A Christ Centered Approach to Apologetics

[Silmarien]

I've been trying to follow along here, but somehow we diverted away from Christ centered to not even speaking of Christ in apologetics.

Am I missing something?

Well, I didn't mean to shove the whole thread off topic. I just saw the topic of postmodernism come up, and frankly, I'm not convinced that people know how to handle us. (In my opinion, the starting point when dealing with postmodernists should be Kierkegaard. And C.S. Lewis for the less philosophically crazed.)

I've been struggling through a conversion for about five months now, and it's difficult to go to people for help when you're afraid to be honest about where you are and what you actually think. I feel like if you're somewhere in between and not going through things in the right order, with an approach that's a bit unconventional, you're on your own. There's really no roadmap to get from accepting the Resurrection to being authentically Christian--everyone just assumes everything will magically just click, and it doesn't. I know Oz means well, but when the end result is that I start saying what I think people want to hear to avoid a fight, that's probably a problem.

So yeah, I figured it might be a useful perspective in a thread about apologetics. I shall bow out again and take my bitterness elsewhere, though.

 

[Nathan]

I really wasn't trying to insinuate any wrong doing, just that I could not see how Christ was fitting in as the center.

I would definitely say the posts have been apologetic in nature, just not Christ centered. That's how I was seeing it at least.

Silmarien , I'm not sure what it is your struggling through, or how it is hard to be honest about your thoughts - but I'd personally love to hear about it.

I'll be honest, I'm not a counselor in the generic sense, so if it does not have to do with the things of God I'll always bow out. But, if it's related to the faith in Christ, I love to have open conversations about it. There are forums on here designed to limit the fighting that can happen, so I'd encourage you to post a discussion in one of those.

 

[Silmarien]

I really wasn't trying to insinuate any wrong doing, just that I could not see how Christ was fitting in as the center.

I would definitely say the posts have been apologetic in nature, just not Christ centered. That's how I was seeing it at least.

Silmarien , I'm not sure what it is your struggling through, or how it is hard to be honest about your thoughts - but I'd personally love to hear about it.

Struggling with myself, mostly! I spent ten years hating Christianity, and then another ten intrigued but keeping it at arm's reach. It's very strange to go from that to half believing it. My poor secular brain can't deal with it, especially with society's constant message that this is just not the sort of stuff reasonable people believe in anymore.

As for things it's been hard to be honest about... well, my initial approach was to tear apart the whole religion and see if there was any merit to any of it. Which of course meant that Paul was out the window as a false prophet, who could say if there even was a tomb or not, and the deep reaches of liberal theology. Not really the sort of thing you want to admit around here, but it's been a long process of pushing myself on what I can and can't believe. (I am finally comfortable with orthodox Christianity, at least conceptually, but it turns out that I have much more in common with the East than the West, which complicates things around here!)

There's also the difference between believing something with your head and believing it with your heart. Christianity does make sense to me, and I don't find it terribly difficult to believe that Christ is divinely real and present in some way--I might have even sensed him a couple of times, but I'm not really sure I'm ready to meet him yet. Or maybe I very much would like to and am afraid I never will. I feel like a fish who swam into a net--well and truly caught, but I'm going to be flopping around helplessly for a while. Really thinking about Christianity is like staring into the sun, so I'm trying to let my eyes adjust a bit and not dissolve into a neurotic mess. The stress on proper belief sets off my OCD, though less now than it was before.

I'll be honest, I'm not a counselor in the generic sense, so if it does not have to do with the things of God I'll always bow out. But, if it's related to the faith in Christ, I love to have open conversations about it. There are forums on here designed to limit the fighting that can happen, so I'd encourage you to post a discussion in one of those.

Heh, at this point I ought to speak to a priest or two, but I've got a thread over in the seeker section you're welcome to revive if you want.

 

[OzSpen]

Well, I didn't mean to shove the whole thread off topic. I just saw the topic of postmodernism come up, and frankly, I'm not convinced that people know how to handle us. (In my opinion, the starting point when dealing with postmodernists should be Kierkegaard. And C.S. Lewis for the less philosophically crazed.)

