other research into other Church's teachings if you really are turning to atheism because of the teachings of the LDS. If you are really going towards atheism for any other reason than just own up to it and stop trying to blame Christianity.

Its not LDS doctrine alone I have issue with... its the core tenets of Christianity.

God's existence, Biblical authority, etc...

Bible authority?

Uh, the Bible is the holy book of Christianity. It's the entire instruction manual for the faith. If it has no authority, why does anyone even attempt to follow the precepts contained therein?

You don't know who canonized scripture?

Never heard of it. Does the bible list the books that are canon? In which chapter and verse does it list the authoritative books of the bible? If there is none than who decided which books held authority and which do not?

Good questions. Something else I'm waiting for the more 'devout' Christians on this forum to reply about.

Since you don't already know then I doubt your knowledge about your own faith. And I know the church is innocent if you do lose your faithm
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2015 2:46:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/12/2015 2:37:23 PM, jharry wrote:
At 6/12/2015 2:26:10 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 6/12/2015 2:13:27 PM, jharry wrote:
At 6/12/2015 2:01:15 PM, kasmic wrote:
I would run away as fast as possible from any church that teaches questioning your faith is blasphemy. That's not a orthodox teaching.


I'm not saying my particular church says this, rather I feel it is implied everywhere. Faith requires believing something that cant be proven. So bringing up a rational concern is dismissed by saying just have faith.

I think you implying it upon yourself because I've always been taught to question my faith, faith is not real until it is tested earnestly.

Can you detail just how you tested it?

Lol....one great way is to come here. I have had dozens with brilliant atheists on this site. Mostly in the earlier days of the sote but not so much now a days.

I also studied in detail every faith that had a teaching on eternity.

I studied the arguments against religion and deities.

That's rather general. Can you give some specific examples?

Find and read "Mother Teresa: Come Be My Light". This woman doubted half her life.......there is nothing wrong with testing your faith.

I do not believe the bible to be perfect or infallible alone, in the end it is book. That problem comes from the problem of interpretation without authority. It has lead so many churchs/sects away from Christ and His Church.

That my point... either its infallible which can easily be proven not the case or its up to anyones interpretation.

That's the problem, interpretations coming from those without the ability to interpret.

Who determines which interpretation is correct? No one can legitimately claim to have exclusive knowledge that assures there interpretation is any more valid than another.

The same Church that decided which books of the bible that held truth and were deemed canon. If you do not know who what or when then you know very little about the bible.

So the Roman Catholic Church has the only valid interpretation?

But if one falls victim to that then there is no one to blame but themselves.


It's hard to respond to this because you are blaming the things you think Christianity teaches based on what one sect of Christianity teaches. Do some other research into other Church's teachings if you really are turning to atheism because of the teachings of the LDS. If you are really going towards atheism for any other reason than just own up to it and stop trying to blame Christianity.

Its not LDS doctrine alone I have issue with... its the core tenets of Christianity.

God's existence, Biblical authority, etc...

Bible authority?

Uh, the Bible is the holy book of Christianity. It's the entire instruction manual for the faith. If it has no authority, why does anyone even attempt to follow the precepts contained therein?

You don't know who canonized scripture?

Irrelevant. You just said you've never heard of biblical authority. I just gave you a brief explanation and asked why people follow it if you don't feel it does have authority.

Oh, it was the Council of Nicaea, implemented by Emperor Constantine. Seems there were lots of debate about several points of faith and the ones with the greatest power in the church had the say. Those who argued were often excommunicated.

Never heard of it. Does the bible list the books that are canon? In which chapter and verse does it list the authoritative books of the bible? If there is none than who decided which books held authority and which do not?

Good questions. Something else I'm waiting for the more 'devout' Christians on this forum to reply about.

Since you don't already know then I doubt your knowledge about your own faith. And I know the church is innocent if you do lose your faith.

