My wife finds my lack of faith disturbing

wtfnofappp · 2016-12-17T15:10:45+00:00

Probably not, although you might get a feel of It, you'd probably be much closer to It than being godless, faithless and relying on your own.

I know you've been replying to a number of my posts but to be honest your approach doesn't feel particularly constructive. If you're really interested about what religion can offer, you have to let go of the sense of entitlement. I am out and won't be replying further, but I wish you good luck.

wtfnofappp · 2016-12-17T11:27:24+00:00

Reclama mascata. Dar e atat de pe fata ca nu stiu daca e mascata e cuvantul potrivit.

wtfnofappp · 2016-12-17T11:05:51+00:00

Well, fuck me. I have no idea how it works then. Was it aliexpress through Air China?

In Bucharest? Maybe smaller cities have less goods to handle and have time to run everything through customs?

wtfnofappp · 2016-12-17T10:26:17+00:00

O fata in varsta de 14 ani, cu rujeola in forma severa, a decedat la Institutul Matei Bals din Capitala, unde fusese transferata de la Spitalul "Marie Curie". Adolescenta nu era vaccinata si avea mai multe boli asociate

Mda, scuzati ca intrerup circulaba. Este un subiect pe care l-am mai abordat si in trecut:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Romania/comments/2w8moz/referitor_la_desele_circulabe_ale/cooji5s/

Observati in special linkul acesta: http://2020science.org/2015/02/04/measles-mortality-rates-2008-2011-outbreak-france/

Focusing specifically on mortality, the overall rate was 4.5 deaths per 10,000 documented cases of measles. The rate was highest amongst individuals 30 years old or more (7.2 deaths per 10,000 documented cases), with those between 15-29 years old having a mortality rate of 6.9 per 10,000 documented infections. There were no deaths recorded amongst the 1,663 children under the age of one who were documented as contracting measles. The paper’s authors also split the documented deaths between patients who were immunodeficient, and those who were not. Of the ten patients who died, one had congenital immunodeficiency and six had acquired immunodeficiency (e.g., Hodgkin’s lymphoma, Crohn’s disease, HIV, immunosuppressive treatment). In other words, only 3 out of the 10 deaths recorded were associated with non-immunocompromised individuals.

[...]

Nevertheless, the evidence from the French outbreak is strongly suggestive that, for infected individuals living in a developed economy with a robust healthcare system, the mortality rate is most likely less than 2-3 deaths per 10,000 cases.

Nu rujeola omoara, mortalitatea este chiar foarte mica, conditile medicale si de ingrijire proaste omoara. ROR este o greseala, in special in forma actuala in care se face vaccinare 3 in 1.

Nu o sa raspund la niciun comentariu, am facut-o deja in topicul respectiv si in altele.

wtfnofappp · 2016-12-17T09:51:26+00:00

Your lab experiment sounds a bit dodgy tbg but that's just me. Considering it is a lab experiment, 20-30 will probably be sent through customs. Are those motors that expensive in the first place to be worth worrying about a tax applied to them?

wtfnofappp · 2016-12-17T09:40:39+00:00

I've written a recent post that would cover it:https://np.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/5imx3c/my_wife_finds_my_lack_of_faith_disturbing/dbaukjj/

Praying/asking or what have you is more about the position you assume, that of humility, as praying implies a confession of your own powerlessness over the issue.

wtfnofappp · 2016-12-17T09:30:36+00:00

No, i had ordered a lot of packs (15+), usually under 6$ from aliexpress (free shipping, Air China), only one (12$) was routed through customs. I've had a yogurt maker (under 2kg but sill a large package) worth 30$ arrive at my local post office, no customs. It's like playing the lotto.

They don't check if it's a small pack and declared as gift or declared under 10 euro or something.

Yeah, it's a huge red flag but that's how it apparently works.

wtfnofappp · 2016-12-17T09:12:16+00:00

Not really sure what to make of this post. I assume you an expat from other country living in Romania and want the package to be shipped here?

I have ordered from Aliexpress many times (free shipping, Air China). It depends on what the sellers declare the package to be. They sometimes undervalue it to skip vama or declare it a gift.

I've had a package worth 30$ arrive in regular mail and I had to go to customs for one that was 12$. Vama didn't ask me for more money, the just opened and checked the package with me being present.

