Do you mind clarifying what you mean by "I don't believe in God because I'm no longer convinced He exists." It seems to me that there is no content within this saying. I am having my own doubts but even such a statement seems void of meaning to me. It seems like saying I do not believe in God because I no longer believe in God. The lack of belief in God is not caused by the the lack of being convinced that God exists, but rather IS the lack of being convinced that God exists. That still leaves out the reason that you are not convinced.
Are you not convinced maybe because as Hawking put it, "science make God of no use." Or maybe it seems like rubish? I am not trying to pigeon-hole atheism, I am just asking for the reason that you are not convinced.
Everyone has a reason for believing. If you are not convinced of something, you are convinced of something else (unless you believe that the universe is essentially meaningless and that there is nothing to be convinced of). I am supposing that you were raised in a faithful community. What ideology has drawn you away from the belief system of those around you?
I do not feel that to say "I don't believe in God because I'm no longer convinced that He exists" is a valid point. It is like a believer saying "I believe in God because I am convinced that He exists."
I'm just trying to understand, not trying to pigeon-hole or anything of that sort. I am also quite unlearned, so I may have fallen into a misunderstanding in what I said, but that is the way I think.
[quote author=GabrielYakub link=topic=12639.msg148540#msg148540 date=1323198404] Would I or any other person be justified in accusing you for having an ulterior motive just because we have a hard time seeing why you wold attend a mosque or a synagogue even though you claim that you would like to learn more about other people's religion as a Copt?
There is a big difference between going to a mosque or synagogue to learn about another religion and going to a mosque or synagogue routinely and calling yourself Coptic. There is nothing wrong with reaching out to other religions. At some point, attendance in no longer based on curiosity but on other motives. Maybe these are not evil motives (at first). But if you really apply the intellectualism you're claiming, along with the Spirit's guidance, you will realize that Islam or Judaism or any other religion is not the truth and it does not come from God. If you continue to attend the functions of these other religions, after this revelation, your actions will devulge your motives. Let me put this way. If you went to a homosexual bar to learn about their environment, would you continue going after you've satisfied your curiosity? And if you continue to go and claim yourself heterosexual, would I not be justified to say you have ulterior motives?
As St James said, "Who is wise and understanding among you? Let him show by good conduct that his works are done in the meekness of wisdom. But if you have bitter envy and self-seeking in your hearts, do not ... lie against the truth. This wisdom does not descend from above, but is earthly, sensual, demonic." I do not see how one can say going to a mosque or a synagogue repeatedly with no intention of converting is "conduct done in the meekness of wisdom." If it is not curiosity and not a desire to convert, then what good conduct could it be?
Furthermore, you are in no position to claim what type of people the church will accept and what it will not in regards to your assertion that "there is no tolerance to accept an atheist who refuses to change. Period."
It is not my authority at all. It is the Church's authority to bind and loose. The act of binding in itself means the unrepentant is bound to sin and judgment in eternal life. It also means the church has the authority and choice to accept or reject whomever she will accept.
And if you don't adhere to the Church's authority, there are plenty of verses that show unrepentant sinners will not partake of the banquet. Here are a few. 1. Isaiah 30:15 (NIV) This is what the Sovereign Lord, the Holy One of Israel, says: "In repentance and rest is your salvation, in quietness and trust is your strength, but you would have none of it." 2. 2 Peter 2:21-22 (NIV) It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than to have known it and then to turn their backs on the sacred command that was passed on to them. Of them the proverbs are true: "A dog returns to its own vomit," and "A sow that is washed goes back to wallowing in the mud." 3. Luke 9:62 (NEB) To him Jesus said, "No one who sets his hand to the plow and then keeps looking back is fit for the kingdom of God." 4. Acts 17:30 (NIV) In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. 5. 2 Tim 2:19 (NIV) "The Lord knows those who are his," and "everyone who confesses the name of the Lord must turn away from wickedness." 6. Luke 10:10 (NIV) But whatever city you enter, and they do not receive you, go out into its streets and say, ‘The very dust of your city which clings to us we wipe off against you... “Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works which were done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago, sitting in sackcloth and ashes.
As you can see, the impenitent will not inherit the Kingdom of God. Since the Church is given the keys of the kingdom, the Church has the authority to refuse the unrepentant.
[qoute] My experience completely contradicts your statement. In addition I think its baseless claims like these, on a public forum that push away and discourage people from even attempting to come back to their own community. Someone who is looking to "come back to their own community" is by definition repentant or on the process of repentance. And the Church will not refuse them as I said before. But one who insists on continuing their sin and tries to convince the clergy or the people that they have the right to do so is ignorant of the scriptures and patristic writings.
[quote author=ReturnOrthodoxy link=topic=12639.msg148553#msg148553 date=1323210495] If you are not convinced of something, you are convinced of something else (unless you believe that the universe is essentially meaningless and that there is nothing to be convinced of).
Excellent point RO. It reinforces my concept of ulterior motives.
thank you for the question. Sure, my statement was void of the actual reasons as to why I am not convinced, so I'll share a couple of them with you. When I use to attend church and pray regularly I had moments where I would 'feel' something that i would, at the time, describe as the presence of God. Overtime I began to question how I knew that it was God. I found no good reason except for I 'felt' it was God, and people told me it was. This feeling or 'presence' was essentially at the root of my belief, it no longer satisfied me enough as a reason to believe that God existed. Anecdotal evidence from my parents, the speaker at the pulpit and the bible didn't satisfy me either, I had developed a standard of evidence which my religion could no longer meet.
So as you can see there was no ideology that lead me away, nor was I convinced of something else (in the sense of adopting another belief).
Thanks for the response. However, I still have much reserve. You tell me that you had a standard of evidence which my religion could not meet. However, (and forgive me for saying this) I do not think you have given this religion a chance. Religion is not in your parents (lets not kid our selves, a lot of parents are very odd when it comes to religion), nor does it come from the pulpit (although at times, a priest can be of great service.) The great thing about being orthodox is that we have a wealth of fathers that we can go back to, and see what they said about faith, and religion. You may have embodied God within the church, but as Mike had previously put it, you should realized that the church was made of fallen human beings.
What I am saying is (although I do not know you) based on your description of where you went to find your answers (parents, Sunday school teacher, or priest), you have leave a lot out.
Reading would help you get a lot of these answers you seek. I have read, and fallen in love with Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis. A friend of mine who is doing a PhD. in Theology has recommended that I read The Confessions of Augustine. There are answers. Just because my 4th grade science teacher couldn't explain the theory of relativity, doesn't mean that a university professor also couldn't.
Being Orthodox (and thereby the stress which orthodoxy places on the fathers) is not just because we like to be ancient. It is because those guys are geniuses and express on believable knowledge. We never go to the Bible alone for answers, because we can interpret it wrong. we interpret it in light of the sayings of the fathers. To say that the Bible did not satisfy your thirst for answers is an incomplete statement. It is like not understanding the theory of relativity and to learn it, you just go to the notes which Einstein wrote. if that were all you needed, why were universities erected? You need noted authorities to speak on such matters... The Orthodox Fathers!
