# Questions about Christianity from a confused agnostic **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 27, 2006, 12:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-christianity-from-a-confused-agnostic/346300 "2006-02-27T12:50:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2006, 11:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-christianity-from-a-confused-agnostic/346300/101 "2006-03-04T11:52:52Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > The Book of Life is a metaphor for the belief that God decides who will die during the next year. I don’t know where you got the idea of biology from. I remember precious little discussion of immortal souls and heaven. Not dying during the next year was an end to itself. I know that’s not your view, but that was my religious upbringing, and I rather liked it. I do not doubt your veracity, but I am surprised that it was taught to you that way. “The Book of Life” is a phrase used by David in his Psalm 69. It is a song about rescue, redemption, and salvation. It rejoices over God’s goodness in the midst of terrible suffering. (“I am in pain and distress; may your salvation, O God, protect me.” v. 29). It is a scathing indictment of those who do injustice. It denies them salvation, and contrasts them with the righteous. (“May they be blotted out of the Book of Life and not be listed with the righteous.” v. 28). It declares that God is saving not one man, but all of Zion. (“For God will save Zion and rebuild the cities of Judah.” v. 35). It isn’t at all about living one more year in misery and squalor; it is about living forever in the loving grace of God (“Rhe children of his servants will inherit [Zion], and those who love his name will dwell there.” v. 36). > [@](#): > > If Jesus is equivalent to God, (being one) I don’t get why we can’t pray directly to God instead of Jesus. if there is a god, I don’t buy that he turned a deaf ear when I was praying to him directly because I used the wrong name and was in the wrong house of worship. As for direct experiences with Jesus, my temporal lobe must be woefully underdeveloped, because I don’t have these types of experiences. Not even when I’ve fasted. If Jesus did try to visit, he bounced off my invisible shield of extreme rationality. This is the same reason I was never tempted to try even the mildest form of drugs. Not virtue, just wiring. If Jesus is equivalent to God (J \<-\> G), then there is no instead. > [@](#): > > And I know this means nothing to you, but your vision of Jesus from your experience does not seem to match the vision of Jesus other people have had from their experience. That seems to me to argue against your experience (or their’s) being one derived from external causes. Actually, it means a lot to me, and is a point I’ve made myself repeatedly over the years here. Our moral journeys are unique and subjective. God is like the hub, and we are like spokes. His reference frame is objective inasmuch as He is privy to all our reference frames. But our reference frames to do not connect with one another; therefore, they are subjective. I cannot know your journey, and you cannot know mine. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2006, 12:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-christianity-from-a-confused-agnostic/346300/102 "2006-03-04T12:54:51Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > I’m speaking of the mapping between internal states and reality here. Science can perhaps study the influences of external events and internal things on what we value, but not the correctness of what we value. We might choose to donate to charity after a careful study of the effectiveness of charitable organizations, or due to a dream, but it doesn’t really matter. I agree. I feel the same way about other acts of love and courageous honesty. The details and semantics of your internal belief system don’t matter. If they bring us both to the same act of charity we are on a similar path. Thats why it bugs me so much when certain religions, or even some non religions, judge the details of the belief system before the action. > [@](#): > > Some people believe in the primacy of internal experience, but I believe in the primacy of the outside world. I’ll test my experiences against the world, and will cheerfully admit to being internally deluded if they don’t line up. I’ve had enough hallucinations sitting in boring seminars after 4 hours of sleep to not believe myself anymore. Interesting. I think most people test their internal experiences against the outside world. I was amused here recently when a evangelical Christian posted something that was the opposite of what Jesus plainly taight and didn’t seem to notice. Don’t you think what you refer to as the outside world is made up of your sometimes changing perceptions. Certain physical perceptions are easy and consistant but other perceptions evolve as we do. Aren’t there certain principles that remain constant in spite of short term physical consequences? Don’t we value certain internal concepts a great deal despite them being intangible and not always clearly defined? Love? Honesty? Justice? etc. I’ve had a couple of powerful spiritual experiences that changed my internal perceptions and my direction. I believe at one point I misread the experience and chose my direction according to my imperfect interpretation. I think most people do that to varying degrees and it’s all part of the journey. You might spend years studying law only to find out that the reality of the legal profession is not for you. It’s all okay. ---
**Author:** ![Psilocybe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/51bf81/32.png) [@Psilocybe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Psilocybe)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2006, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-christianity-from-a-confused-agnostic/346300/103 "2006-03-04T15:53:08Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > The brain causing the event has two insurmountable epistemological problems, easily proved by modus tollens: if the brain caused the event, then the event was either (1) not a real event at all, but merely an imagined event, or (2) a physical event that I observed empircally. Since neither (1) nor (2) is true, the brain cannot have caused the event. The fact that an event is “imagined” makes it “real” in its own right, to the person experiencing it. There is no way to “easily” rule this out. The fact is that it would seem indistinguishably real to you, by definition. It is real to you. For instance, let’s use the simple example - paranoid schizophrenics. They “believe” all sorts of things that to observers are false. But to them its real! You could argue with them for 1000 years and by definition they would never believe you. If you found a way to demonstrate that they were wrong, their brains would make new connections and explanations. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2006, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-christianity-from-a-confused-agnostic/346300/104 "2006-03-04T17:20:57Z")
Actually, I’m not talking about that sort of “reality”. I’m talking about that which is all these three: necessary, eternal, and essential. ---
**Author:** ![Psilocybe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/51bf81/32.png) [@Psilocybe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Psilocybe)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2006, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-christianity-from-a-confused-agnostic/346300/105 "2006-03-04T18:33:27Z")
Sorry. I’m often confused which reality people are talking about. :smack: ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2006, 6:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-christianity-from-a-confused-agnostic/346300/106 "2006-03-05T06:08:52Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > Frankly, I think we may need to define quite a lot of things, judging by what you said above and continue to say throughout this post all the way to the end. We seem to be talking past one another using terms like “person”, “mind”, “body”, “spirit”, and even now “soul” (a term that I don’t need for my purposes). I’ll define these now as I’m using them, and you can compare with yours. > > Person: an entity characterized by the union of biological temporality and spiritual eternity, and having the attribute of free moral will. > > Mind: the scope of awareness derived from brain activity. > > Body: the physical aspect of a man. > > Spirit: the metaphysical aspect of a man. > > Self: the essential man; his identity; synonym for spirit. I’d define person as the union of the body and mind - and I’m fine with your definitions of these. I’d define spirit as representing the mapping of the true mind into that discussed by metaphysics. I’d define self as the view of the mind to others and to itself. I don’t think we’ll ever converge on definitions - now I understand your view, given your definition of person. > [@](#): > > The brain causing the event has two insurmountable epistemological problems, easily proved by modus tollens: if the brain caused the event, then the event was either (1) not a real event at all, but merely an imagined event, or (2) a physical event that I observed empircally. Since neither (1) nor (2) is true, the brain cannot have caused the event. Are you excluding brain activities from the class of events? I’d say that a definite even occurred, which led to another, imagined, event. Since both external events are processed by the brain, it is plausible that certain brain states can cause one to have a sensation just like an external events but stemming from the brain (and possibly the state of the body.) Seeing your wife is a case of the internal state mapping fairly well to an external reality. Seeing a mirage is a case of the internal state processing an external reality incorrectly, so the mapping is false. Seeing a ghost or an alien in your bedroom is a case of the brain creating an observation that does not map to any external reality. > [@](#): > > I think he meant that science is unqualified to address transcendencies (read: immanancies), and that attempts to do so result in dubious claims. His assertion makes sense since immanent things are facts. Facts only describe; they do not explain. I find it odd he’d see the need to make this statement, since your point is basic science. Hypotheses and theories explain, not facts. I still go with my reading of his point. > [@](#): > > It doesn’t deny a purely physical cause, but it doesn’t support one either. The problem with the statement that “our bodies influence our selves” is that it is categorical. While it is true that if A \<-\> B, then A -\> B, it is equally true that B -\> A. To state that A -\> B when B -\> A is to ignore the biconditional implication altogether as though it were not true. Not a logical fallacy per se, but certainly audiatur et altera pars. Reading “self” as mind, then B-\>A is certainly true. There is only a problem if a component of the self is non-physical (using that term broadly) which I reject. > [@](#): > > In my experience, some scientists are crappy witnesses and some are good witnesses. It seems to me that there is a direct correlation between the quality of a scientist’s witness and the degree of his acquaintance with the underlying theory of science. Einstein, for example, was an excellent witness, careful to derive his theories by sound deduction. David Stove, on the other hand, is a lousy witness who seems to believe that science is everything that is plus everything that isn’t. Hmm. By witness do you mean legal witness (my meaning) or witness in the religious sense, used non-religiously, as in Einstein witnessing for physics? If the latter, sure, if the former, I don’t know Einstein ever was a witness. I’m certainly not saying all scientists are bad - it’s just our training. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2006, 6:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-christianity-from-a-confused-agnostic/346300/107 "2006-03-05T06:15:57Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > I do not doubt your veracity, but I am surprised that it was taught to you that way. “The Book of Life” is a phrase used by David in his Psalm 69. It is a song about rescue, redemption, and salvation. It rejoices over God’s goodness in the midst of terrible suffering. (“I am in pain and distress; may your salvation, O God, protect me.” v. 29). It is a scathing indictment of those who do injustice. It denies them salvation, and contrasts them with the righteous. (“May they be blotted out of the Book of Life and not be listed with the righteous.” v. 28). It declares that God is saving not one man, but all of Zion. (“For God will save Zion and rebuild the cities of Judah.” v. 35). It isn’t at all about living one more year in misery and squalor; it is about living forever in the loving grace of God (“Rhe children of his servants will inherit [Zion], and those who love his name will dwell there.” v. 36). You’re reading this in the Christian way. I read this literally - his children will live in the promised land forever, and not being in the Book of Life means that God will punish the wicked by causing them to die. We don’t do salvation. > [@](#): > > If Jesus is equivalent to God (J \<-\> G), then there is no instead. Then why must a person who accepts and worships God worship Jesus? What does conversion of Jews (and even Muslims) accomplish? No, Christianity though the ages has not acted as if J \<-\> G, though some Christians have. > [@](#): > > I cannot know your journey, and you cannot know mine. I fully agree that all our journeys are along different paths - but aren’t they to the same destination? ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2006, 6:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-christianity-from-a-confused-agnostic/346300/108 "2006-03-05T06:19:42Z")
> [@C K Dexter Haven](#): > > Much more so with God, who is far beyond our meagre comprehension. We think in human terms, and the bible speaks poetically about “the finger of God” or whatever, but we know that’s just trying to express the utterly incomprehensible in poetry so that humans can get some glimpse of comprehension. This has always fascinated me about theology. It purports to be a game in which it makes to make logical arguments that supposedly argue towards rational conclusions. But then there’s these sorts of cop-outs littered all over the place. Now, I don’t have a problem with those cop-outs per se. The problem is that if theologians get to make use of them, why not everyone else? If I can just make up an objection to a theological argument and not even have to explain what it means, because maybe the universe is like, way outside our comprehension and all, then I or anyone else can poke giant holes in anything. All knowledge and rational arguement leaks out just a barrel full of holes. I mean, what is the point of claiming to know something or even “glimpse” something as if it were some sort of rational knowledge? And why can’t anyone play the same game? If theologians can make up incomprehensible properties that get God out of any concievable pickle, then why can’t I do the same for any alleged evidence of divine plan, miracle, or supposed cosmological fine tuning? ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2006, 6:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-christianity-from-a-confused-agnostic/346300/109 "2006-03-05T06:21:27Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > Interesting. I think most people test their internal experiences against the outside world. I was amused here recently when a evangelical Christian posted something that was the opposite of what Jesus plainly taight and didn’t seem to notice. Don’t you think what you refer to as the outside world is made up of your sometimes changing perceptions. Certain physical perceptions are easy and consistant but other perceptions evolve as we do. > Aren’t there certain principles that remain constant in spite of short term physical consequences? Don’t we value certain internal concepts a great deal despite them being intangible and not always clearly defined? Love? Honesty? Justice? etc. As you’ve grown and matured, hasn’t your understanding of these things changed also? I hope my love has gotten less self-centered than it was at 18. As for perceptions, they are internal and must be changed also. I can read an audience a lot better than I used to, for instance. I may not read some people well, but at least I understand that I don’t. Lots of people, like your example, can just not see things that don’t line up with their worldview. I’m sure I do also, but I try not to. ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2006, 11:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-christianity-from-a-confused-agnostic/346300/110 "2006-03-05T11:22:21Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > This leads us back to the “Jesus gave up a weekend for your sins” debate. Whether or not Jesus knew he was coming back, God certainly new, so any atheist martyr, convinced he was going to die forever for a cause, gets a lot more credit in my book than Jesus. According to the New testement Jesus knew he would return in 3 days. He mentioned it several times. I agree with you, if my son told me he was going to die on Friday and would be back on Sunday morning, I would say,“Okay, Do you want me to fix a breakfast for you”? Many people, especially soldiers go to war, not planning on dying but they do; I think that is a greater sacrifice and it sometimes takes more courage to live. we think of a person who commits suicide to be cowards. I