How did you find God?

[addickt]

About 8 years ago, after tripping on acid I came home and started to go back to my bed room... At the end of the hallway we had a crucifix with Christ on it. ......... I started to have chest pains and Christ came off the crucifix and said....... " son, its allright, come with me...."

I was like "fuck that, I am 20 years old, and I gotta hot girl waiting for me to bang her... I gotta closet full of juice and a pocket full of money, I gotta get a rain check."

thats the last I heard from any "gods" i hope that wasnt my only chance.

 

[Crazier]

When I was under the age of 18, I didn't look for him. My parent's never had me to go to church, and we didn't really ever talk about it.

When I got my girlfriend pregnant at 19, and went on with her for the next 3 years, I wasn't looking for him then either.

When she left, and I was left with nothing, and I realized that everything I faced now, all the pain and heartache, was nothing more than a direct result of my actions, from the time I was a small boy, I began to find him. When rock bottom continued to get deeper and deeper, that is when I began searching for him.

I found him about two years ago, and learned very much about him within the past year. Death is no longer a fear of mine.
--

 

[mini_mouse]

To me the differences in the gospels do not necessarily denote inconsistency. Each gospel does not tell a conflicting story of Jesus, rather a different story.

If you ask me about MLK, and I tell you about his family, and where he grew up and where he went to school, that's one true story.

If you ask my neighbor about MLK, and he tells you of his leadership abilities, hi morals, and his visions as a revolutionary, that's a different true story.

You have heard two DIFFERENT stories, but not necessarly INCONSISTENT stories.

Like you said, these New Testament Gospels are men telling the stories of the day, so there are bound to be inconsistencies and inaccuracies in some of the extraneous details, but does this detract from the validity or truth of the SPIRITUAL message that the Bible (especially the Old Testament) delivers?

Essentially I agree with all that you've said. But that's probably because I think of the 'truth' you're talking about as 'spiritual truth'. I don't believe in such a thing as ultimate truth, I think truth is relative and that it has different languages. The Gospels use many metaphors lifted from the Old Testament and restructure them in order to 'prove' that Jesus fulfils the prophecies of old and that Christianity is the supercendent of Judaism. For example, in Isiah, the "suffering servant" provides a metaphor for the promised land of Israel. In the Gospels, however, Jesus is portayed as the "suffering servant", thus indicating that he is God's new promise. Religious metaphor, while not literal, can, I think, provide a spiritual truth. And that's how I view the Bible stories: as spiritually true. By spiritually true I suppose I am referring to the ethics that underlie the narrative, the morals of the story, even if not the stories themselves.
Everyone likes to separate storytelling which is not fact from history which is fact in order to know what to believe and what not to believe. But I think that you come to a story with preconceived beliefs already and that the truth you find in it is determined by them. If you already believe in God then you will read the Bible differently to someone who comes to it as a non-believer. Both will find a truth in some shape or form, just one personal to them.

 

[jagwire]

THE BIBLE

Food for thought:

What if everything in the bible was true there was a heaven and hell. And what if you lived your life the way you wanted and not according to the bible then where would you go? But what if you lived your life according to the bible and then find out there was no truth in it, no heaven or hell, then what did you lose by living your life good. Question you ask yourself do I want to take that chance that there might be some truth, and there is a heaven and hell. Just a thought............

 

[mini_mouse]

Re: THE BIBLE

Food for thought:

What if everything in the bible was true there was a heaven and hell. And what if you lived your life the way you wanted and not according to the bible then where would you go? But what if you lived your life according to the bible and then find out there was no truth in it, no heaven or hell, then what did you lose by living your life good. Question you ask yourself do I want to take that chance that there might be some truth, and there is a heaven and hell. Just a thought............

Ppl often put forward this argument but I can't understand it myself. I mean, according to Christian doctrine, your place in heaven isn't determined by whether you are simply good, it's determined by whether you believe in the Holy Trinity. By this reasoning a person could follow the Christian ethical code (which is, in fact, the ethical code upon which the whole of western society is based) and still end up in Hell. It's the belief that stands as the great divider, allegedly. And it's not possible to cultivate belief, you either have it or you don't. Hedging your bets sounds all well and good in theory, but in practice it's a fraud. I can tell you this: I want to believe in a higher power - I think that people who do are generally happier, after all - but I don't.