What I am saying is that both you and I have much to learn and read. the idea of where faith comes in, is the gift of the Holy Spirit which gives us preparedness to understand what we read, and gives us the desire to learn.
[quote author=Biboboy link=topic=12639.msg148537#msg148537 date=1323196022] So, by the same logic, St. Augustine had no right to enjoy hearing the words of God and its interpretation by St. Ambrose, when St. Augustine's aim during his attendance in the Milan cathedral was to ridicule and destroy the Church? By today's standards, St. Augustine was a militant heretic and atheist, and a very good speaker at that.
We haven't heard St. Ambrose rebuking St. Augustine that only the repentant can enjoy the "rights Christ gives to his Church." He let him stay to hear the words of God, and it was the Truth of God who changed him.
There are no absolutes here. I was speaking in general terms. I cannot unequivocally say St Augustine was an unrepentant sinner as much as you can't unequivocally say his intention was absolutely to destroy the Church. Who knows. He unknowingly may have already been in the process of repentance and St Ambrose was able to recognize that his attacks on the Church were only an expression of momentary weakness.
On the other hand, if we claim the unrepentant sinner is equal to the weak, struggling repentant sinner in the process of repentance, then there would be no need to repent. What benefit would repentance have if the unrepentant is given the same status?
In general terms, as long as one refuses to repent, they will not be treated equally with the repentant. This may mean forbiddenness from services or the Eucharist as punishment or complete excommunication. Once, the unrepentant seeks forgiveness, then the "punishment" is lifted.
Additionally, if we assume all unrepentant sinner should never be banned from the Church because he will eventually repent, why did the Church excommunicate heretics? Was it not because the adjudicated these heretics will not return from their heresy (or sin) and their refusal for repentance was grounds for excommunication? Were they not given ample opportunity for repentance and refused? Is not the consequence of adherence to heresy or sin expulsion from the Church?
This principle of punishment for the unrepentant does not negate or diminish God's mercy and love for the unrepentant sinner. Maybe this is where the unrest and confusion lies.
I never said I was attending those places of worship, it was an analogy that I used to demonstrate your flawed reasoning. Which still stands.
There is a difference between education and curiosity. I am educating myself. How long will that take? I don't know. But please don't judge me prematurely, its really unfair.
In my experience the Church or at least some Churches (as I haven't been to all of them) have tolerated an "unrepentant" homosexual and atheist. And even if I somehow was going against some ultimate authority, and the bible says that I will be punished in the after-life, that doesn't bother me, because I don't believe in one. But if people really wanted me out, then I'd stop attending because I don't exactly want to be in a place where I'm not wanted.
I came back to my community without being repentant, that should tell you that some people may just want to reconcile with their heritage, or that perhaps some people may just want to learn more about where they come from, not that they are necessarily repentant.
please remember that the response I gave you was a summery of about two or three years, so of course I tried to be as exhaustive as I could at the time.
I do have a lot to learn, and on some level I'm probably missing something (hence my patrology classes and group bible study :) ) additionally I'm open to considering any evidence that people present, however I can't just take 'God exists' on faith, if faith is defined as ' strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof'.
At this point in time I make no claims to knowledge as to whether God exists or not, as some strong atheists do, at this time I don't know if God exists but so far after reassessing my position and considering the evidence and arguments that people have presented I am not convinced.
~Gabe
p.s the Screw Tape Letters was a favorite back in the day as well as Lee Strobel's the Case for Christ. Yet to get my hands on mere Christianity.
I hope that God comes speedily to your aid! They way I see it, the first book you should have read is Mere Christianity. I love that book, and I feel that it may be able to give you the answers you are looking for.
I am happy to hear that you are still open to hearing things, and happier to hear that there is a purpose to your attending Theology courses and Bible study other than simply just being there. You seem to have a genuine desire to know, and I hope that one day, that need is satisfied.
Once more... MERE CHRISTIANITY!!!!!!! A great read.
hahaha will definitely get my hands on that book, a few of my friends have offered to lend it to me so I'll be sure to get it off one of them as soon as I can.
You're about the second person whose asked me to pray for them, I don't pray but if it means anything to you, you're in my thoughts.
[quote author=Remnkemi link=topic=12639.msg148565#msg148565 date=1323214186] [quote author=Biboboy link=topic=12639.msg148537#msg148537 date=1323196022] So, by the same logic, St. Augustine had no right to enjoy hearing the words of God and its interpretation by St. Ambrose, when St. Augustine's aim during his attendance in the Milan cathedral was to ridicule and destroy the Church? By today's standards, St. Augustine was a militant heretic and atheist, and a very good speaker at that.
We haven't heard St. Ambrose rebuking St. Augustine that only the repentant can enjoy the "rights Christ gives to his Church." He let him stay to hear the words of God, and it was the Truth of God who changed him.
There are no absolutes here. I was speaking in general terms. I cannot unequivocally say St Augustine was an unrepentant sinner as much as you can't unequivocally say his intention was absolutely to destroy the Church. Who knows. He unknowingly may have already been in the process of repentance and St Ambrose was able to recognize that his attacks on the Church were only an expression of momentary weakness.
On the other hand, if we claim the unrepentant sinner is equal to the weak, struggling repentant sinner in the process of repentance, then there would be no need to repent. What benefit would repentance have if the unrepentant is given the same status?
In general terms, as long as one refuses to repent, they will not be treated equally with the repentant. This may mean forbiddenness from services or the Eucharist as punishment or complete excommunication. Once, the unrepentant seeks forgiveness, then the "punishment" is lifted.
Additionally, if we assume all unrepentant sinner should never be banned from the Church because he will eventually repent, why did the Church excommunicate heretics? Was it not because the adjudicated these heretics will not return from their heresy (or sin) and their refusal for repentance was grounds for excommunication? Were they not given ample opportunity for repentance and refused? Is not the consequence of adherence to heresy or sin expulsion from the Church?
This principle of punishment for the unrepentant does not negate or diminish God's mercy and love for the unrepentant sinner. Maybe this is where the unrest and confusion lies.
I have never heard of this principle of punishment. What you're describing here sounds very much like the καθαροι of the Novationist and Donatist sects, and not Orthodox Christianity.
Excommunication of heretics has to do with their claim that what they believe in matters of doctrine are actually Orthodox Christianity. After huge discussions in multiple councils, where a person can defend his/her opinions, then it is judged whether a person has excommunicated himself from the Orthodox church or is still an Orthodox Christian. What a council does in saying "anathema" to a heretic is to admit what the person has done to him/herself in stubbornly affirming that their opinion is Orthodox dogma.
The Church doesn't go out witch hunting. It offers mercy, grace, and love to all, and when the Lord shakes the heart of a person who is sinning or is in error, then that person will repent. The Church cannot demand repentance - that demand is from God, not from the Church. The Church is the means - and the only means - by which repentance could be found.
As with St. Augustine, I'm afraid you're mistaken. We know a lot about him because of his book, the Confessions. He has a lot to say about his opinions on the Church before he converted, even of his impressions of St. Ambrose (see Book V:13-14). I would encourage you, and everyone else here, to read that book.
