Philosophik: I used to be religious. I grew up Christian.
And yet me, Mike and Dave would all say that nobody can come to a transforming knowledge of Christ and later say something like this for this very thought or "belief" you next describe, is anti-Christian;
Philosophik: There was too much about that world that didn't make sense to me. There was too much I questioned that led me to become atheist.
There are lots of things that don't make sense to Christians, but because we have received a knowledge of the truth, and have experienced the power of the Holy Spirit, which has nothing to do with, "organised religion", but is a genuine, transforming, personal experience of the "life of God" of which many are, "ignorant", you being one of the many, since you think the gospel is something it isn't.
Indeed, for someone like me, Dave or Mike to become atheist, when we became atheist we could only say something like this; "God clearly revealed Himself to me on a personal level when I was a Christian, and specifically answered prayer, sometimes in an incredible way, and I knew God, and He was true, as a witness I can tell you that Christianity isn't false and I experienced those things, but now I am an atheist."
That is how I know that the common "I grew up Christian" is a 100% false and common argument. Nobody can "grow up Christian", as the gospel message totally contradicts such a statement - you have to come to a saving knowledge of Christ, before even seeing what the Kingdom of God is, as Christ said. It's not something you just inherit.
I don't say these things to offend you. I say these things because many people don't know that they were never a Christian.
It is like a person being an expert in a certain field, perhaps for the sake of analogy, an expert scientist, and then someone comes along and says, "I used to be a scientist." There is just an immediate instinct from the genuine expert, that the person wasn't a scientist, because he says things which give him away.
Philosophik: I couldn't very well stay atheist. I knew there was something more that would actually be fullfilling
You see the problem is - when you are born again you receive a fullfilment, which only God can give, all people born again Christian, can testify to this. That you say, "I knew there was something more", means you did not receive anything to begin with.
So how could you have been Christian like us, unless you grew up with that fullfilment we have spiritually, then lost it when you became an atheist?
So had you been a Christian before you would have said this instead; "the fullfilment I experienced in receiving the knowledge of Christ, and the Holy Spirit, connected me with God, like nothing could, but then I became atheist."
Phil: The only thing Oneness offers is a way to be loved by the moment and experience the gratitude for rediscovering my true self. And when you do this, you gain a clarity that transcends anything you can know intellectually.
A Christ like clarity. Another mode of knowing truth.
What truth is that? Anything built on an experiential philosophy is shallow, compared to the life-changing gospel of Jesus Christ, the Messiah who gave His life for us - the wonderful saviour, who already sums up all of the wonderful things which have a true foundation in God, in the fruit of the spirit which is love, joy, peace, gentleness, self-control, patience. Things which are actually real, as part of God's creation, but shallow and false phantoms under atheism, for all such things would be the product of space-dust and would only have meaning to humans, and that love would just be a warm fuzzy feeling.
All shallow philosophies float in space, because they have no foundation, clearly being invented. But the foundation of our faith is to know the Lord, the Creator of all things. Your philosophy doesn't point to the one Who founded the earth, or created the birds that fly, but is based on a falsehood, that a creation created itself. Nor is there any hope for an eternal value of life, which goes beyond this temporary system of things which is, "vanishing away".
What true hope does such philosophy bring? No offence but you juxtapose your belief with ours which gives me permission to dispute yours, since you trample on God. Such philosophy has no foundation. You say love, and experience. Is that it? Does that love come from space dust created by an accidental universe? What is "love" anyway, in that context of shallow experiential philosophlegm?
Disclaimer; I am not attacking you. I won't try and stop you having your philosophy. But I do have the right to reveal all such beliefs for what they are when compared with the gospel, for they represent a shallow second best. Notice they are all the same - they are based on concepts which FLOAT, with no foundation - such as "love" but not knowing where it comes from, and they all are similar in that they tend to concentrate on some type of experiential notion, be it a peace or a meditative contemplation, or what not. Yet they don't have any root in that they seem to just be invented creeds that all serve the same purpose of attempting to fill the God-shaped hole the atheist has created in rejecting God. They offer no true meaning to life, no answers to life, and no hope. They don't answer why people exist either.
Those who are truly Christian, have something genuine to hope for - a wonderful hope, and the greatest and truest love which can only come from God, "for God is love".