I've been struggling through a conversion for about five months now, and it's difficult to go to people for help when you're afraid to be honest about where you are and what you actually think. I feel like if you're somewhere in between and not going through things in the right order, with an approach that's a bit unconventional, you're on your own. There's really no roadmap to get from accepting the Resurrection to being authentically Christian--everyone just assumes everything will magically just click, and it doesn't. I know Oz means well, but when the end result is that I start saying what I think people want to hear to avoid a fight, that's probably a problem.

So yeah, I figured it might be a useful perspective in a thread about apologetics. I shall bow out again and take my bitterness elsewhere, though.

Silmarien,

Please don't allow one person's comment to cause you to bow out of a thread and take your bitterness anywhere. I urge you to stay with us and deal with the issues you raise.

I'm not sure many people on a forum like this would be familiar with the emphases of Kierkegaard. This article from Christian History concludes with these quotes from the Danish existential philosopher, Kierkegaard, and comments about his philosophy:

He believed that only by making things difficult—by helping people become aware of the pain, guilt, and feelings of dread that accompany even the life of faith—could he help Christians hear God again: "Affliction is able to drown out every earthly voice … but the voice of eternity within a man it cannot drown. When by the aid of affliction all irrelevant voices are brought to silence, it can be heard, this voice within."

Kierkegaard was not just a suffering prophet, though. He was a man of deep, almost mystical faith, and his acerbic pen could also compose lyrical prayers like these:

"Teach me, O God, not to torture myself, not to make a martyr out of myself through stifling reflection, but rather teach me to breathe deeply in faith."

And "Father in Heaven, when the thought of Thee wakes in our hearts, let it not awaken like a frightened bird that flies about in dismay, but like a child waking from its sleep with a heavenly smile."

Like his philosophy, then, he was himself paradoxical (Soren Kierkegaard).​

You say, Silmarien, 'I've been struggling through a conversion for about five months now'. It seems to me that you could be making it too difficult for yourself.

• Are you convinced that you are a sinner who deserves the wrath of God? (Rom 1:18 NIV)
  
• Are you convinced you suppress the truth of God through your wickedness - which includes pursuing philosophies that are not congruent with God's character and the biblical revelation? (Rom 1:18 NIV)
• How does salvation come to a person like you? Just like it comes to me and all others on this forum who are Christian: By grace through faith (Eph 2:8-9 NIV).
• What is preventing you from repenting and placing your faith in Jesus Christ alone for salvation right now? (Acts 3:19 NIV)

Don't forget that salvation is from God and salvation bringing eternal life is through faith in Jesus Christ alone. Nobody else can bring you eternal salvation: 'Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved' (Acts 4:12 NIV).

Why can't you bow the knee to Christ now, submit to Him, and be discipled by a local pastor or person in that church?

Existentialism won't save you. Postmodernism is a philosophy that clashes with biblical Christianity. A postmodern Christian is an oxymoron.

You stated: 'There's really no roadmap to get from accepting the Resurrection to being authentically Christian'. Yes there is, but you don't want to follow that road map.

I've given you the turns on the map to take (see above in this post), and it's over to you to take those turns or steps. I think you are struggling with submission and doing it God's way. I've heard a lot of Silmarien's way of existentialism and postmodernism but not the road map of admitting you are a sinner, pursuing God's grace for your salvation, submitting to Jesus alone for salvation, and being discipled as a follower of Jesus.

Could there be a big chunk of your pride getting in the way and admitting that people who share their faith with you must do it your way for you to consider their Gospel presentation? That's what I'm hearing from you. You are not prepared to bow the knew to Jesus alone and pursue salvation on his terms.

To this point, I've seen you following Frank Sinatra's theme song, 'I did it my way'. You admitted this in your reply to Nathan at #63: 'It's been a long process of pushing myself on what I can and can't believe'.

You said you want to be honest about your journey. Here I've also tried to be honest with what I'm seeing in your pursuit of 'salvation' your way - not God's way.

I pray that you will submit and receive salvation God's way.

Oz

 

[Silmarien]

Okay. On the topic of apologetics, why does nobody ever mention the Shroud of Turin???