What would Your Grace's answer be, if asked by a hardcore skeptical atheist about your beliefs? Reasoning must be a completely rational and intellectual explanation without any reference to the Holy Bible or any other spiritual resources.
Answer:
Mercy, compassion, peace, truth, sacrifice, love, justice, perseverance, hope, forgiveness, righteousness, and eternal life are all in the beautiful and divine hands of our Lord Jesus Christ only. The Almighty loving God, who is above all time, has appeared in the flesh to lessen our burdens and fulfill His promises. What other concept of a god can even compare? Atheism, with all its self-proclaimed intellect, pathetically attempts to replace the true God with a temporary deception of inferior knowledge and self-reliance. People admire celebrities who model charity, parents who sacrifice for their children, authorities who parade humility, officials who exhibit justice, dignitaries who design treaties for peace, and highlight every occasion that alludes to a better human race, but shun the answer of a perfect God Who has placed in the hearts of humans an intangible desire of change for the better. Jesus Christ is the only God Who is distinguished with every noble quality. Throughout time, what other figure has changed the world as did our Lord Jesus Christ? He purposely lived a simple life and chose unpretentious disciples to share the Good News. In His meekness, He has enriched us; while Atheism has inflated the mind but impoverished the soul. Note the altruistic actions of a child untainted by the corruption and cynicism of the vanities of the world. We are God's children, so blessed and grateful to have a God, Who is above all time and has appeared in the flesh to pay our debts and restore us back to Him.
Please visit www.suscopts.org/resources/literature/search/?q=atheism. You will find four articles and one power point presentation on the subject.
This is from H.G. Bishop Youssef of the Southern USA.
What I am describing has nothing to do with Novatianism or Donatism. Nor do I believe that the καθαροι are the only ones who will inherit the kingdom of God. We all sin, no one is blameless or sinless except Jesus Christ.
What I am describing is one who commits a sin and refuses to repent. Until he repents, he cannot be saved. Refusing to repent, at its core, is denying Orthodox faith. It is claiming that an action that the Orthodox Church defines as sin is incorrect and that person knows more than the Church. This is not much different from a heretic who believes his doctrine is Orthodox.
Regarding punishment and forbiddenness, the Church doesn't go on a witch hunt. It is the arrogance of the unrepentant who insists the Church must accept him without changing. If someone refuses to repent from homosexuality and insists on receiving communion, what do you think the priest would do? Say yes or forbid his communion? This is what I'm talking about. This does not mean the priest or the Church is acting against God's mercy and love.
I'm sorry to tell you this, but what you've described is exactly on par with Donatism.
The only time I've seen a priest (a monk-priest to be specific) not allow someone to take communion was when the girls had lipstick on their mouths. That priest was then returned to the monastery by the bishop and has not been permitted to pray any liturgies.
No priest would stand there giving out the Body and Blood after making them go through an inquisition: they won't stand there and ask every person in queue if they've ever lied, fornicated, killed, swore, etc. and repented of it before they give them communion.
However, it is the responsibility of the person approaching communion to ask for forgiveness for sins committed knowingly and unknowingly, the hidden and the manifest.
Back to St. Augustine: he used to enjoy fornicating with women. He would even pray to God saying: "Grant me chastity," but then he would add, "but not yet." Do you think that as an unrepentant fornicator, this saint should've been forbidden from the sacraments? Clearly that wasn't the case in the past, and clearly that's why he's responded very well concerning this subject against the Donatists.
I never said I was attending those places of worship, it was an analogy that I used to demonstrate your flawed reasoning. Which still stands.
Of course my reasoning is flawed. Nothing meets your arbitrary standard of evidence - neither the Bible, the Patristic writings, the clergy, God, basic logic or anything else. I don't expect you to respond to the list of biblical verses. But you avoided my analysis of ulterior motives and my questions following it. I wonder if science explicitly claimed God exists, would that satisfy your standard of evidence? Probably not.
I came back to my community without being repentant, that should tell you that some people may just want to reconcile with their heritage, or that perhaps some people may just want to learn more about where they come from, not that they are necessarily repentant.
If you think you can separate Coptic Orthodox heritage from Coptic Orthodox faith, you're greatly delusional. If you think you can successfully reconcile atheism with Coptic Christianity, you are only fooling yourself. Then again, what do I know. My reasoning will is flawed.
I'm sorry to tell you this, but what you've described is exactly on par with Donatism. Bibo, we are obviously not agreeing on the definition of Donatism. This is from Wikipedia: "the Donatists were rigorists, holding that the church must be a church of "saints," not "sinners," and that sacraments, such as baptism, administered by traditores were invalid."
And here's another definition from the web: "Donatism was the idea taught by Donatus, bishop of Casae Nigrae that the effectiveness of the sacraments depends on the moral character of the minister. In other words, if a minister who was involved in a serious enough sin were to baptize a person, that baptism would be considered invalid. "
I already stated everyone has sinned. I never stated anything about the validity of sacraments. Maybe we should clarify these definitions before we proceed.
The only time I've seen a priest (a monk-priest to be specific) not allow someone to take communion was when the girls had lipstick on their mouths. That priest was then returned to the monastery by the bishop and has not been permitted to pray any liturgies.
I don't know who you're talking about. But I can tell you with certainty that priests have forbidden parishioners from communion if they refused to repent. Your example has nothing to do with repentance and this monk's reprimand is probably due to his cultural misunderstanding of physical adornment.
No priest would stand there giving out the Body and Blood after making them go through an inquisition: they won't stand there and ask every person in queue if they've ever lied, fornicated, killed, swore, etc. and repented of it before they give them communion.
How do you explain Pope Demetrius' actions? God was with Abba Demetrius because of his purity. God granted him a gift that after he finished the Liturgy and the people came forward to partake of the Holy Mysteries, he used to see the Lord Christ pushing forward with His Hand those who were worthy. But if one came forward who was not worthy of partaking of the Holy Communion, the Lord would reveal to the Pope his sins and the Pope would not allow him to partake of it until he confessed his sins. The Pope would admonish him for them and would say to him, "Turn away from your sin and repent, after that come and partake of the Holy Mysteries." His flocks conduct was straightened during his time.
Even if you're inclined to believe the Synaxarium has a tendency to be wrong or inaccurate, how do you reconcile the commandment every priest recites on his ordination? " My son, take care of yourself and guard this valuable jewel [the Eucharist] as the Cherubim guarded the tree of life. Be alert about these Mysteries and treat them with caution to rid yourself from crisis. Do not give them except to the righteous, good and pure. Forbid whoever is an evil doer, so he does not bring upon himself condemnation, and you become the reason of guilt, sharing in the sin he committed by receiving Holy Communion in an unworthy manner." Source
Back to St. Augustine: he used to enjoy fornicating with women. He would even pray to God saying: "Grant me chastity," but then he would add, "but not yet." Do you think that as an unrepentant fornicator, this saint should've been forbidden from the sacraments? Clearly that wasn't the case in the past, and clearly that's why he's responded very well concerning this subject against the Donatists.
