Christians - Aware you worship a virgin?

[downbeatplumb]

No, I was not aware that Jesus was a virgin. But here I thought he had sex with Mary Magdalene.

I agree with you saerules, if jesus was born from a virgin mother, jesus would not have no Y gene present in his development.

I was under that impression too, damn you Jesus Christ - Superstar!

Nah he was probably humping Peter 'His rock', sounds like a euphamism to me.

[fr0d0]

Well faith is a virtue in itself yes. Belief not so.

To state that the bible isn't the word of God and also 3rd person is naive of you if you don't mind me saying, and unworthy of you. Although I do understand you do display extreme ignorance of this subject at times, so I believe you are sincere.

We authenticate God using standardised methods laid down in the bible.

[Amphora]

What standardised methods are these, that you say that are laid down in the bible frodo? I am interested in what you have to say.

[fr0d0]

Wanna skip to the end of the story huh Amph ...tut tut!

[Amphora]

No, I am interested in what you have to say. What standardised methods that the bible uses on it's people. But if you are going to go around like a chicken with it's head cut off fine, that is your choice!

[fr0d0]

Good to see you're keeping an open minded Amph ...

[chatpilot]

chatpilot let me ask you this. Do you believe the author of the book of matthew existed?
Ledo I don't deny that they're could have been many who had the title "son of man". History has a tendency to repeat itself and I fully accept your definition. How many of those with the title Claim to be God incarnate on earth or part of the holy trinity?

Yes tackattack, someone obviously had to write it. I don't believe it was the Matthew that the book is attributed to in the New Testament, but that is a different story.

[tackattack]

No, I am interested in what you have to say. What standardised methods that the bible uses on it's people. But if you are going to go around like a chicken with it's head cut off fine, that is your choice!

Since you're interested and I'm feeling talkative, I'll give one of my test of faith that I use. The bible teaches of victorius faith. Faith won to phrase it differently. It can't be won unless there is a battle or a counter to the faith. Coming to this site is testing my faith quite a bit if I can be a little candid. I don't seek truth timidly though. The bible calls trials and tribulations tests of faith. Coming away from trials and unfortunate events and having them be used to strengthen me and better someone else's life is one test I use for my experiences.

Belief in belief would be 3rd person and not personal to yourself. By this you assume non direct contact with a deity. Biblical reference is 3rd person without taking anything directly upon yourself. Again if you find a direct communication via the text isn't that 1st person? Christianity is always 1st person.

From first person anyone is capable of believing whatever he likes. And so believing in belief is possible from first person. You may not really believe all the crap in the bible, while still attributing positive value to the phenomenon of belief. Nowhere does 3rd person enter the room.

If biblical reference is a 3rd person account, the claim (pretty central in most versions of christianity) that it is the word of god is false.

Christianity is a religion, not an account that can be characterized as 1st or 3rd person. If you ever get that hotline with god himself how do you authenticate him?

I don't define the Bible as the word of God (although my mother and I argue over this constantly). I define the Bible as the word of God as best captured by man's perception.

Belief in belief would be 3rd person and not personal to yourself. By this you assume non direct contact with a deity. Biblical reference is 3rd person without taking anything directly upon yourself. Again if you find a direct communication via the text isn't that 1st person? Christianity is always 1st person.

Agreed, Christianity is always best if first person.

I feel I have an "experience" that is unconveyable. The sum of which is as follows: I have some books, some tests I've ran against God, some peronal logical conclusions about my perception of the world I live in, unexplainable phenomenon, etc all adding up to my "experience". I don't think that's belief in belief, I think that's Belief in my perception of the world as it affects me. It studiable, peer reviewable and follows logical progression in my mind.

Nothing of what you mention on the "input side" is alien to me (including unexplainable phenomena). But there is no straight argument to the "output side" (i.e. god) of the equation you make. The will to arrive at that conclusion is what shines through as belief in belief. Before you can ever hope to begin to make a distinction between hope and truth, you must be willing to question the evidential basis for such hope and differentiate between little evidence for big claims and ample evidence for little claims. It will be your truth that you have to act upon for the rest of your life and with your background it is to be expected that long held convictions will be shaken when assessed with unbiased questioning. A forum like this is a good place to do it.