I'm usually pretty skeptical of holy relics, but... uh, photographic negative imprints that are impossible to reproduce, alongside all the other evidence for its authenticity, is a little bit more than a silly Catholic legend!

As someone in the "well, something probably happened but I don't trust the Gospel account" camp, running across the full story of the Shroud of Turin literally just changed everything. I don't think that thing is a forgery, and it's impossible to accept the Shroud of Turin and then turn around and reject the bodily Resurrection.

Why did it take me five months to find out about this!?

You say, Silmarien, 'I've been struggling through a conversion for about five months now'. It seems to me that you could be making it too difficult for yourself.

• Are you convinced that you are a sinner who deserves the wrath of God? (Rom 1:18 NIV)
  
• Are you convinced you suppress the truth of God through your wickedness - which includes pursuing philosophies that are not congruent with God's character and the biblical revelation? (Rom 1:18 NIV)
• How does salvation come to a person like you? Just like it comes to me and all others on this forum who are Christian: By grace through faith (Eph 2:8-9 NIV).
• What is preventing you from repenting and placing your faith in Jesus Christ alone for salvation right now? (Acts 3:19 NIV)

C.S. Lewis spent two years as an uncommitted theist before he finally embraced Christianity. I don't think there's supposed to be anything easy about this, and the only people who make it difficult for me are the ones who keep on telling me it shouldn't be so. Sometimes I feel like the people who would warn me against expecting instant results turn around and criticize me for already knowing not to expect them.

Now, I'm probably going to be joining the Eastern Orthodox Church for a while, because I think they're right. I'm not sure I could accept all of the strings attached there, but at least spending some time as a catechumen is probably a step I'm going to need to take. This means that there are a lot of differences between the way I see things and the way you see things--differences that are going to make some of these questions a bit tricky to answer. (I'll say "yes," but I'll say so in such a way that you'll think I'm saying "no," and the whole thing will quickly dissolve into madness.)

I'm not remotely convinced that there's anything inherently wrong with Christian existentialism, no. The more I look into it, the more obvious it becomes that this is a case where postmodernism turns into pre-modernism, because there are a ton of similarities between existentialist and Orthodox thought. I got lured away by the atheist side of philosophy for a while, but I suspect that even that served a purpose.

Now, my whole problem is this binary idea that either you believe or you don't, that faith is the sort of thing you can magically conjure out of nowhere, especially if you've been nontheistic your whole life. If you want to say that willful skepticism is wickedness, you might have a point, but there's really nothing willful about doubt, and I'd really appreciate it if you stopped it with the constant abuse because I don't match your expectations. All it does is backfire. If you want to chase me away, keep it up, but you'll probably just leave me shrieking about the Sack of Constantinople for the rest of my life. And if you go after Eastern Orthodoxy, I will block you.

The Shroud of Turin probably was the final nail in the coffin. (Seriously, why did nobody mention it?) I think Christianity probably is true. I don't really expect to be able to wrap my head around that all at once, and I'm not sure why you think I need to. I'm not going to get bored and decide that maybe Hinduism is the answer.

I have no problem admitting that I'm "doing it my way." Everyone's faith journey is different, so I have no idea how anyone can approach this stuff except in their own way. The fact that my way doesn't look very much like your way doesn't mean that one is God's way and the other isn't, and it's extremely presumptuous of you to ask me why I'm not repenting when I explicitly say that I have been. My point was that a nihilistic form of atheism is hard to refute rationally; this doesn't mean that I accept it. I don't like what's at the other end of that little thought experiment, but there are plenty of atheists who, when pushed, would absolutely go all the way. I think it's worthwhile to recognize that.

 

[OzSpen]

Okay. On the topic of apologetics, why does nobody ever mention the Shroud of Turin???

I'm usually pretty skeptical of holy relics, but... uh, photographic negative imprints that are impossible to reproduce, alongside all the other evidence for its authenticity, is a little bit more than a silly Catholic legend!

As someone in the "well, something probably happened but I don't trust the Gospel account" camp, running across the full story of the Shroud of Turin literally just changed everything. I don't think that thing is a forgery, and it's impossible to accept the Shroud of Turin and then turn around and reject the bodily Resurrection.

Why did it take me five months to find out about this!?