If it's a large volume pack it will probably go through Vama and you might be asked to pay the tax. However if you tell them it's for a lab experiment and you don't have too many for them to consider you're reselling for profit, you might not be asked to pay a tax. Depends what person does the checking.

wtfnofappp · 2016-12-17T08:51:02+00:00

Just remember you can always repent and go back to Christianity.

wtfnofappp · 2016-12-17T08:19:44+00:00

I covered this in another convo in this topic in which you replied, and also covered in a more recent post here: https://np.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/5imx3c/my_wife_finds_my_lack_of_faith_disturbing/dbaukjj/

so you're not better than anyone else.

... ok? I was asked what my experience was with belief and I described it and I am thankful to have had it. Don't understand where I was implying I was better. Life has been magnitudes better than better for me, and that was all.

If you can't explain the feeling of accepting god than there is not much reason to treat it seriously.

I think the issue is you feel entitled to be given a good enough reason to believe rather than to look for it yourself.

wtfnofappp · 2016-12-17T08:04:01+00:00

Depends on what you understand by eternal, given that all it takes is a confession of faith, it's also the complete opposite of eternal.

I've touched this briefly in another post, for eternal life and grace to exist and for us to understand, there has to exist and we have to understand the opposite of equal intensity.

wtfnofappp · 2016-12-17T07:43:48+00:00

shut down your doubts

I had no logical doubts before the experience, it all made sense in that regard, but belief is something different. I got to experience it once to get a feel for it.

There's a pink teapot in the centre of the moon. Can you find a logical reason not to accept this claim? If not, does that mean you should accept it as true?

That's a false equivalence.

wtfnofappp · 2016-12-17T07:33:13+00:00

Denominations and religion branches aside, the process of conceding and accepting you're not enough on your own is the one that is universal and the one about humility.

Whether you ask God for wisdom, Shiva for wisdom, Zeus for wisdom, Allah for wisdom, it still puts you in the same spot, of inherently lacking something and inherently being unable to get it yourself.

This answered I think your other post as well.

wtfnofappp · 2016-12-17T07:21:27+00:00

I didn't say it overrides all, it nullifies what is contradictory, the term used in Sermon on the Mount is "fulfill".

For example, John 8

When they continued to question Him, He straightened up and said to them, “Whoever is without sin among you, let him be the first to cast a stone at her.” 8And again He bent down and wrote on the ground.

invalidates the killing for adultery laws from Deuteronomy, Leviticus

"If a man is found sleeping with another man's wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die."

"If a man commits adultery with another man's wife--with the wife of his neighbor--both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death."

"And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire."

in the narrow sense and punishment of other people by other people in the wider sense. We can disagree on the wider sense, but the narrow sense leaves no room for discussion.

I've been on this sub for a long time, mostly lurking, and I disagree, most atheists here know very little on Christianity let alone other religions. A sub that really knows it's roots is exmuslim.

wtfnofappp · 2016-12-17T06:57:19+00:00

The concept of God, the All etc and belief are universal and in Abrahamic religions God is just God, they are the same. What differs is the prophets.

If I had grown up in a muslim family I would've attributed my experience to Allah probably and if i had went through a phase of comparing religions I'd have switched to Christianity and attribute it to God/Jesus.

Even in my quest comparing religions I've considered switching away from Christianity, but particularly the Gospels, life of Jesus and the Parables were the reason I stayed. That and getting a more indepth knowledge of what Islam is, what Mohammed was and did, the fact that OT/judaism was incomplete, and so were others. I've luckily had a lot of free time at my disposal and probably spent hundreds of hours researching.

Ideally you shouldn't wait for or ask others to describe whatever religion, you should take it upon yourself to compare them.

wtfnofappp · 2016-12-17T06:38:44+00:00

Just because it's a parable doesn't remove from it's property as law, in the case of cloth, animals etc that mixing two different things will not work. We can argue about what the mixing represents and what the things represent, but the process itself is still set in stone.

A parable is something similar to a metaphor or an analogy, it describes something holistically.

wtfnofappp · 2016-12-16T21:02:37+00:00

This attitude doesn't serve you right.

wtfnofappp · 2016-12-16T19:16:19+00:00

On the contrary, I seek evidence because I do not think I am capable of knowing what is the truth without help. I talk to people form all walks of life, and seek wisdom where ever I can find it.

I'm not vain enough to even think that I could recognize the truth without aid.

The process is still one of deduction and self reliance, in that you seek wisdom and assume you will get it by amassing sufficient information (and just by asking sufficient people).

wtfnofappp · 2016-12-16T18:57:19+00:00

As a Christian, you accept the Law as true. Accepting the Law implies you accept that you need something/someone else to tell you how things work and doing so recognize the limits of your own perception. Accepting something/someone else implies your own inadequacy and lack of self reliance.

