RE: lost faith and are happy

RE: lost faith and are happy (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Faith] >> General Faith

Message

GeorgiaNerd -> RE: lost faith and are happy (4/14/2008 6:02:26 PM)
quote: My initial experience with Christ; the encounter with the real and living Christ that convinced me of His reality. Hmm... I don't know if this is true for most ex-Christians, but I do know that the lack of a personal revelation is what drove me from being a doubting Christian to being an ex-Christian. I know that AthiestInPeace, another ex-Christian on here at times, said that he never received one either. Did you, besshi? Just curious.

bosoxdd -> RE: lost faith and are happy (4/14/2008 6:11:51 PM)
redcoatmello..why are you on this board.Yes i know its your right but if you truly dont believe in GOD and are truly happy then why would you waste a second of your life here. seems to me that you really need to spend your time on things you enjoy and not things you dont even believe in

besshi -> RE: lost faith and are happy (4/14/2008 9:05:44 PM)
quote: As I said, when it comes to the fundamental aspects of our faith, I think most Christians agree; while it may be that there are differences on the peripherals you have listed, that is true for all belief systems, and thus tells us nothing about the truths of the matter. In other words, it is faulty logic to say, “These folks (Christians, Jews, Muslims, Atheists, etc) disagree on certain matters; therefore, there core beliefs aren’t true.” The effect that Jesus has on people's sinful nature is peripheral? The role of the Law is peripheral? What qualifies a person as "saved" is peripheral? The permanance of one's salvation is peripheral? Is most of the Bible except for John 3:16 and a handful of other scriptures peripheral to the Christian faith? If these matters were truly peripheral and 90% of Christians truly believed in the Apostle's Creed and Nicene Creed then there wouldn't be tens of thousands of divided sects; there would be a unified church. People wouldn't have turned their backs on their churches and families, murdered each other, tortured each other, started WARS with each other if they felt that those matters weren't fundamental to their faith. quote: Well, as I pointed out, Christians do agree on the fundamental truths of their faith – and as someone who has traveled around the world meeting various Christians in radically different cultures, what strikes me isn’t the differences, but the consistency across cultural spectrums – it is really nothing short of miraculous, and indicates an underlying reality that is Christ. You found it miraculous that human beings of a certain religion are similar despite cultural differences? Are Muslims different in this regard? Buddists? Hindus? Besides, despite some similarities between christians, there is still much more dissent among them, even within a given culture. quote: Again, you miss the point; if we are what we are naturally, then we would have no need for laws at all; the existence of laws tells us something fundamental about human uniqueness. We are, NATURALLY, highly intelligent, complex creatures who a NATURALLY create. Our brains can perform high-order functions. We can think about concepts abstractly. Our societies are like any other social animal's except much more complex due to the only good survival mechanism we have: our intelligence. Creating laws, stories, art, music is just what we do. We are highly specialized creatures, but that doesn't mean that we are the only highly specialized creatures. Cheetas run, kangaroos hop, people think. It's beautiful, it's incredible, but it isn't objective proof of the divine. The word "objective" has no place in a theological discussion about the existence of the divine. This existence is a matter of faith, not a matter of fact. I've copied this definition from dictionary. com "objective: not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased." If you interpret some aspects of humanity to be proof of the supernatural, fine. But it's still your interpretation. quote: My initial experience with Christ; the encounter with the real and living Christ that convinced me of His reality. I didn't, of course, have your experience with Jesus, but I was a Bible-believing evangelical christian. Jesus was my best friend, and being a christian wasn't just about belief; it was my identity. Jesus was as real to me as I was myself.

besshi -> RE: lost faith and are happy (4/14/2008 9:13:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RedcoatMello quote: My initial experience with Christ; the encounter with the real and living Christ that convinced me of His reality. Hmm... I don't know if this is true for most ex-Christians, but I do know that the lack of a personal revelation is what drove me from being a doubting Christian to being an ex-Christian. I know that AthiestInPeace, another ex-Christian on here at times, said that he never received one either. Did you, besshi? Just curious. I was saved when I was very young, so I didn't have a defining event that sparked my faith, but I did have many revelations and "personal encounters" with God (being "filled with the spirit," etc). In my questioning phase, however, I didn't, even though I did pray fervently up until I lost my faith.