C.S. Lewis spent two years as an uncommitted theist before he finally embraced Christianity. I don't think there's supposed to be anything easy about this, and the only people who make it difficult for me are the ones who keep on telling me it shouldn't be so. Sometimes I feel like the people who would warn me against expecting instant results turn around and criticize me for already knowing not to expect them.

Now, I'm probably going to be joining the Eastern Orthodox Church for a while, because I think they're right. I'm not sure I could accept all of the strings attached there, but at least spending some time as a catechumen is probably a step I'm going to need to take. This means that there are a lot of differences between the way I see things and the way you see things--differences that are going to make some of these questions a bit tricky to answer. (I'll say "yes," but I'll say so in such a way that you'll think I'm saying "no," and the whole thing will quickly dissolve into madness.)

I'm not remotely convinced that there's anything inherently wrong with Christian existentialism, no. The more I look into it, the more obvious it becomes that this is a case where postmodernism turns into pre-modernism, because there are a ton of similarities between existentialist and Orthodox thought. I got lured away by the atheist side of philosophy for a while, but I suspect that even that served a purpose.

Now, my whole problem is this binary idea that either you believe or you don't, that faith is the sort of thing you can magically conjure out of nowhere, especially if you've been nontheistic your whole life. If you want to say that willful skepticism is wickedness, you might have a point, but there's really nothing willful about doubt, and I'd really appreciate it if you stopped it with the constant abuse because I don't match your expectations. All it does is backfire. If you want to chase me away, keep it up, but you'll probably just leave me shrieking about the Sack of Constantinople for the rest of my life. And if you go after Eastern Orthodoxy, I will block you.

The Shroud of Turin probably was the final nail in the coffin. (Seriously, why did nobody mention it?) I think Christianity probably is true. I don't really expect to be able to wrap my head around that all at once, and I'm not sure why you think I need to. I'm not going to get bored and decide that maybe Hinduism is the answer.

I have no problem admitting that I'm "doing it my way." Everyone's faith journey is different, so I have no idea how anyone can approach this stuff except in their own way. The fact that my way doesn't look very much like your way doesn't mean that one is God's way and the other isn't, and it's extremely presumptuous of you to ask me why I'm not repenting when I explicitly say that I have been. My point was that a nihilistic form of atheism is hard to refute rationally; this doesn't mean that I accept it. I don't like what's at the other end of that little thought experiment, but there are plenty of atheists who, when pushed, would absolutely go all the way. I think it's worthwhile to recognize that.

Silmarien,

We can't get anywhere when you don't address the issues I raise and then you are off and running with your own philosophy.

Remember one of the points I made:

• How does salvation come to a person like you? Just like it comes to me and all others on this forum who are Christian: By grace through faith (Eph 2:8-9 NIV).

What do these 2 verses state? '8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith – and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God – 9 not by works, so that no one can boast'.

Salvation, by grace through faith, is a gift from God. You can't generate it yourself.

Your reply here continues to demonstrate that you are following Frank Sinatra's theme song, 'I did it my way'.

Oz

 

[Silmarien]

We can't get anywhere at all, since if I try to answer anything you say, I'll do so in a way that looks like "my own philosophy," and you'll shoot it down on sight. This is precisely why I end up nervous discussing this sort of stuff with Christians and just start saying what I think people want to hear.

 

[OzSpen]

We can't get anywhere at all, since if I try to answer anything you say, I'll do so in a way that looks like "my own philosophy," and you'll shoot it down on sight. This is precisely why I end up nervous discussing this sort of stuff with Christians and just start saying what I think people want to hear.

Silmarien,

I've tried to engage you at significant depth, but to no avail. You don't seem to want to hear the other person's response to your philosophy and the holes in it.

Instead, you push your own worldview here, without considering the reasons why it will not lead you to eternal life and 'joy unspeakable and full of glory'.

Why don't you take a read of God's assessment of where you are at, in Romans 1:18-32 (NIV)?

Oz

 

[Silmarien]

I don't see "reads Søren Kierkegaard" on the list of things considered problematic, and frankly am getting tired of you making ringing proclamations about the state of my relationship with God. It strikes me as kind of blasphemous.