So the will to arrive at the truth is belief in belief? If that's your definition I'll agree to that. My background? I've doubted my parents, doubted god, searched other God, been content with no God, my only "longheld convictions" are the convictions I hold at this moment. The only way to really seek truth is to have a solid anchor in the now with a keen eye on the past in my opinion.

If all I can hand you is some "blurry photos" of God and tell you the story of how I saw him "running through the woods humping an elk" (I really liked using the bigfoot metaphor ) you're still not going to believe it because you can't justify my credibility because of our differences in perception or "cut open the carcass yourself". I'm content to just agree that you see things you way do and I mine. I'm not really here to prove God to anyone or sway anyone aware from atheism (not that I have that anywhere close to that amount of brain power) . I'm just trying to understand atheism as a perspective and some aspects of science I don't fully comprehend from some really intellegent and thoughtfull people (nice to but that's not a requirement).

I see you are not the proselytizing kind. You come here with questions. And we (speaking for the atheists here that have reacted) attack them, fiercely I might add. Indeed science is not the only answer on life, there's moral, there's art and there's reverence to life and the universe. Just don't think atheists are without this.

Of course I would assume no such thing. Fiercly is very welcome as long as it's kept above a certain board of civility.

[chatpilot]

I considered my departure from belief in the biblical god and the practice of religion as a sort of awakening. I have been an atheist going on about 15 years now, and the more I study it the more I become disappointed with myself for being duped. Because of my great curiosity I always felt oppressed. There were just some questions that you are not supposed to ask your minister without incurring some sort of chastisement, or being told how the devil is trying to destroy your faith through your mind.

I was not content with such euphemisms as "god works in mysterious ways" or "who are you to question god" etc. In fact, these euphemisms made me even more curious and in fact more daring in the pursuit of truth when it came to the things of god. Becoming an atheist was a long slow process for me, One that I embarked on with great fear and trepidation. It wasn't till I came across a book whose title eludes me at this time written by a minister in California that was in total agreement with me on most of the so called charismatic gifts and manifestations of the holy spirit. My greatest doubts began there since in our church the cultivation of the gifts of the spirit was encouraged and practiced.

The first thing I did when I left the church was to question all of the so called manifestations of the holy spirit that I had practiced and witnessed myself in my ministry. I read books on hypnosis, psychology, psychiatry, philosophy, mythology, etc. Searching for answers. To my surprise I found many to most of my personal experiences. The so called experiencing god in my view is subjective and unreliable. Feelings and emotions are subjective and cannot be in any way constituted as proof of the existence of god. This is most evident in other cultures and religions worldwide where they practice spirit possession etc.

[theVOID]

I considered my departure from belief in the biblical god and the practice of religion as a sort of awakening. I have been an atheist going on about 15 years now, and the more I study it the more I become disappointed with myself for being duped. Because of my great curiosity I always felt oppressed. There were just some questions that you are not supposed to ask your minister without incurring some sort of chastisement, or being told how the devil is trying to destroy your faith through your mind.

I was not content with such euphemisms as "god works in mysterious ways" or "who are you to question god" etc. In fact, these euphemisms made me even more curious and in fact more daring in the pursuit of truth when it came to the things of god. Becoming an atheist was a long slow process for me, One that I embarked on with great fear and trepidation. It wasn't till I came across a book whose title eludes me at this time written by a minister in California that was in total agreement with me on most of the so called charismatic gifts and manifestations of the holy spirit. My greatest doubts began there since in our church the cultivation of the gifts of the spirit was encouraged and practiced.

The first thing I did when I left the church was to question all of the so called manifestations of the holy spirit that I had practiced and witnessed myself in my ministry. I read books on hypnosis, psychology, psychiatry, philosophy, mythology, etc. Searching for answers. To my surprise I found many to most of my personal experiences. The so called experiencing god in my view is subjective and unreliable. Feelings and emotions are subjective and cannot be in any way constituted as proof of the existence of god. This is most evident in other cultures and religions worldwide where they practice spirit possession etc.

Interesting story Chatpilot, did your life change much outside of church?