I've no doubt of my knowledge and my ability to gather more when needed. The church can neither be innocent or guilty of anything. It's just a human construct. Guilt or innocence lies with the believers who commit both good and evil acts in the name of the church or of Christianity. They are not synonymous.
kasmic
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2015 2:55:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
How would you define faith?

Belief in or trust in a person.


Faith is defined as belief or trust. In the bible it reads "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." (Hebrew 11:1)

Hoping or believing in something unseen. I have always thought of the principles of faith or this type of knowledge to be outside secular knowledge. "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." (1st Corinthians 2: 14)

If something is spiritually discerned and not physically discerned is not rational a physical discernment?
"Liberalism Defined" http://www.debate.org...
"The Social Contract" http://www.debate.org...
"Intro to IR An Open Discussion" http://www.debate.org...

Check out my website, the Sensible Soapbox http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
My latest article: http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2015 2:56:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/12/2015 1:37:39 PM, kasmic wrote:
I was raised LDS. In my life I have had many doubts in regard to religion. However, I have always remained actively engaged in my faith. I seem to be becoming an atheist. I do have a few observations/questions I would like input on from both theists and atheists.

1) Faith is inherently irrational

I am bothered by the concept that if I doubt I am questioning God or blaspheming. There is no rational way to contend with a religious concept that requires "faith."

Does this bother other theists?
It does, however my reverend would say that it is ok to doubt, everyone does it.
I guess you have to look for answers on your own. "Following your heart" might be the appropriate thing to do.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
kasmic
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2015 2:56:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Only one innocent suffered, and that was God himself. And as I said, he did so to demonstrate his love. I suppose God could've chosen to do it some other way, but your original question was about the justice in it.

Right, because I had always believed God to be "full of Justice and mercy." I don't see how the atonement is just... or in Christ's case, merciful.
"Liberalism Defined" http://www.debate.org...
"The Social Contract" http://www.debate.org...
"Intro to IR An Open Discussion" http://www.debate.org...

Check out my website, the Sensible Soapbox http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
My latest article: http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
kasmic
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2015 2:59:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
It does, however my reverend would say that it is ok to doubt, everyone does it.
I guess you have to look for answers on your own. "Following your heart" might be the appropriate thing to do.

So this has bothered me in the past as well.

An appeal to emotion as it were. I was an LDS missionary for two years and I would always invite people to pray and study and that their answer came via the holy Spirit through the "fruits of the spirit."(Galatians 5:22-23) And that is how you can know "truth" for yourself.

This bothers me now as I have seen people feel all kinds of things and claim spirituality. I confess going to church still makes me feel good, but that could be a result of many rational things as well... such as its familiar to me, I'm comfortable their... etc...

I am now of the opinion solidly that things are not true just because I "feel" they are.
"Liberalism Defined" http://www.debate.org...
"The Social Contract" http://www.debate.org...
"Intro to IR An Open Discussion" http://www.debate.org...

Check out my website, the Sensible Soapbox http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
My latest article: http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2015 3:00:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/12/2015 2:46:44 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 6/12/2015 2:37:23 PM, jharry wrote:
At 6/12/2015 2:26:10 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 6/12/2015 2:13:27 PM, jharry wrote:
At 6/12/2015 2:01:15 PM, kasmic wrote:
I would run away as fast as possible from any church that teaches questioning your faith is blasphemy. That's not a orthodox teaching.


I'm not saying my particular church says this, rather I feel it is implied everywhere. Faith requires believing something that cant be proven. So bringing up a rational concern is dismissed by saying just have faith.

I think you implying it upon yourself because I've always been taught to question my faith, faith is not real until it is tested earnestly.

Can you detail just how you tested it?

Lol....one great way is to come here. I have had dozens with brilliant atheists on this site. Mostly in the earlier days of the sote but not so much now a days.

I also studied in detail every faith that had a teaching on eternity.

I studied the arguments against religion and deities.

That's rather general. Can you give some specific examples?

I discussed the POE with a few good atheists here. I honestly thought about the argument and it did at first seem to be sound but after a few sleepless nights I discovered serveral problems with the argument and I am at peace with it.