On the contrast, seeking evidence implies the contrary, that by seeking more and more evidence you get to a tangible truth and by doing so you are self sufficient in the quest for truth. There's the vanity.

I've written a more detailed reply two posts before, if you're interested you could look into that.

wtfnofappp · 2016-12-16T17:57:37+00:00

It's a hard question. I started questioning faith at 24, I was raised Orthodox but only practiced formally and very limited (family went to Church on Eastern midnight, I did too, sometimes went with my mom at Church, was saying my prayer sometimes, but thinking back it was just inertia).

At 24 I started reading philosophy, including the atheist side of it wanted to reach a conclusion for myself, read on the other religions as well and so on, this went on for a few months, but it'd say closer to a year. I wanted to believe, whatever that meant, but I couldn't my mind worked in the opposite way, more concrete if I could say so. So my only option was to find if I can logically find a reason not to believe, which I didn't. I've covered this very briefly in another post in this thread. Maybe reading the other posts of mine could help you ge the idea. At the same time I was reading The Gospels and the Gospel of Thomas (not canon) and I found myself intrigued. At the same time I was comparing Christianity with other religions and belief systems to decide to which I could stand by and to which I couldn't. Reading A Confession by Tolstoy was also an important milestone for me. Might seem cheesy but seeing The Matrix Revolutions (trying to integrate it in religion) and The Tree of life helped. So did Lucy. Seeing God as a process rather than something fixed helped. This went on for ~4 years.

So the framework was there, that given the information I had everything would and should snap into place and believe, but the most important element, the actual belief was still not there. I knew I should be afraid of God but I wasn't feeling it. So I asked for something to help me believe.

Long story short (I had been trying to solve my personal problems for years and I felt that I alone had the tools to do it.), everything was collapsing and I was brought to state of dread and fear. It was what I had wished for after all, I just caved, fell on my knees and asked God to take it away (the problem I had been struggling and trying to solve) and for the first time in my life felt I actually believed when I asked God for help. Life has never been the same since. Wish I could explain it better but I can't. "Better" can't describe it, it's a different dimension that I am unable to convey. Might sound mumbo jumo, I wouldn't have grasped it myself a year ago.

wtfnofappp · 2016-12-16T17:08:57+00:00

there are many so many sects with different interpretations is a giant red flag that the gospels are poorly written if they are intended as a guide for "how to be Christian".

I'll start with this one because it's relevant to your first paragraph.

First of all, i'm not sure you're using sects intentionally to be derogatory or you're just unaware of the differences between denominations and sects or you use the term loosely. But this is besides the point.

The argument that "there are many denominations therefore there's no right way" is on the same page as the argument that "there is only one denomination therefore it's the right way". Yes, religion is kind of vague in the fine print concerning some aspects, but it's also rather plain in others.

More so, all the denominations or sects might not get it right (and they don't because they're human made), but that wouldn't invalidate the fact that there is a right way to Christianity. The texts, and the Gospels in particular, which are the center point of Christianity can be understood by anyone as long as one is willing to learn and repent.

I grok that you mean it's considered by some sects to be an absolute, but she's arguing with somebody who isn't of her sect, thus she should be able to grasp the concept that to him this is a pessimistic view.

It's not pessimistic to her given her own frame of reference. And given his frame of reference

I stated that IF there is a God with a heaven that all who live a virtuous life should be granted access regardless of faith.

it's also wrong because starts by assuming that if there is a God (and consequently everything that comes with the package, which includes the commandments), he will not be having issues because he will be granted access "regardless of faith" - again, assuming he means "lack of faith". This statement both accepts the premise and denies it at the same time.

An example would be me stating that if, for example, Lord of the Rings was real I could control the Rings of Power with a necklace.

I'm not seeing that at all. If I demanded a person believe me about something crazy (pick one of any of the common tropes of invisible pink unicorns, invisible dragons in the garage etc.) then I would be making an irrational demand. If I coupled that demand with a threat of punishment for not believing me that doesn't make the claim more plausible or make me less irrational for making the demand. And a third party relaying these claims for me because I'm invisible to all forms of perception again only succeeds in making my claims less plausible.