I don't know enough about St Augustine to respond accurately. And my opinion will not effect St Augustine's saintliness. Additionally, we cannot unequivocally say that had St Ambrose forbidden St Augustine from entering the Church, he would not have found God and fought the Donatists another way. The early Christians avoided Saul of Tarsus by all means. I suppose Ananius would have rejected Saul's presence in Damascus if God had not foretold him his plan in a vision. All I can say is the Church has the authority to forbid the sacraments to an unrepentant sinner.
GabrielYakub, like others here have mentioned I also have had my own moments of doubts which is a very normal, again as Bisho stated. But what I did want to tell you is what helped me understand MY faith and my self within that faith was science. While others have told me that science helped them disprove their faith, science has always amazed me and left me questioning everything but my faith. The fact that the world is in a habitable zone (that the Earth is at the right distance from the Sun for it to have life flourish on it...otherwise it would be too hot or too cold). Also, the sheer size of our known universe is baffling. These facts have allowed me to understand that the order in our universe (from what I perceive with my senses and what my reasoning tells me through my experience) cannot have originated or maintained in a haphazard way. Unity and order never come out of chaos and disorder...not unless someone's hand is at work in all of it. The fact that evolution occurs (please don't kill me other forum members! If you feel offended pm me and I'll explain what I mean by that) and brought us to where we are today and that it occurs in every species. The fact that our pupils retract in bright light...sure all these things occur 'naturally' but what does that mean? What or who do you think is at the origin of this? Again, in the known world and in our experience, we know that it does not make sense that something comes from nothing (in the sense that nothing or nobody initiated it).
Take a look at our big brother VY Canis Majoris (which means big dog btw :) )
I don't see our discussion going anywhere or any further, mainly because you have it all wrong. First and foremost, you are in no position to assert what will and what won't convince me that God exists (although I agree with you that it wont be the Bible, the Patristic writings, the clergy, and "basic logic"). Second, science doesn't just claim anything without some actual research and investigation, look up the scientific method if you have to.
Moreover, I never once mentioned anything about reconciling with Coptic Christianity I was referring to the Coptic culture/heritage, but i know how difficult it is for some people to separate the two.
Btw not only does your last post not in anyway resemble an analysis, its also completely irrelevant and based on ignorance (see my response to your first post), hence no reply.
P.S If God couldn't convince me that HE exists, like you said he couldn't, I guess that makes him limited in a way, no? Or maybe since you know me enough to know that even in the face of some ultimate, objective, divine, revelation I would still deny His existence, since God knows and so do you apparently, that I am an intellectually dishonest individual who doesn't actually want to believe in God, because all I want to do is bask in my homosexual lifestyle and sins. I'd ask how you knew that but I'm sure I can just take your word for it.
[quote author=Timothym link=topic=12639.msg148594#msg148594 date=1323230594] Take a look at our big brother VY Canis Majoris (which means big dog btw :) )
I was trying to make the point that I do have a standard of what i consider believable, that I don't arbitrarily dismiss evidence because it could potentially challenge my position as a non-believer.
You're correct, I have believed some of the claims people have made when I myself haven't experienced what they have first hand. I however don't take what they say on faith, I asses how probably their claims are and if I find that they are in fact probable I can accept their word. For example when my friend tells me he's bought a puppy or a new sound system, because it would seem likely, knowing him I would accept that claim. But if my friend told me he met a real life alien on the way to work I'd probably think he's delusional or he's pulling my leg, because obviously it isn't very likely that would have happened. Not all claims are made equally.
I agree that there are certain things that science cannot answer but its the best thing we have so far to analyze our world in an objective way, and no one has provided a better alternative.
Thank you for the link I will check it out when I have time.
[quote author=✞TheGodChrist✞ link=topic=12639.msg148606#msg148606 date=1323237749] [quote author=Timothym link=topic=12639.msg148594#msg148594 date=1323230594] Take a look at our big brother VY Canis Majoris (which means big dog btw :) )
I was trying to make the point that I do have a standard of what i consider believable, that I don't arbitrarily dismiss evidence because it could potentially challenge my position as a non-believer.
You're correct, I have believed some of the claims people have made when I myself haven't experienced what they have first hand. I however don't take what they say on faith, I asses how probably their claims are and if I find that they are in fact probable I can accept their word. For example when my friend tells me he's bought a puppy or a new sound system, because it would seem likely, knowing him I would accept that claim. But if my friend told me he met a real life alien on the way to work I'd probably think he's delusional or he's pulling my leg, because obviously it isn't very likely that would have happened. Not all claims are made equally.
I agree that there are certain things that science cannot answer but its the best thing we have so far to analyze our world in an objective way, and no one has provided a better alternative.
Thank you for the link I will check it out when I have time.
I really appreciate where you're coming from because this is something that use to justify my belief as a Christian on some level also, however it doesn't anymore.
The argument that "Unity and order never come out of chaos and disorder...not unless someone's hand is at work in all of it" does not demonstrate anything unfortunately, as it makes its conclusion by an analogy. For example, ordered and unified things are made deliberately (like when humans make things), the universe is an ordered and unified thing, therefore the universe was made deliberately. Or 'things that can solve math puzzles have brains, my computer can solve math puzzles, therefore my computer has a brain'. An argument by analogy can sound correct but its based on a comparison using probability so it could be VERY wrong.
I'm not too sure whether something can come from nothing or not, though the first law of dynamics says 'Energy can be neither created nor destroyed. It can only change forms'.
I am also in awe at how amazingly complex the human body is and how beautiful the stars and galaxies are, and I wish I studied astronomy instead lol, but this still doesn't convince me that God exists, actually you could make a case for an intelligent designer, which people have, where God isn't the one behind the wonder and the beauty, instead its some alien life, which I reject.
Thanks for the link, I took a quick squiz and it truly is awe inspiring!
[quote author=GabrielYakub link=topic=12639.msg148608#msg148608 date=1323238281]I agree that there are certain things that science cannot answer but its the best thing we have so far to analyze our world in an objective way, and no one has provided a better alternative.
I've skimmed the thread and this is where it all falls apart for you Gabriel. You cannot define God with science - period. We cannot fathom God using our senses, and that is what science is: measurement using our senses. If you cannot accept this, then you will never understand God. I will pray for you and hope you can see this. Please pray for me also.
Energy can be neither created nor destroyed. It can only change forms
This law is based on the world as it exists today. But how this energy, the law is referring to, existed at the time when our world did not exist in the same state as it is today?
Yes but someone had to create and assemble the computer. Even though the computer itself doesn't have a brain you know that it was made by someone who does have a brain, hence the logic and usefulness of the computer to us humans. Even if aliens hypothetically did create the human race, it makes sense that there has to be an ultimate power, an ultimate 'person' behind these aliens unless the aliens themselves are supreme, eternal, omnipotent, omniscient; otherwise someone had to be behind how the aliens came to be...and then the line would continue forever. Whether we call the supreme being, 'God' or aliens or Zeus or whatever, you would still believe in the higher power.
