Yes I have, and at almost 72, it took most of my life from middle age on to realize the inadequacy of my faith in practice.

Now while I confidently answer that I am saved, by my confession and repentance, this clip from this preacher really puts the focus on Jesus Christ and what He offers and makes possible:

https://www.crosswaystolife.or...ss-said-i-could-come

Jesus doesn’t disqualify me , any more than He didn’t disqualify Peter after Peter denied Jesus 3x. And I know where I stand in my faith, recognizing my own failures.

FIFTY years ago March 27
Never been happier and enjoy the Grace of GOD every day

I'm also an Apostate. I was raised and confirmed as a Catholic but that was long ago. I do not practice organized religion. I believe we were created by a higher power, but don't necessarily believe what I've been formally taught.

On a side note, I saw a meme the other day that showed a woman looking confused and said something like, "Me just trying to figure out how Jesus met dude's named Matthew, Mark, Luke and John in the middle east?"

I've always questioned the bible, well that one right there is one I've never thought of but makes me go hmmmmmm?

He didn't. They were named Levi, Yochanan, Lucas (he was Gentile), and Yohanan.

Jesus changed their names.

quote:

Originally posted by sigarms229:
I'm also an Apostate. I was raised and confirmed as a Catholic but that was long ago. I do not practice organized religion. I believe we were created by a higher power, but don't necessarily believe what I've been formally taught...

It's not just the teachings, it's also the sense of community.
If still interested, I would try several parishes. There can be quite a difference in feel and vitality from one parish to the next. You may find one you like.

quote:

It's not just the teachings, it's also the sense of community.

I've believe church's can be good things when they support their members going through hardships or providing community support. Like anything, some do a good job of it, others not so much.

On a personal level, I have that kind of community at my local Fire Department where I am a life member, after giving 30+ years of active service. If I need something, a quick phone call to my firehouse family and I have support. They need support, its a phone call or text away.

When I moved to my area, 26 years ago, my wife and I checked out several local churches. It was a hard pass for me. She found one she likes and occasionally attends with a friend. I attended a few times but yeah, quickly decided no thanks.

quote:

I finally decided to watch The Chosen...///...So now I just need to figure out my place and purpose as far as religion is concerned

The best Gospel video media I have come across is this...
https://www.amazon.com/Gospel-...lingam/dp/B077V5Q7MX
It is word-for-word out of the bible (two translations) accompanied by actor portrayals. I understand that you (and many others) appreciate what The Chosen has to offer in the way of an alternative presentation of what you may find difficult to understand in scripture. Obviously the word-for-word nature of these "movies" doesn't go that far. However, the accompanying images do serve to help your mind wrap around concepts a bit easier, and hearing the narrators inflection of the scriptures (while reading along with subtitles) helps that much more.

Our "place and purpose" is always to be a worker in His harvest. Help others to find their way onto that narrow path that has brought you comfort, peace, and joy.

quote:

I've sinned plenty. Nothing earth shattering by any means but enough that I figured that God wouldn't want me...even I'm worthy and it's a beautiful revelation that I'm still trying to process

quote:

it took most of my life from middle age on to realize the inadequacy of my faith in practice...Jesus doesn’t disqualify me , any more than He didn’t disqualify Peter after Peter denied Jesus 3x. And I know where I stand in my faith, recognizing my own failures

Well said, men. I recently sent this as a follow-up to what I shared with my sister-in-law (and in this thread) about Christianity's view of homosexuality. In it, I comment on what I feel is something similar to what y'all are expressing, to include an expression of the journey of santicification:

I want to clarify something on question number one, concerning homosexuality as a sin, and sin in general.

I hope that I properly conveyed the difference between being "at odds" and being willingly and uncaringly complicit with sin.

Homosexuality is no worse of a sin than heterosexual adultery. Homosexulaity is no worse of a sin than telling a lie. Homosexuality is no worse of a sin than a heterosexual married man having a lustful thought about a woman other than his wife.

Jesus teaches that sin is sin is sin. He does this to highlight our need for Him as our savior. Everyone needs Jesus. He is the only way. Jeffrey Dahmer didn't need Jesus any more than you or I do, and we don't need Him any less than Jeffrey did.

If a homosexual faces God at The Judgement and is condemned, it will not be because he was a homosexual. It will be because he was unrepentant and did not trust in Christ for his salvation. The rejoining in proper fellowship with God is about trust and obedience as characteristics of love. A lack of trust and obedience is what characterized the fall of man, and that is what must be repaired.

I don't deliver any of this commentary from a position of delusional "sinlessness". I do deliver it from within my own struggle with persistent sin in my life. Sometimes that even means discovering new sin that I was previously unaware of. As I learn about my identity in Christ, I learn about what is righteous and what isn't.

