Billy Graham has died

[bluehillside Retd.]

Is one retreating from God or the possibility.

Neither.

[Maeght]

   

OK:
Having reluctantly read bits of Scripture...and tried hard to deny the existence of God, I had to admit to myself the possibility of His being, and Christ being who He said He was.
On that possibility, I prayed.
Having seen smushy Hollywood stuff showing folk on their knees, I knelt in silence.
My prayer?
Not very churchy language.
"God, if You're there, do something in me."
He did.
I begun to feel an awarness of presence - an awarness which has not left me to this day. So, after ten minutes, I said
"OK...I acknowledge that you exist. I want to know more of you, and I surrender.
So I waved the white flag there and then.

Thanks Anchorman,

I am interested (unlike Walter of course) to know what you mean by an awreness of presence. This may be hard to explain but would appreciate iot if you could.

Thanks

[ippy]

Thanks Anchorman,

I am interested (unlike Walter of course) to know what you mean by an awreness of presence. This may be hard to explain but would appreciate iot if you could.

Thanks

I would be interested too, I can't say I see you as another Alan Burns, I ment that in a complimetry way to you.

Regards ippy

[Enki]

   

OK:
Having reluctantly read bits of Scripture...and tried hard to deny the existence of God, I had to admit to myself the possibility of His being, and Christ being who He said He was.
On that possibility, I prayed.
Having seen smushy Hollywood stuff showing folk on their knees, I knelt in silence.
My prayer?
Not very churchy language.
"God, if You're there, do something in me."
He did.
I begun to feel an awarness of presence - an awarness which has not left me to this day. So, after ten minutes, I said
"OK...I acknowledge that you exist. I want to know more of you, and I surrender.
So I waved the white flag there and then.

I have no wish to denigrate your experience in any way. Whatever you experienced is entirely your own affair.

I would just like to point out the differences that seem to be between thee and me. Firstly, I have always read any part of scripture with an open and enquiring mind, but, never, reluctantly. Perhaps one of the reasons, for me, is that no one has ever forced me to read scripture. Secondly, I have, as far back as I can remember, always accepted that just about any god is a possibility, so I have never been in the position of admitting that God is a possibility. Thirdly, the idea of God being a possibility doesn't seem to have had the significance for me that you seem to attach to it, hence I have never felt the impulse to search for this God on a personal level. Fourthly, the idea of surrendering myself to a god which just might exist is, for me, a rather meaningless concept. Fifthly, I have never to my knowledge felt any awareness of your God.

So, I take on board what you say, Anchs, but I tend to think that we are all products of our nature and nurture, and tend to have greatly different views about such things.

[Anchorman]

     You can put philosophy where a monkey puts its nuts, guys. So far, after nearly 41 years of being Christian, I've found no moral or philosophical  stuff which can remotely compare with knowing Christ as Lord. Do I have doubts? You bet - but I thank God for them....'cos so far, they haven't caused any problems for me...far from it.. they've only deepened my relationship with Christ after I've ironed them

[bluehillside Retd.]

Anchs,

You can put philosophy where a monkey puts its nuts, guys.

It’s not philosophy, just reason and logic.

So far, after nearly 41 years of being Christian, I've found no moral or philosophical  stuff….

Have you looked? How for example would you propose to falsify the various difficulties with your thinking I set out in my last post to you?

…which can remotely compare with knowing Christ as Lord

And speaking of logical fallacies, that’s one of them: reification. You’re not being asked to compare your “knowing Christ as Lord” with “moral or philosophical stuff” at all. Rather you’re being asked why anyone else should think you have a “relationship” with Christ in the first place. 

Do I have doubts? You bet - but I thank God for them....'cos so far, they haven't caused any problems for me...far from it..

But not doubts then about whether or not there’s a “God” there at all to be thanked? That’s circular (another fallacy).