Jhud -> RE: lost faith and are happy (4/15/2008 1:24:04 AM)
quote: Hmm... I don't know if this is true for most ex-Christians, but I do know that the lack of a personal revelation is what drove me from being a doubting Christian to being an ex-Christian. I know that AthiestInPeace, another ex-Christian on here at times, said that he never received one either. Did you, besshi? Just curious. It may not be true for all, or even most who call themselves Christians, but that doesn’t diminish in the least the reality of it.

Jhud -> RE: lost faith and are happy (4/15/2008 1:52:52 AM)
The effect that Jesus has on people's sinful nature is peripheral? The role of the Law is peripheral? What qualifies a person as "saved" is peripheral? The permanance of one's salvation is peripheral? Is most of the Bible except for John 3:16 and a handful of other scriptures peripheral to the Christian faith? You seem to be starting to make up things as you go along; I didn’t say that ‘the effect that Jesus has on people’s sinful nature is peripheral’ – I said that while people differ on the peripherals you listed, that says nothing about the truth of a belief. Indeed, as I pointed out, on the core matters there is little disagreement – and this hasn’t been contradicted. quote: If these matters were truly peripheral and 90% of Christians truly believed in the Apostle's Creed and Nicene Creed then there wouldn't be tens of thousands of divided sects; there would be a unified church. People wouldn't have turned their backs on their churches and families, murdered each other, tortured each other, started WARS with each other if they felt that those matters weren't fundamental to their faith. First off, people have generally not fought wars over the Apostles Creed or Nicene creed. Very rarely were the battles over the essential, basic truths of the faith; and ironically, the worse violence occurred when their was more supposed ‘unity’ – in the US where the church is most diverse, there is no violence at all over sight differences between various denominations. So you assertion seems to be wrong on the basic facts and history of the church. Indeed, unity is very overrated; some of the most horrible events in history are the product of humans all agreeing on something – and this is true for atheists or the religious. quote: You found it miraculous that human beings of a certain religion are similar despite cultural differences? Are Muslims different in this regard? Buddists? Hindus? Besides, despite some similarities between christians, there is still much more dissent among them, even within a given culture. Now you are contradicting yourself; first you argue that the slightest of differences divide Christians, now you say they have no effect on unity. Can’t have it both ways. quote: We are, NATURALLY, highly intelligent, complex creatures who a NATURALLY create. Our brains can perform high-order functions. We can think about concepts abstractly. Our societies are like any other social animal's except much more complex due to the only good survival mechanism we have: our intelligence. Creating laws, stories, art, music is just what we do. We are highly specialized creatures, but that doesn't mean that we are the only highly specialized creatures. Cheetas run, kangaroos hop, people think. It's beautiful, it's incredible, but it isn't objective proof of the divine. The word "objective" has no place in a theological discussion about the existence of the divine. This existence is a matter of faith, not a matter of fact. I've copied this definition from dictionary. com "objective: not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased." If you interpret some aspects of humanity to be proof of the supernatural, fine. But it's still your interpretation. You still can’t seem to quite understand the basic notion here; if thinking is ‘natural’, and our behavior the result of the same forces that produced behavior in every other organism that exists, then laws would be unnecessary; however, laws are universal to human experience (as is forms of morality and spirituality) because humans innately comprehend that there is a right way to live and a wrong way to live; this is a wholly objective fact which is undeniable. Even if we accept your notion that creating laws, morality, and spirituality is ‘just what we do’ we would have to ask why we would develop such natural capabilities unless there was a neccesary purpose for their existence based on a reality of our existence? quote: I didn't, of course, have your experience with Jesus, but I was a Bible-believing evangelical christian. Jesus was my best friend, and being a christian wasn't just about belief; it was my identity. Jesus was as real to me as I was myself. Well, I experience the reality of Christ; so while you may not have experienced that reality, that doesn’t in any way diminish that reality.

