My turn. And for once, I'll try to avoid slamming someone else's point of view. Be aware, though, that this is an admission of being a very dark soul. Proceed at your own risk, and I'm taking a bit of a personal risk typing this.
  My first memorable experience with the idea of faith occured when I was 4 or 5. At that point I really didn't see what the older people got all worked up over. To me, I had never seen God, and science was a good deal more interesting to me than all this religion stuff. That changed when I was ten. I'm willing to chalk this up as a hallucination, but it would involve telling me that I cannot trust any conculsion I draw. If that is the case, than I am insane, and the person telling me this may be untrustwrothy themselves for all I know. Logic of madness, hard at work.
  In any case, I encountered a spirit of some kind. Its true nature eludes me to this day, but it convinced me that spirit was a very real force that science refused to accept. I'm convinced it's out of fear of the unknown and the implications that would come with accepting that bit of truth, which is kind of ironic to me.
  When I got older I learned of other sides of spirituality than the Christian point of view. My family, and therefore myself, were going through a lot of problems. In the mother of all understatements, my perspectives on life darkened considerably. If I had faith in God, it went out the window. I delved into the study of witchcraft and wizardry, having gotten tired of a disinterested God to come in and help my family out of the hole it was digging itself into. Most of it was hogwash, superstition and other such crap. But I did find a few things in there.
  I am not going into detail on this last. Suffice to say that I take most Biblical passages on familiar spirits and such quite literally, and that whether I even knew it or not, I have dealt with the Devil in a very close way. I know dark spirits exist.
  At some point I started truly losing my sanity, a side effect of my research. I was attempting to embrace viewpoints of ruthlessness that were necessary to obtain my goals in life, in effect, a deliberate attempt to warp my own morality. I had decided that I wanted nothing to do anymore with that conflict between the God and the Devil. As far as I could tell one was an uncaring Creator and the other was an upstart anarchist who thought he deserved to be God because he was more powerful than everyone else. Given the chioce, I'd have perferred the uncaring, but I thought that were both lame choices.
  This has still left its fair share of mental scarring.
  I drifted from church to church in that time, finding fault in all of them. I looked to other faiths in that time, but none of them were proving me wrong in my viewpoints, which was what I was really looking for. I wanted to believe that my perspectives on God were wrong. I didn't find much encouragement in my own family. Faith is a subject my Mom hates discussing with me.
  It took some time, but I found my answer. About five years if I recall. I allowed myself to be baptized after I was convinced that I was in fact saved.
  I realized I've skipped quite a bit, and left out details in a great many areas. I've learned the hard way that if I go into to much detail about my darker points in life, I have tempted weaker and more impulsive souls to pick up where I left off. But the point was why I believe what I do, and I hope I've answered that. If not, I'll answer some questions. PM me.

I hope this doesn't scare anyone too much.

I sort of take the boolean approach:

1) There either is a God or there is not a God.
If there is no God, then there is no harm in choosing a religion you like and living a good life filled with faith and hope.

2) If there is a God, then he either communicates to his creations or he does not.
If he does not, then there is no harm (and actually great psychological benefits) to praying and hoping that he does.

3) If he does communicate to his creations, then he will have provided a concrete way for them to communicate with hiim or he will not have.
If he has not, then there is no harm in finding the best way you think to communicate with Him and using it.

4) If he has provided such a way to communicate, then he will either be consistent in that way or not.
If not, then there is no harm in finding the way that appears most consistent.

5) If he is consistent, then God is unchanging today just as he was unchanging in ancient times, or he changes.
If he changes, then he will either communicate those changes to us or not.
If he does not change, then he will either communicate that fact to us or not.

...you can see where I'm going with this.

So in my search, I look for consistency.  Besides finding answers in a spiritual way, my religion has given me answers in an intellectual way and urges the pursuit of truth, science and fact...since all are God's creations.  I find a stable consistency in my religion with the way things were done in ancient Judaism and early Christianity, since it is based on a belief in Christ as the Savior, but that the churches became more churches of men after Christ died and lost the priesthood power (that consistency to communicate and work through His creations).

And it makes sense in the suffering of the world.  This life is not to be sweet, but a test, a time of separation from God.  And the ideals of freedom, that we can choose good or evil, all these ideas resonate with me.