Find and read "Mother Teresa: Come Be My Light". This woman doubted half her life.......there is nothing wrong with testing your faith.

I do not believe the bible to be perfect or infallible alone, in the end it is book. That problem comes from the problem of interpretation without authority. It has lead so many churchs/sects away from Christ and His Church.

That my point... either its infallible which can easily be proven not the case or its up to anyones interpretation.

That's the problem, interpretations coming from those without the ability to interpret.

Who determines which interpretation is correct? No one can legitimately claim to have exclusive knowledge that assures there interpretation is any more valid than another.

The same Church that decided which books of the bible that held truth and were deemed canon. If you do not know who what or when then you know very little about the bible.

So the Roman Catholic Church has the only valid interpretation?

Yes.

But if one falls victim to that then there is no one to blame but themselves.


It's hard to respond to this because you are blaming the things you think Christianity teaches based on what one sect of Christianity teaches. Do some other research into other Church's teachings if you really are turning to atheism because of the teachings of the LDS. If you are really going towards atheism for any other reason than just own up to it and stop trying to blame Christianity.

Its not LDS doctrine alone I have issue with... its the core tenets of Christianity.

God's existence, Biblical authority, etc...

Bible authority?

Uh, the Bible is the holy book of Christianity. It's the entire instruction manual for the faith. If it has no authority, why does anyone even attempt to follow the precepts contained therein?

You don't know who canonized scripture?

Irrelevant. You just said you've never heard of biblical authority. I just gave you a brief explanation and asked why people follow it if you don't feel it does have authority.

The book alone has no authority because anyone can interpret it. And it is clear how wrong that can go.

Oh, it was the Council of Nicaea, implemented by Emperor Constantine. Seems there were lots of debate about several points of faith and the ones with the greatest power in the church had the say. Those who argued were often excommunicated.

That is one view on what happened there. But in the end these books only hold authority because the Church deemed them to be true.

Never heard of it. Does the bible list the books that are canon? In which chapter and verse does it list the authoritative books of the bible? If there is none than who decided which books held authority and which do not?

Good questions. Something else I'm waiting for the more 'devout' Christians on this forum to reply about.

Since you don't already know then I doubt your knowledge about your own faith. And I know the church is innocent if you do lose your faith.

I've no doubt of my knowledge and my ability to gather more when needed. The church can neither be innocent or guilty of anything. It's just a human construct. Guilt or innocence lies with the believers who commit both good and evil acts in the name of the church or of Christianity. They are not synonymous.

And the Church is not responsible for whether a person believes or not. Only duty in that area is to spread it like a seed, for God to water and reap what is His.

I didn't realize you were not kasmic when I replied earlier. My answers and questions were not meant for you. I apologize for the confusion, it was my error.
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2015 3:09:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/12/2015 1:37:39 PM, kasmic wrote:
I was raised LDS. In my life I have had many doubts in regard to religion. However, I have always remained actively engaged in my faith. I seem to be becoming an atheist. I do have a few observations/questions I would like input on from both theists and atheists.

1) Faith is inherently irrational

I am bothered by the concept that if I doubt I am questioning God or blaspheming. There is no rational way to contend with a religious concept that requires "faith."

Faith is not something that comes naturally to human beings. But Christians need to just "suck it up" and have faith anyway. That's why "faith" is often used in the context of being synonymous with "religion".

Does this bother other theists?

Of course people have doubts; I don't think anybody never doubted. Sometimes it can really suck. But I'm asking you to stick with it (well, I don't know about Mormonism, but "stick with Christianity" is what I meant).

2) Literalism

I have long sense stopped believing in scripture as literal or historical. But to do so seems to undermine the entire concept. If I don't believe the bible to be literal what reason do I have to believe Christ's suffering brings salvation.

You should believe it literally for the most part.

Thought on this?

3) The atonement itself

How can Justice be satisfied by the suffering of someone innocent? Even if I grant the story true, the idea that an innocent sacrifice had to be made on my behalf to save me from "sin" seems odd and immoral. Not only am I unsure the atonement happened... I am no longer sure I want it to be true.

