Couple of Questions

[Silmarien]

Does anyone have any experience converting as an adult? Particularly after having once been hostile towards the religion? I'm all over the place theologically right now.

I could believe in the Resurrection (non-bodily, at least)--I like the argument that the disciples had to have experienced something to go to such lengths after the fact, but I've also seen the counterarguments so it's a bit of a coin toss. That's a jump I could make, but I've realized that I'm still very divided--on an aesthetic and moral level, I love the religion, but my atheist years were spent going after Christian theology in philosophy classes, so there's a fair amount of intellectual hostility there that I never actually defused. It's getting better, but I'm probably going to have to do a lot of theological reading. C.S. Lewis first, though.

Would anyone have any advice for this sort of situation? I've moved close enough to the religion now that not being able to believe (or not believing enough) is a bit stressful, but it's a long way back from hostile atheism, especially if you're not entirely convinced that this isn't just some mad flight of fancy (I'm prone to such things).

Also, I'll have to discuss it with the priest eventually, but at what point is it appropriate to take communion? It'd feel blasphemous to do so right now, since I don't identify as Christian, but I'm not sure when that changes. Episcopal, so the actual requirements are lax.

 

[JohnDB]

It's not a diversionary tactic to not provide evidence--I figured you'd already know what I was talking about, since I've been at this for a couple months now; you've been doing it for significantly longer! But if you want evidence, I know Clement of Alexandria and Origen interpreted things allegorically, and in Judaism, there's the Remez approach to interpretation, which appears to be allegorical. There was also apparently a medieval rabbi called Saadia Gaon who said that a passage should not be interpreted literally if that made it contrary to the senses or reason. I am not making any of this up; it is quite ancient and literally biblical. We can go straight to Galatians 4:24, since apparently Paul himself interpreted things allegorically: "Now this is an allegory: these women are two covenants." If Paul wasn't orthodox, I have no idea what orthodoxy is, haha.

A critical examination of the Old Testament is very much the problem, though. God creates animals first and humans second in Genesis 1, but in Genesis 2, Adam is created before the animals. Cain conjures up a wife out of nowhere and then goes off and builds himself a city, even though there's supposedly nobody to live in it yet. I'm sure there are ways to get around all the continuity issues, but for me, it kind of feels like trying to trap God within the pages of a book. Because my problem with literalism isn't just liberal post-modernism; it's also mysticism. The surface level of all things religious tends to leave me cold.

Regarding historical evidence, I accept logical arguments that take the formula "if not P, then not Q. Q is true, therefore P is true." Could be applied to the disciples' transformation, as well as Paul's conversion. There are plenty of facts that are debatable, but these two are not. I'm also intrigued by extra-biblical evidence in general--Constantine's vision, Genesis 1 continuing to match up to the Big Bang Theory, but evidence for the Old Testament is probably a bit premature.

This isn't really an investigation, though, since I actually do believe. Experimentation with prayer has been... pretty conclusive. A lot of it could be attributed to brain chemicals, but when a prayer of "Hey Jesus, if you're real, can you please help me not be crazy over Calvinism?" results in immediately calming down... well, it can't be the placebo effect when you don't actually have faith. The problem is that I already have deconstructed everything--it's too late to not be a postmodernist when you've already torn everything to pieces. I guess all I can do now is try to put it back together in a way that's reasonably orthodox. I did just order Simply Christian, so hopefully that will help. C.S. Lewis offered some food for thought, but not really on a theological level.

Ever tried to solve a problem while using someone else's viewpoint?

Which sounds like exactly what you are trying to do here.

The only way it can somewhat work is if you really know the person whose viewpoint you are using.

Soteriology (that whole Calvinism/Arminianism debate) is a red herring of issues that you are not really looking for.

Meanwhile all the important issues of humility, holiness, forgiveness, grace, mercy, and especially love go ignored. Faith that causes altruism is long forgotten and replaced with too big a brain full of knowledge that has no wisdom. (wisdom being the right use in action of knowledge)

Soooo
Since you seem to like reading I'm going to suggest Knowledge of the Holy by A.W. Tozier.
It explains in detail what God's attributes really mean. A lot of Christians have no idea as to what they are talking about when it comes to God...They speak from limited experience instead of knowledge.