I'm not trying to convince you of anything because in faith matters, I don't believe anyone can really convince you of it, its just something you believe within or not. But this is how I make sense of the world and the universe around me.
I really appreciate where you're coming from because this is something that use to justify my belief as a Christian on some level also, however it doesn't anymore.
The argument that "Unity and order never come out of chaos and disorder...not unless someone's hand is at work in all of it" does not demonstrate anything unfortunately, as it makes its conclusion by an analogy. For example, ordered and unified things are made deliberately (like when humans make things), the universe is an ordered and unified thing, therefore the universe was made deliberately. Or 'things that can solve math puzzles have brains, my computer can solve math puzzles, therefore my computer has a brain'. An argument by analogy can sound correct but its based on a comparison using probability so it could be VERY wrong.
I'm not too sure whether something can come from nothing or not, though the first law of dynamics says 'Energy can be neither created nor destroyed. It can only change forms'.
I am also in awe at how amazingly complex the human body is and how beautiful the stars and galaxies are, and I wish I studied astronomy instead lol, but this still doesn't convince me that God exists, actually you could make a case for an intelligent designer, which people have, where God isn't the one behind the wonder and the beauty, instead its some alien life, which I reject.
Thanks for the link, I took a quick squiz and it truly is awe inspiring!
Comments
Do you mind clarifying what you mean by "I don't believe in God because I'm no longer convinced He exists." It seems to me that there is no content within this saying. I am having my own doubts but even such a statement seems void of meaning to me. It seems like saying I do not believe in God because I no longer believe in God. The lack of belief in God is not caused by the the lack of being convinced that God exists, but rather IS the lack of being convinced that God exists. That still leaves out the reason that you are not convinced.
Are you not convinced maybe because as Hawking put it, "science make God of no use." Or maybe it seems like rubish? I am not trying to pigeon-hole atheism, I am just asking for the reason that you are not convinced.
Everyone has a reason for believing. If you are not convinced of something, you are convinced of something else (unless you believe that the universe is essentially meaningless and that there is nothing to be convinced of). I am supposing that you were raised in a faithful community. What ideology has drawn you away from the belief system of those around you?
I do not feel that to say "I don't believe in God because I'm no longer convinced that He exists" is a valid point. It is like a believer saying "I believe in God because I am convinced that He exists."
I'm just trying to understand, not trying to pigeon-hole or anything of that sort. I am also quite unlearned, so I may have fallen into a misunderstanding in what I said, but that is the way I think.
ReturnOrthodoxy
Would I or any other person be justified in accusing you for having an ulterior motive just because we have a hard time seeing why you wold attend a mosque or a synagogue even though you claim that you would like to learn more about other people's religion as a Copt?
There is a big difference between going to a mosque or synagogue to learn about another religion and going to a mosque or synagogue routinely and calling yourself Coptic. There is nothing wrong with reaching out to other religions. At some point, attendance in no longer based on curiosity but on other motives. Maybe these are not evil motives (at first). But if you really apply the intellectualism you're claiming, along with the Spirit's guidance, you will realize that Islam or Judaism or any other religion is not the truth and it does not come from God. If you continue to attend the functions of these other religions, after this revelation, your actions will devulge your motives. Let me put this way. If you went to a homosexual bar to learn about their environment, would you continue going after you've satisfied your curiosity? And if you continue to go and claim yourself heterosexual, would I not be justified to say you have ulterior motives?
As St James said, "Who is wise and understanding among you? Let him show by good conduct that his works are done in the meekness of wisdom. But if you have bitter envy and self-seeking in your hearts, do not ... lie against the truth. This wisdom does not descend from above, but is earthly, sensual, demonic." I do not see how one can say going to a mosque or a synagogue repeatedly with no intention of converting is "conduct done in the meekness of wisdom." If it is not curiosity and not a desire to convert, then what good conduct could it be? It is not my authority at all. It is the Church's authority to bind and loose. The act of binding in itself means the unrepentant is bound to sin and judgment in eternal life. It also means the church has the authority and choice to accept or reject whomever she will accept.
And if you don't adhere to the Church's authority, there are plenty of verses that show unrepentant sinners will not partake of the banquet. Here are a few.
1. Isaiah 30:15 (NIV) This is what the Sovereign Lord, the Holy One of Israel, says: "In repentance and rest is your salvation, in quietness and trust is your strength, but you would have none of it."
2. 2 Peter 2:21-22 (NIV) It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than to have known it and then to turn their backs on the sacred command that was passed on to them. Of them the proverbs are true: "A dog returns to its own vomit," and "A sow that is washed goes back to wallowing in the mud."
3. Luke 9:62 (NEB) To him Jesus said, "No one who sets his hand to the plow and then keeps looking back is fit for the kingdom of God."
4. Acts 17:30 (NIV) In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent.
5. 2 Tim 2:19 (NIV) "The Lord knows those who are his," and "everyone who confesses the name of the Lord must turn away from wickedness."
6. Luke 10:10 (NIV) But whatever city you enter, and they do not receive you, go out into its streets and say, ‘The very dust of your city which clings to us we wipe off against you... “Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works which were done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago, sitting in sackcloth and ashes.
As you can see, the impenitent will not inherit the Kingdom of God. Since the Church is given the keys of the kingdom, the Church has the authority to refuse the unrepentant.
[qoute] My experience completely contradicts your statement. In addition I think its baseless claims like these, on a public forum that push away and discourage people from even attempting to come back to their own community.
Someone who is looking to "come back to their own community" is by definition repentant or on the process of repentance. And the Church will not refuse them as I said before. But one who insists on continuing their sin and tries to convince the clergy or the people that they have the right to do so is ignorant of the scriptures and patristic writings.
If you are not convinced of something, you are convinced of something else (unless you believe that the universe is essentially meaningless and that there is nothing to be convinced of).
Excellent point RO. It reinforces my concept of ulterior motives.
thank you for the question. Sure, my statement was void of the actual reasons as to why I am not convinced, so I'll share a couple of them with you. When I use to attend church and pray regularly I had moments where I would 'feel' something that i would, at the time, describe as the presence of God. Overtime I began to question how I knew that it was God. I found no good reason except for I 'felt' it was God, and people told me it was. This feeling or 'presence' was essentially at the root of my belief, it no longer satisfied me enough as a reason to believe that God existed. Anecdotal evidence from my parents, the speaker at the pulpit and the bible didn't satisfy me either, I had developed a standard of evidence which my religion could no longer meet.
So as you can see there was no ideology that lead me away, nor was I convinced of something else (in the sense of adopting another belief).
~Gabe
Thanks for the response. However, I still have much reserve. You tell me that you had a standard of evidence which my religion could not meet. However, (and forgive me for saying this) I do not think you have given this religion a chance. Religion is not in your parents (lets not kid our selves, a lot of parents are very odd when it comes to religion), nor does it come from the pulpit (although at times, a priest can be of great service.) The great thing about being orthodox is that we have a wealth of fathers that we can go back to, and see what they said about faith, and religion. You may have embodied God within the church, but as Mike had previously put it, you should realized that the church was made of fallen human beings.