Thoughts on this?

In anycase, these are just my thoughts on the matter currently. I am not really sure what I am looking for in a response but have at it....

If the innocent person in question consented to being sacrificed and volunteered to do it, then I don't see what the issue is. God could've just went "poof sin doesn't have consequences", but it is in God's nature to see things outside of His design as sinful, and thus as a serious matter that can't just be dismissed. For this reason somebody has to pay the price for sin. Plus, if God were to just forgive us of sin without anybody having suffered, we wouldn't appreciate the severity of human sin.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2015 3:16:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/12/2015 2:56:35 PM, kasmic wrote:
Only one innocent suffered, and that was God himself. And as I said, he did so to demonstrate his love. I suppose God could've chosen to do it some other way, but your original question was about the justice in it.

Right, because I had always believed God to be "full of Justice and mercy." I don't see how the atonement is just... or in Christ's case, merciful.

It is the ultimate act of Mercy. Christ volunteered for this. It was merciful because He didn't have to, He wanted to. Until that sacrifice we were all doomed to be separate from Him. Never to have beatific vision. That is the greatest loss we can know. It was merciful because we don't deserve it but through His sacrifice we can.
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2015 3:33:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/12/2015 2:59:51 PM, kasmic wrote:
It does, however my reverend would say that it is ok to doubt, everyone does it.
I guess you have to look for answers on your own. "Following your heart" might be the appropriate thing to do.

So this has bothered me in the past as well.

An appeal to emotion as it were. I was an LDS missionary for two years and I would always invite people to pray and study and that their answer came via the holy Spirit through the "fruits of the spirit."(Galatians 5:22-23) And that is how you can know "truth" for yourself.
One thing I allways wondered is whether those who quote the bible know the exact passage or google it. ^^
I mean, I've read large parts of the bible, but remembering the exact location of single verses seems really difficult.

This bothers me now as I have seen people feel all kinds of things and claim spirituality. I confess going to church still makes me feel good, but that could be a result of many rational things as well... such as its familiar to me, I'm comfortable their... etc...

I am now of the opinion solidly that things are not true just because I "feel" they are.
Perhaps you should embrace the dark side :D
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2015 3:36:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/12/2015 2:55:19 PM, kasmic wrote:
How would you define faith?

Belief in or trust in a person.


Faith is defined as belief or trust. In the bible it reads "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." (Hebrew 11:1)

Hoping or believing in something unseen. I have always thought of the principles of faith or this type of knowledge to be outside secular knowledge. "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." (1st Corinthians 2: 14)

If something is spiritually discerned and not physically discerned is not rational a physical discernment?

I went into Hebrews 11:1 in some detail on the blog I linked to earlier. I don't think it implies anything irrational at all. In 1 Corinthians 2, Paul is talking about how when he first preached to them, he didn't rely on his ability to make persuasive arguments. He simply presented the gospel to them and allowed the Spirit to make them receptive to it. When he says the natural man cannot accept the things of the Spirit of God, I take him to mean that a person unaided by the Spirit of God cannot accept the gospel. Unless you equate "natural man" with "rational man" and "spiritual man" with "irrational man," I don't know why you would take them to mean one must be irrational to be Christian. According to the Calvinist doctrine of total depravity, the fall affected every aspect of us, including our intellect. With that in mind, we should expect just the opposite--that the natural man is irrational and the spiritual man is rational. Of course I don't think Paul is referring to rationality at all in this passage but simply the willingness or unwillingness to embrace the gospel.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
kasmic
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2015 3:37:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
It is the ultimate act of Mercy. Christ volunteered for this. It was merciful because He didn't have to, He wanted to. Until that sacrifice we were all doomed to be separate from Him. Never to have beatific vision. That is the greatest loss we can know. It was merciful because we don't deserve it but through His sacrifice we can.