 

[bigguns7]

Essentially I agree with all that you've said. But that's probably because I think of the 'truth' you're talking about as 'spiritual truth'. I don't believe in such a thing as ultimate truth, I think truth is relative and that it has different languages. The Gospels use many metaphors lifted from the Old Testament and restructure them in order to 'prove' that Jesus fulfils the prophecies of old and that Christianity is the supercendent of Judaism. For example, in Isiah, the "suffering servant" provides a metaphor for the promised land of Israel. In the Gospels, however, Jesus is portayed as the "suffering servant", thus indicating that he is God's new promise. Religious metaphor, while not literal, can, I think, provide a spiritual truth. And that's how I view the Bible stories: as spiritually true. By spiritually true I suppose I am referring to the ethics that underlie the narrative, the morals of the story, even if not the stories themselves.
Everyone likes to separate storytelling which is not fact from history which is fact in order to know what to believe and what not to believe. But I think that you come to a story with preconceived beliefs already and that the truth you find in it is determined by them. If you already believe in God then you will read the Bible differently to someone who comes to it as a non-believer. Both will find a truth in some shape or form, just one personal to them.

Well put. I think your message is nealry the same as mine.

I'm begging people to read the Bible with an open mind, and to consider the people telling the story. It's so easy to find things in the Bible that aren't true, or don't add up, but people shouldn't use that as a reason to shun Christianity. They should realize that the New Testament is told by men, just like us.

Are their opinions biased? Of course, because Jesus was their Messiah, and they were his disciples. Just like Christians who read the Bible today, these men believed in what they were writing because they WANTED to believe. Their convictions may have swayed their journalistic reporting, but can we blame them? The Old Testament prophesied that certain things would happen, and these men looked for things in their present lives that could apply to the metaphors used in the Old Testament.

They weren't writing the Gospels as propaganda or to deliberately deceive people, they were telling the truth as they saw it.

It's important to remember that God didn't get a chance to proofread and correct the version of the Bible that we read today.

 

[mini_mouse]

Well put. I think your message is nealry the same as mine.

I'm begging people to read the Bible with an open mind, and to consider the people telling the story. It's so easy to find things in the Bible that aren't true, or don't add up, but people shouldn't use that as a reason to shun Christianity. They should realize that the New Testament is told by men, just like us.

Are their opinions biased? Of course, because Jesus was their Messiah, and they were his disciples. Just like Christians who read the Bible today, these men believed in what they were writing because they WANTED to believe. Their convictions may have swayed their journalistic reporting, but can we blame them? The Old Testament prophesied that certain things would happen, and these men looked for things in their present lives that could apply to the metaphors used in the Old Testament.

They weren't writing the Gospels as propaganda or to deliberately deceive people, they were telling the truth as they saw it.

It's important to remember that God didn't get a chance to proofread and correct the version of the Bible that we read today.

Well put yourself I would like to think that, if I had the gut feeling that lends itself to belief in God, my beliefs would be exactly the same as yours. I don't believe in God (well, maybe I should say, I am not sure what I believe in) but I favour keeping as open a mind as possible despite this. I've dabbled with both Judaism and Christianity and I held onto each of them for the time I did because I really wanted to believe in something bigger than myself and this two-dimensional little world. I still do want to believe in something but, because there's no gut feeling there, I cannot say I do. But it's interesting that you, as a believer, and me, as a non-believer, can be of such similar thought. Thanks for your post

 

[bigguns7]

Well put yourself I would like to think that, if I had the gut feeling that lends itself to belief in God, my beliefs would be exactly the same as yours. I don't believe in God (well, maybe I should say, I am not sure what I believe in) but I favour keeping as open a mind as possible despite this. I've dabbled with both Judaism and Christianity and I held onto each of them for the time I did because I really wanted to believe in something bigger than myself and this two-dimensional little world. I still do want to believe in something but, because there's no gut feeling there, I cannot say I do. But it's interesting that you, as a believer, and me, as a non-believer, can be of such similar thought. Thanks for your post

I wish others on this board would see that people can disagree, or have differing opinions, and in the end neither party is necessarily wrong.

 

[WODIN]

VooDoo Lady thanks for sharing that wonderful little story.

Sometimes when I meditate I touch God.

 

[Raina]

When I was little I thought that God had something to do with saying grace at dinner. Other than that church was just somewhere I had to sit still and be quiet. I think I got more out of going to the dentist than I did out of church.

Through my teens I went through an unusual amount of trauma and ended up having beautiful precious souls brought into my life-- strategically placed angels to help me. I first saw God through the loving actions of a couple of my friends-- I swear that you can see Him in their lives. I wanted that. So I sought him out, lifted up my life, accepted that He was in control.

I just can't believe that all the blessings in my life are coincidence. I can't believe how many times I've literally lived through experiences I've been through without someone's hand on me guiding me. Now when I'm going through hell, when nothing makes sense, I simply realize that there is a plan...and all I an do is appreciate what I have and try to grow. I often get pissed that God's plan isn't on my time table though. I'll admit to that.

Right now my life is somewhat upside down but I have total faith that everything is going to work out. When I should be upset and lost, I'm at total peace...and I can attribute that partially to someone special, who was brought into my life just at the right time, unexpectedly. I see and feel His peace through that angel....if that makes any sense at all.