That said, a homosexual could understand and accept the truth of their need for Christ, be indwelled by the Holy Ghost, and temporarily exist in a homosexual condition unaware of it being in opposition to God's will. If they were to die in this condition, of course they'd inherit paradise, even though they did occupy that legitimate paradoxical position of being right with God and committed to homosexuality without internal struggle.

quote:

I do not practice organized religion. I believe we were created by a higher power, but don't necessarily believe what I've been formally taught.

Deism/Agnosticism? I get the impression that you need to achieve that level of vague "belief" to be beyond all notions of judgement and consequence of immoral/wrong (as defined by whichever "God" one subscribes to) behavior. I could be wrong, as it's not something I've thoroughly studied.

This thread reminds me frequently that I need to do a better job.

That's the value of proper Christian fellowship, vthoky. I think we have that proper fellowship in this thread.

To add to my above statement on Deism and Agnosticism, I'll say that someone who professes either must also profess adherence to some variant of Annihilationism to be "comfortable".

quote:

Originally posted by KSGM:
Well said, men. I recently sent this as a follow-up to what I shared with my sister-in-law (and in this thread) about Christianity's view of homosexuality. In it, I comment on what I feel is something similar to what y'all are expressing, to include an expression of the journey of santicification:

I want to clarify something on question number one, concerning homosexuality as a sin, and sin in general.

I hope that I properly conveyed the difference between being "at odds" and being willingly and uncaringly complicit with sin.

Homosexuality is no worse of a sin than heterosexual adultery. Homosexulaity is no worse of a sin than telling a lie. Homosexuality is no worse of a sin than a heterosexual married man having a lustful thought about a woman other than his wife.

Jesus teaches that sin is sin is sin. He does this to highlight our need for Him as our savior. Everyone needs Jesus. He is the only way. Jeffrey Dahmer didn't need Jesus any more than you or I do, and we don't need Him any less than Jeffrey did.

If a homosexual faces God at The Judgement and is condemned, it will not be because he was a homosexual. It will be because he was unrepentant and did not trust in Christ for his salvation. The rejoining in proper fellowship with God is about trust and obedience as characteristics of love. A lack of trust and obedience is what characterized the fall of man, and that is what must be repaired.

I don't deliver any of this commentary from a position of delusional "sinlessness". I do deliver it from within my own struggle with persistent sin in my life. Sometimes that even means discovering new sin that I was previously unaware of. As I learn about my identity in Christ, I learn about what is righteous and what isn't.

That said, a homosexual could understand and accept the truth of their need for Christ, be indwelled by the Holy Ghost, and temporarily exist in a homosexual condition unaware of it being in opposition to God's will. If they were to die in this condition, of course they'd inherit paradise, even though they did occupy that legitimate paradoxical position of being right with God and committed to homosexuality without internal struggle.

I've made similar arguments before, but not as detailed because I didn't have the technical understanding. I mostly made this argument when the westboro baptist church was at it's peak.

My opinion on the matter was/is, there aren't many people anymore that make the argument that being gay is a choice. So, they are as God made them. So why would God create someone for the sole purpose of hating them?

He loves the sinner; He hates the sin.
Someone who is "born gay" is no different than me and you being born heterosexual sinners. We have to turn our back on sins that are no less engrained than homosexuality is. We're all lost until we find ourselves in Christ. When any of us (gay or straight) are reborn in Christ, we find ourselves at odds with our previous self. We shed that previous self in varying ways and at varying rates, as we are sanctified.

I would tell the person who presents the argument you mention that God didn't create them in the timeline the way they feel as though He did. He created MAN. Man fell in the garden. We are all part of the fallen body of mankind. The homosexual born in the 20th or 21st century isn't at some sort of cruel and unique disadvantage.

As I’ve said before, I find this discussion to be very enlightening. I especially appreciate and respect your comments, KSGM, as someone I believe is willing to think about, analyze, and discuss your beliefs.

I am, however, curious about this statement because I don’t understand what you are saying. Can you explain further?

quote:

Originally posted by KSGM:
Deism/Agnosticism? I get the impression that you need to achieve that level of vague "belief" to be beyond all notions of judgement and consequence of immoral/wrong (as defined by whichever "God" one subscribes to) behavior.

To be Agnostic in a way that is wishy-washy...

"I believe any of the "Gods" various people and cultures believe-in could be true."

...doesn't grant you safety from the judgements of any of those various Gods, unless you also adhere to a firm stance of annihilationism.

***Adopting this firm stance doesn't grant someone safety either, but that's beside the discussion point.***

If someone professes an Agnostic or Deist position, and tells me that they don't trust Jesus for the remission of sins, I can (almost) know, based on the truth of the Word of God in scripture, that they will not inherit a renewed position of eternal fellowship with God when they die, and will instead be condemned to an eternity of torment.