But why was the act necessary for mercy to be realized?
"Liberalism Defined" http://www.debate.org...
"The Social Contract" http://www.debate.org...
"Intro to IR An Open Discussion" http://www.debate.org...

Check out my website, the Sensible Soapbox http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
My latest article: http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
kasmic
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2015 3:38:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/12/2015 3:33:23 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 6/12/2015 2:59:51 PM, kasmic wrote:
It does, however my reverend would say that it is ok to doubt, everyone does it.
I guess you have to look for answers on your own. "Following your heart" might be the appropriate thing to do.

So this has bothered me in the past as well.

An appeal to emotion as it were. I was an LDS missionary for two years and I would always invite people to pray and study and that their answer came via the holy Spirit through the "fruits of the spirit."(Galatians 5:22-23) And that is how you can know "truth" for yourself.
One thing I allways wondered is whether those who quote the bible know the exact passage or google it. ^^
I mean, I've read large parts of the bible, but remembering the exact location of single verses seems really difficult.

I knew that passage. I spent a good two years doing nothing but reading studying and teaching the gospel... Not to say I know or understand it all, but I am very familiar with verses of scripture.
"Liberalism Defined" http://www.debate.org...
"The Social Contract" http://www.debate.org...
"Intro to IR An Open Discussion" http://www.debate.org...

Check out my website, the Sensible Soapbox http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
My latest article: http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2015 3:39:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/12/2015 2:56:35 PM, kasmic wrote:
Only one innocent suffered, and that was God himself. And as I said, he did so to demonstrate his love. I suppose God could've chosen to do it some other way, but your original question was about the justice in it.

Right, because I had always believed God to be "full of Justice and mercy." I don't see how the atonement is just... or in Christ's case, merciful.

It is just in that God required payment for sin. It's merciful in the fact that God paid the penalty himself. Now, I don't know how a non-trinitarian, like a Mormon, would see this, but from a Trinitarian perspective, it make good sense. God didn't just go out and grab an innocent man and punish him for everybody else's sin. Jesus IS God, and it was his plan along with the Father's that he should die to pay for sins. That demonstrated his love, justice, and mercy.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
kasmic
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2015 3:41:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/12/2015 3:36:33 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 6/12/2015 2:55:19 PM, kasmic wrote:
How would you define faith?

Belief in or trust in a person.


Faith is defined as belief or trust. In the bible it reads "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." (Hebrew 11:1)

Hoping or believing in something unseen. I have always thought of the principles of faith or this type of knowledge to be outside secular knowledge. "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." (1st Corinthians 2: 14)

If something is spiritually discerned and not physically discerned is not rational a physical discernment?

I went into Hebrews 11:1 in some detail on the blog I linked to earlier. I don't think it implies anything irrational at all. In 1 Corinthians 2, Paul is talking about how when he first preached to them, he didn't rely on his ability to make persuasive arguments. He simply presented the gospel to them and allowed the Spirit to make them receptive to it. When he says the natural man cannot accept the things of the Spirit of God, I take him to mean that a person unaided by the Spirit of God cannot accept the gospel. Unless you equate "natural man" with "rational man" and "spiritual man" with "irrational man," I don't know why you would take them to mean one must be irrational to be Christian. According to the Calvinist doctrine of total depravity, the fall affected every aspect of us, including our intellect. With that in mind, we should expect just the opposite--that the natural man is irrational and the spiritual man is rational. Of course I don't think Paul is referring to rationality at all in this passage but simply the willingness or unwillingness to embrace the gospel.

Let me read your blog tonight before I respond to your points haha...
"Liberalism Defined" http://www.debate.org...
"The Social Contract" http://www.debate.org...
"Intro to IR An Open Discussion" http://www.debate.org...

Check out my website, the Sensible Soapbox http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
My latest article: http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
kasmic
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2015 3:41:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/12/2015 3:39:11 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 6/12/2015 2:56:35 PM, kasmic wrote:
Only one innocent suffered, and that was God himself. And as I said, he did so to demonstrate his love. I suppose God could've chosen to do it some other way, but your original question was about the justice in it.