BibleL7 -> RE: lost faith and are happy (4/15/2008 2:59:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meymey if once a believe and you are tested for a long time, like you didn't have a job and all your relationships have gone bad but then you lose your faith and you decide to not make Jesus your choice, as soon as you do you get all these things where did they come from, all of the sudden you have a good job and all of the sudden you have a good relationship you became happy where did all these good things come from. You don't go to church any more, you don't go by the Word of God any more Usually I would read an entire thread first but feel this should get a Biblical answer of all those so called good things when you leave the Word that is from the adversary known best as Satan Yea he can make you believe that things are great when you dont follow Jesus and yes you can have happiness not following the Lord but then happiness is dependent on what happens being good and for a time you will be happy but with the Lord you would have JOY and peace which surpasses understanding. If one chooses to give up that Joy and peace and eternal salvation because of the cares of this world it is a choice they may make but not one I would recomend. If you want to read the biblical reference look up the parable of the sower in the Gospels and see what it says about the rocky soil and the seed that fell amung thorns. Satan is a deceiver and wants you to believe it is better to deny the Lord Jesus so yea he can gladly arrange happiness in the world for someone but the end is death and that happiness is just for a season. Just the opinion of a small town preacher

tapestry -> RE: lost faith and are happy (4/15/2008 6:48:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meymey if once a believe and you are tested for a long time, like you didn't have a job and all your relationships have gone bad but then you lose your faith and you decide to not make Jesus your choice, as soon as you do you get all these things where did they come from, all of the sudden you have a good job and all of the sudden you have a good relationship you became happy where did all these good things come from. You don't go to church any more, you don't go by the Word of God any more Because this is all you will ever have, once this life is over, thats it, no more, just eternal torment. For those who love the Lord there comes eternal life with streets of gold, mansions and banquet tables. Most important, life in the presence of our Lord and Saviour for all eternity.

kmangel -> RE: lost faith and are happy (4/16/2008 6:33:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: besshi I was saved when I was very young, so I didn't have a defining event that sparked my faith, but I did have many revelations and "personal encounters" with God (being "filled with the spirit," etc). In my questioning phase, however, I didn't, even though I did pray fervently up until I lost my faith. The Bible speaks about "stony ground" hearers that hear the good news and welcome it with gladness and joy, but when trials and tribulations come, fall away. Could this be where you are?