And the fairness, to those who are dead or who never had the chance to accept Christ's Gospel in its fullness and all the benefits therein, can get that chance.  That there is no burning fiery hell or that people will go somewhere bad based on ignorance alone.  This also resonates with me that God is a good and loving being who, just like parents with children, knows we must strike out on our own to truly learn and progress but can always come back to a loving embrace.

And like Mentat, I know dark spirits exist.  In the full spectrum of creation, there must be ultimate evil as surely as there must be ultimate good.  And evil is just egocentric enough to try to make itself known whenever it can, as I have seen firsthand.

But I have also laid my hands on the heads of people, called upon the priesthood powers which I hold, and healed people through the power of God, and done other things as well.  So I know there is a good side too, where faith exists.

So the question for me is not, "How can I believe?" but instead, "How can I deny?"
This message was last edited by the GM at 00:15, Fri 18 May 2007.

The reason I believe the things I do is simple. I take a similar approach to Heath, although it leads to a different conclusion.

1) Either God exists or he does not.
2) If there is a God, then either he has a code for us to live by or not.
3) If God does have a code for us to live by, he will make it possible for us to understand it.
4) If he does not have a code for us to live by, there is no divine reason to live by any one code over another.
5) However, some codes are clearly more beneficial to society to live by, so there would be incentive to try to get people to live by them.
6) But if none of them are from God, there is no authority to compel one code over another independent of brute force.
7) Therefore, any moral code must rely on divine reason if it is to have any authority other than brute force.
8) The question now becomes, is there such a divine authority?
9) Nearly 2,000 years ago, a man claimed to be this divine authority. In the English-speaking world, he is known as Jesus.
10) The New Testament records the writings of his followers, and what they taught and believed about Jesus.
11) According to this record, they believed he was God made flesh and that he proved his authority by performing a physical impossibility -- rising from the dead.
12) This record was made during a time when people were still alive who could verify or refute the essential details (such as the rising from the dead part).
13) Even now, 30 years after the fact, we have people who claim that Elvis Presley is alive. These claims are met with the obvious rejoinder, "Here is his tomb, where his body is."
14) So why didn't any of the refutations go to the tomb of Jesus and show people the body? Does this not indicate that it wasn't there?
15) If the body wasn't there, something must have happened to it.
16) The people who knew about the body and cared about it fall into three main categories: Romans, Jews, and followers of Jesus.
17) The Romans have no need to remove the body. They put it there and sealed it so that such tampering could not take place. Even so, they could have ended the furor by producing the body.
18) The Jews would not have taken the body. If they had, they also had the means to end Christianity in its tracks by producing it.
19) The disciples would have wanted to take the body, but if they did, they act in a way that defies all logic, sense, and sanity, for they chose to die defending a claim they knew to be a lie. Dying for something you believe to be true is one thing, but dying for something that you know to be a lie (because you participated in creating the lie) is psychologically impossible.
20) Therefore, the alternatives to a resurrection are less probable than the resurrection itself, establishing the claim.

Once I accepted that, I had to find out where God wanted me. I have been with a church for most of the time since then, but I am not afraid to keep looking.

I grew up as a Christian only in the vaguest of senses. I was baptised, but never regularly went to church. When I was very young, I half believed in God - everyone at my school seemed to be going along with the idea, and how silly would it be if everyone was praying but there was no God? There was no sort of theological debate within me - I simply went along with things because there was no alternative. About the age of 12 I was introduced to the concept of athiesm.

My father was an athiest, but had kept his beliefs fairly closed. My mother was a Christian, but not with any sort of conviction. When I first talked with my father about there being a God, he provided the alternative. I looked at it, thought that it seemed much more sensible than there actually being some kind of invisible all powerful being who could read your mind, and decided that that was enough.

In secondary school I became aware of how many people did believe. In Britain it seems by default people are Christian, but most weren't strong enough believers to get confirmed. There was a group which met with the school Chaplain, however, in preparation for becoming confirmed. I was interested in knowing how so many people could believe, when the facts that I had looked at seemed to be so one sided. I attended the group, and decided that the whole thing was a waste of time. It was obviously not designed for me then, as a skeptic agnostic who wanted to find out more.

Anyway, since then I have tried assuming a completely equal position. Nothing is true unless proven. I've looked for the arguments for Gods existence, and found them to be lacking. At the time of the New Testament, religious prophets were everywhere. The Roman world was in turmoil, the Emperors had taken control and were being worshipped as gods. The concept that one man could be holy was becoming increasingly popular, and as the old Roman religion became gradually less popular people looked for alternatives. There were many many prophets with powers of walking on water, or even through walls, around the time of Jesus. He just came out on top as popular. I cannot accept the Bible as true.