was told once by a clergy that if one knows someone is going to kill them,could stop it but don’t, and they do nothing about it it is suicide so in that sense Jesus committed suicide as he hid once before he was ready to die. Monavis ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2006, 11:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-christianity-from-a-confused-agnostic/346300/111 "2006-03-05T11:29:13Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > You do not see. Essence is not nothing. If essence is something than it exists as essence, and since nothing else exised first, it would be the essence of nothing which is impossible. Monavis ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2006, 11:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-christianity-from-a-confused-agnostic/346300/112 "2006-03-05T11:34:56Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > I do not doubt your veracity, but I am surprised that it was taught to you that way. “The Book of Life” is a phrase used by David in his Psalm 69. It is a song about rescue, redemption, and salvation. It rejoices over God’s goodness in the midst of terrible suffering. (“I am in pain and distress; may your salvation, O God, protect me.” v. 29). It is a scathing indictment of those who do injustice. It denies them salvation, and contrasts them with the righteous. (“May they be blotted out of the Book of Life and not be listed with the righteous.” v. 28). It declares that God is saving not one man, but all of Zion. (“For God will save Zion and rebuild the cities of Judah.” v. 35). It isn’t at all about living one more year in misery and squalor; it is about living forever in the loving grace of God (“Rhe children of his servants will inherit [Zion], and those who love his name will dwell there.” v. 36). > > If Jesus is equivalent to God (J \<-\> G), then there is no instead. > > Actually, it means a lot to me, and is a point I’ve made myself repeatedly over the years here. Our moral journeys are unique and subjective. God is like the hub, and we are like spokes. His reference frame is objective inasmuch as He is privy to all our reference frames. But our reference frames to do not connect with one another; therefore, they are subjective. I cannot know your journey, and you cannot know mine. According to the Bible(psalm 82 (or 81) depending on what version, The psalmist says,“Don’t you know you are gods sons of the most High” If he were speaking in the singular it would read don’t you know you are God a son of the most high. Jesus used this to explain his own divinity, when accused of Blasphmey because he called God his father, and he almost always said,’ My Father and yours’. No mention of children by adoption. He seemed to recognize he was no different than any one else when it came to being devine. Monavis ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2006, 1:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-christianity-from-a-confused-agnostic/346300/113 "2006-03-05T13:21:14Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > I don’t think we’ll ever converge on definitions - now I understand your view, given your definition of person. A man cannot ask more than that he be understood. Thanks for the time and effort that you invested in understanding me. > [@](#): > > Are you excluding brain activities from the class of events? I’d say that a definite even occurred, which led to another, imagined, event. Since both external events are processed by the brain, it is plausible that certain brain states can cause one to have a sensation just like an external events but stemming from the brain (and possibly the state of the body.) Agreed. However, just to remind, my brain was changed at once. All of it. Not just temporal lobes. In other words, there wasn’t just a sensation of spiritual fulfillment. Even my frontal cortex was changed. Whatever you may suspect of my experience, you must surely acknowledge the sheer breadth of its effects. In. One. Instant. A hard atheist who despised and ridiculed everything Christian because of its summary hypocrisy and irrationality not only felt emotionally one with God, but understood — let me emphasize that: _understood_ — on an intellectual level, and with complete awe, everything that he had before dismissed as incomprehensible and stupid. It is the equivalent of a math illiterate blinking his eyes, and upon their opening up, being thoroughly conversant and literate in the highest levels of number theory. Aside from its miraculous nature (a physiological accounting for an entire and simultaneous re-wire of synaptic connections throughout the brain is seldom made except in cases of massive physical trauma), and aside from the simple logic I’ve presented and you’ve examined, there is another, more inductive, reason that the brain could not have been the initiater: _it had no basis upon which to initiate an event_; that is, it did not know enough to synthesize the knowledge that it possessed one moment later. You must know _something_ at least in order to make deductions, examine facts, and learn something new. You cannot learn algebra without at least some familiarity with arithmetical symbols and signs. Once I’d had my experience, what I encountered later in scripture and prayer was nothing more than substantiation of what I already knew. If I were to describe the experience in metaphor, it would be something like this: I was taken away and educated extensively, and then returned to my body, where my brain was infused with the knowledge I’d acquired — something along the lines of a battery being jumpstarted. Lots of activity has taken place before the engine fires; therefore, it cannot be the engine that caused the activity. So now there are three separate and compelling reasons why it must have been that my brain reacted to an event (a nonphysical event), rather than the other way around. If one reason does not