You haven't engaged me at any depth. You attack positions I don't even hold (or no longer hold), flip out because you don't like the words "existentialism" and "postmodernism," and ignore any genuine problems I have because you'd rather focus on the labels I use to describe myself.

I don't care about eternal life. I'm vehemently opposed to the idea of worshipping in hopes of reward or out of fear of punishment, so the "fear tactics" approach to apologetics does little but anger me.

 

[OzSpen]

I don't see "reads Søren Kierkegaard" on the list of things considered problematic, and frankly am getting tired of you making ringing proclamations about the state of my relationship with God. It strikes me as kind of blasphemous.

You haven't engaged me at any depth. You attack positions I don't even hold (or no longer hold), flip out because you don't like the words "existentialism" and "postmodernism," and ignore any genuine problems I have because you'd rather focus on the labels I use to describe myself.

I don't care about eternal life. I'm vehemently opposed to the idea of worshipping in hopes of reward or out of fear of punishment, so the "fear tactics" approach to apologetics does little but anger me.

Thanks Silmarien.

I'll leave you with the consequences of Romans 1: 20 (NIV), 'For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities – his eternal power and divine nature – have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse'.

Bye,
Oz

 

[Silmarien]

No excuse for what? I've already said that I think Christianity is true.

My whole point was that classical apologetics pushed me so far in the opposite direction I briefly ended up at atheism, and maybe that's something that should be taken into account when dealing with postmodernists. Badgering me about the reasons I changed my mind seems to go against the whole concept of winning people, not arguments.

 

[Nathan]

I don't see "reads Søren Kierkegaard" on the list of things considered problematic, and frankly am getting tired of you making ringing proclamations about the state of my relationship with God. It strikes me as kind of blasphemous.

You haven't engaged me at any depth. You attack positions I don't even hold (or no longer hold), flip out because you don't like the words "existentialism" and "postmodernism," and ignore any genuine problems I have because you'd rather focus on the labels I use to describe myself.

I don't care about eternal life. I'm vehemently opposed to the idea of worshipping in hopes of reward or out of fear of punishment, so the "fear tactics" approach to apologetics does little but anger me.

What if what most people consider eternal life wasn't true?

What if I told you eternal life was simply - and only - eternal oneness with the one who created everything?

 

[Silmarien]

What if what most people consider eternal life wasn't true?

What if I told you eternal life was simply - and only - eternal oneness with the one who created everything?

Well, I'm mystically inclined so already on the same page as you! I just think that oneness with God should be an ideal in this life and not just something that starts at the grave, so hitting the fast forward button and ignoring the part that matters right now is a bit odd to me. And I really dislike viewing anything in transactional terms.

Running across the Shroud of Turin really has been game-changing, though. (That thing is as close to authenticated as it's possible to get, and once you put everything together, the only reasonable answer is the impossible one.) A large part of me has been worried that I was deluding myself even thinking that all of this could be true, and it's hard to do anything besides run around in circles if you're doubting your own objectivity. Finally getting shoved out of that vicious cycle has been a relief. I think I needed that time to get used to fullblown Christianity as a concept, though, since getting knocked off the fence has really been shocking.

 

[Nathan]

Well, I'm mystically inclined so already on the same page as you! I just think that oneness with God should be an ideal in this life and not just something that starts at the grave, so hitting the fast forward button and ignoring the part that matters right now is a bit odd to me. And I really dislike viewing anything in transactional terms.

Running across the Shroud of Turin really has been game-changing, though. (That thing is as close to authenticated as it's possible to get, and once you put everything together, the only reasonable answer is the impossible one.) A large part of me has been worried that I was deluding myself even thinking that all of this could be true, and it's hard to do anything besides run around in circles if you're doubting your own objectivity. Finally getting shoved out of that vicious cycle has been a relief. I think I needed that time to get used to fullblown Christianity as a concept, though, since getting knocked off the fence has really been shocking.

Do you think its not possible to have that oneness with God now?

In trying to see things from your perspective, what do you consider 'fullblown Christianity'?

 

[Silmarien]

Do you think its not possible to have that oneness with God now?

