Yes, it is. Always. Your choice. I may pray that you change your choice, but you are absolutely correct. Each of us can, and must, choose, our own beliefs. Actually, you and I are both choosing our faiths.

You are mostly wrong in your "history of Wade's faith," though. Yes, I was born and raised by Christian parents (Missouri Synod Lutheran). I was baptized in that faith, and I was confirmed in that faith in 7th grade or thereabouts.

But that's where the accuracy of your narrative ends, I'm afraid. My journey toward faith, my conversion to a truer (for me) Christian belief, has been a much longer and complicated one. One taking most of my adult life: I am now 56. I didn't really start to "get serious" about things until sometime in my mid- to late-40s, after I had finished grad school. Whether my belief matches my father's I don't know -- he died long before God became much more than "the guy whose church I have to go to because I'm a kid and the parents say I have to go."

But it certainly doesn't match my mother's, except insofar as we each consider ourselves Christian and neither has ever questioned the trueness of our claimed faith. (Or rather, she did; given her current state of dementia, I'm not sure what she's thinking now.) She is/was conservative God-fearing Republican of the sort texaspackerbacker labels "normal American" and his critics label "bigots." I am a "none of the above" anarchist who rejects both conservatism and liberalism, and that nothing trumps the Great Commandment. She's very much in tune with the Old Testament, thou-shalt-not-or-thou-shalt-perish, vision, and I'm the New Testament, by faith alone sort. We're both "followers" of Luther's theology, but whereas its all about going to church and socializing for her (or was), whereas I still pretty much avoid church except for Good Friday and Christmas services and have a very fundie Bible approach (sola scriptura, Luther again).

Indeed while I have always responded "Lutheran" when asked, except for the shared "justification by faith" label, my current faith is worlds different from that I professed when a child. Indeed, if I answer those "religion?" questions at all anymore (unlikely), I probably would answer "none" today. For I do not consider my belief a "religion" at all anymore. I agree with Luther's Biblical exegesis (what I know of it), but I don't consider myself of a "Lutheran denomination". Mine is a personal stance of trust and faith, and that is all it is. It is not something designed to fit human categories and human standards. It is a relationship I have with the Divine, my continuing attempts to follow that Great Commandment of His, but I do not see it as membership in a shared "religion." Religions are artifacts of the cultures of flawed human beings, like constitutions and statutes and football teams.

I am a Christian, yes, but not in the sense of "tries to follow some human-proscribed set of rules and dogma" coming out of the Vatican or my local synod. I am a Christian in the sense that I strive to follow Christ's wishes. Not because he is at the top of my religious hierarchy. Because He is the Word that is with God and that is God.

And trust me, were my mother able to overcome that dementia that she is captive of, she would consider this distinction between "religion" and "faith", or between "church" and "faith" at least as bizarre as most people I try to explain it to.

Just as she thought it utterly bizarre when I decided to spend a week in contemplative retreat at a Benedictine monastery and then, a few years later, five weeks in total eremetic silence at a house of prayer deep in South Texas. No, that's not right. The second she considered bizarre. The first she feared for my salvation, in that I was somehow becoming "Catholic" and would start buying masses for the dead with my deepening interest in the contemplative ideas of Benedict, Thomas Merton, and others.

No, the notion that my belief in Christ is the result of parental or cultural indoctrination, I find utterly ridiculous.




Do I believe there is one true God? Yes, absolutely.

Do I believe that one true God created life, the universe, and everything? Yes. Do I believe that all those other 3,000 gods and goddesses were the creations of the imagination of human beings attempting to make sense of what the one true God created? Yes, that, too.

Is this hubris? Perhaps. But, if so, it is a weird sort of hubris, for my belief is that the nature and character of that One True God not only passes my own understanding, but my ability to understand (Philippians 4:7, to quote that silly little book again). I believe that God "created man in His own image", but I do not claim to know what that means? If I cannot comprehend the God who passes all understanding, how can I know what his image looks like I certainly do not believe that God looks like me, or thinks like me, or does anything like me.

I think it matters not at all where or when you are born. (I forget where I first heard/read this/had itexplained to me. But it is what I believe.) When you are born, you know God, because you see/hear/feel/taste/know God's world. You may not have named Him, but you know Him with your very actions and being of living in His world. If you die before learning of the Bible or even hearing Jesus' name, you die His. He doesn't condemn you for failing to formally acknowledge Him in a creed or words of faith. He loves you because you are part of your creation and you have acknowledged Him by being that. He doesn't require you to acknowledge his salvation of you on the cross any more than he requires you to keep the Law that Moses brought down a thousand years and five thousand miles away.

God requires the kind of stance of faith He requires of me (and, yes, I believe, you) because we know of his sacrifice. Because we have not just experienced His creation, but because we have heard of Him in his Himness. For me to not take the stance of faith that I take is different because my not taking that stance would be an act of refusal, a choice of denial. And it is denial that is the opposite of trust.

