I am a Christian BECAUSE I asked questions and investigated, not because I didn't. If I didn't, I would still be an athiest like my parents. People rarely have faith in the first place UNLESS and UNTIL they examine the evidence and ask questions. They have to QUESTION and EXAMINE in order to HAVE FAITH. A person cannot have "faith" unless they are fairly certain that the object of their faith EXISTS.[unless they are a fool]

For example, I have FAITH that Cuba exists, because I have seen evidence of its existence. I have never been there, but I feel quite certain that it exists based on the evidence. If I had not seen some evidence, I would not believe it exists.

The same with God. I have no interest in believing in something that does not exist. That would be like making up an imaginary friend. Which would be silly and childish and a waste of my time. I believe in Christ only because I believe it to be TRUE based on the evidence. Not to make me "feel good" or because I want to "feel comfortable." It doesn't make me feel good or comfortable quite often. I believe it for one reason only: it is true.

I find it very surprising that you are not bothering to investigate all this until so late in your life. Have you never had any intellectual curiosity about God until now?

I give up- does anyone not get it- I DO NOT KNOW WHAT I BELIEVE- I AM STILL TRYING TO FIGURE IT OUT- when I have the time I would love for you to discuss my questions. thanks

Yes, I have been "questioning all this all my life" - I was not reared with a religious upbringing, just went to Meth church with friends, then married a Catholic whose beliefs I really had trouble with, I guess my experience with "faith" comes from my ex-when I would ask why do you believe that way, he was taught that you just do, no questions asked so that was my framework for that comment, not that you left your brains at the door. Some of you holier than thou people sure are critical and condescending- that is another thing that causes my confusion, is that a true Christian attitude?

It's not too late to go to Al-Anon.


I hate to say this, but you just are not that powerful. If you were able to cajole, convince, motivate an alcoholic to 'straighten up', you'd be the first. You aren't.


Anyone can have an affair, so sure, alcoholics have affairs too. They have affairs because they can. Not because the alochol made them do it.

Instead of his behavior, how about talking about yours? Lots of stuff on this thread leads me to believe that you are not a reformed enabler. Your behavior is pretty stereotypical for a spouse of an alcoholic. You need Al-Anon.


You don't need to understand his behavior. It just IS. He is an addict - an affair addict and a booze addict.

You need to understand your behavior and your motivations Ask yourself WHY you are in this relationship? You can control you, you can not control him.

Well, if you have been "questioning all of your life," and still have not found any answers, wouldn't that indicate that something is wrong? Perhaps a new approach is in order? <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" />

Lindy,

How can anything be an accident in a random series of events?

Thats what it means to me.

BR,
Well I am saddened to hear that I have not helped, I thought when he was down and out and that I would be here for him if HE did the work. I did set boundaries, they will be no marriage if you drink. He is not an affair addict, at least a 2 mo fling once does not make you that. He is weak, I see that. I know I have no power to make him stop or he would have stopped before I moved. I thought that might do it but as you see, I was misguided to think I could change him. Just thought the realization that he could not sink any lower (unless he murdered) and knew he had to stop to live made him quit. He had to quit for himself to live but he had to quit to live with me again. He had a choice again, he could have taken the easy road like he has in the past, could have continued to drink, stay with the OW, she was a drinker and although it would not have worked in the long run, he could have had it for as long as it lasted. He knew reconciling with me was not going to be the easy way, knowing how I hurt, and that I no longer will accept the life we had before the A. And that I have different expectations (well the same ones as before the A- I just enabled him to not live up to them) this go round and if he can't handle it, I can accept he will not change or divorce. But your advice is good, I needed/need to go to Al A - I just do not live near a group, did read some online-think you can join a group that way. And yes, I have many issues within myself that need resolving, the usual childhood ones that make me an enabler.

Well if you have a new approach-let's hear it.

Lindysue, your reactions are normal and expected based upon your experience.

But let's try to "clear the decks and clear the air" here from possible emotional reaction "ignition sources," okay?

When you make a statement such as; "Some of you holier than thou people sure are critical and condescending," are you not being equally "holier than thou and critical and condescending" of the beliefs of others? When we begin to take "offense" rather than think and examine what is being said and the "proof," "support," and "evidence" for, or against, a contention, COMMUNICATION breaks down and a sincere search FOR truth ends.

So can we perhaps agree to "put down the swords" and inflammatory words, or at least to "forgive perceived offenses" and stay focused on the issue under discussion?