…they've only deepened my relationship with Christ after I've ironed them

And more reification to finish. Don’t misunderstand here – it’s neither my nor anyone else’s business that you believe in a god for bad reasons. It’s your affair, so knock yourself out if it works for you. What some of us do say though is that you might want to be a bit more circumspect in future about taking twelve-year-olds to be converted to palpable nonsense. 

[Anchorman]

I have no wish to denigrate your experience in any way. Whatever you experienced is entirely your own affair.

I would just like to point out the differences that seem to be between thee and me. Firstly, I have always read any part of scripture with an open and enquiring mind, but, never, reluctantly. Perhaps one of the reasons, for me, is that no one has ever forced me to read scripture. Secondly, I have, as far back as I can remember, always accepted that just about any god is a possibility, so I have never been in the position of admitting that God is a possibility. Thirdly, the idea of God being a possibility doesn't seem to have had the significance for me that you seem to attach to it, hence I have never felt the impulse to search for this God on a personal level. Fourthly, the idea of surrendering myself to a god which just might exist is, for me, a rather meaningless concept. Fifthly, I have never to my knowledge felt any awareness of your God.

So, I take on board what you say, Anchs, but I tend to think that we are all products of our nature and nurture, and tend to have greatly different views about such things.

     


Reluctantly?
You bet./
.
From wherre I stood back in 1977, all religions were bunkum, pure and simple.
I blame the Boys' Brigade...or its' captain, rather.
He'd been dishing out classes for the senior Boys to teach, and gave me "International" - a badge dealing with the BB overseas, and expasion of the movement.
He suggested I read Acts...so I did, and verse 8 stuck like an earworm - sdon't ask me why. It wasn't a text dealing with sin, or repentence, or whatever, but it stuck nonetheless.
I had to deal with it, so I looked at the expansionist church...Bawmber Gasgoine (atheist)'s "The Christians" was helpful, even if I didn't believe.
God, apparently, had other ideas.
It was trying to deal with that earworm that put me on my knees on that night in 1977.   logic went out the window...that sense of His presence was overwhelming, and made any objections to silly concepts of logic irrelevent.
Is what happened logical?
Who cares - I certaintly don't.  Logic isn't everything.

[jeremyp]

My reading of Anchors conversion is that he took the possibility of the Christian job reasonably. If it is possible that there is a Christian God then it is possible that he may respond.

But why did Anchorman choose the Christian god in particular? If the Christian god is possible, lots of gods are possible. If he had decided that the Muslim god was possible and felt a presence, he would now be a muslim, or if Thor, he'd know be a viking, or if the Loch Ness monster...

The point is that Anchorman chose Christianity entirely due to cultural biases, not because there really is a Christian god.

[jeremyp]

God, apparently, had other ideas.

Why do you think that, when the Europeans first encountered the natives of the Americas, they found no Christians among them?

[SusanDoris]

Why do you think that, when the Europeans first encountered the natives of the Americas, they found no Christians among them?

Ever optimistic, I remain hopeful that there will be good, direct answers to your clear questions.

[Anchorman]

Why do you think that, when the Europeans first encountered the natives of the Americas, they found no Christians among them?

The point was regarding MY experience, not that o Native Americans.

[Anchorman]

Ever optimistic, I remain hopeful that there will be good, direct answers to your clear questions.

Twixt optimist and pessimist
the difference is droll.
The optimist sees the polo mint
the pessimist the hole.

Susan, my atheism was due to a look at the various ways cultures used to access the divine - mainlt Egyptian, of course, and the Greek efforts to seguay iit into their own ideology, nicking most of their philosophy from Egypt in the process.
If that was in error, so was all religion. QED.
The problem was that, as I said earlier, God had other ideas.

[Stranger]

The problem was that, as I said earlier, God had other ideas.

And by an almost unbelievable coincidence it turned out that the One True God was the one most popular in you culture!

I guess it's just tough luck for the Native Americans and others who never got to even hear about the One True God. Not exactly very fair-minded of it, not to make its message somewhat more obvious and available to everybody equally, wouldn't you say?

[Walter]

     


Reluctantly?
You bet./
.
From wherre I stood back in 1977, all religions were bunkum, pure and simple.
I blame the Boys' Brigade...or its' captain, rather.
He'd been dishing out classes for the senior Boys to teach, and gave me "International" - a badge dealing with the BB overseas, and expasion of the movement.
He suggested I read Acts...so I did, and verse 8 stuck like an earworm - sdon't ask me why. It wasn't a text dealing with sin, or repentence, or whatever, but it stuck nonetheless.
I had to deal with it, so I looked at the expansionist church...Bawmber Gasgoine (atheist)'s "The Christians" was helpful, even if I didn't believe.
God, apparently, had other ideas.
It was trying to deal with that earworm that put me on my knees on that night in 1977.   logic went out the window...that sense of His presence was overwhelming, and made any objections to silly concepts of logic irrelevent.
Is what happened logical?
Who cares - I certaintly don't.  Logic isn't everything.

sounds to me like a case of total submission to a mental aberration. That wouldn't be as bad as it sounds if you kept it to yourself but you involve children who don't know any better . That is unacceptable behavior to me .

[Anchorman]

And by an almost unbelievable coincidence it turned out that the One True God was the one most popular in you culture!

I guess it's just tough luck for the Native Americans and others who never got to even hear about the One True God. Not exactly very fair-minded of it, not to make its message somewhat more obvious and available to everybody equally, wouldn't you say?

Back in the day, the Romans, Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Phillipians, Colssians and Thessalonians found out about God in a clture which was not monotheistic.
It's called evangelism - and the impetus came from Christ, who, if Christians take His claim seriously, was and is God.
He seemed to know what He was doing, so I'm not going to argue.

[Walter]

Back in the day, the Romans, Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Phillipians, Colssians and Thessalonians found out about God in a clture which was not monotheistic.
It's called evangelism - and the impetus came from Christ, who, if Christians take His claim seriously, was and is God.
He seemed to know what He was doing, so I'm not going to argue.

asking you for explanations is pointless because you will not accept responsibility for your own actions .

[Stranger]

Back in the day, the Romans, Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Phillipians, Colssians and Thessalonians found out about God in a clture which was not monotheistic.
It's called evangelism - and the impetus came from Christ, who, if Christians take His claim seriously, was and is God.
He seemed to know what He was doing, so I'm not going to argue.

What "he's" doing (if most versions of Christianity are true) is manifestly unfair and unjust - thus contradicting the whole message.

Why is god hiding away in one particular religious tradition amongst many - giving a massive advantage to some people above others? Why is god's vitally important message to its creation not totally obvious to everyone? Why does it look for all the world like people deluding themselves?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Anchs,

The point was regarding MY experience, not that o Native Americans.

Actually it wasn't; rather the point was about the narrative you tell yourself about your experience, not your reification of it.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Anchs,

Susan, my atheism was due to a look at the various ways cultures used to access the divine - mainlt Egyptian, of course, and the Greek efforts to seguay iit into their own ideology, nicking most of their philosophy from Egypt in the process.

To access beliefs about the "divine", but ok...

If that was in error, so was all religion. QED.

Yes.

The problem was that, as I said earlier, God had other ideas.

That's not "the problem" at all - it's just a narrative you reached for to explain your experience. The actual problem is that you have no way to establish that it was a god wot did it rather than one of the various, mind-induced phenomena known to cause such things.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Anchs,

Back in the day, the Romans, Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Phillipians, Colssians and Thessalonians found out about God in a clture which was not monotheistic.
It's called evangelism - and the impetus came from Christ, who, if Christians take His claim seriously, was and is God.
He seemed to know what He was doing, so I'm not going to argue.

Actually it's called "memetics" and missionaries or similar sounding persuasive (or enforcing their views with violence) tells you nothing about the truth or otherwise of their claims. You know this already though because of the observable phenomenon of "evangelism" for other beliefs entirely also delivering converts.     

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Anchs,

Actually it's called "memetics"

LOL.
Pseudoscience alert.