They're rolling the dice in any case, but they can't even logically express confidence in their own position unless they adhere to annihilationism, meaning they don't believe in an afterlife, or that they believe something like a Jehovah's Witness afterlife (heaven, and no hell).

To make even the slightest concession that Christianity may be true is to accept the consequence of sin that comes with unbelief.

Thank you.

Although like any definitions, what deist and agnostic mean can be subject to differences of opinions, these are the most common:

A deist is someone who believes in the existence a supernatural god or force that was responsible for creating everything, but that’s it: That supernatural entity does not exercise any further involvement in its creation. That is a positive, “I believe …,” position, but not necessarily about anything beyond that. I was a deist at one time because I accepted the contention that the universe and everything in it must have had a supernatural creator, i.e., a deity of some sort. I haven’t studied deism in detail, though, and don’t know why other people may be deists.

An agnostic is someone who basically says, “I cannot know the truth, and therefore I suspend belief about the existence of a supernatural god.” Although I recognize it’s a bit snobbish, I tend to agree that it’s “wishy-washy,” and found satisfaction in this quotation when I first read it years ago:
“Agnosticism as a position is interesting and debatable; agnosticism as the absence of a position is simply a sign of the absence of intellectual activity or capacity.”
— Michael Scriven, Critiques of God, 110.

Agnosticism is, however, considered by many people, including often by agnostics themselves, to be more socially acceptable because it’s seen as being less arrogant than expressing a firm belief. And being more acceptable means that it’s more likely to be claimed as a position.

Although there is nothing about atheism that dictates or implies anything about how firmly someone holds that position, it is nevertheless a common criticism: As one agnostic put it, she was not “coldly certain” of what she believed, as was supposedly true of atheists. Atheists can be as uncertain about their beliefs as anyone can be about any belief. Not all atheists are even necessarily philosophical naturalists who believe there are no supernatural entities or forces whatsoever at work in the universe. I.e., someone can be a self-proclaimed atheist and still believe in supernatural spirits of some sort.

You are of course correct that anyone who is truly a deist or agnostic cannot be a genuine Christian, even without getting into the “No true Scotsman” logical fallacy. There are too many fundamental, uncontroversial Christian beliefs that they cannot accept if they actually are deists or agnostics by any common definition.

Thanks again.

As I understand it, agnostics are pretty much atheists who accept the impossibility of proving a negative.

To genuinely be an atheist, requires an incredible strength of belief.

There was a time when I was more of a deist. I saw no way to deny the existence of God - I didn’t know any biochemists who did.

It becomes the simplest explanation for various structures/ recognize the religious experiences of billions etc.

As I looked at other faiths, more seriously, is when I realized that only traditional Protestant Christianity/maybe Orthodoxy reconcile with logic and the morality I perceive, and value.

I enjoy civilization. I enjoy rule of law. Those are the outgrowth of Protestant Christianity. Orthodoxy can produce some of them - I think it may be weaker in rule of law - which may be from ignorance/corruption but corruption is inherent in all human systems. Protestant faith has more checks on that, but may be difficult to maintain in a degenerate population.

Similar to a Republic. It survives a moral people. It is unfit for an amoral one.

I think Frank Turek wrote a book titled "I don't have enough faith to be an atheist", or something similar.

Yeah...

https://impactapologetics.com/...n-atheist-paperback/

quote:

Originally posted by Aglifter:
There was a time when I was more of a deist. I saw no way to deny the existence of God - I didn’t know any biochemists who did.

It becomes the simplest explanation for various structures/ recognize the religious experiences of billions etc.

As I looked at other faiths, more seriously, is when I realized that only traditional Protestant Christianity/maybe Orthodoxy reconcile with logic and the morality I perceive, and value.

I enjoy civilization. I enjoy rule of law. Those are the outgrowth of Protestant Christianity. Orthodoxy can produce some of them - I think it may be weaker in rule of law - which may be from ignorance/corruption but corruption is inherent in all human systems. Protestant faith has more checks on that, but may be difficult to maintain in a degenerate population.

Similar to a Republic. It survives a moral people. It is unfit for an amoral one.

I actually agree with you on a lot of that. Belief in God, moral order, and the need for a virtuous people all make sense.

Where I’d push back is the idea that rule of law and civilization mainly come from Protestantism. Those were already well-developed in Catholic Europe long before the Protestant Reformation, especially through thinkers like Thomas Aquinas and the whole natural law tradition.

Also, there’s a bit of a tension in saying Protestantism has better “checks,” but also struggles in a degenerate culture. Once authority is decentralized to individuals, it’s hard to prevent fragmentation—that’s why there are so many denominations with different moral views.

Catholicism takes a different approach: that Christ established a visible Church with real authority to preserve truth over time. That authority isn’t the problem—it’s actually what guards against the kind of drift you’re talking about.

So I think the real question is less “which system works better” and more: did Christ found a Church with authority—and if so, where is it?