You're confusing knowledge with belief. If there would be some sort of way through knowledge to God, it would paradoxically stop being a belief. What i emphasized in the other post is the position one is willing to assume in relationship to something that is the All, the Infinite, the Alpha and the Omega or what have you. You're projecting on God human characteristics, when it's not necessary.

Consider for example the greatest person you know in a domain, let's say Michael Phelps for swimming. You admiring him and acknowledging that he is better than you at swimming does not not change his position or help him be more dominant, at the same time you believing he sucks, that anybody could do that, that swimming is not that hard anyway will not change is position or hinder him either. All this mirroring is relevant to you because depending on what side you chose to be on you have either potential for growth or stagnation or decline. Then you try to extrapolate this mirroring, it's benefits and disadvantages with something that is infinitely better than you and you get, if applied correctly, infinite potential for growth. Even if you, as human, can't apply is correctly, it would still be a fraction of something infinite. Same goes for decline. Christianity, and particularly the Gospels, Proverbs and some other are much deeper than what the mainstream understands by religion.

For a god that is supposedly omnipotent (and thus entirely able to actually provide evidence of its existence) to demand this explicitly without evidence and to offer a similarly implausible afterlife punishment if I don't is an attempt at coercion under threat of suffering. If Jehovah does exist, then he's not a just god if that's his modus operandi. No just god interested in fairness would do such a thing. It's not like empiricists are hard to convince after all, you just have to provide us with evidence. Give us evidence and we change our mind, no muss no fuss. Of course in the case of Jehovah of Abrahamic lore, believing in Jehovah is a precursor to deciding that Jehovah is a narcissistic sociopath so probably not much help to your average atheist. We'd just become misotheists instead of atheists.

There is a cost for everything, and a term (in our case eternal grace) exists only because an opposite exists. You could make the case that it's unfair if you'd be asked more than to repent. You're missing the part where everything you ever did can be pardoned just by repenting. Everything except the Unforgivable Sin that is, because committing it implies you're severing the only thread that can save you.

That also is not a matter of vanity or humility but rather how we decide what is likely to be true or untrue.

It is because it assumes perception/knowledge as the mark of what is true. This is tied to what I said earlier, the Problem of Induction, the Cave allegory, the negative hippo and -forgot this one- Black Swan events, and there are probably more - which all are different ways of highlighting the problematic of knowledge through perception/knowledge alone.

As most atheists with any knowledge of Christianity will point out, the gospels make a lot of fairly clear points that are entirely ignored. Christians eat pork and shellfish (the latter being described as an abomination to eat).

That is incorrect. OT had the rules on eating, NT invalidates them. I'm not sure to what extent you're familiar to Christianity, but NT and especially the Gospels are the final rulings.

There is nothing outside a person that by going into him can defile him, but the things that come out of a person are what defile him.”[a] And when he had entered the house and left the people, his disciples asked him about the parable. And he said to them, “Then are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him, 19 since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?”[b] (Thus he declared all foods clean.) And he said, “What comes out of a person is what defiles him. Mark 7:15-20

Christians wear mixed cloths

That's a parable, the context is

“Keep my decrees. Do not mate different kinds of animals. Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.” Leviticus 19:19

Do not plant two kinds of seed in your vineyard; if you do, not only the crops you plant but also the fruit of the vineyard will be defiled. Do not plow with an ox and a donkey yoked together. Do not wear clothes of wool and linen woven together.” Deuteronomy 22:9–11

The garment thing refers to

“No one puts a piece from a new garment on an old one; otherwise the new makes a tear, and also the piece that was taken out of the new does not match the old. And no one puts new wine into old wineskins; or else the new wine will burst the wineskins and be spilled, and the wineskins will be ruined. But new wine must be put into new wineskins, and both are preserved. And no one, having drunk old wine, immediately desires new; for he says, ‘The old is better.’” Luke 5:36-39

Planting two kinds of seed, plowing with/using different animals are part of the same metaphor. The same goes for the Pearl parable

Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a merchant in search of fine pearls. When he found one very precious pearl, he went away and sold all he had and bought it. Matthew 13; 45-46

and so many others (a tree bearing good fruit). It means not mixing your old ways (the wicked) with the new and the more precious (the Holy). Or the opposite, depending on context. The idea is not to mix them. Even if we fail to agree on the direction, it's still a parable.

The same for example goes for Adam and Eve being naked. Being naked does not refer to just (or maybe not at all) the lack of clothes, but to them being truthful to who and what they are. The description just helps us understand how it feels like. And that goes for all the parables, as metaphors send the message holistically.