Er... maybe I should go get my status changed, since I'm about to start quoting Paul myself. But I suspect he's right when he starts talking about seeing through a mirror darkly and one day seeing face to face. So can you have the same "oneness" in the present life? Probably not, but I certainly don't think it's impossible to have any approximization of that. I've just willfully blinded myself and don't expect that to heal anytime soon.

In trying to see things from your perspective, what do you consider 'fullblown Christianity'?

The Nicene Creed. I've been moving slowly from "just a moral teacher, nothing more" to "well, maybe something happened, but certainly not a bodily Resurrection," to "nope, looks like the Gospel account is reliable after all." And then toss in Trinitarianism, the Incarnation, and Atonement doctrines, and it's quite a bit to digest.

My questions were primarily: did anything happen at all, was it recorded properly, to what degree was it reinterpreted in the first couple hundred years, was Paul a legitimate apostle or just a crazy Pharisee with a serious guilt complex, and so forth and so on. So... total dissection. I'm reasonably confident now that it wasn't the Gnostics who had it right after all, but it took a while to be sure that Constantine didn't really just put the religion together to suit his purposes. Lots of popular conspiracy theories these days.

 

[Nathan]

Er... maybe I should go get my status changed, since I'm about to start quoting Paul myself. But I suspect he's right when he starts talking about seeing through a mirror darkly and one day seeing face to face. So can you have the same "oneness" in the present life? Probably not, but I certainly don't think it's impossible to have any approximization of that. I've just willfully blinded myself and don't expect that to heal anytime soon.



The Nicene Creed. I've been moving slowly from "just a moral teacher, nothing more" to "well, maybe something happened, but certainly not a bodily Resurrection," to "nope, looks like the Gospel account is reliable after all." And then toss in Trinitarianism, the Incarnation, and Atonement doctrines, and it's quite a bit to digest.

My questions were primarily: did anything happen at all, was it recorded properly, to what degree was it reinterpreted in the first couple hundred years, was Paul a legitimate apostle or just a crazy Pharisee with a serious guilt complex, and so forth and so on. So... total dissection. I'm reasonably confident now that it wasn't the Gnostics who had it right after all, but it took a while to be sure that Constantine didn't really just put the religion together to suit his purposes. Lots of popular conspiracy theories these days.

Thanks. That helps a lot to see what your thinking.

It's probably pointless to think this, but sometimes I wonder what it would be like if we did not have the Bible. I wonder how much of our confusion and doubt comes from our trying to understand what all is said in it.

I live in the "Bible belt" of America, but sometimes I wonder how someone would think about Christ and the message He brought, if they had never heard of it before.

I think it's true that after physical death we will have a different view of things, so I do see how Paul says what he does.

I think our thoughts are pointed to focus on the things we see physically. I think it's natural to do so, we were obviously created with eyes, but if you think about the account of Adam and Eve, they saw things different before sinning - physically. Interesting to think about.

So if they saw different, and it was said they walked with God(in some way), when they were not separated from God - then once we are reconciled through Christ could it not be we have the same possibility of knowing God the way they did?

As you alluded to, how much of our blindness is self inflicted?

 

[OzSpen]

No excuse for what? I've already said that I think Christianity is true.

My whole point was that classical apologetics pushed me so far in the opposite direction I briefly ended up at atheism, and maybe that's something that should be taken into account when dealing with postmodernists. Badgering me about the reasons I changed my mind seems to go against the whole concept of winning people, not arguments.

Silmarien,

The next verse, Rom 1:21 (NIV), tells you what the excuse is related to: 'For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened'.

You can believe Christianity is true but that does not lead to salvation. Why?
'You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that - and shudder' (James 1:19 NIV).

Oz

 

[Papa Zoom]

The original purpose of the thread was to examine the following: "The question for the group is, how ought we to conduct ourselves in a defense of what we believe to be true? What is the best way that is Christ honoring?"

Not just how we ought to do Apologetics, but how we ought to treat others in our exchanges. This applies in dealing with brothers in Christ as well as those who don't believe.

 

[Silmarien]

Thanks. That helps a lot to see what your thinking.