Other religions? I'm interested in finding out more, but I see no need for a God. Science explains the universe, except on the outskirts of our knowledge where more research is being conducted. If we assume that there is no God, there is no inconsistency. Therefore the theory of God is redundant. If we applied the same logic to gravity, or our knowledge of lightning, we see that we need a theory there to explain the phenomena. There is no need for a God.

I have never had a religious/supernatural experience, so I am a materialist. For me, the definition of the 'material' is that it is real. I can see it/hear it/touch it, or failing that I can see its effects upon the world. The supernatural is just that - outside the natural, and therefore unreal. If science has no evidence for it, if it is entirely 'out of this world' it is not real. I'm currently trying to get myself to get past that barrier of understanding to see why other people do believe in the supernatural.

If I may, and it doesn't turn out off subject: I consider "supernatural" and other such terms to be that which has no explaination that most people at present are willing to accept. There is a limit to what other people can be expected to believe, simply because it is outside of their experience and it sounds incredible. When a Roman soldier stumbled across a man drawing strange circles in the sand following the siege of Sycacuse, he killed him. Turns out it was Archimedes drawing a mathmatical equation. But to the soldier's eye, such strange symbols could only be or have been black magic, which was not unheard of at that time.

But in a way, that soldier was right. Archimedes counsel for the defense of Syracuse but the Roman navy against things they had never though they would ever face: Greek fire launched against them, focused light torched their sails, giant cranes lifted their vessels out of the water. To the Romans, this WAS magic. To us, it is everyday science.

Perspective.

There is a discussion about supernatural on the other thread now, but I'd just like to distinguish that I don't think "supernatural" and "magic" are even remotely the same thing.  Magic requires something that defies understanding, supernatural is just foreign to our natural universe.

Well I figure this is the best thread to introduce myself to the board. I come from a very strong evangelical Christian background (Salvation Army, to be precise): mum is an ex-officer (an officer in the Salvation Army is like a priest or vicar in another church, for those who don't know); all four grandparents are retired officers; dad and his wife are current officers; and my aunt is a Church of England vicar. I went to two meetings at the Salvation Army every Sunday, I was a member of the youth band and choir which meant another two nights at the army, and I was a junior soldier (a commitment to the Army that you make at around seven, until you can become a senior soldier at around seventeen/eighteen).

I never really had a choice whether or not to go to the army - it was just a part of my life that had always been there, like going to school - but I never had any problem with it. In fact, I remember at school when I was about 13, saying to a friend that I couldn't wait to die, just so that I could see what heaven was like. She looked at me oddly, and told me awkwardly that she didn't really believe in all that. It was the first time in my life (and 13 is pretty old for this revelation) that I realised not everyone in the world believed in God.

I went through a huge rebellion around the age of 15, but even then I never questioned the existence of God, just why I should obey him. It was a lot like a heightened adolescence, turning away from God like some people turn away from their parents. I stopped going to the Salvation Army and for a while did just about everything that I could that was wrong. But I still believed in God, and from time to time I was overwhelmed with guilt and would pray, feel a little better, and then go right back to what I was doing.

It became clear that my rebellion wasn't satisfying me spiritually or personally, but also that I wasn't going to get saved or suddenly feel full of the holy spirit. I was too cynical by that point. My rebellion fizzled out and I settled into a more normal Christian apathy. When I explain my faith to people I use an illustration: I believe in God, the same way I believe in gravity. Just like as children we're told that gravity exists, so that by the time we grow up it's a fact of life, something most of us are unable to question, I've always been told that God exists and I'm unable to envision a world in which I don't believe that. I do feel that God is there and I pray when I remember to, I'm not unhappy about my faith, I just explain it this way when people ask me for proof.

That's a very long-winded response, but I hope it makes sense to everyone.

If you don't mind my asking, I think most of us are very familiar with the guys ringing bells and taking donations, but how is Salvation Army different from other churches outside of that (excellent) program?

So would you consider yourself now an apathetic and/or inactive Christian?

(Again, don't feel compelled to answer if you're not comfortable with it.  Just curious.)

I was born and raised a Roman Catholic, and took it VERY seriously for a long span of years.  So seriously in fact that I made my parents nervous, especially when I started spending weekends at an Augustinian Monastery and talking about God's Plans and Vocations on a regular basis.  They were down with JC, but only on weekends.

I never had the same issues with Catholicism (Christianity/Monotheism) that most people, faithful and otherwise, did.  I never had a problem with the fact that, depsite God being all-good and all-powerful, bad things happen (Free Will + Divine Plan = see through a glass darkly His winders to perform).  I never had a problem with Christians proclaiming themselves to be moral and upright and being scum in private (that's like saying that cars are an invalid form of transportation because some people drive them drunk - either the Word is true or it is not, those who misuse it cannot alter it).  The revelation of the clergical culture of child-abuse and molestation and the subsequent cover-up likewise did nothing to shake my faith in God and His Church (it shook a lot of things, as close to the Church as I was at that time, but not my faith - humans are imperfect, and the test there was not to reject the Faith, but to make it stronger - and almost all of us failed).

The issues that eventually took me away from the Church were several.  The rote ritual was one.  Some people jive on ritual.  It serves to occupy the logial part of the mind so that the emotional part can contact the Divine.  Even the most mystic of traditions (Zen, Taoism) usually come equipped with mind-numblingly opressive rituals, for that very reason.  For me, however, it was keeping me away from God, rather than closer to Him.

Second, was the view of God as some measure of person, living somewhere, knowing stuff, doing stuff, wanting stuff, making plans and following-through.  I couldn't escape the idea that God is INFINITE.  Infinite is pretty big.  And an infinite being would be, by definition, absolutely and in all ways alien and incomprehensible to any finite being (i.e. us).  And I can quote and cite all the many reason why this need not be the case, and all the ways in God, in His infinte Infinity, makes Himself known to us, but I couldn't shake the idea that it's all just a sop to make us feel better.  The very thing that had lead me through so many diffiucult issues stopped me dead at what should have been the easiest one: having a personal relationship with the Christian God.

So I moved asway from Catholicism with its focus on the external trappings of faith and with its roots in various pagan magical traditions.  I slid down through my share of protestant faiths and churches, trying to find a community that would allow me to focus entirely on my internal relationship with the Divine.

But the Protestants, paradoxically, were even worse.  Even with no Clergy, no Ordination, no Sacraments, no Orders, not even any funny hats, they managed to see God as even more of a Sears Catalogue than the Catholics did.  Ask and ye shall receive! Ask for it in my name and you shall have it!  We UNDERSTAND the mind of God, and it says the WE are Holy and THEY are not.

Yuck.

Not even Thomas Merton and William Inge and the Christian Mystics could help me, because even as they talked about communing directly with the Divine in an indescribable, inarticulate experience, they talked about how much God loved it when we did so and how He wished us to be closer to Him.

Yuck.

Then one day I read the Tao Te Ching.  And it was like BING! My brain opened up and just ACCEPTED it.  The notion that the Divine is an impersonal, amoral, not-quite-thing-not-quite-force that can only be EXPERIENCED, never KNOWN.  It was like coming home.

This is already too long, so I'll wrap up.

Where I stand now is on the fence as to whether or not the Truth is knowable.  If it is not knowable, then it might as well not even exist.  In the absence of a knowable TRUTH, then the only "truth" I can accept is consistency.  If A and B are true, then C MUST be true.  I'm fine passing judgement on C, given A and B, but the ultimate validity of A and B may forever be a mystery.

I've definitely been down that path!  The Catholic Church has a very strong focus on community, on the externalities of religion.  Not so much on the internal, which is very frustrating.  I'm not sure why that part fell off like it did.  The Tao Te Ching was a very good read, and gave me a lot to think about.  I'd love to go to the next step and actually visit a monastery and talk with some people in person, rather than just read stuff online.  The other thing that caught my eye was the Gnostic teachings.  A lot of them seem a bit too...  far astray for me, but some are really neat.  Fortunately, there's nothing that says you can't be Catholic and Taoist.  Like Heath has said, it is (or at least can be) a philosophy, not a religion, and there's nothing about it which is anti-Christian.

I'm afraid I have no true moment of revelation for me, and my story is one that really can't be told in some chornological fashion, but I can help put to perspective how I've come to this point.

My family was Catholic, but in name only. In truth, grandfather, and my aunt's family were the only ones who regularly went to church. my grandpa took me initially, but it awas around age 8 or 9 I just stopped going regularly.

Religion didn't truely enter my life again until much later, but I suppose even where my facination with it could be explained by earlier events. I've always been a person who pondered naby abstract ideas, even outside of religion. Things like "How did we, as a people, come to be?" "Is there some real sense of right and wrong, and what are they?" "If there is a God, why does he allow such suffering?". Above all, though, I was enthralled by the notion of motevation. To this day, I'm utterly facinated with understanding why people do the things they do, think the way they think, why people are upset by the things they are, and behave in the manners they do. This pondering led to me taking psychology courses, even in high school. As I got to college, I immeadiately registered as a psychology major, and continued it, now aided with the notions of philosophy, sociology, ethics, and, naturally, theology.

When pondering human motevation, I was utterly bound to eventually come to religion, or so I thought. I found many of my colleages, even my friends, make regular habit of dismissing belief and religion, and Ii was often put in the odd point of defending it. Now, I'm not what I would considerd a person of faith, but to just dismiss the impact religion has on society, on culture, on politics and certainly, on the individual, is just beyond me. But, then again, I suppose I've always had an open mind towards such things.

I make a point of reading and understanding many forms of theology, typically Catholoicism. I've read much of the bible a few times, though admittedly, I've paid a bit more attention to the New Testament than the Old, being the central doctrine of Christianity. I've dwelved into modestly into Buddism, Hinduism, Judaism, Islam, but I claim to be no more a scholar than any typical person involving these things.

Even when I was a child, abstract principles have often come well to me. To be honest, specifics was never what I was good at. Name a passage from the bible, and I won't likely remember it off hand. Concept has always been my forte. The larger questions, the ones the attend to the central ideas and conflicts. What is God like? How did the universe start? Is there such a thing a Free Will? Was there a historcal Jesus? What is God? What is life? My devotion to such ideas can be almost fanatical. Even in my high school years, it wasn't too unusual for me to ponder such things for entire nights, doing nothing else but research, reading, and simply working these things out in my head. I would seek out pastors, criminals (within reason, of course), historians, scholars, or jsut other students, not to press their beliefs but just to understand them.

I've always been a bit of an oddball. Never acted my age. I'd either act much younger, or much older. My parents and family see me like some kind of sage. When someone has a problem in their life, they'd often come to me. It started with justa few friends, but soon even my mother and grandmother, my uncle even, were comming to me regularly for advise and guidance. I talked family members out of suicide three times in my life, one of which was my father, this too, when I was simply a highschool kid. I was surprised at the level of calm I had during the whole thing, and I actually wasn't shaken until well after the incident was over. When a fight broke out, my presence was usually the signal for the start of negotiations.

My family had often told me that I had the qualities to become someone of good standing in the church, and for the most part, I would agree with them. The thought of clerical work, of helping people understand their problems and re-examine their life, their faith, help them towards a path of salvation really does appeal to me. But, alas, I've no faith to belong to.

I believe in no denomination I've encountered, and there have been many. It's not that I dislike the idea of church or a congregation. I actually encourage much of what they do, and think it can be a very good presense in one's life. However, I've never seen in any congregation that which could not be explained by a sociology text. And, there's a lot of details that, frankly I simply do not accept, things common in many relgions that I find questionable at best.

For example, treatment of women is less than fair in most religions across the world and the span of time, and even now, where such ideas are publicly discouraged, most denominations I've encountered are less than concerned about fixing such disperities. Even if I were to accept the idea of going into the church or ministry, my very gender which I was born with, which I have no power to choose, would limit me, so it's not like I would have much places to go. The idea of a female preacher might be accepted, and nuns are fairly encouraged, but the idea female bishop or even higher on the scale, is scoffed at and disputed to a heavy degree, much like the idea of a female president, which are both things that nowadays, even the thought that such things would even have to be contested is rather disheartening, yes, even to the point of refraining for any embrace of theology. The Bible itself, much like many religous texts, set two standards for judging men and women as well, often emphisising heavily that women are a) subservient to men, b) are more susceptible to sin than men, and c) make a big damn ruckus about women  committing adultry, where men are given just a passing notion. And, just as bad, hardly any god-fearing or embracing person would admit such a thing. Now, I'm not about to say that my objections to religion are soley based on feminisitic ideals, but it is a good example of common faiths saying one thing and doing or believing another, which, makes it hard for me to want to trust them.