Right, because I had always believed God to be "full of Justice and mercy." I don't see how the atonement is just... or in Christ's case, merciful.

It is just in that God required payment for sin. It's merciful in the fact that God paid the penalty himself. Now, I don't know how a non-trinitarian, like a Mormon, would see this, but from a Trinitarian perspective, it make good sense. God didn't just go out and grab an innocent man and punish him for everybody else's sin. Jesus IS God, and it was his plan along with the Father's that he should die to pay for sins. That demonstrated his love, justice, and mercy.

Why would God need to pay himself... why not just forgive the debt?
"Liberalism Defined" http://www.debate.org...
"The Social Contract" http://www.debate.org...
"Intro to IR An Open Discussion" http://www.debate.org...

Check out my website, the Sensible Soapbox http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
My latest article: http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2015 3:49:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/12/2015 3:41:42 PM, kasmic wrote:
At 6/12/2015 3:39:11 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 6/12/2015 2:56:35 PM, kasmic wrote:
Only one innocent suffered, and that was God himself. And as I said, he did so to demonstrate his love. I suppose God could've chosen to do it some other way, but your original question was about the justice in it.

Right, because I had always believed God to be "full of Justice and mercy." I don't see how the atonement is just... or in Christ's case, merciful.

It is just in that God required payment for sin. It's merciful in the fact that God paid the penalty himself. Now, I don't know how a non-trinitarian, like a Mormon, would see this, but from a Trinitarian perspective, it make good sense. God didn't just go out and grab an innocent man and punish him for everybody else's sin. Jesus IS God, and it was his plan along with the Father's that he should die to pay for sins. That demonstrated his love, justice, and mercy.

Why would God need to pay himself... why not just forgive the debt?

I kind of feel like I've already answered that. God's justice demands payment for sin. To forgive without requiring payment is to be arbitrary, and it would not demonstrate God's justice. But to pay that debt himself is to demonstrate both his justice and his mercy. It also demonstrates his love in that he died in our place.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
kasmic
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2015 3:51:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Why would God need to pay himself... why not just forgive the debt?

I kind of feel like I've already answered that. God's justice demands payment for sin. To forgive without requiring payment is to be arbitrary, and it would not demonstrate God's justice. But to pay that debt himself is to demonstrate both his justice and his mercy. It also demonstrates his love in that he died in our place.

Your right... you did say that earlier.

I guess I just wonder why "God's Justice" would require suffering or blood as a payment. That seems to contradict my understanding of Justice.
"Liberalism Defined" http://www.debate.org...
"The Social Contract" http://www.debate.org...
"Intro to IR An Open Discussion" http://www.debate.org...

Check out my website, the Sensible Soapbox http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
My latest article: http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2015 3:51:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/12/2015 3:37:07 PM, kasmic wrote:
It is the ultimate act of Mercy. Christ volunteered for this. It was merciful because He didn't have to, He wanted to. Until that sacrifice we were all doomed to be separate from Him. Never to have beatific vision. That is the greatest loss we can know. It was merciful because we don't deserve it but through His sacrifice we can.

But why was the act necessary for mercy to be realized?

I don't understand the question? What do you mean "realized"?
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
kasmic
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2015 3:51:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/12/2015 3:51:21 PM, jharry wrote:
At 6/12/2015 3:37:07 PM, kasmic wrote:
It is the ultimate act of Mercy. Christ volunteered for this. It was merciful because He didn't have to, He wanted to. Until that sacrifice we were all doomed to be separate from Him. Never to have beatific vision. That is the greatest loss we can know. It was merciful because we don't deserve it but through His sacrifice we can.

But why was the act necessary for mercy to be realized?

I don't understand the question? What do you mean "realized"?

achieved...
"Liberalism Defined" http://www.debate.org...
"The Social Contract" http://www.debate.org...
"Intro to IR An Open Discussion" http://www.debate.org...

Check out my website, the Sensible Soapbox http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
My latest article: http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...