"I have no Faith -- I dare not utter the words & thoughts that crowd in my heart -- & make me suffer untold agony,"

These are the words of Mother Teresa. Apparently even she had some crises of faith.

Part of having a good life is questioning and examining your beliefs. Glad you are at least entertaining these thoughts!

I think it makes a little more sense to examine and
question BEFORE you adopt the belief, not AFTER.

"I think it makes a little more sense to examine and
question BEFORE you adopt the belief, not AFTER."

It probably does, Mel. But there are many of us who STILL question things from time to time.

My sons are all Christians and I always encouraged them to have their own walk with the Lord, even in times of doubt.

How very sad. When a little research BEFORE blindly adopting some belief could have prevented all that. Blind faith in anything is never good.

Lindysue - No one is trying to "sell you" on Christianity. I distinctly remember you saying that you had questions about Christianity and had NOT "settled" on a particular belief system.

Now you say you do. Accusing those who were trying to find out what your questions were and possibly providing some answers to them is NOT an attempt to "sell you" anything.

I have to agree with ML, if you have been questioning all this time without reaching a conclusion, what is stopping you from making a choice?

If it's lack of information, that can be remedied.
If it's a lack of knowledge of what the historical facts are, that can be remedied.
If it's not wanting to believe Jesus IS who he said he is, you have lots of company. It is NOT the job of any Christian to convert anyone. It IS the job of all Christians to stand ready to answer the questions of sincere seekers of information and truth, to KNOW why they believe and to be able to tell someone "from Missouri" why THEY believe in Jesus Christ.

If you are not interested in asking questions and getting answers, then simply say so and no one will "force" information upon you. But please don't accuse people of being condescending when they are responding to your statements that you DO have questions that you have been wanting to get answers to, and have had those questions for years.

Your previously stated "main objection" to Christianity seemed to revolve around the issue of not being able to find someone who was capable of telling you WHY they believe. That was the "whole point" in responding to your question, there ARE answers regardless of previous persons who may have not been able to provide you answers as to why THEY believe.

Anyway, if you do have questions, we'll try to answer them for you, be it related to infidelity and recovery or Jesus Christ and Christianity. Ulitimately, though, in each case, the CHOICE will be yours, both regarding what questions you are seeking answers to, and to reject or accept the answers and advice given in response.

God bless.

Mel, I think you and Believer are talking about two different things.

You are talking about belief in Jesus Christ as THE only means by which people can be saved, and the resulting "faith" of Christianity.

Believer is talking about questioning why things may have been allowed to happen in the lives of believers. Believer may also have been talking about the "quesitons" that arise as part of the "maturing in the faith" process, of learning and growing in Christ.

But I hope the two you will forgive me if I have misunderstood what each of you was trying to say.

God bless.

hmmm, perhaps so. Is that what you are talking about, believer?

FH, of course, she was responding to lindysue whose questions revolve around the existance of God, not about maturing in the faith. But maybe she did mean the latter?

I had a different interpretation on the original question that I hadn't seen brought up yet - and wanted to throw out there.

When I saw the original post - I thought, well that's an interesting sideline and I would never have related it to infidelity.

What I always associated with the phrase "there are no accidents" was that you (and your body) might act according to your subconscious desires - even if your conscious had no inkling or desire to act that way, thus explaining away that the event that "happened" was not an accident - but an expression of some deep subconscious thought that your conscious might not even know was going on. An example might be - you spill coffee on your self while heading to a job interview. Maybe down deep you really didn't want the job. Maybe you didn't think you were good enough to do the job and your subconscious wanted an excuse for not getting it. Perhaps not the best example in the world, but I hope you get what I'm trying to say - that something inside you is leading you to the action even if for your surface conscious, it does not appear to be what you desire. I think the term "Freudian slip" is related to this idea.

Now - having stated what I think the term means - I am in no way saying I agree with it - but I think it is an interesting concept.

I don't really see it relating to infidelity in the way some posters have written about - because I just can't imagine using the term "accident" to apply to anyone's actions in this area.

(PS - Believer - I always appreciate reading your words.)

findingstrength,

I think there's a lot of truth in that theory. I don't think it covers all accidents, but I'd bet the subconscious has an influence on many of them.

I don't want to threadjack Lindysue, but FH has it about right.

But back to the original question. I think much of the Bible would be helpful even to a non-believer. The wisdom is tried and true.