It's a tough read for such a little book. But I have confidence that you can assimilate the information. It can be found online for free.
I believe that many answers to your questions can be found there.

 

[OzSpen]

My head would swim trying to build constructs that would harmonize disparencies. I do believe in balance, but the balance is used to keep from slipping into the creek (the creek of toxic waste). I just leave heaven and hell in two different places. One ticket to heaven.

Of course that tears the comments out of some commentaries.

Oh well. Mississippi folks are out of tune with upper society and their book learning.

I would not have you ignorant brothers.
1 get outa here
2 let us talk about this

I don't normally use all these fancy words.

eddif

'disparencies' ???

There's no such word in my dictionary. Could you mean discrepancies?

 

[OzSpen]

Silmarien,

I want to get back to the rest of the content in your response to me at #17. Let’s try it one number at a time. You wrote:

2. I would say that everyone has presuppositions when it comes to reading anything--biblical inerrancy is as much a presupposition as historical criticism, and an equally modern take. I can't ignore things like Zoroastrianism's influence on Judaism or Platonic elements in Christian theology, so my options are 1) abandon all religion as inherently manmade, or 2) accept that cultural influences don't negate the truth value of a religion as a whole. I'm actually an existentialist with my reading of Scripture--Paul Tillich right now, a bit of Kierkegaard. But when it comes to actual evidence, I do start deconstructing things into meaninglessness. That part is a problem, but the existentialism is kind of necessary for me.

I agree that all have presuppositions, but the key to unpacking them is to compare those presuppositions with the evidence from reality. Presuppositions that don't match the evidence should be dropped like hot bricks. Now to responding to your issues:

• What you’ve done in announcing biblical inerrancy as a presupposition and a modern take, it that this is a throw away line. Why? You provided not one example for us to examine. Norman Geisler’s edited book, Inerrancy (Zondervan 1979), presents biblical and historical evidence to counter your presupposition. Chapter 12 (by Robert Preus) of this book is, ‘The view of the Bible held by the church: The early church through Luther’, in which Irenaeus is cited in Against Heresies, ‘We should leave things of that nature to God who created us, being most properly assured that the Scriptures are indeed perfect, since they were spoken by the Word of God and His Spirit’ (Against Heresies 2.28.2, emphasis added). Therefore, you are incorrect to state that biblical inerrancy is a ‘modern take’ (‘Scriptures are indeed perfect’, Irenaeus). Irenaeus, bishop of Lyon, lived ca. 125-202. That is hardly a modern take in support of inerrancy. Chapter 12 of Inerrancy provides other examples from the church fathers in support of inerrancy.
• Then you provide the unsupported statement of Zoroastrianism’s influence on Judaism and Platonic influence on Christian theology. That may be so, but you are yet to prove your case. Your assertions merely state your opinions. They don’t provide evidence.
• Your support of Paul Tillich’s existentialism (I have his Systematic Theology) comes with the critiques of existentialism that don’t make it a worldview to live by. The review, ‘Tillich: An Impossible Struggle’, raises some insuperable difficulties with Tillich’s worldview.
• Deconstructing into nothingness will lead you to nothingness. Are going to your grave promoting postmodern deconstructed nothingness?
  
• Starting with existentialism as being ‘necessary for me’ is a brick wall approach to understanding any world view. You are stuck in a rut of experience that won’t allow you to pursue the evidence wherever it leads because … of your necessity for existentialism. Try existentialism if you are caught speeding and the policeman issues you with a fine. Existentialism is not a world view of reality that leads to payment of the fine.

Oz

 

[Silmarien]

Do we really need to go around in circles about this? I don't provide evidence for my views because it'd be against the ToS to promote them and this isn't supposed to be a debate forum anyway. I mention them so that you know what you're dealing with, but you're not going to talk me out of them. I've been gravitating towards a Greek Orthodox approach at times, since they have interesting answers to the problem of literalism vs. allegory.