besshi -> RE: lost faith and are happy (4/16/2008 11:34:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: besshi The effect that Jesus has on people's sinful nature is peripheral? The role of the Law is peripheral? What qualifies a person as "saved" is peripheral? The permanance of one's salvation is peripheral? Is most of the Bible except for John 3:16 and a handful of other scriptures peripheral to the Christian faith? quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud You seem to be starting to make up things as you go along; I didn’t say that ‘the effect that Jesus has on people’s sinful nature is peripheral’ – I said that while people differ on the peripherals you listed, that says nothing about the truth of a belief. Indeed, as I pointed out, on the core matters there is little disagreement – and this hasn’t been contradicted. You have misunderstood this paragraph. I used similar language to clarify what I wrote earlier. I'll write it a different way: "The effect that Jesus has on people's sinful nature is peripheral?" = "But ask a christian if christians continue to sin after they accept Christ." "The role of the Law is peripheral?" = "Ask a christian if we should keep the law." and "Ask a christian when and how the sabbath should be observed or if it should be observed at all." "What qualifies a person as "saved" is peripheral?" = "Ask a christian if children go to hell." and "Ask a christian if Jews are going to hell." "The permanance of one's salvation is peripheral?" = "Ask a christian if christians are 'once saved, always saved.' " Do you see the continuity of the two posts that I wrote (#73 and #78)? To respond to your reply, I never said that what christians believe is untrue. I said that the numerous inconsistencies and disagreements about their own religion make christians unreliable sources of information. Also, I agreed with you that christians will agree on SOME basic tenets of christianity (who God is and what His basic plan for humanity is). If they had ZERO agreement then they wouldn't have a religion at all! My point was that christians DO disagree on some basic tenets of faith. For example "Do children go to hell?" is a pretty basic, straightforward question. "Can I lose my salvation" is too. The questions that I listed in post 73 come up often, as I pulled many of them from threads on christianity.com, and there is hot debate over these topics. All of these people truly believe in God (as far as I can tell), but their common source (God) doesn't give them a common answer. These topics are not on the periphery if they are brought up often and argued over passionately. Our culture isn't all that into crusades, but other cultures in history were. Religious differences did start schisms, rebellions, and wars. quote: ORIGINAL: besshi If these matters were truly peripheral and 90% of Christians truly believed in the Apostle's Creed and Nicene Creed then there wouldn't be tens of thousands of divided sects; there would be a unified church. People wouldn't have turned their backs on their churches and families, murdered each other, tortured each other, started WARS with each other if they felt that those matters weren't fundamental to their faith. quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud First off, people have generally not fought wars over the Apostles Creed or Nicene creed. My issue isn't with the creeds as a whole. I think all of the major branches of christianity accept the creeds. The creeds say who the christian God is and what His plan for humanity is, which I would expect most christian denominations to agree on. However, these creeds also state the belief of a unified church. There is no unified church, therefore 90% of christians do not believe in that part of the creeds. That was my point. If they had, then the church wouldn't have fragmented. Furthermore, this fragmentation of the church has produced and influenced several wars, including the 30 Years' War (link), the Cologne War (link), and some of the Crusades (link). Perhaps christians would like to believe in a unified church, but the religious disagreements between groups were too important to allow them to believe in a unified church in practice. So, these wars were not fought over the creeds (which I did not say), but they were fought over religious matters that obviously WERE fundamental. If they were truly peripheral then nobody would have cared to turn backs on churches, start new branches of christianity, fight wars, or torture people. quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud Very rarely were the battles over the essential, basic truths of the faith; and ironically, the worse violence occurred when their was more supposed ‘unity’ – in the US where the church is most diverse, there is no violence at all over sight differences between various denominations. So you assertion seems to be wrong on the basic facts and history of the church. Could you back up the claim that worse violence occurred when there was more supposed unity? You used the Nicene creed as an example of something that most christians could agree with. While that applies to most of the Nicene creed, part of the Nicene creed led to one of the greatest schisms in church history- the split between the Eastern and Western church- over the inclusion of the Filioque link This shows how christians can disagree over some of the most basic of christian tenets. Of course, there is much more disagreement over other fundamental tenets of christianity that are not covered in the creeds. quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud Indeed, unity is very overrated; some of the most horrible events in history are the product of humans all agreeing on something – and this is true for atheists or the religious. It's not simply a matter of unity- it's a matter of unity and CONSISTANCY. If christians get their information from the same source (God) it should logically be the same information. If they all had the same information then they would all be united. quote: You found it miraculous that human beings of a certain religion are similar despite cultural differences? Are Muslims different in this regard? Buddists? Hindus? Besides, despite some similarities between christians, there is still much more dissent among them, even within a given culture. quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud Now you are contradicting yourself; first you argue that the slightest of differences divide Christians, now you say they have no effect on unity. Can’t have it both ways. I'm not contradicting myself; you're twisting my words. I never said that the slightest of differences divide christians. I also never said that differences have no effect on unity. I said there ARE similarities among christians despite cultural differences. I said there ARE similarities among christians-period-! I ALSO said that there is CONSIDERABLE disagreement among christians on tenets of christianity. I have put in bold the section of my previous statement where I said this. Differing opinions on fundamental tenets of christianity can cause and HAVE caused wars and disunity. quote: ORIGINAL: besshi We are, NATURALLY, highly intelligent, complex creatures who a NATURALLY create. Our brains can perform high-order functions. We can think about concepts abstractly. Our societies are like any other social animal's except much more complex due to the only good survival mechanism we have: our intelligence. Creating laws, stories, art, music is just what we do. We are highly specialized creatures, but that doesn't mean that we are the only highly specialized creatures. Cheetas run, kangaroos hop, people think. It's beautiful, it's incredible, but it isn't objective proof of the divine. The word "objective" has no place in a theological discussion about the existence of the divine. This existence is a matter of faith, not a matter of fact. I've copied this definition from dictionary. com "objective: not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased." If you interpret some aspects of humanity to be proof of the supernatural, fine. But it's still your interpretation. quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud You still can’t seem to quite understand the basic notion here; if thinking is ‘natural’, and our behavior the result of the same forces that produced behavior in every other organism that exists, then laws would be unnecessary; however, laws are universal to human experience (as is forms of morality and spirituality) because humans innately comprehend that there is a right way to live and a wrong way to live; this is a wholly objective fact which is undeniable. Even if we accept your notion that creating laws, morality, and spirituality is ‘just what we do’ we would have to ask why we would develop such natural capabilities unless there was a neccesary purpose for their existence based on a reality of our existence? There IS a neccessary purpose for laws- they help us survive as individuals and as part of society. Society would suffer if we had anarchy. In turn, INDIVIDUALS would suffer. I've explained how survival instinct+social behavior+intelligence+creativity=laws. If you interpret the presence of laws in humanity as divine, that's great. It's not objective proof of the divine. You are continuing to imply that it is, even after I gave you the definition of objective. At first, I thought you had just accidently misused the word, but I cannot continue to argue against the baseless assertion that there is OBJECTIVE proof of the SUPERNATURAL origin of human laws. quote: ORIGINAL: besshi I didn't, of course, have your experience with Jesus, but I was a Bible-believing evangelical christian. Jesus was my best friend, and being a christian wasn't just about belief; it was my identity. Jesus was as real to me as I was myself. quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud Well, I experience the reality of Christ; so while you may not have experienced that reality, that doesn’t in any way diminish that reality. I DID experience what I perceived as "the reality of Christ." I JUST said that in my previous post. I do not appreciate my words being twisted this way.

