It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: BuzzyWigs
There is more than one way of taking your title.
This kind of question may be simple curiosity, about a psychological phenomenon.
It may be a question from someone who wants to do it, looking for help and advice.
It may be an aggressive, challenging question from someone who doesn't think it's possible.
It's common practice in this forum that the third kind of question is cunningly (or not so cunningly) disguised as the second.
The wording of your title makes it look like the second kind of question, but it's clear that you're not genuinely looking for advice, because "believing" is not one of the things you want to do.
You could hardly blame people, then, if they took it as yet another version of the disguised third question.
The solution to the puzzle lies in the difference between believing "that" and believing "in", which can be illustrated in John's gospel. The key is that believing "that" (believing statements to be true) is ultimately the product of believing "in" (trusting in a person). The essence of faith is trust.
You are right. Believing "that" can't be achieved by an act of decision.
But believing "in" CAN be done by an act of decision. Then the rest begins to follow, and believing "in" covers any gaps.
If you ever genuinely wanted to know the Christian God, that would be a good place to begin.
originally posted by: beezzer
originally posted by: windword
a reply to: beezzer
You're the one that said that in order to "believe", one must believe they have a soul? If you can't converse about THAT, your own premise, that you innocently enter the thread with, well then..............
No, I asked if they believed in the existence of the soul.
And every statement made, but also followed up by saying that it was my own opinion.
Now you are free to mock my opinions, but I am also free to leave.
I generally don't trust the OP or even you in threads like this, but I took a chance and simply wanted to provide some of my personal insight in order to better examine the question.
Maybe I made a mistake.
Before you can assertain the existence of God, you have to believe in the soul.
Do you believe people have souls, or do you believe that we are nothing more than complex meat-machines fueled by bio-chemical processes?
originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: bb23108
it has always struck me as curious that the same people willing to take up arms in order to defend their individual freedoms are the ones who believe ultimate happiness may be found in a macro-symbiotic relationship that essentially defeats the point of individuality.
Faith is a gift from Something Other than man.
originally posted by: windword
You know it's really not a cryptic question, although it is a question designed to provoke conversation.
It's a simple concept, really. Religious fundamentalist are constantly insisting that "WE" must believe in very specific claims, in order to receive salvation and eternal life. You have a thread on this concept yourself, with it's emphasis being that those that DON'T BELIEVE are, in reality, Anti-Christs!
So, first one must believe that the Bible always tells the truth. So, first we have to believe in ...that which MAN has told us, through the Bible, to be true.
You need to fully inspect whether that sense of separate self we always point to, is actually real or not.
Is that sense of separate "I" an actual entity, or is it just an activity caused by attention constantly creating a "point-of-view" via focusing awareness moment to moment?
originally posted by: TzarChasm
i actually dont think i need to at all. every second i am awake is a fully immersive experience in my individuality.
originally posted by: TzarChasm
oh look, a pointless spiral into philosophical semantics. i think i will pass.
I did not write the epistles of John in person. If you don't like what the New Testament says to us, please don't shoot the messenger.
Believing in the content of the Bible is more a case of believing "that". It follows on, as necessary, from trusting in God himself.
I simply presented the definition of "antichrist" provided by John, the man who probably invented the word in the first place.
I did not write the epistles of John in person. If you don't like what the New Testament says to us, please don't shoot the messenger.
In fact his definition was more restricted than you are remembering it. He specified those who deny publicly, that is in their teaching, that "Jesus Christ has come in the flesh".
Can any of you help me understand how that's supposed to work? If I just really don't believe, what am I supposed to do?
All I really DO believe in is the Buddhist idea - that we can all reach Enlightenment
... I just don't understand what I am "supposed to do" to make myself "believe" stuff that I just don't believe.