I wasn't sure what The Secret was all about, so I had to do some research on Oprah's website. Here is some of what I found:


Now, is this the same as saying, "there are no accidents in life?"... i dunno... perhaps. To me, it's more on the lines of karma, or "you reap what you sow," or "you draw more flies with honey..."

It's a nice concept though-- to think that by maintaining a cheerful, glass-is-always-half-full personality that one will miraculously have all their "radio frequencies" in the right place at the right time-- surrounded by equally happy radio frequencies bouncing off each other-- thereby creating an environment where one will most certainly escape misfortune...

But alas, don't we all really know that LIFE's simply NOT that simple?

Peace, ~Marie

TJ warning.....

Marie.....please email me! I've been looking for you! You helped me so much last spring and when I tried to send you my good report, your email addy bounced.

Thanks,
Ace

**edit**

end of TJ ~ will comment later.

Marie - I have to agree with you, this (The Secret) is more existentialist "mumbo jumbo."

Absolutely not. You and I have gone around this issue enough all ready. We won't agree. Besides, hard religious discussions isn't really the purpose of this board.

If you're really interested in an intelligent discussion with people who are actual working scientists in their fields about evolution/creation then I can point you to a board. It is an atheist board, but Christians are welcome to post/debate there. Certainly, they'll be much more knowledgeable than me -- and many of them publish their credentials so you can look up who they are and what they've written. Let me know and I'll give you a link.


Kayla,

I'm not sure if this is directed at me. As for my part of the equation, I suppose I'll muddle on with my journey and seeking. What else is there TO do?

As for my perceived "rebellion and petulance," I find your words incongruent with my own experience. Simply put, I lack faith. I lack the dishonesty to lie about it so I can fit in.. though it would often be easier to do so not only for me but, apparently, for other people. If such a God as is in the Bible exists then I imagine that He would know that I was faking it.

From there springs the question that begins the journey of all this fact finding and looking around and questioning. If I don't believe in God, then how do I believe in God? I observe that others believe and it appears genuine to me (I don't doubt that they do) and yet I lack that belief. Why is that? Why don't I believe? Is it a lack of facts? Is there some point where I'll get enough "evidence" to believe? Or, will it be some mystical sign? Or, in the end, will it be nothing at all?

That is what seeking is all about. Some people have alluded to changing methodologies if you aren't arriving at a conclusion. I can tell you information about my state: I do not believe the Christian God exists.

That doesn't mean you can't believe it or even that I doubt that you do.

I have listened to other approaches. I've tried FH's approach of figuring out 1.) whether Jesus existed (I'm not convinced based on what I've read so put me still in the "legend" category) and 2.) if Jesus did exist is was he who he claimed to be. That was my last research project and isn't completed to my satisfaction yet, but life and a master's degree in a different subject has intervened and so I cannot spend too much time mucking around in that research.

I've gone to spiritual places in several different countries. I lived in Germany for a time and I've seen the scars left on the landscape of that country and culture. I've spoken to people who truly believe. I've asked questions and I've been honest.

On this thread, I relate to Lindysue when she says "She just doesn't know." I get that. I don't know, either. Being scolded and called petulant or rebellious for not knowing isn't helpful in my experience .. or at least it wasn't helpful to me. Maybe it is to those who scold.

So, here I am.

Mys

Side note: I do, however, believe that an "Old Earth" and that evolution have accumulated enough facts and evidence through demonstrable, repeatable experiments and observations to be fact. That doesn't preclude (I think) a belief in a Creator. Perhaps, it eliminates the belief in the Biblical Creator (though I think many Christians believe both in God and Evolution).

Your friendly, non-petulant, neighborhood atheist.

Lindy Sue ~ I did not post to "rake you over the coals".

I have lived with an active alcoholic for 17 years - and who also had an affair. So I recognize the pitfalls and the deceptions that we use to comfort ourselves amidst great pain.

I think you started this thread to seek answers that will allow you to be OK with staying married to your husband.

The problem as I see it, is that the specific answer you want validated, is that your husband did not choose another woman over you, that your husband did not willfully choose to betray you in a terrible way.

Because if you can find an answer that gives him an "out" on responsibility, then you can be OK with your choice to stay, then you can believe that you were not second choice. If it was 'fate' or "God'...then the betrayal is less. If you believe that you are integral to his sobreity, then you can maintain a virtuous image of yourself - sacrificing yourself to save him. Fantastic wonderful you, rescuing the poor weak sinful alcoholic...