I believe this all, this large rant, has led me to my current position of what could most accurately be called as an agnostic. I tend to believe that the question of God is less impactful than the decisions we come to about him/her/them/it. Thus, any meaning we give to life far suprasses in importance, and our resulting decisions, than anything that either our designer or our genes give us. Other than that, I suppose I reserve the right to suspend judgement, on man or God, til I find the piece of the puzzle that fits.

Of course I don't mind, not many people know much about the SA besides its charity work. but for the people who are regulars it's generally quite a big influence in their lives. I should point out that I'm English, and although the SA is an international organisation, there may be some small differences between the SA in the US and in the UK.

The SA is a Christian church, which means it follows God and the Bible (the basics don't really differ from the standard Christian beliefs). It's also evangelical, which means the focus is on bringing non-believers to Christ. Although that is one of the aims of most churches, it's a focus for the SA (whereas for some churches the focus is more on personal development and prayer).

There are other evangelical churches, though, and what makes the SA unique (in my view) is they way it goes about it, and that comes from its creation. The SA was born in London in the height of Victorian depravity. William Booth wanted a church which would really bring God to the people who otherwise wouldn't bother with religion, so everything was geared towards making a big scene. The SA would march along the streets with a big brass band playing, women playing tambourines, and the whole lot would eventually stop in an open area and read from the Bible, preach a sermon, give testimony (which is a big thing in the SA), and sing rousing songs. These open-air meetings still go on to some extent today, but back then there were stories of miracles happening pretty much every day. Even my grandma talks about her own grandfather, who was a total alcoholic, going down to the mercy seat drunk and coming up sober. In the SA people talk about getting 'saved' rather than converted, which hopefully gives you an idea of the militant basis of the SA.

The charity work and everything else that goes on today is all rooted in that early work, and the SA prides itself on being a very actively welcoming church. There are other differences between the SA and other churches, particularly the ideas of soldiership and abstinence. Of course anyone can go to an SA church (called a Corps) and participate in worship, but there is the opportunity to make a more long-term committment to the SA by becoming a junior/senior soldier. You go to recruitment classes where you discuss your faith in depth, and learn about how the SA itself works. When you are ready, there is a special meeting where you make a promise to the SA and sign something; you're kind of sworn in. After you've made this committment you wear the SA uniform (which people might have seen being worn by charity workers in the SA) to meetings, which demonstrates your acceptance of the faith and your pride in it. This is sort of like being confirmed in an anglican church, but that's not a particularly great comparison.

Included in this promise is a committment to abstain from tobacco, alcohol and illegal drugs, which comes again from the birth of the SA, when there were so many working men spending all their money in the pubs and not having anything for their families who were living in poverty.

I'm not sure if I've explained it too well, but the one thing about the SA that really makes it different to other churches is the level at which you can become involved. My family talks about having Salvation Army blood, and I can see what they mean. As I said in my ealier post, when I was a kid I was out three nights a week at various social events or practises, as well as twice on a Sunday. My mum is still out three nights a week (singing, band and the International Staff Songsters) and twice on a Sunday. Of course there are also people who just go once a week on Sundays, but even then the sense of community and shared faith is unbelievably strong. I'm not trying to suggest that this isn't true with other churches as well, or that this is the only way to worship, but I do think it's an overwhelming feature of the SA.

And to answer the second part of your question (I felt the other answer was too long to include this in that post), I suppose if I was being brutally honest with myself, I would say I'm an inactive Christian. I don't consider myself to be apathetic since I still feel very strongly about my faith, and will talk about it proudly. But I am inactive, since I barely read the Bible, only pray when I remember, and hardly ever go to church.

Why do I believe what I believe?

I try to keep my mind open to ultimate possibility to avoid limiting myself.  I am to believe everything all at once - or at least, to avoid disbelieving it.

The human brain is a complex device that is incapable of comprehending all of the data that our senses pass along to it.  There's a filter, and that filter has to pick and choose what to "notice", what to "acknowledge".  It does this the simplest and most efficient way possible - it goes with what we already believe.

We tend to notice the things and trends that confirm what we already believe, and to miss the things that contradict our beliefs.  I hope, by keeping my mind as open as it can be, that I'll have a broader pallet with which to build my mental image of what "reality" is.