What I am saying is (although I do not know you) based on your description of where you went to find your answers (parents, Sunday school teacher, or priest), you have leave a lot out.
Reading would help you get a lot of these answers you seek. I have read, and fallen in love with Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis. A friend of mine who is doing a PhD. in Theology has recommended that I read The Confessions of Augustine. There are answers. Just because my 4th grade science teacher couldn't explain the theory of relativity, doesn't mean that a university professor also couldn't.
Being Orthodox (and thereby the stress which orthodoxy places on the fathers) is not just because we like to be ancient. It is because those guys are geniuses and express on believable knowledge. We never go to the Bible alone for answers, because we can interpret it wrong. we interpret it in light of the sayings of the fathers. To say that the Bible did not satisfy your thirst for answers is an incomplete statement. It is like not understanding the theory of relativity and to learn it, you just go to the notes which Einstein wrote. if that were all you needed, why were universities erected? You need noted authorities to speak on such matters... The Orthodox Fathers!
What I am saying is that both you and I have much to learn and read. the idea of where faith comes in, is the gift of the Holy Spirit which gives us preparedness to understand what we read, and gives us the desire to learn.
Looking forward to a response from you, Gabe.
ReturnOrthodoxy
So, by the same logic, St. Augustine had no right to enjoy hearing the words of God and its interpretation by St. Ambrose, when St. Augustine's aim during his attendance in the Milan cathedral was to ridicule and destroy the Church? By today's standards, St. Augustine was a militant heretic and atheist, and a very good speaker at that.
We haven't heard St. Ambrose rebuking St. Augustine that only the repentant can enjoy the "rights Christ gives to his Church." He let him stay to hear the words of God, and it was the Truth of God who changed him.
There are no absolutes here. I was speaking in general terms. I cannot unequivocally say St Augustine was an unrepentant sinner as much as you can't unequivocally say his intention was absolutely to destroy the Church. Who knows. He unknowingly may have already been in the process of repentance and St Ambrose was able to recognize that his attacks on the Church were only an expression of momentary weakness.
On the other hand, if we claim the unrepentant sinner is equal to the weak, struggling repentant sinner in the process of repentance, then there would be no need to repent. What benefit would repentance have if the unrepentant is given the same status?
In general terms, as long as one refuses to repent, they will not be treated equally with the repentant. This may mean forbiddenness from services or the Eucharist as punishment or complete excommunication. Once, the unrepentant seeks forgiveness, then the "punishment" is lifted.
Additionally, if we assume all unrepentant sinner should never be banned from the Church because he will eventually repent, why did the Church excommunicate heretics? Was it not because the adjudicated these heretics will not return from their heresy (or sin) and their refusal for repentance was grounds for excommunication? Were they not given ample opportunity for repentance and refused? Is not the consequence of adherence to heresy or sin expulsion from the Church?
This principle of punishment for the unrepentant does not negate or diminish God's mercy and love for the unrepentant sinner. Maybe this is where the unrest and confusion lies.
I never said I was attending those places of worship, it was an analogy that I used to demonstrate your flawed reasoning.
Which still stands.
There is a difference between education and curiosity. I am educating myself. How long will that take? I don't know. But please don't judge me prematurely, its really unfair.
In my experience the Church or at least some Churches (as I haven't been to all of them) have tolerated an "unrepentant" homosexual and atheist. And even if I somehow was going against some ultimate authority, and the bible says that I will be punished in the after-life, that doesn't bother me, because I don't believe in one. But if people really wanted me out, then I'd stop attending because I don't exactly want to be in a place where I'm not wanted.
I came back to my community without being repentant, that should tell you that some people may just want to reconcile with their heritage, or that perhaps some people may just want to learn more about where they come from, not that they are necessarily repentant.
please remember that the response I gave you was a summery of about two or three years, so of course I tried to be as exhaustive as I could at the time.
I do have a lot to learn, and on some level I'm probably missing something (hence my patrology classes and group bible study :) ) additionally I'm open to considering any evidence that people present, however I can't just take 'God exists' on faith, if faith is defined as ' strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof'.
At this point in time I make no claims to knowledge as to whether God exists or not, as some strong atheists do, at this time I don't know if God exists but so far after reassessing my position and considering the evidence and arguments that people have presented I am not convinced.
~Gabe
p.s the Screw Tape Letters was a favorite back in the day as well as Lee Strobel's the Case for Christ. Yet to get my hands on mere Christianity.
I hope that God comes speedily to your aid! They way I see it, the first book you should have read is Mere Christianity. I love that book, and I feel that it may be able to give you the answers you are looking for.
I am happy to hear that you are still open to hearing things, and happier to hear that there is a purpose to your attending Theology courses and Bible study other than simply just being there. You seem to have a genuine desire to know, and I hope that one day, that need is satisfied.
Once more... MERE CHRISTIANITY!!!!!!! A great read.
Please pray for me
ReturnOrthodoxy
This is a sort of reverse engineer their made up belief.
hahaha will definitely get my hands on that book, a few of my friends have offered to lend it to me so I'll be sure to get it off one of them as soon as I can.
You're about the second person whose asked me to pray for them, I don't pray but if it means anything to you, you're in my thoughts.
~Gabe
[quote author=Biboboy link=topic=12639.msg148537#msg148537 date=1323196022]
So, by the same logic, St. Augustine had no right to enjoy hearing the words of God and its interpretation by St. Ambrose, when St. Augustine's aim during his attendance in the Milan cathedral was to ridicule and destroy the Church? By today's standards, St. Augustine was a militant heretic and atheist, and a very good speaker at that.
We haven't heard St. Ambrose rebuking St. Augustine that only the repentant can enjoy the "rights Christ gives to his Church." He let him stay to hear the words of God, and it was the Truth of God who changed him.
There are no absolutes here. I was speaking in general terms. I cannot unequivocally say St Augustine was an unrepentant sinner as much as you can't unequivocally say his intention was absolutely to destroy the Church. Who knows. He unknowingly may have already been in the process of repentance and St Ambrose was able to recognize that his attacks on the Church were only an expression of momentary weakness.
On the other hand, if we claim the unrepentant sinner is equal to the weak, struggling repentant sinner in the process of repentance, then there would be no need to repent. What benefit would repentance have if the unrepentant is given the same status?
In general terms, as long as one refuses to repent, they will not be treated equally with the repentant. This may mean forbiddenness from services or the Eucharist as punishment or complete excommunication. Once, the unrepentant seeks forgiveness, then the "punishment" is lifted.
Additionally, if we assume all unrepentant sinner should never be banned from the Church because he will eventually repent, why did the Church excommunicate heretics? Was it not because the adjudicated these heretics will not return from their heresy (or sin) and their refusal for repentance was grounds for excommunication? Were they not given ample opportunity for repentance and refused? Is not the consequence of adherence to heresy or sin expulsion from the Church?
This principle of punishment for the unrepentant does not negate or diminish God's mercy and love for the unrepentant sinner. Maybe this is where the unrest and confusion lies.
I have never heard of this principle of punishment. What you're describing here sounds very much like the καθαροι of the Novationist and Donatist sects, and not Orthodox Christianity.
Excommunication of heretics has to do with their claim that what they believe in matters of doctrine are actually Orthodox Christianity. After huge discussions in multiple councils, where a person can defend his/her opinions, then it is judged whether a person has excommunicated himself from the Orthodox church or is still an Orthodox Christian. What a council does in saying "anathema" to a heretic is to admit what the person has done to him/herself in stubbornly affirming that their opinion is Orthodox dogma.
The Church doesn't go out witch hunting. It offers mercy, grace, and love to all, and when the Lord shakes the heart of a person who is sinning or is in error, then that person will repent. The Church cannot demand repentance - that demand is from God, not from the Church. The Church is the means - and the only means - by which repentance could be found.
As with St. Augustine, I'm afraid you're mistaken. We know a lot about him because of his book, the Confessions. He has a lot to say about his opinions on the Church before he converted, even of his impressions of St. Ambrose (see Book V:13-14). I would encourage you, and everyone else here, to read that book.
Question:
What would Your Grace's answer be, if asked by a hardcore skeptical atheist about your beliefs? Reasoning must be a completely rational and intellectual explanation without any reference to the Holy Bible or any other spiritual resources.
Answer:
Mercy, compassion, peace, truth, sacrifice, love, justice, perseverance, hope, forgiveness, righteousness, and eternal life are all in the beautiful and divine hands of our Lord Jesus Christ only. The Almighty loving God, who is above all time, has appeared in the flesh to lessen our burdens and fulfill His promises. What other concept of a god can even compare? Atheism, with all its self-proclaimed intellect, pathetically attempts to replace the true God with a temporary deception of inferior knowledge and self-reliance. People admire celebrities who model charity, parents who sacrifice for their children, authorities who parade humility, officials who exhibit justice, dignitaries who design treaties for peace, and highlight every occasion that alludes to a better human race, but shun the answer of a perfect God Who has placed in the hearts of humans an intangible desire of change for the better. Jesus Christ is the only God Who is distinguished with every noble quality. Throughout time, what other figure has changed the world as did our Lord Jesus Christ? He purposely lived a simple life and chose unpretentious disciples to share the Good News. In His meekness, He has enriched us; while Atheism has inflated the mind but impoverished the soul. Note the altruistic actions of a child untainted by the corruption and cynicism of the vanities of the world. We are God's children, so blessed and grateful to have a God, Who is above all time and has appeared in the flesh to pay our debts and restore us back to Him.
Please visit www.suscopts.org/resources/literature/search/?q=atheism. You will find four articles and one power point presentation on the subject.
This is from H.G. Bishop Youssef of the Southern USA.
Link:
http://www.suscopts.org/q&a/index.php?qid=1679
✞✞✞
What I am describing has nothing to do with Novatianism or Donatism. Nor do I believe that the καθαροι are the only ones who will inherit the kingdom of God. We all sin, no one is blameless or sinless except Jesus Christ.
What I am describing is one who commits a sin and refuses to repent. Until he repents, he cannot be saved. Refusing to repent, at its core, is denying Orthodox faith. It is claiming that an action that the Orthodox Church defines as sin is incorrect and that person knows more than the Church. This is not much different from a heretic who believes his doctrine is Orthodox.
Regarding punishment and forbiddenness, the Church doesn't go on a witch hunt. It is the arrogance of the unrepentant who insists the Church must accept him without changing. If someone refuses to repent from homosexuality and insists on receiving communion, what do you think the priest would do? Say yes or forbid his communion? This is what I'm talking about. This does not mean the priest or the Church is acting against God's mercy and love.
I'm sorry to tell you this, but what you've described is exactly on par with Donatism.
The only time I've seen a priest (a monk-priest to be specific) not allow someone to take communion was when the girls had lipstick on their mouths. That priest was then returned to the monastery by the bishop and has not been permitted to pray any liturgies.
No priest would stand there giving out the Body and Blood after making them go through an inquisition: they won't stand there and ask every person in queue if they've ever lied, fornicated, killed, swore, etc. and repented of it before they give them communion.
However, it is the responsibility of the person approaching communion to ask for forgiveness for sins committed knowingly and unknowingly, the hidden and the manifest.
Back to St. Augustine: he used to enjoy fornicating with women. He would even pray to God saying: "Grant me chastity," but then he would add, "but not yet." Do you think that as an unrepentant fornicator, this saint should've been forbidden from the sacraments? Clearly that wasn't the case in the past, and clearly that's why he's responded very well concerning this subject against the Donatists.
Remenkemi,
I never said I was attending those places of worship, it was an analogy that I used to demonstrate your flawed reasoning.
Which still stands.
Of course my reasoning is flawed. Nothing meets your arbitrary standard of evidence - neither the Bible, the Patristic writings, the clergy, God, basic logic or anything else. I don't expect you to respond to the list of biblical verses. But you avoided my analysis of ulterior motives and my questions following it. I wonder if science explicitly claimed God exists, would that satisfy your standard of evidence? Probably not. If you think you can separate Coptic Orthodox heritage from Coptic Orthodox faith, you're greatly delusional. If you think you can successfully reconcile atheism with Coptic Christianity, you are only fooling yourself. Then again, what do I know. My reasoning will is flawed.
Remenkimi,
I'm sorry to tell you this, but what you've described is exactly on par with Donatism.
Bibo, we are obviously not agreeing on the definition of Donatism. This is from Wikipedia:
"the Donatists were rigorists, holding that the church must be a church of "saints," not "sinners," and that sacraments, such as baptism, administered by traditores were invalid."
And here's another definition from the web:
"Donatism was the idea taught by Donatus, bishop of Casae Nigrae that the effectiveness of the sacraments depends on the moral character of the minister. In other words, if a minister who was involved in a serious enough sin were to baptize a person, that baptism would be considered invalid. "
I already stated everyone has sinned. I never stated anything about the validity of sacraments. Maybe we should clarify these definitions before we proceed. I don't know who you're talking about. But I can tell you with certainty that priests have forbidden parishioners from communion if they refused to repent. Your example has nothing to do with repentance and this monk's reprimand is probably due to his cultural misunderstanding of physical adornment. How do you explain Pope Demetrius' actions?
God was with Abba Demetrius because of his purity. God granted him a gift that after he finished the Liturgy and the people came forward to partake of the Holy Mysteries, he used to see the Lord Christ pushing forward with His Hand those who were worthy. But if one came forward who was not worthy of partaking of the Holy Communion, the Lord would reveal to the Pope his sins and the Pope would not allow him to partake of it until he confessed his sins. The Pope would admonish him for them and would say to him, "Turn away from your sin and repent, after that come and partake of the Holy Mysteries." His flocks conduct was straightened during his time.
Even if you're inclined to believe the Synaxarium has a tendency to be wrong or inaccurate, how do you reconcile the commandment every priest recites on his ordination?
" My son, take care of yourself and guard this valuable jewel [the Eucharist] as the Cherubim guarded the tree of life. Be alert about these Mysteries and treat them with caution to rid yourself from crisis. Do not give them except to the righteous, good and pure. Forbid whoever is an evil doer, so he does not bring upon himself condemnation, and you become the reason of guilt, sharing in the sin he committed by receiving Holy Communion in an unworthy manner." Source I don't know enough about St Augustine to respond accurately. And my opinion will not effect St Augustine's saintliness. Additionally, we cannot unequivocally say that had St Ambrose forbidden St Augustine from entering the Church, he would not have found God and fought the Donatists another way. The early Christians avoided Saul of Tarsus by all means. I suppose Ananius would have rejected Saul's presence in Damascus if God had not foretold him his plan in a vision. All I can say is the Church has the authority to forbid the sacraments to an unrepentant sinner.
Take a look at our big brother VY Canis Majoris (which means big dog btw :) )
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4iD-9GSW-0&feature=related
I don't see our discussion going anywhere or any further, mainly because you have it all wrong. First and foremost, you are in no position to assert what will and what won't convince me that God exists (although I agree with you that it wont be the Bible, the Patristic writings, the clergy, and "basic logic"). Second, science doesn't just claim anything without some actual research and investigation, look up the scientific method if you have to.
Moreover, I never once mentioned anything about reconciling with Coptic Christianity I was referring to the Coptic culture/heritage, but i know how difficult it is for some people to separate the two.
Btw not only does your last post not in anyway resemble an analysis, its also completely irrelevant and based on ignorance (see my response to your first post), hence no reply.
P.S If God couldn't convince me that HE exists, like you said he couldn't, I guess that makes him limited in a way, no? Or maybe since you know me enough to know that even in the face of some ultimate, objective, divine, revelation I would still deny His existence, since God knows and so do you apparently, that I am an intellectually dishonest individual who doesn't actually want to believe in God, because all I want to do is bask in my homosexual lifestyle and sins. I'd ask how you knew that but I'm sure I can just take your word for it.
~Gabe out.
You cannot put God under the microscope, in other words you cannot limit what is limitless.
You believe in many things based on others reports, not because you yourself verified their existence. You base your belief on the faith of others'.
There are certain things science cannot answer, yet we take it for granted.
A good source that may help you is
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608b.htm
Take a look at our big brother VY Canis Majoris (which means big dog btw :) )
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4iD-9GSW-0&feature=related
Stunning...
✞✞✞
I was trying to make the point that I do have a standard of what i consider believable, that I don't arbitrarily dismiss evidence because it could potentially challenge my position as a non-believer.
You're correct, I have believed some of the claims people have made when I myself haven't experienced what they have first hand. I however don't take what they say on faith, I asses how probably their claims are and if I find that they are in fact probable I can accept their word. For example when my friend tells me he's bought a puppy or a new sound system, because it would seem likely, knowing him I would accept that claim. But if my friend told me he met a real life alien on the way to work I'd probably think he's delusional or he's pulling my leg, because obviously it isn't very likely that would have happened. Not all claims are made equally.
I agree that there are certain things that science cannot answer but its the best thing we have so far to analyze our world in an objective way, and no one has provided a better alternative.
Thank you for the link I will check it out when I have time.
[quote author=Timothym link=topic=12639.msg148594#msg148594 date=1323230594]
Take a look at our big brother VY Canis Majoris (which means big dog btw :) )
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4iD-9GSW-0&feature=related
Stunning...
Wow! Glory be to God.
Imikhail,
I was trying to make the point that I do have a standard of what i consider believable, that I don't arbitrarily dismiss evidence because it could potentially challenge my position as a non-believer.
You're correct, I have believed some of the claims people have made when I myself haven't experienced what they have first hand. I however don't take what they say on faith, I asses how probably their claims are and if I find that they are in fact probable I can accept their word. For example when my friend tells me he's bought a puppy or a new sound system, because it would seem likely, knowing him I would accept that claim. But if my friend told me he met a real life alien on the way to work I'd probably think he's delusional or he's pulling my leg, because obviously it isn't very likely that would have happened. Not all claims are made equally.
I agree that there are certain things that science cannot answer but its the best thing we have so far to analyze our world in an objective way, and no one has provided a better alternative.
Thank you for the link I will check it out when I have time.
Gabe,
Do you want there to be a God?
✞✞✞
I really appreciate where you're coming from because this is something that use to justify my belief as a Christian on some level also, however it doesn't anymore.
The argument that "Unity and order never come out of chaos and disorder...not unless someone's hand is at work in all of it" does not demonstrate anything unfortunately, as it makes its conclusion by an analogy. For example, ordered and unified things are made deliberately (like when humans make things), the universe is an ordered and unified thing, therefore the universe was made deliberately. Or 'things that can solve math puzzles have brains, my computer can solve math puzzles, therefore my computer has a brain'. An argument by analogy can sound correct but its based on a comparison using probability so it could be VERY wrong.
I'm not too sure whether something can come from nothing or not, though the first law of dynamics says 'Energy can be neither created nor destroyed. It can only change forms'.
I am also in awe at how amazingly complex the human body is and how beautiful the stars and galaxies are, and I wish I studied astronomy instead lol, but this still doesn't convince me that God exists, actually you could make a case for an intelligent designer, which people have, where God isn't the one behind the wonder and the beauty, instead its some alien life, which I reject.
Thanks for the link, I took a quick squiz and it truly is awe inspiring!
~Gabe
I've skimmed the thread and this is where it all falls apart for you Gabriel. You cannot define God with science - period. We cannot fathom God using our senses, and that is what science is: measurement using our senses. If you cannot accept this, then you will never understand God. I will pray for you and hope you can see this. Please pray for me also.
what do you mean by define God with science? and Fathom God with our senses?
~Gabe
I'm not trying to convince you of anything because in faith matters, I don't believe anyone can really convince you of it, its just something you believe within or not. But this is how I make sense of the world and the universe around me.
[quote author=GabrielYakub link=topic=12639.msg148612#msg148612 date=1323240894]
Hey Timothym,
I really appreciate where you're coming from because this is something that use to justify my belief as a Christian on some level also, however it doesn't anymore.
The argument that "Unity and order never come out of chaos and disorder...not unless someone's hand is at work in all of it" does not demonstrate anything unfortunately, as it makes its conclusion by an analogy. For example, ordered and unified things are made deliberately (like when humans make things), the universe is an ordered and unified thing, therefore the universe was made deliberately. Or 'things that can solve math puzzles have brains, my computer can solve math puzzles, therefore my computer has a brain'. An argument by analogy can sound correct but its based on a comparison using probability so it could be VERY wrong.
I'm not too sure whether something can come from nothing or not, though the first law of dynamics says 'Energy can be neither created nor destroyed. It can only change forms'.
I am also in awe at how amazingly complex the human body is and how beautiful the stars and galaxies are, and I wish I studied astronomy instead lol, but this still doesn't convince me that God exists, actually you could make a case for an intelligent designer, which people have, where God isn't the one behind the wonder and the beauty, instead its some alien life, which I reject.
Thanks for the link, I took a quick squiz and it truly is awe inspiring!
~Gabe