There is nothing "holier than thou" in this statement: Either Jesus Christ IS who He said He is, or all of Christianity is a farce and meaningless, even worse than meaningless because it would be based upon a falsehood that has led many people to their deaths.

With respect to Christianity, by definition, either it is true or it is false. If if is true, then also by definition all other "faiths" (including the faith of atheism) are false.

That has nothing to do with "holier than thou." That has do do with TRUTH and Cause and Effect. "IF/THEN" is operative and not dependent upon the "feelings" of anyone.

So, putting all other "issues" aside (such as the differences between Protestants and Catholics), THE only issue of real importance is Jesus Christ. It is upon THAT rock that Christianity stands or falls. "IF/THEN" is the natural conclusion. The rest of the issues are issues of maturing in understanding and in the faith of all the things that God has chosen to reveal to us in His Word.





So here is the simplest approach to the subject that is "old," but may be "new" to you.

Jesus existed, that is beyond dispute by even his opponents.

So given that he existed as a real person:

He was either a liar, a lunatic, a myth who didn't "really" exist, or he was who he said he was.

Which of them do you think he was?

This is where ALL of the questions lead, so we can "eliminate" or "table" all other questions until we answer the question about who Jesus really was.

God bless.

FH,


Tsk. Tsk. You took my words out of context. I said that discussions regarding the existence of God on this board tend to end badly and would be somewhat of a thread jack. I think that is true... given that a large number of those threads seem to get locked at some point. The thread jack part might not be true but God's existence didn't seem pertinent to the original question.

Anyway, I hardly think me being a little "tickled" is lobbing a boulder at you folks. And, I really do try to 1.) identify myself as an atheist and 2.) identify myself as a non-expert whenever dealing with Christian topics. Overall, I do try to be respectful — but some times and some things make me grin a little. Is that really so uncomfortable for you?

Lindy,


Well, honestly, I feel this way a lot. I am in the atheist category at the moment - it doesn't mean that I'll stay here all my life. I have taken time to read books and look for God... but I can't quite make Christianity fit into how I experience the world. Or, to put it more bluntly... I find facts that dispute the evidence proffered about it's validity.

More specifically:

ForeverHers said:


I thought that for a long time... until I found out that there ARE people who dispute his existence. I would say that what FH wrote cannot be a fact or true if you want to follow the simple rules of logic and proof .. because it can be proven false by finding one instance of where it is not true. Or, in other words, something cannot be beyond dispute if even one person has ever disputed it.

Now, that doesn't mean that Jesus didn't exist... but he cannot be proven to have existed just because no one has ever disputed it. (Because people have... )

I like what Melody said here:


..because it's very sensible advice.

However to answer her question here:


I would simply say (answering for me) that

1.) I've been looking for quite a few years.

2.) I find that researching thoroughly TAKES time, effort, and energy. I don't always have the spare time to do it so it's a project that comes and goes.

3.) I find lots of people making assertions (that I won't codify into fact just because I read it and they say it is) on both sides. It is rather difficult to sift through those things and the historical records are some what spotty. I wish I had the time to go get my Ph.D. in history but I'm busy atm.

In the end, I do think you have to make a decision — or maybe a decision for a time then re-evaluate as time comes to you to research more.

I wish you well on your journey.

Mys

Your friendly, neighborhood atheist (with a sense of humor) <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

We all (us partners of alcoholics) like to think that we are so wonderful, so inspiring, so helpful, that we can cure the alcoholic.

We can not. But because our own self esteem issues are inappropriately based on comparision to others...we tell ourselves 1. that we are better than the alcoholic and 2. that we can save the alcoholic by being our wonderful superior selves.

The reality is, we simply make it comfortable for the alcoholic to drink, or lose themselves in other addictions...like affairs.


Affairs are addictions. Your husband is addicted to another person and always will be vulnerable to this person for the rest of his life. Just as an alcoholic can never have another drink, a wayward can not recover without no contact for life. Read the articles on this website and you will find NOWHERE that supports your claim that your husband is not addicted. He is without a doubt, addicted and forever vulnerable to his partner. One night stand, 2 month fling, or long term affair - there is no difference.


Make no mistake. EVERYONE and ANYONE can be vulnerable to an affair. There is nothing particularly WEAK about YOUR husband. He is your typical wayward. This also speaks to my comments earlier about the need to feel superior to build your own self esteem. If he is less, you are more.