satisfy, okay. Sometimes things can be explained by alternate means. And then if that reason plus deduction do not satisfy, then suspicion must of necessity move from the argument to the refusal to accept it. But if there is in addition a third reason, all the classical bases are covered — emprical, deductive, and inductive — what is a man who refuses to accept the conclusion other than irrationally stubborn? I can speak only for myself in saying that I do not want to be that man, and must conclude, for the sake of my intellectual honesty and sanity, that my experience was entirely spiritual. > [@](#): > > I find it odd he’d see the need to make this statement, since your point is basic science. Hypotheses and theories explain, not facts. I still go with my reading of his point. Certainly, you’re entitled. But contextually, it is important to keep in mind that he was writing for a lay audience. _Phantoms in the Brain_ is not a technical journal, but rather a narrative of his experiments with various aspects of the brain. The book’s title, for example, isn’t about religion at all, but about people having sensations (like tickling) in limbs that do not exist: so called “phantom limbs”. The book has many chapters, only one of which deals with God and the temporal lobes. It stands to reason that a scientist, who is also a good writer, will explain important details of science to his lay audience. Not everyone understands the differences between transcendent and immanent phenomena. > [@](#): > > Reading “self” as mind, then B-\>A is certainly true. There is only a problem if a component of the self is non-physical (using that term broadly) which I reject. And I reject the opposite. I have to, or else deny my own experience. From what I’ve given above, you can see how I would have to be downright psychotic to come to any other conclusion. I would have to reject reason altogether, and I’m not prepared to do that. > [@](#): > > Hmm. By witness do you mean legal witness (my meaning) or witness in the religious sense, used non-religiously, as in Einstein witnessing for physics? If the latter, sure, if the former, I don’t know Einstein ever was a witness. I’m certainly not saying all scientists are bad - it’s just our training. I meant witness in the sense of someone who sees something and relates it to someone else. Einstein saw gravity, and related it to me in a way that was logically compelling. His relativity theory (both of them, in fact) was entirely deductively derived, beginning with two axioms: (1) the speed of light is constant in a vacuum, and (2) the physical laws of the universe are everywhere the same. From these, he deduced relativity. The onus then was upon me to test it empirically to see whether it was false. I have done the same practically every day of my life since my epiphany, testing God to see whether I had undergone a fit of madness rather than a genuine religious experience. Not once has a test (including the many tests for the past seven years here at Straight Dope) suggested anything other than the truth of the conclusion that reason compels me to accept. What would you have me do now upon the basis of this discussion, suddenly slap my head and go, “Despite the overwhelming epistemic case for my experience, the fact that there exists the metaphysical possibility of error compels me to tilt my scales the other way.”? Were I to do that, I would feel like a cheater. I acknowledge that I might be wrong, but I need some reason at least as compelling as the reasons I’ve given to go the other way. There are no smarter materialists on earth than those here. If a reasonable argument is to be made, I would have expected to have heard it at least from them. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2006, 1:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-christianity-from-a-confused-agnostic/346300/114 "2006-03-05T13:28:14Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > We don’t do salvation. Maybe not, but David does — 44 times, in fact, including this verse: “I wait for your salvation, O LORD, and I follow your commands.” Psalm 119:166 ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2006, 1:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-christianity-from-a-confused-agnostic/346300/115 "2006-03-05T13:29:27Z")
> [@monavis](#): > > If essence is something than it exists as essence, and since nothing else exised first, it would be the essence of nothing which is impossible. > > Monavis Circulus in demonstrando. You are presuming the necessity of existence in your premise; therefore, your argument fails. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2006, 1:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-christianity-from-a-confused-agnostic/346300/116 "2006-03-05T13:30:34Z")
> [@monavis](#): > > According to the Bible(psalm 82 (or 81) depending on what version, The psalmist says,“Don’t you know you are gods sons of the most High” If he were speaking in the singular it would read don’t you know you are God a son of the most high. Jesus used this to explain his own divinity, when accused of Blasphmey because he called God his father, and he almost always said,’ My Father and yours’. No mention of children by adoption. He seemed to recognize he was no different than any one else when it came to being devine. > > Monavis At last, a point on which we agree! 