Jhud -> RE: lost faith and are happy (4/17/2008 12:20:02 AM)
quote: To respond to your reply, I never said that what christians believe is untrue. I said that the numerous inconsistencies and disagreements about their own religion make christians unreliable sources of information. Also, I agreed with you that christians will agree on SOME basic tenets of christianity (who God is and what His basic plan for humanity is). If they had ZERO agreement then they wouldn't have a religion at all! My point was that christians DO disagree on some basic tenets of faith. For example "Do children go to hell?" is a pretty basic, straightforward question. "Can I lose my salvation" is too. The questions that I listed in post 73 come up often, as I pulled many of them from threads on christianity.com, and there is hot debate over these topics. All of these people truly believe in God (as far as I can tell), but their common source (God) doesn't give them a common answer. These topics are not on the periphery if they are brought up often and argued over passionately. Our culture isn't all that into crusades, but other cultures in history were. Religious differences did start schisms, rebellions, and wars. Well, obviously the effect of Jesus on our sinful nature, or the role of the law, or the nature of salvation aren’t peripheral, as they are the subjects of most generally accepted Christian creeds – and while there are different ideas about issues not touched upon in-depth in Scripture (the fate of unbelieving children for example) none of this is notably the source of differences in various Christian denominations. quote: My issue isn't with the creeds as a whole. I think all of the major branches of christianity accept the creeds. The creeds say who the christian God is and what His plan for humanity is, which I would expect most christian denominations to agree on. However, these creeds also state the belief of a unified church. There is no unified church, therefore 90% of christians do not believe in that part of the creeds. That was my point. If they had, then the church wouldn't have fragmented. Furthermore, this fragmentation of the church has produced and influenced several wars, including the 30 Years' War (link), the Cologne War (link), and some of the Crusades (link). Perhaps christians would like to believe in a unified church, but the religious disagreements between groups were too important to allow them to believe in a unified church in practice. So, these wars were not fought over the creeds (which I did not say), but they were fought over religious matters that obviously WERE fundamental. If they were truly peripheral then nobody would have cared to turn backs on churches, start new branches of christianity, fight wars, or torture people. quote: The fact is most of these wars are as easily attributable to political factors as they were to differences in beliefs about Scripture. Indeed, as I pointed out, the greater the variety of Christian churches, the less conflict there seemed to be. This basically contradicts your thesis that theological differences were the primary cause of these conflicts. Could you back up the claim that worse violence occurred when there was more supposed unity? You used the Nicene creed as an example of something that most christians could agree with. While that applies to most of the Nicene creed, part of the Nicene creed led to one of the greatest schisms in church history- the split between the Eastern and Western church- over the inclusion of the Filioque link This shows how christians can disagree over some of the most basic of christian tenets. Of course, there is much more disagreement over other fundamental tenets of christianity that are not covered in the creeds. Well there were plenty of Europeans wars during domination of the Catholic church; in the modern world, where there exists a large variety of Christian churches in the west, there is almost no violence over religious differences – so claiming they are inevitably related seems wrong. Indeed, I think that there is more evidence that it was fighting between various monarchies and feudal kingdoms that caused the violence (which existed long before the church did) than that it was the result of particular religious differences within the church. quote: It's not simply a matter of unity- it's a matter of unity and CONSISTANCY. If christians get their information from the same source (God) it should logically be the same information. If they all had the same information then they would all be united. And, as I pointed out, on the major points most Christians throughout the world and throughout history agree. Indeed, the fact that people are experiencing conversion much like they did in the book of Acts some 2000 years later speaks to this consistency. quote: I'm not contradicting myself; you're twisting my words. I never said that the slightest of differences divide christians. I also never said that differences have no effect on unity. I said there ARE similarities among christians despite cultural differences. I said there ARE similarities among christians-period-! I ALSO said that there is CONSIDERABLE disagreement among christians on tenets of christianity. I have put in bold the section of my previous statement where I said this. Differing opinions on fundamental tenets of christianity can cause and HAVE caused wars and disunity. Well then you agree with me – despite differences on certain matters, in the essentials the Christian experience is consistent across history and throughout the world. The fact that I can speak to a Masai tribesman in Africa about the objective reality of Christ’s transformation in our lives tells me that it’s what we share is much more significant than what we might differ on. quote: There IS a neccessary purpose for laws- they help us survive as individuals and as part of society. Society would suffer if we had anarchy. In turn, INDIVIDUALS would suffer. I've explained how survival instinct+social behavior+intelligence+creativity=laws. If you interpret the presence of laws in humanity as divine, that's great. It's not objective proof of the divine. You are continuing to imply that it is, even after I gave you the definition of objective. At first, I thought you had just accidently misused the word, but I cannot continue to argue against the baseless assertion that there is OBJECTIVE proof of the SUPERNATURAL origin of human laws. Well, the problem with your ‘explanation’ is that it doesn’t explain why humans are different in this respect than every other organism that has ever existed. If what we are is solely the product of genetics, then we would have no need to employ external definitions of proper human behavior. The fact that this is the universal experience of humanity is objective evidence that humans are more than the product of genetics and biology. Additional evidence includes our spiritual nature, which not only is beyond a genetic explanation, but contrary to it in that such beliefs, if false, actually cause us to act contrary to nature. So the logical conclusion of such facts is that there exists something beyond a purely materialistic reality. That of course is just one of many such evidences. quote: I DID experience what I perceived as "the reality of Christ." I JUST said that in my previous post. I do not appreciate my words being twisted this way. So then you are saying that you experienced the objective reality of Christ, but have decided to reject that reality?