I know this because I *was* this.

You get to maintain the very delicate card house that you've built to protect your vision of reality.

Because I've been there and done that, I am not going to say things to you that allow you to continue the denial.

Your husband did choose of his own free will to betray you. The alcohol did not make him do it. He did choose of his own free will to stop drinking. You did not make him do it.

You missed the last part of Jerry's post. He did not say his wife's impact on his sobriety was a GOOD thing. He said:

Hi BrambleRose,

I've never posted to you (but saw how you helped Froz and I am voting for you for President). Thank you for your thoughtful posts to Lindy.

****

Lindy,

I tried to catch Marie on your thread last night and said I'd be back with my thoughts so here are a few.

WE all come to MB with our own perspectives. Some of us want to vent, some want to show off, some want to make someone feel bad so he/she can feel good and others truly want to learn something. There are other reasons, too.

From the day Mr. G plucked your long post off Marriedfor30yrs' thread just as I was going to do the same, I encouraged you to post your own recovery thread. I believe you are searching for answers and having your own thread provides that for you.

I don't believe you expected to receive all this input to help you and that's why it may seem so confusing.

Please take some time to read all that has been shared. I've been here 7 months and just yesterday, I realized something that has been in my awareness since D-Day #1, but it just registered with my brain yesterday.

BrambleRose has walked in your shoes. Look at her sig line and registration date. She is offering advice that could be the piece of the puzzle you are looking for to get over this 'hump' you've been admittedly tripping on in your recovery. Mel and FH and Msy and Marie and others may provide pieces of that same puzzle, different applications.

Please take time to read what volunteer posters have made time to share with you. We're all in this together, some in more similar situations than others. But by being open to new thoughts and ideas, we can all make progress.

Ace, (your resident cheerleader)

Interesting stuff to be sure, and I wouldn't mind looking at such a site, but you totally ignored the whole point of the previous response, which was to your idea that "anyone who simply disputes (denies) the facts renders the issue false."





In the first sentence you state a conclusion that is definitive to you. In the second you state "I don't know, either."

Myschae, don't you see the contradiction here? You claim status as an atheist, but that IS a belief in something that is unknowable just as you think Christians believe in something unknowable. Yet there is far less "proof" for the atheistic belief than there is for the Christian belief, because atheism has nothing but personal opinion on which to base its belief while Christianity has the person of Jesus Christ.

Going back to what you said about "if even one person disputes something then it cannot be true," doesn't that equally apply to atheism?

What Lindysue SAID was that she had questions that she would "like to" hear answers to but that so far in her life no one has been able to answer with anything "more" than "just believe."

That "just believe" sort of thing applies just as strongly to proponents of evolution. "Just believe" that LIFE arose from nonlife, even though ALL of science says that life ONLY arises from life, not from non-life (Biogenetic Law). Evolutionists like to "side step" this one "little point" and only deal with supposed evolutionary changes (not even those that result in Macro rather than Micro change have been shown, much less proved) that occurred AFTER the impossible happened. Neat, but it begs the question.

That "begging the question" is the same thing that relates to the historicity of Jesus. Despite the evidence that Jesus did exist, some still "prefer" to doubt, or as you have stated you do, consign Jesus to the "Myth" category. Why is that? In most cases I think it would be safe to assume that the reason is that IF they accepted that a man called Jesus actually did exist, then they would be "forced" to have to examine his claims and make a decision. Making "no decision" is always the "easier" course of action. "Getting round to it later" always presupposes that there WILL be a "later," even though not one single person is promised or guaranteed that they will will have even "one more day."

Usually what is behind the "delay" is that a decision FOR Christ would "mess up" in some way what the individual wants to do because it would introduce a "higher power" that they WOULD be "accountable to" for their lives.

God bless.

I do not believe for a minute that just because someone does not believe in Christ that they are being petulant or rebellious....I know many wonderful giving souls that do not and will never believe as I do. They are no less valuable because of their beliefs...their faith is very firm...and they can produce as much history and "proof" as any Christian out there.

I have gone round and round with some Christians on this site that believe they can use science to prove the deity of Christ. IMHO, it can't be done. There is no verifiable proof of the resurection...there is faith in those that believe that these things are true.