It's probably pointless to think this, but sometimes I wonder what it would be like if we did not have the Bible. I wonder how much of our confusion and doubt comes from our trying to understand what all is said in it.

I live in the "Bible belt" of America, but sometimes I wonder how someone would think about Christ and the message He brought, if they had never heard of it before.

I think it's true that after physical death we will have a different view of things, so I do see how Paul says what he does.

I think our thoughts are pointed to focus on the things we see physically. I think it's natural to do so, we were obviously created with eyes, but if you think about the account of Adam and Eve, they saw things different before sinning - physically. Interesting to think about.

So if they saw different, and it was said they walked with God(in some way), when they were not separated from God - then once we are reconciled through Christ could it not be we have the same possibility of knowing God the way they did?

As you alluded to, how much of our blindness is self inflicted?

Well, the other question to look at would be, "What is eternity anyway?" I've been raiding the treasury of Byzantium like any good swooping Mainliner, and they talk about paradise as eternally advancing to higher stages of perfection... becoming more and more at one with God, I suppose. As soon as you've got a dynamic concept of eternity, I don't think it's possible to have the same sort of relationship here and now.

But the idea of being focused on what we see physically... I was reading C.S. Lewis's Mere Christianity, and there was an idea in there that really resonated with me--that God talks to everybody, but it's like a mirror reflecting light. If you're polished up, you'll reflect clearly, but if you're fogged up and turned in the wrong direction, obviously that's not going to work out so well. It echoes some of what I've seen in things like the asceticism of John of the Cross, where mystical union isn't possible if you're still caught up in and prioritizing the things of this world. Though avoiding that is really difficult, especially in this day and age.

Silmarien,

The next verse, Rom 1:21 (NIV), tells you what the excuse is related to: 'For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened'.

You can believe Christianity is true but that does not lead to salvation. Why?
'You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that - and shudder' (James 1:19 NIV).

Oz

I honestly have no idea why you keep on quoting these passages at me. I'm not a liberal revisionist or a moral relativist or anything of the sort. If there's something inherently unbiblical about existentialism, you'd better toss out the whole Bible too, because Ecclesiastes 2:13-17 is pure existentialism. (Nothing new under the sun.) If I still agreed with the atheists' analysis, obviously there'd be a problem, but I don't.

 

[Nathan]

Well, the other question to look at would be, "What is eternity anyway?" I've been raiding the treasury of Byzantium like any good swooping Mainliner, and they talk about paradise as eternally advancing to higher stages of perfection... becoming more and more at one with God, I suppose. As soon as you've got a dynamic concept of eternity, I don't think it's possible to have the same sort of relationship here and now.

But the idea of being focused on what we see physically... I was reading C.S. Lewis's Mere Christianity, and there was an idea in there that really resonated with me--that God talks to everybody, but it's like a mirror reflecting light. If you're polished up, you'll reflect clearly, but if you're fogged up and turned in the wrong direction, obviously that's not going to work out so well. It echoes some of what I've seen in things like the asceticism of John of the Cross, where mystical union isn't possible if you're still caught up in and prioritizing the things of this world. Though avoiding that is really difficult, especially in this day and age.



I honestly have no idea why you keep on quoting these passages at me. I'm not a liberal revisionist or a moral relativist or anything of the sort. If there's something inherently unbiblical about existentialism, you'd better toss out the whole Bible too, because Ecclesiastes 2:13-17 is pure existentialism. (Nothing new under the sun.) If I still agreed with the atheists' analysis, obviously there'd be a problem, but I don't.

Funny you should ask this question just now. I was just responding to another post that asked what eternal is.

Eternal is defined as having no beginning or end. So I suppose that means eternity is the construct that exists without a beginning or end.

When I think of that I am immediately drawn to understanding why God 'lives' there. If He did not live there, then it would mean He lived in a place that either had a beginning, or an end, or both.

It also makes me think that the fact the world we see has many beginnings and ends, then it cannot be eternal. However, as you noted, there is nothing 'new' under the sun.

So God created in the beginning, that means He must have had an end plan also. Makes sense that it is why we cannot know Him completely in this 'time constraint' because we cannot know what eternity is like yet.

It also makes sense why Jesus came - and left.

What does eternity mean to you?