Cloak -> RE: lost faith and are happy (4/17/2008 12:19:30 PM)
There was a period in my life when I felt like that and actually became an atheist. Not having a role model in my life made things even worse off. However, God is faithful and He is glad if you're honest with Him and tell Him exactly how you feel. He saw me through my agonies, frustrations and it was a starting over point where my faith was even strengthened like never before. Look at it as a stepping stone experience rather than a stumbling block!

besshi -> RE: lost faith and are happy (4/17/2008 7:50:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud So then you are saying that you experienced the objective reality of Christ, but have decided to reject that reality? I was going to reply to your post until I read this and I realized that no matter what I say, how many times I say it, or how many different ways I say it, you will twist my words until they mean what you want them to mean. I don't know if you're doing it intentionally, but it is dishonest, and I won't waste my time on it. I won't be participating in this discussion any longer.

Jhud -> RE: lost faith and are happy (4/18/2008 10:15:22 AM)
quote: I was going to reply to your post until I read this and I realized that no matter what I say, how many times I say it, or how many different ways I say it, you will twist my words until they mean what you want them to mean. I don't know if you're doing it intentionally, but it is dishonest, and I won't waste my time on it. I won't be participating in this discussion any longer. Well, I am sorry you feel that way; my goal is to seek a degree of clarity, I'm not looking for agreement.

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 [4]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI