[Stargazer]

Egor wrote

Yep. In fact, I’m at a crossroads right now. I have tried in the past to be a traditional Christian, but I have failed each time. This time around, it’s as if God has tricked me back into being a Veridican. I have tried to leave it behind, but I can’t seem to do it. So, I guess it’s my purpose in life to go forward with it.

I have never written down a concise and definite version of Veridicanism, except for the two tenets (God is monistic in nature, and the human purpose is to be Christ.). But where I’m at in my book right now necessitates it. I have been trying to let this cup pass from me, but it won’t go away.

The crossroads is this: I believe everyone should form their own religion from reading the Gospels (that is, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and also Thomas). Everyone should walk their own path. There shouldn’t be 35,000 denominations of Christianity; there should be 6 billion denominations. But I also realize that can be like feeding an infant by setting a can of chili in front of him or her along with a can opener. So I may have to set out a system of belief whether I want to or not.

Actually, Egor, this sounds a lot like Gnosticism. My background: I have been an atheist all my life (can remember not believing stuff taught at Sunday School around age 8), yet I went to a Baptist university, majoring in English. It was required to take religion courses there, and I did. I took the required Bible course and I also took comparative religions. There I learned about Gnosticism, and have done a lot of reading on that subject and many others on religion since college. I have read the Bible, Koran, Book of Mormon, Mahabarata, you name it.

Gnosticim, as I understand it, is where each person has to, through learning, find God for him/herself. These groups were supported in the early church, but were declared heretical later on and people were hunted and killed for it.

But the idea of finding God through individual learning, sounds much like what you are doing.

Also, though, if you read enough Gnostic literature, it begins to sound kind of like Buddhism, which I think is not a religion but a philosophy.

Egor wrote

I don’t know what you mean by “Solid, substantial proof.” If you want to see God physically, then you have to look at his physical body, and that is the universe. If you want to connect with God spiritually, then you have to grow closer to him by living out your purpose, which is to become His consciousness within His creation. You don’t meet God; you wake up to God. If you want to feel God’s love for you, then you must be willing to be one with God.

By proof I mean something that shows direct evidence of God, not implied evidence, where you have to make a leap of faith to accept it. That's where any example of the Argument From Design breaks down, and you've seen Ex Atheist give numerous examples along the lines of: Look at (the human eye, a mosquito, whatever). It is very complex. Therefore (LEAP) there MUST be a God.

Egor wrote

I wouldn’t even go there. The medical field is not dominated by atheism. Far, far from it. I have never met an atheist nurse that I know of. All of them have been quite spiritually-minded. Most doctors, I’ve met, quite frankly, are Hindu. My Anatomy and Physiology professor was the one who said, “If you’re not a believer when you start this class; you will be when you finish.” Meaning that the complexity and design of the human body was enough to make anyone believe in God.

Argument From Design, see above.

Egor wrote

Evidence-based care is what nurses are supposed to go by, and we do. In other words, what has been proven to work, we use. That’s why in psychiatry, we assess patients for religious beliefs, because solid religious beliefs can be an asset in their healing. Hyper-religiosity, which is a sign of delusion and psychosis, is not the same thing as true religious belief. There is a huge difference between a patient being able to focus on reading the Bible and a patient who walks around with a Bible to ward off demons. I know that from the outside, it seems that medicine is this great atheistic research laboratory where people are healed with all the confidence of science, but in truth it’s not that way. There are medicines that work on infections, pain, tumor growth, and the positive symptoms of mental illness. There are procedures you can do to fix the body when it is broke, but people heal on their own. You stich a laceration together, and God takes it from there. You inject epinephrine and atropine and do chest compressions and ventilate a dying man, maybe you apply an electric shock to the heart, but none of that makes a person live. Most people in cardiac arrest will still die. No one would ever suggest that medicine should be scrapped and faith healing should ensue. God has given us our technological advancement. But there is the illusion of medical science and there is the clinical reality of what it can do. That’s why a lot of people prefer nursing over being a physician. Some of us believe that caring for a patient never fails, whereas medicine, in the long run, always fails—we all die.

This just shows that medicine in some ways is still stuck in the last century. Anyone with a strong enough positive attitude has a better chance of healing. This has been in many articles I had read lately. But can the person (I HATE the term patient) do this with the strength of their own mind, or do they need a crutch (God) to accomplish it? I would say mental resiliency is to be credited to the individual person, not to some invisible being. Just as Tim Tebow is responsible for winning his own football games, not God, even though he would probably say so.

Egor wrote

There are more atheists in traditional religion than anywhere else. That’s my problem with religion. Another is that I cannot tolerate someone being a spiritual authority over me. That just ain’t gunna happen. There are too many people in church saying they believe in God but living as if He didn’t exist.

If a person believes in God he/she is not an atheist. Let us be careful with our definition of terms.

Egor wrote

Funny you should say. I was just talking with God in my prayer journal last night and saying that Veridicanism is the only thing I can fight atheism with. It feeds off of traditional religious notions like AIDS use the immune cells to spread its disease. I can defend the fact that God is the monistic entity of fundamental consciousness and that the Human purpose is to be Christ. I can’t defend Catholic or Protestant theology. Hell, I can’t even understand how Catholicism developed from the teachings of Christ in the first place

No defending necessary. Just give us concrete proof (defined above) of God.