Choosing a faith

Still, it's good to be moving up. Sure, I think it is core to my Christian faith. You seem to hold the view that religion is simply about doing well in the next life. For me it's a road map for this life. I'll let God worry about what comes next and trust in His perfect justice. I'm confident that perfect judgement is concerned with our hearts and not our theology. How about the "spiritual but not religious groups". There are lots of theists that don't adhere to any religion. I don't know what verses you are referring to but Jesus only mention 2 people that have great faith. One was a Samaritan woman and one was a Roman Centurion. The social Gospel has always been a part of the Christian faith. I do think that we can look to Jesus as the "way" we should live; I do believe that Jesus displays the "truth" about God and I do believe that following Jesus give us "life" as God intended it. I don't disagree that many have taken that to be about the next life, but I contend that is taking it beyond what was intended. Probably true but it should not be the primary message. Firstly, go ahead and quote chapter and verse. Secondly, I'm hardly alone. My views are actually pretty close to the early church before Rome got involved as written about by Alan Kreider in his bookThe Patient Ferment. Also I'm something of a fan of people like Rob Bell and Brian McLaren and the THe Emerging ChurchHave none. Just observational.

No, I couldn't be bothered. Read the article I provided ... I assume u can read English.

There. Fixed it for you. You were so close. Yes, it is quite that simple. Non-evidenced conclusions are called emotions. Emotion has proven a drastically faulty foundation for decisions of life and death and equity and justice and ...Stile is right. If you seriously wanted to identify the truth about reality you would follow our best (only) method for identifying that reality. Emotion is not it. Bad representation of what science does in reality. Scientists have expectations (hypotheses) about what data they may find. That hardly rises to the emotionally laden and intellectually deficient concept of speculation. And, no, if you read the scientific papers you will find that what they are trying to do is find the bullet that kills their own hypothesis.That is what scientists do - find ways to show how wrong they are. It isn't done. That is the point. If there is no scientific way of proving a point to be valid then the point isn't valid. It has no effect upon the universe. Any concept dependant on an invalid point will soon be discarded because it starts giving bad answers.No response necessary. I know you're deep into it here and I just wanted to correct your misunderstandings for the peanut gallery.

I think you believe that there is some kind of afterlife/heaven don’t you? That’s a fairly standard Christian belief. And although you say that you leave the procedure for getting there to god, I think you believe that in order to get there you need to live a decent life here on earth?You also say, I think, that it’s not necessary to be a Christian and believe and do all the things Christians do and believe in order to get there? So I’m trying to understand why you need the religion at all? We can all live to the golden rule without all the hocus pocus and worship etc. It seems to me that in your personal belief system the religious element is irrelevant except as a kind of hobby. But it is, isn’t it? What you want it to be is not the message that has been preached for thousands of years. You’re forming your own branch of liberal Anglicanism. Well ok, you’re not the first to do this, there are tens of thousands of Christian denominations, you all take what suits you from the believe system, but maybe you can understand our confusion and frustration. They aren’t theists, they’re people abandoning formal religion and instead taking up a general wuzzy idea that there’s something greater than the self. Theists believe in a religious god that intervenes in the universe. The rest of that verse is “No one can come to the father except though me” That’s interpreted as following Jesus gets you eternal life. The other side of that is that not following Jesus does not. Again it’s pretty damn clear.

I can't speak for GDR, but in my mind, the most definite reason is Jesus Himself.

How is that a reason?

Im guessing that when you took communion you thought it was only a cracker. Others feel differently. By the way, when are we gonna go fishing?

Thanks. For a believer, sure. Believe what you want. But for a historian conducting systematic evidence-based research that's a horrible methodology. I'm debating you, not websites. I didn't look at the website but suspect you've got it wrong, the one sentence you quoted notwithstanding.But I shouldn't have to wonder whether you interpreted a website correctly. I should be able to read your own thinking in your own words where you only use websites as supporting references. If you want to argue from a position of everything historical that's been written is evidence then say that and we'll go from there. I'm not going to play Biblical apologetics with you, but regarding mountains, the entire Dead Sea region is extremely rugged and mountainous, despite its low elevation. If you truly don't believe Masada is in a mountainous region then watch just the very beginning of this video showing the mountainous topography: What you quoted from me isn't about that at all, and you've got my position on the Bible completely backwards. I don't reject anything in the Bible out of hand. I'm a Wittgenstein disciple: Of that which one cannot speak one must remain silent. In other words, don't draw conclusions without seeking and evaluating the evidence.But what you quoted wasn't me saying anything about my own opinion of the Bible. It was me commenting on the way you think about the Bible, which is arbitrary and driven from within. Your own internal feelings are driving how you interpret the Bible. There's no objectivity, and certainly no evidence, behind your conclusions. Maybe you should read what I wrote. I was commenting to Tangle on the principles of historical study that Ehrman espouses and that I thought it would benefit you to watch it. I said nothing about what Ehrman believes about Jesus. Here's the video I was commenting on: I'm going to stop replying to your post now. I haven't read the rest of it, I appreciate that you tried, but so far most of what you've said is either wrong or misinterprets what you quoted or responds to a completely different point than what you quoted. This isn't going in a constructive direction.--Percy

Brits call them wafers. But no, when I took communion I thought it was the body of Christ because that's what I'd been told ever since I could speak. I don't think it made much sense to me even then but I thought it was important.But of course now I know it to be nonsense, just like you do. Only Catholics believe it to be the actual body of Christ. Crazy people.But GDR tells me that anyone that leads a good life will be ok in the next so why bother with the crackers/wafers? I'll be chest deep in the Rio Grande, Argentina in February, there's a spare rod if you want it?

What does that even mean?

And that is literally all the site says about written evidence. In no way is it implying or suggesting that what the written sources wrote is factual. A huge caveat that it does not touch on is provenance. It also does not state that we put different weight on different sources, dependent on many variables. This webpage is written at a grade school level. You should feel ashamed that you presented it as some sort of support for your clear and unfathomable misunderstanding about history and historical resources.
I know you refuse to interact with me, but if you want to discuss historical sources I can teach you quite a bit.

I have done the climb to Masada. We started at about 4 in the morning to escape the heat of the day. It takes a few hours, depending on the trail you take and your conditioning, to get to the top.
I have also been to En Gedi nearby. This whole area on the shores of the Dead Sea has the feel of mountains.

I know you can't because you have no argument. No. If you have an argument, bring it here in your own words. I, on the other hand, conclude that YOU can NOT read English with any kind of comprehension.

[ If you have evidence you essentially dont have (or use) belief.

No worries, mate. Yes, this is a very natural and normal thing to do.
Then comes the question: what do you want to prioritize out of "things that are shown to be valid?"

1. Do you want the truth about reality above how you feel or want things to be?
2. Do you want an answer quickly?
3. Do you want confirmation that what you "feel is right" actually is right?
4. Do you want a comforting feeling, regardless of how much the feeling matches reality?

I want all 4.However, I prioritize #1 over the others - because I want to know how things actually are and deal with other issues from there.If you really do want to prioritize #1... then you have to go beyond what's natural and normal to do. You have to put in more work. You have to make the effort to analyze and search for all results... not just the ones that confirm your feelings or give you comfort. Really? We have in the balance one of the most important (I'm guessing?) things in this existence - your immortal soul - and that's it? You're fine just waiting around until you just happen to find something that maybe points to the contrary?To me, when I'm interested in the truth of reality - I do the work.
I talk to other people who are experts in the subject.
I do Google searches.
I read things that make parts of my brain recoil in disgust as they are not traditional or "normal" to me.
I take the time to go and look and search because I want to know if it's real or not - regardless of how uncomfortable or uneasy it makes me feel.If you don't do those things - I suggest, again, that #1 isn't your priority. And something more like #2 or #3 or #4 is your priority.
This is not necessarily a "bad thing" - there are times I do not prioritize #1. Like if I'm in a hurry... then I'll jump to a conclusion I feel is right to move on quickly. And sometimes it turns out I'm right. And other times I end up losing more time then if I simply stopped and put in the work to figure it out in the first place...But, it is nice to know what you're doing and why you're doing it.When I want to know the truth about reality - I do everything in my power to chase that goal. And here we see one of your priorities coming to the surface..
Perhaps this is a #3 or a #4.
But, really, there's no way for you tell if God is influencing your decision or if Satan is tricking you.
And, yet... you seem confident enough to create a rationalization (with no connection to reality) that matches your existing, comforting beliefs on the matter.Clearly you are not prioritizing "getting to the truth" of this matter... but more prioritizing something like "that makes my brain feel better..." as the rationalization matches your past experiences.And, as long as you're not hurting anyone, I don't care if you want to prioritize feeling comfortable with your rationalization over looking at reality. It doesn't really matter. But, it does clearly show the difference between "looking for the truth of reality" vs. "believing in something that feels right to me." What are you talking about? I mean that seriously - what, specifically, are you talking about? Can you give me an example?There are some very, very non-important things that I will come to non-evidenced conclusions about knowing full well that others will come to entirely different conclusions..." Like "where do I want the family to go to dinner tonight?" I don't really care. I like spending time with the family - so I make damn sure that this happens... but I don't care where we actually go for food. I might pick one (not based on evidence, but based on how I'm feeling at the time...) to move things along... and it's fine if others come to different conclusions - who cares?Can you suggest an important example, though? Something you're actually talking about here?Something like "does God exist?"-I do not come to a non-evidenced conclusion about this.
I come to a very evidenced conclusion that "God does not exist."Yes, many others come to non-evidenced conclusions that God does exist... with (extremely) varying, and contradictory concepts of what "God" actually is.But that has no issues on my evidenced conclusion that God does not exist. If there is no scientific way of proving a point to be valid.. what makes you think the point is worth investigating at all?
Examples of points that cannot be scientifically proven to be valid:
-making a 4-sided triangle
-colliding an unstoppable object into an immovable wallNotice how they are illogical imaginary things. They are unevidenced to even exist.
They sound an awful lot like:
-God influences the decisions we make
-God wants us to be good
-God existsAll these things have no connection to reality in any way. They are all just imagined, made-up ideas.
What makes you think they are worth investigating?Now, these things are worth investigating:
-how many sides does a triangle have?
-how many objects can we make with 4 sides?
-is it possible to have an unstoppable movement?
-is it possible to have an immovable object?
-what influences our decisions?
-why should we be good?
-do we have to be good?These are all excellent questions, and they all have evidenced answers.
Some of those answers do not "feel very good" as they do not match our pre-conceived notions of what those answers "should feel like."
Some of those answers are "here's what we know so far... but please stay tuned as we are still working on the research..." Which goes back to prioritizing quick-answers (#2) over reality-connected-answers (#1)It all depends on your priorities - to you want to be as close as possible to reality with your answers?
-you may need to sacrifice your desire to want an answer "right now"
-you may need to sacrifice your desire to confirm your pet theory
-you may need to sacrifice feeling comfortable with your own conclusionsSome of us follow our best-way-of-knowing-things (evidenced answers) and use those conclusions (making the above sacrifices.)
Others will use non-evidenced imagination to create their own answers that confirm their feelings or are comfortable for them... and they've been shown to be ignorant of reality. Such people make other sacrifices... one if which is "ensuring the answer is connected to reality!" What makes you think that all questions deserve an answer?Is it because you want an answer? That you feel you need one?
I don't think those are good reasons. Not even philosophically.