As to when unknowing non-acknowledgment becomes knowing denial, that line is God's and God's alone to draw. Unlike the "religious" who debate the value of infant baptism, I would not dream of claim to know His will on this.

And who knows, maybe the One True God does accept some kinds of faith in some of those 3,000 gods and goddesses because they were manifestations of Himself that He designed. I don't know or profess to know. (Philippians 4:7, again).

I only believe that salvation comes only by virtue of the sacrifice that He made, and that the only route to salvation for an individual knowing of His sacrifice lies through faith. I don't claim to know His will beyond that. I don't even claim to know what he requires as evidence of sufficient faith or whether I have shown it yet.

I merely believe.

Is that truly what hubris is?

---

Now, *this* to me is human-ist hubris. My belief in a single-True-God may be blind or delusional. But to reduce and limit the possibilities for Divineness to the sum of human action, when we have centuries of empirical experience of human stupidity and wrongheadedness going along with those occasional bouts of wisdom.

That I simply do not understand. I cannot know without faith who God is and even with faith I cannot comprehend what He is. But I know with near certainty that what humans have managed to figure out in the years of our humanity is dwarfed by what we have no clue about.

Faith in the existence of a perfect God is hubris, but faith in billions-of-times demonstrably less-than-perfect "human experiences and accumulated knowledge" is not?

One faith may be misplaced. But the other has been shown to be.

---

No, my friend, the Christian thing is not to feel sorry for them. The Christian thing is to realize that living here and pissing over the country and loving and enjoying it are all chasing the wind. (Ecclesiastes).

The Christian thing is to remember that only He matters in the end. We can try to help them open their eyes, but only they can decide what they see.

[grin1]

---

Blah Blah Blah. It must be so wonderful to be so ignorant. Ignorance is bliss they say!

But hey, I should be alright as long as someone as wonderful and saintly as you is feeling sorry for me. You've now replied to almost every thing I've ever posted to you and still said absolutely nothing of substance, and that is why I rarely bother to comment on your inanity! Fuck em indeed!

At least Wade took the time to explain his particular take on the God dilemma. I really don't see how his missive contradicts my statement of indoctrination and location-based faith but that's really not my concern. He still believes in a god that was given to him, not sought out.

But this discussion is/was not about the existence of god and my mention of religious "values" was for the purpose of illustration. I said that the only people who seem to be fighting against marriage equality are those who get the majority of their guidance from that "silly little book."

Funny how I'm pissing all over this great country when I want equal rights for all and you're a true and righteous man for denying the rights of the likes of others.

You can keep your faith, I want no part of that hatred.

---

Par for the course on Packershome, this thread has gone off on a completely different tangent.

In any event, I interpreted Dingus' post differently. Perhaps, I'm wrong, only Dingus could clarify for the two of us. That said, I took his comment, not as equating human action to divinity, but rather as claiming the bible as a story is human-inspired, not divine-inspired. He's not claiming that human story is infallible or omniscient, as a religious person might claim regarding an allegedly divine story; otherwise, he wouldn't be calling it a "silly book."

And that brings me to a more general point: an individual can hold a secular humanist point of view, highly value the capacity for human reason and problem-solving, and celebrate the scientific and intellectual advancements that are the fruit of that human capacity to reason; and still acknowledge how limited our knowledge is and how often we have been wrong. It's a different claim altogether than the religious person's claim of god(s), which usually do claim omnipotence.

I'm not sure if you were trying to make a broader point or if your post was entirely focused on the post Dingus made. Just thought I'd throw my two cents in on the above.

---

And a few responses to select absurdities from the last couple pages of this thread:




Still waiting for you to cite the proposed law that prohibits Christians from marrying or that requires you to suck a dick before communion. Not holding my breath because they don't exist.



Constantly equating a group of people to rapists and criminals with zero basis isn't being respectful or civil. It's possible to act like an asshole without cursing.



The fact that someone else held a belief should never be used as an excuse for bigotry. At no point have you stated any logical reason why homosexuality should be viewed as immoral. Strongly holding the view that something is an "abomination" without any logical reason why it should be viewed as such is the definition of bigotry.

As an aside, I see you're right back to relying on the position of that book that you've already admitted you grossly cherry pick from.

---

To Pack93z- You know I respect you very much for your ability to hold your own counsel so many times when I know for a fact that some-thing is irritating you to a great degree. You possess an ability to do so far beyond mine.

To Texas Packer backer- Your intellect is self-evident to any thinking person. Your argumentative/persuasive written skills are outstanding, imo. I find it refreshing that you are not towing the PC line.

To so many others around here- Are you sheep? You pile on someone like Texas Packerbacker AFTER people like Dakota T and Pack93z make their arguments to him, and he responds, to them...

You are a friggin' coward and an asshole, imo. Not him, not Pack93z, not Dakota (well, Dakota is, but that's not germane to this post, lol)

Ultimately, back your shit, ESPECIALLY if you called out the person/philosophy, instead of the issue at hand. Ad hominem is weak, if not in jest.

I'm getting increasing bored with this topic. I really don't give a shit what homosexuals do or don't do, or to much of an extent, if they are allowed to legally get married. The true enemy here is NOT them - a surprising (maybe) percentage of whom are actually in tune with decent conservative Republicans on most issues. The enemy is the sick damn leftist assholes who want to inflict the homosexual agenda on the huge percentage of normal people in this country and I suppose elsewhere - and by that I mean the propaganda that has crept into education, etc. over the past generation or two - but even this is basically a big non-issue unless we let it become one - something which I need to guard against, I guess. Let the bastards have their victory in this arena (and by that I mean the non-homosexual leftists, not homosexuals themselves); There are a lot more important issues, the great majority of which the good normal pro-American side is gaining ground, as will be evidenced by throwing the bums out in the '14 and '16 elections.

Now to get down to a couple specifics of your post: I assume your thing about equating homosexuals to rapists, criminals, whatever else you said, refers to my repeatedly stating that homosexualITY equates to a variety of other items designated as something remotely like "abomination". Yup, if that's what you meant, I stand by it. As for the sinners themselves, I feel no particular hate for them, any more than I feel any particular hate for a lot of other sinners whose transgressions are either victimless or at least don't affect me. Now if you want to talk Muslims, Commies, or a few other avowed supporters of destruction or change of the country I love, yeah, then I'll give you some hate hahahahaha.

Which transitions into the civility thing you spoke of: with a few VERY rare exceptions, I have been extremely restrained, civil, and even respectful to OTHER POSTERS - including yourself - even in the face of MUCH worse crap spewed toward me and other sane rational conservatives - some of whom maybe can't laugh it off as easily as I can (just to make clear, mi_keys, it ain't you I'm referring to).

As for the "proposed law ...." thing you mentioned, maybe I'm getting old and forgetful, but I don't remember ever saying such a thing existed - obviously it doesn't. If you are speaking of my assertion that the equal treatment argument that many on your side make is basically a one way street - no equal treatment either legally or in the arena of public discussion for the ANTIs - those speaking out AGAINST gay marriage or homosexuality in general, then hell yeah. I wish I could remember some examples of athletes, entertainers, broadcasters, etc. making fairly mild comments of their opposition to those sacred cows of the change mongering left, and getting thoroughly skewered, even to the point of having their careers threatened because they exercised even a little bit of the "wrong kind" of free speech. THAT is what gets me - NOT mere homosexuals quietly practicing their perversion, NOT even laws to let them get married legally, NOT even the mainstreaming in schools and entertainment of the "homosexuality is OK" concept, but the absolute TYRANNY - characterization of those speaking the opposing position as bigots, etc. THAT is what is damn wrong and the height of hypocrisy on the part of leftists - and on that one, I will include you.

---

Well said, all of it.

As is often the case, I was not as clear as I should have been. But, knowing me, I almost surely was trying to make a broader point. (Or, if you will, going off on yet another tangent. [grin1] )

To me, this whole subthread of the discussion is about the difference between "belief" and "knowledge". My belief that God is omnipotent is, indeed, a belief (or, if you will, a stance of my faith). I do not deny that, nor do I deny that my belief may be in error and my faith misplaced. I do not claim to "know" that God is omnipotent. That would be foolish, to me, effectively claiming my own omnicience on the question (and I'm not that).

What I was trying to point out was the *extent* of mine and everyone's ignorance as to what might/is/will be (choose your own tense here). Man has accumulated amazing quantities of "knowledge" over the centuries; but what we know is *dwarfed* by what we do not know. And to me this means that stances about what the Bible is, whether they are my own fundie stance or dingus's or anyone elses, however "historical" or "scientific" the reasoning they use to enunciate and explain their stance, are still stances of faith.

Maybe my faith is the bigger or more blind "leap" than others. I'll concede such, it doesn't bother me to do so. But, to me, given the degree of our mutual human ignorance, I believe both our beliefs remain stances of faith. Mine that the Bible is the statement of the inerrant Word of God is a faith in the possibility and likelihood of a Divine Inspirer. His/yours/the "reasonable person"'s that the Bible is the historical construction of the very human Council of Nicea and/or very human plagiarists and bastardizers, however, is also a stance a faith. A faith in the ability of theological scholars to wrap human definitions around their partial knowledge of what might have been.

*ANY* statement by a non-divine human being (i.e. any and all of us) is an estimate of probabilities about something no non-divine human being can be certain about. Contra Popper, et al, it doesn't matter whether the statement is positive or negative. Man cannot prove the existence of the divine, nor can he prove the non-existence of the divine. Only the divine can prove the divine.

And, in the end, therefore, this is my primary point. People can and will believe what they will about God and the Bible I just want them to see that their belief -- whatever it is -- is just as much a place of faith for them as mine is for me.

---

I'm becoming ever more convinced that you truly are a dumbass! A coward, really? Fuck you man, and I mean that profoundly.

And your sheep comment, you Conservatives are the sheep, the cowards, the assholes, and the truly evil people in this country.

Go fuck yourself!

---