*cough* bump

I'm amused that this thread got bumped back to the front page. I read over my entry (#14) from three and a half years ago and realize... not much has changed since then. That's a big difference from when I was younger. Mind you, it's a good thing that I haven't changed that much spiritually. ^_^ I just wish sometimes that I had more opportunity to be more open about it. >.>

On a positive note, I have finally found a small circle of friends who, even if they don't believe exactly as I do, they at least understand and are willing to talk with me and help me grow spiritually. That's so comforting to have that. I mean, my fiance doesn't mind it, and my sister doesn't mind it, but (as is stated in my profile) he's a Buddhist agnostic and she's a hardcore Christian. To be able to talk about aspects of my beliefs with someone who isn't just going to nod and smile is the thing I love most about my new friends.

You're still Celtic Wiccan?

Yes sirree bob... I mean, Heath. ^_^ My beliefs have evolved a little since way back when, but not much considering the drastic changes I used to make.

I think we have a wiccan thread somewhere, if you want to post about it.  If not, I can create one.

Well, born and raised in the Church, in small branches mainly, and never really questioned it.  At least, not until I was getting ready to serve my mission.  Then I had to know, and know fairly quickly.
Started praying more then usual, fasting with greater purpose, and the feeling I got was 'You already know.  Go and serve.'
I'd always heard stories about miracles while growing up, and it was during my mission that I got to see and participate in a few of my own.  Like one of the few times I was sick - I had been throwing up every hour (almost exactly on the hour) for most of the night, and was feeling horrible.  The Zone Leader (missionary in charge of a group of missionaries in an area - usually up to 16 or so) blessed me that I would recover quickly.  And I did.  I threw up once more about an hour and a half later, then I was fine.
I suppose the biggest shock I got was some of the things that people still believe about the Church.  Met one lady who firmly believed that the Church protected child molesters, and practiced it as well.  I was so shocked that she closed the door in my face before I could reply.  As if some 60,000 young men and women from around the world would try to convert people to a church that did something that repulsive for two years, at their own expense.

Kind of vague I know, but feel free to ask questions, and I'll answer (or tell you why not :P )

As if some 60,000 young men and women from around the world would try to convert people to a church that did something that repulsive for two years, at their own expense.

During the last thousand years or so, missionaries have attempt to convert people to a church that practiced widespread murder, torture, conquest, genocide, and repression of educated women. Being a missionary does not imply that your cause or religion is a good or tolerable one.

Hmm, good point.  I'd forgotten that.  Though, in this day of world-wide communications and everything, do you think that a large group of people expressing such views would still be able to safely, and openly operate?

Anyway, the only thing I could do to properly express my views to the lady was write on a post-it notepad and stick it to a piece of her mail.

Falkus, There is a keen difference here.  You are looking at primitive barbaric times (or current brainwashed zealots) and analogizing that to people who have no desire other than to spend their own time and money sharing something which has given them great joy.

In other words, the "join us or else" missionaries are not the same as the "I have something to share that will bring you joy if you would like to accept it" missionaries.

I realize you are hostile to missionaries as a general idea, but here's the gist:  If you had a million dollars and could give everyone in the world a million dollars without losing a dollar yourself, and assuming you are altruistic at heart, wouldn't you want to go around making sure everyone could get that million dollars and improve their lives?  That's exactly what's going on here, except that it's worth far more than a million bucks; it's salvation.

And if people don't want it, that's fine.  But it irks me that some are hostile to this viewpoint just because they don't want to be bothered...assuming that no one's going to have the answers to salvation and come knocking on their door.

Howdy all, this will be my first post and it seems the best one to start off in.

Why do I believe in what I believe?

That can be a hard question, but for myself it isn't.  I believe because I have researched all the others and have found them laking.  I speak of Jesus Christ, the Messiah.

Every other religion I read and researched on where religious systems that had rules to infinity.  You can't wear this, you must pray at this time, you must pray this way, but Jehovah has other plans.  He truely has only two commandments and you can pray at anytime and anywhere.  You don't have to follow a path and you don't have to pore yourself into a mold that someone else wants you in.

There is also the proff.  Everything that the Bible says about history has been found to be true, when found by archeologists.  Evolution has so many problems that there is no way a pure thinking person can believe it.

There's also the resurrection.  Can't be explained away no matter how hard some others try.

Well I hope I have done justice to this thread and will be jumping in on interesting topics.