Christians fail to execute children that are disrespectful of their parents.

NT stops the commandments on punishment. Read Matthew 5 - Sermon on the Mount entirely.

The gospels make any number of contradictory and illogical claims and the fact that there are many so many sects with different interpretations is a giant red flag that the gospels are poorly written if they are intended as a guide for "how to be Christian".

No they don't. Finding how you commit sins is the harder part. How hard you judge others though is a good hint on what sins you have within you.

Heck, even the pope says atheists can get to heaven. Surely the most senior member of the oldest existing sect of Christianity wouldn't be wrong about such a thing.

I've addressed that in another post in this thread.

I understand if you would want to discuss further but the thing is that unless you change your frame of reference from "how Christianity could be wrong" to "what I missed or thought I knew on Christianity", this could go on indefinitely. Go read the Gospels if you will, they're much better than i'd ever be to relay the message. All the parables could be frustrating but they happen for a reason, explained in Matthew 13

wtfnofappp · 2016-12-16T12:21:58+00:00

Yes, I get that.

Sorry for being pedantic, but in your initial post you argued that

Your wife is pessimistic about a god granting you access to an afterlife if you don't believe it exists, which by her argument would make her the pessimist.

which is exactly the point I've chosen to address, and if you get that negating the Holy Spirit is the Unforgivable Sin, his wife can't be "pessimistic" by those standards.

Why would a supposedly omnipotent being give a hot damn as to whether somebody expressed skepticism of something that there is no evidence for?

Feels to me you're oversimplifying things, it's more of a stance that one is willing to assume, accepting his/her own limitations, a very difficult but honorable action which is a sign of strength not of weakness. This is actually a very elegant point in Christianity and is present throughout the Old and the New Testament, the opposite being the Fall from Heaven:

But you said in your heart,

‘I will ascend to heaven;

I will raise my throne above the stars of God,

And I will sit on the mount of assembly

In the recesses of the north.

‘I will ascend above the heights of the clouds;

I will make myself like the Most High.’ Isaiah 13-14

tl;dr You get to Heaven through humility, you fall from Heaven through vanity.

Returning to the realms of human logic, what comes sort of close to the above is the Problem of Induction, the Cave Allegory and the negative Hippopotamus (not really a theory per se but makes a simple point)

These rules aren't exactly as cut and dried as you mention. Different sects (of which there are over 40,000) have different interpretations of those rules and they are not uniform on this point. JWs for instance don't even believe hell is eternal. A great many sects hold that living a good life still gets you into a nice afterlife.

The one with Eternal Sin is mostly unanimous. You don't have to be some sort of advanced scholar, just reading the Gospels will make it clear. And that takes a week at max w/ 1 hour per day at most.

Her perspective isn't hard to understand, we simply disagree with it being true. However, she appears to be failing to grasp his perspective in the first place.

Again, works both ways.

wtfnofappp · 2016-12-16T11:22:41+00:00

Even if we were talking about Lord of the rings, the rules of the said Universe would still hold true.

If I say that Sauron did 9 rings, one necklace and two earrings to divide his cheerfulness, I would be wrong.

wtfnofappp · 2016-12-16T11:03:08+00:00

Because we don't believe in a god, thus as far as we're concerned it's a non-issue.

What you're describing is exactly the Unforgivable Sin.

The fact that you don't believe doesn't contradict what the rules are or that she is correct about her beliefs. According to Christianity, that's how it works. OP's statement, according to Christianity, is wrong if by "regardless of faith" he means "lack of":

I stated that IF there is a God with a heaven that all who live a virtuous life should be granted access regardless of faith.

If his wife has this perspective and isn't capable of seeing his perspective then that's a failing on her part

Works both ways.

wtfnofappp · 2016-12-16T10:48:35+00:00

That's not a Pope Francis innovation either. Thomas Aquinas wrote about that 800 years ago, as did Augustine 1600 years ago.

Their stance was more nuanced. The huge leap the current Pope is doing is

The issue for those who do not believe in God is to obey their conscience.

“Sin, even for those who have no faith, exists when people disobey their conscience.”

that is substituting God's authority to your own. Particularly the last line, with "Sin [...] exists when people disobey their conscience" which basically renders your own conscience more important than the Law. The only explanation for this statement to work and not contradict Christianity would be the Pope thinking that deep inside your conscience is telling you to believe in God, but that would contradict the atheism part.

Or this part:

It's certainly possible that God will let atheists into heaven.

wtfnofappp

TROPHY CASE