Many atheists enjoy the jabs they can throw at those that believe in a god. I don't get that impression from you Mys. I think you are honestly searching for truth. Is there overwhelming evidence that our planet is much older than the Bible would have a Christian believe. Yes, IMHO, there is. For me, that does not shake my belief in Christ.

Mys...I truly hope one day that your questions are answered...that God plants the seeds of faith in your heart.

MEDC

Check out www.iidb.org. They have a discussion forum specifically dedicated to the Evolution/Creationism debate. Registration might be required but I'll try to link you to it. Go Evolution Creation debate forum

Note: There is also a forum debating the existence of God.


It does if you use the basic rules of logic. Proof by contradiction is when you assume the premise is true and then you find one instance where it is not true. Following the rules of basic logic, you can then prove whether or not a proposition is true or false. It does not, however, offer any information about whether the premise is true or false .. only that the implication of the proposition is untrue if the premise is considered to be true. Or, in other words, find another method to prove the proposition.

I did attempt to explain that in my previous post if you go look.

Your valid reply might be that using the basic rules of logical implication (or the truth table) "If p implies q" is only false if p is true and q is false. Or, to put it simply, any propsition that starts with a false premise is judged to be true by the simple rules of logic - though that is considered a useless proof because it offers no valid information into the system. For example, "If the sun does not exist then I am a bluebird." is true by the rules of logic, but offers no useful information about what species I am.

You do not, of course, have to use logic to determine truth within the system. But, if you want to use logical proofs, then that method is available. I mentioned it only as a methodology of determining the difference between truth and falsehood as LindySue had mentioned that she was looking for some way to figure out what was true and what was false given disparate sets of evidence.

Logic is one way to test the validity of arguments (propositions) that is not "using emotion" or "what you're comfortable with." Both emotional methods seem to be universally agreed upon as a bad idea.


The first statement offers information about my current state. The second refers to the ambiguity of my future state. I am here NOW. I might be somewhere else LATER.


No, I see a statement of my position as it relates to this issue in the NOW. I don't see it as a perpetual position that I am glued to for the rest of my life nor do I see it as my intention to stay here should better or convincing evidence cause me to move in a different direction. I simply mean that I am a work in progress. I move through time, just as you do, and my position relative to things MIGHT change. Though, this is where I am now (current state).

What I directly said was "I can only offer you information about my current state which is...atheism." I cannot offer you information about my future state(s).

Make sense?


It applies to a proposition of implication. "Jesus existed is beyond dispute." Implies that IF we assume Jesus did exist is a true premise, then all we have to do logically to disprove that proposition is to find one instance of a dispute. If something is beyond dispute then it is simply not disputed. Period. End of argument.

What that does not do is give us any information on the premise. Unless you want to assert your proposition is true because your premise is false which then renders it a silly, useless statement.

As this applies to all of Christianity, it doesn't do anything because Christianity isn't a proposition. It's a whole bunch of things tied together. Take this simple example which we've summarized before: "If Christianity is true, then atheism is false." That could be logically proven false* if you could find one instance of an atheist in Heaven, for example (assuming that violates the rules of Christianity... if it doesn't, you'd have to find something that would violate a rule). But we can't really do that, right?

*edited to correct my logic (man, it's tricky stuff). In other words, if we found a contradiction to the rules of Christianity, then we would disprove the proposition that "If Christianity is true then atheism is false."

So, it applies to all propositions made if you want to employ rules of logic. It doesn't necessarily add anything to the discussion, however, if you have no way of judging the premise.


This whole thing just baffles me. What exactly is it that is so awful about Christianity that you think I'm trying to avoid? I probably lead an average Christian lifestyle (aside from going to Church and reading the Bible). So you think that I'm trying to avoid a little extra reading and a few hours every Sunday? For pity's sake, I'm overworked but I'm not that overworked.

What is it that you guys do that is so worth avoiding?

What I said was that I lack belief. I also said that I lack the dishonesty to profess belief I do not have. Would you be more comfortable with me if I lied and told you I did believe?

I've seen faith. I've seen the comfort it gives to people. I don't understand how they got there. That's about as bottom line as I can put it.

And, no, i don't want to discuss evolution/creation with you any more. We've gone around it a lot. If you want to talk about it... go to the link I provided. I'm off to a little lunch and more studying now.

All my best,

Mys