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2006, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-christianity-from-a-confused-agnostic/346300/117 "2006-03-05T15:43:40Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > As you’ve grown and matured, hasn’t your understanding of these things changed also? I hope my love has gotten less self-centered than it was at 18. As for perceptions, they are internal and must be changed also. I can read an audience a lot better than I used to, for instance. I may not read some people well, but at least I understand that I don’t. > > Lots of people, like your example, can just not see things that don’t line up with their worldview. I’m sure I do also, but I try not to. Sure. You said you believe in the primacy of the external world. Perhaps I misunderstood your meaning. Our interaction with the external world has to be a reflection of our own internal belief system. Experience yes, and something deeper. Experience may tell us that falling onto the pavement will hurt, but life is made up of much more than that type of experience. We direct our lives and decisions based on much less tangible principles. Our understanding of those principles changes based on experience and choices, and more importantly, what we value, and believe to be true. That can change, and so how we relate to the outside world changes also. You also said you test your experiences against the outside world. Believers do also. { Well most believers} If I have an experience that I interpret as God , the Holy Spirit or whatever, directing me to seek to understand and walk a certain path,to understand love and truth more deeply than I have in the past and seek to live accordingly, then as I move forward in my day to day life I test that interpretation against what is happening. Is being more loving better for me or not? Is it better for those around me that I interact with? Seeking to be more loving to all people, rather than just the easy ones, how do I handle the challenges of folks who rub me the wrong way? So far my testing indicates I’m on the right path. A brief example of misinterpretation. Years ago I had a spiritual experience that I, because of circumstance and proximity, interpreted to mean I should become a member of a certain church. Now I see the experience as more a confirmation that the spiritual path was the right direction for me, and membership in that church was something I added on my own. When I understood that it helped me let go and move forward. I think that process takes place in all people. You’re correct, people can’t always understand or accept things outside their worldview. I think it’s too bad that people summarily reject certain things simply because it’s alien to them. I try to understand and walk my own path and honor the rights of others to choose their own. Inevitably paths cross or collide. I think that is part of the learning process. Hopefully we can talke a look at anothers perspective. Thats why I enjoy SDMB. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2006, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-christianity-from-a-confused-agnostic/346300/118 "2006-03-05T18:07:09Z")
Especially when the learning process involves a discussion with someone like Voyager. How many people even _bother_ to let you know that they understand you. Not in some condescending — yes I understand what you’re saying, but you don’t understand what I’m saying — way, but with a genuineness that assures you that they mean what they say? It is a joy to have a debate with someone like him. ---
**Author:** ![aldiboronti](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9fc348/32.png) [@aldiboronti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aldiboronti)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2006, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-christianity-from-a-confused-agnostic/346300/119 "2006-03-05T18:40:20Z")
> [@Reply](#): > > [li]If God is omniscient, he must know everything, including everything that has ever been or ever will be thought by every human – right? If so, and if human beings are supposed to have free will, how is that God can know the outcome of every human choice before the human makes that choice? If this “freedom” is predetermined/pre-known, is it merely an illusion? Otherwise, how does free will co-exist with omniscience?[/li] This article on [Divine Foreknowledge and Human Freedom](http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/free-will-foreknowledge/) is the best I’ve seen on this vexed question. It gives a complex logical argument for theological fatalism and then goes into the five well-known compatibilist responses. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2006, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-christianity-from-a-confused-agnostic/346300/120 "2006-03-05T18:47:27Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Then why must a person who accepts and worships God worship Jesus? What does conversion of Jews (and even Muslims) accomplish? No, Christianity though the ages has not acted as if J \<-\> G, though some Christians have. I agree with your point here. Since my view is that God sees the true intent of our hearts and is not hung up on semantics, anyone, Buddhist, Jewish, Muslim, Wiccan, Atheist or Agnostic, who truly and sincerely seeks love and truth and strives to live accordingly is following the Holy Spirit and worshipping Jesus in the way he described as meaningful to him in the NT. Jesus doesn’t need or require recognition in any other way. I have trouble being patient with religions who talk of God’s love and the brotherhood of man and yet can’t seem to understand this simple concept. It’s as if an act of love isn’t an act of love, kindness and compassion, aren’t really kindness and compassion, unless you attach the name of the God of their choice. > [@](#): > > I fully agree that all our journeys are along different paths - but aren’t they to the same destination? I think so. It’s like the spokes of the wheel analogy **Lib** used. The opposite spoke seems to be far away and going in the opposite direction but we meet at the same hub. He also has a good one about many paths in a garden which lead to the same fountain in the middle. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-christianity-from-a-confused-agnostic/346300.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-christianity-from-a-confused-agnostic/346300.md?page=7)