Ok, so for right now, he is choosing to be a dry drunk. Is he in AA? Therapy? What is he doing to ensure that he is never left vulnerable to such choices again?

Don't try to guess his reasons for being a dry drunk. I guarantee, that even IF his reasons are pure and genuine, they are not because of your manipulations or ultimatums.

Thats why you need Al Anon. Recovery is HARD, HARDER than surviving an active affair. Your self esteem, your control issues, YOUR enabling needs to be addressed before you have a chance at recovering your marriage.

When and IF you are in better shape spiritually and emotionally, THEN you can begin to put your relationship back together - IF he has done the work he needs to do.

Lindy,

Please consider BR's posts carefully. She isn't telling you that you're bad or wrong...she's telling you the truth.

I was like that...I have enabled my DH's addictions for 15 years...for just what BR talked about...because my ego was based on comparison...and my own giving it my all, being the one who sacrificed...because my self-esteem was non-existent...my whole self-image was based on what others thought of me...

Alanon freed me from living my life in circles and loops...got me off the fantasy train.

I went when my DH was having his A...I'm really grateful I went. Changed my life because it's all about me...and my own self-esteem can only be created by me...and I had to exist first...not through others...to create, maintain and feel it.

Ties in with your question here, also...why there is a higher power...and you know what about Christians and what you said? We say, "Don't look at me, look at Him." I'm not close to who he was, what he shows, how he cares--the magnitude is astounding...so please don't judge us, and own you feel judged. Share that.

That's how you build what you have on your own...know you're whole, complete and marvelously made...as we all are...God's design.

There are no accidents...he doesn't make junk. Not people as accidents nor having them. That's what I believe.

And I think talking about our spirituality is always tender ground to walk...because in many ways, I find my spirituality to be more intimate a part of me than my physicality. My emotionality. Definitely more intimate than my mentality.

<img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

Thanks for being here and being brave.

LA

You make sense to me, we are on a journey, we have not completed it, my time frame and my beliefs (whatever they may be) are mine and I do not need to defend them.

I think a few of you mean well but think you do more harm than good. Saying "what has taken you so long to question your belief -or something to that effect" is condescending. But ok, those of you who know the "truth" as you see it and please do not tell me all religions and people see it as you do, then good for you. I am not advocating atheism, agnosticism or Christianity for anyone, I am not trying to sell you on my beliefs/thoughts/etc.

Appreciate your help anyway. And Myschae, you do have my sense of humor.

Br and LA,
I am sorta in awe of your posts regarding this here.

I was sober before DDay for 16 years. After DDay, all bets were off.

Did I somehow rely on my W to keep me sober during this time? I'll answer, yes I did.

For 15 years we had no booze in our house. She said if you can do it, how much easier is it for me to do it.(she was not and Alcoholic)

Before she betrayed me, she had taken up drinking again, but had never in the past shown a problem with that.

I think for decades she enabled my sobrierty, when she betrayed me, she was the excuse to forego that. Which lead me back to alcohol. "no reason to be sober anymore."

I missed a very important component of being sober, it was supposed to be about me, not her. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" />

All Blessings,
Jerry

Lindy, it was not meant to be "condescending," and I doubt you were really "harmed." I am honestly curious to know how a person can ask questions about a specific subject all of their life, as you claim, yet never manage to come to a conclusion? I find that astonishing and wonder if you could explain how that could be?

If I am sincerely trying to learn something and can't seem to understand it after years of questioning, I think I would start questioning my own approach, and perhaps even my sincerity. Could it be that you weren't really serious about it in the past and weren't sincerely looking for answers?

I am not harmed, I usually have pretty thick skin, by this age you have toughened up. If you read Myshae posts, and I identify with his last one, maybe I believe this at this stage of my life and it may change. I am sure for someone as absolute in how they believe-that is hard to understand but that's who we are.

I am probably not looking for answers the majority of the time. I have had many heartbreaks and pray for the people I love but I am just not quite sure if it is heard or not. You believe it is and that is what I meant by that is a comfort for you that I do not have. I would not try to convince you otherwise because whatever gets you through this life whether it be praying to God or some other higher power then so be it.

I am having a really rough time recovering, I thought asking a specific question about how long it took you would be of some help but I don't seem to get that answered.

You are right, at this point, I just don't care enough to look for answers because this A blindsided me and I cannot seem to recover from it.

After I get raked by BR about how I have nothing to do with my H's recovery, that does not make me feel very good either. Whoever posted after you that said his wife did make a difference in his sobriety, I appreciate hearing that.

I am really tired and will not post anymore because most of this stresses me out even more and I don't need it. And I think your whole tone of your recent post is totally condescending or I don't know the meaning of the word.

Thank you shine for that, my H has told me I am the reason he wants to be sober-no guarantees in life, but he wants this to live with me. period

lindysue, BR gave you a real blessing in her post. She KNOWS what she is talking about and I pray you listen to her. I am a recovering alcoholic with 22 years sobriety and I promise you that she has handed you a REAL GIFT. You have nothing to do with your H's recovery whatsoever; that is all up to him. She is right. PLEASE LISTEN TO HER. She did not rake you, she was compassionate and giving.

Back to the original question, I've hated that phrase since something I witnessed when I was in my teens. A little boy had spilled his drink and his father berated him loudly about how "there are no accidents" because people can only cause mistakes by being careless. The message I got was that anything less than perfection is inexcusable.

If I'd been older or wiser, I'd have "accidentally" spilled a drink on that jerk.

Anyways, there's another perspective on what it might mean.

Myschae, are you really trying to start a "war of words?"

There is a difference between denial and disputing historical fact. Those who want to deny the actual existence of Jesus of Nazareth do so despite the factual evidence. That is NOT "disputing" the facts, that is rejecting the facts for whatever motivation serves them.

When you say, "in other words, something cannot be beyond dispute if even one person has ever disputed it," is factually incorrect. A thing is "proven beyond dispute" when the evidence has been examined by many people and found to be true. Anyone, for any personal reason, can choose to disagree or deny, but that does not invalidate the findings of the "experts." "Beyond dispute" means simply that a contrary opinion is just that, an opinion held DESPITE the facts.

Have you ever heard of the Evolution versus Creation "dispute." Disputing evolutionary theory is something that I do all the time, but I'd tell you that most "confirmed" evolutionists will still tell you that their opinion is that evolution is real answer to "how things got here," because there IS only one alternative to evolution and that requires a Creator. But the evidence for evolution is lacking on the very crucial level of the origin of life. It has never been proved HOW life supposedly arose from nonliving matter, yet it is "accepted" as fact by evolutionists despite the opposing opinions of creationists. The "whole" of all evolutionary theory and rests on the unproven notion, that actually flies in the face of scientific fact (i.e. that LIFE begets LIFE), that spontaneous generation occurred "at least once." There is FAR more proof for the existence of Jesus Christ than there is for the evolutionary "fact" that life DID arise from nonlife, but denial of the facts is not at all uncommon. It says little about the truth nor does it render the proof "in dispute" and therefore invalid.

To argue as you have is to say that all of Evolutionary theory is based on the unprovable and unproven, and therefore disputable notion, that spontaneous generation CAN and DID occur, with absolutely NO proof other than presupposition and biased opinion. If the "fundamental, foundational, building block" of the whole belief structure is founded on NO factual evidence(but evidence DOES exist that spontaneous generation CANNOT occur), then evolution as a theory is not only "in dispute," it is false. Sans ANY proof, all that is left is opinion, even if that opinion is treated as if it is proven FACT.


I "could," for example, deny that we have adequate facts to substantiate the previous existence of any historical person, but that would not place the place the truth of the matter "in dispute," it would remain "beyond dispute" because it was established by the facts and not dependent solely upon "opinion." On the other hand, if someone wanted argue that flying pigs, or pink elephants, existed, but there was NO proof other than their opinion, it would be safe to equate "disputing them" with "proving" their claim to be false.

Even in a court of law, "proven beyond a reasonable doubt," does not mean that someone can still "dispute the facts" and choose to deny the facts and, thereby, invalidate the factual evidence and the conclusion about the evidence that was reached by the jury. If the "jury" says that "so and so" existed because the documentation proves his existence, then it is "proved beyond dispute" and the "verdict" the person really did exist is not invalidated because someone chooses to deny the existence of the person or chooses to ignore the very same facts that document his existence.

The "bottom line" is that both believers in Jesus as the Savior, the Son of God, and those who deny the "theological" side, agree that the "man" Jesus did actually exist.

There is another "reason" why people would choose to deny that Jesus existed, and that would be to attempt to reduce Him to "myth status" and thereby, deny the spiritual and theological implications that would have to be addressed if He DID exist. People CAN and HAVE chosen to do that, but that does not negate the facts.