As far as existentialism goes, a worldview doesn't need to lead to payment of a fine to be valid. Existentialism tells me that paying or not paying that fine is ultimately my decision and I can't pretend that society forces me to do anything to refuse responsibility. Which... yes. I'm fully aware that it's my choice not to toss the Bible into the fire right now, walk away, and face whatever consequences might come (and I think there would be consequences, so maybe I'm already Christian). But I like Tillich because he specifically addresses issues that Heidegger raised, and Christian responses to questions I recognize are more important than Christian responses to questions I wouldn't think to ask. It's not really a matter of systemic theology but more a matter of philosophy of religion and of the religious experience in general. I'm really bigger on Kierkegaard, but modern responses to what atheist existentialism has to say is important if I now need to rethink everything from within a Christian framework. That's a huge undertaking.

That said, I've started reading N.T. Wright and he is fantastic (do you know any other top European scholars?). Very much what I was hoping for, and almost certainly the best way to get my postmodern tendencies under control. I don't think they're going to cause too much more trouble, so now I guess the biggest hurdle is secular humanism and all the subconscious hostility towards religion that comes with it. I'm not as bad off as many, but there's definitely still some poison to drain.

Ever tried to solve a problem while using someone else's viewpoint?

Which sounds like exactly what you are trying to do here.

Nah, it's my own viewpoint. I was just pointing out that it's far from a new way of interpreting things.

Meanwhile all the important issues of humility, holiness, forgiveness, grace, mercy, and especially love go ignored. Faith that causes altruism is long forgotten and replaced with too big a brain full of knowledge that has no wisdom. (wisdom being the right use in action of knowledge)

No worries, I know the whole point is grace, love, and humility. Learned that from Kierkegaard and Dostoevsky. That's why I finally came back, but now I have to deal with the fact that I loathe doctrine, haha. I'm not actually worked up about Calvinism--it was just shocking, since it seemed to rip out the very heart of the religion!

 

[eddif]

https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/disparency

eddif

 

[OzSpen]

Silmarien,

You wrote:

3. I don't trust them [the Scriptures] as an accurate record because I can barely remember things from one day to the next, and these were written decades after the fact! I don't think they fabricated everything out of thin air, and I'm agnostic about the miracles in general, but when I look at prophecies being fulfilled, my instinct is to call foul on the writers, not accept it. It's not a huge issue for me--if they were making up stories, it was because they really did believe that strongly. What's a bigger deal is seeing debate over issues like whether or not there even was a tomb, because then you're tossing out Resurrection evidence. Thank you for the link--I'll take a look at it and see if I can't hunt down the book you mentioned (and the others mentioned earlier as well).

What study have you done into the nature of oral tradition that was used before documents were put into writing on papyri or velum? How did people remember anything in the first century, before the days of the printed press? You forget easily today, but people did not have that approach to learning material in the first century. See the article, ‘Oral tradition and biblical studies’ (Robert C Culley 1986). Not a lot of material is available to confirm the ‘how?’ of formulation of oral tradition in the first century, for example, but it seems that material was made available in memorable small chunks that were designed for repetition, to be handed down to later generations. We get a peep into the window in Luke 1:1-4 (ESV):

Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, 2 just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, 3 it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught.

So, Luke in compiling his Gospel, was aware that he was composing a narrative that was dependent on:

• Eyewitnesses and ministers of the word;
• This was delivered to him. We are not told if the delivery was oral or written;
• Luke wrote an orderly account of what had happened in association with Jesus, and
• This would bring ‘certainty’ about the things that were taught.

So, there is no relationship to your and my abilities to remember things. Your ability to forget is another topic that you need to discuss with a neurologist. The first century oral tradition was of such a nature that people were taught things in such a way that they remembered them so that they could be passed on to others.

You say, ‘I'm agnostic about the miracles in general’. They are your presuppositions of liberal bias speaking. When you understand the nature of the God of miracles revealed in the OT (e.g. Gen 1:1; Gen 6-9; 2 Kings 2-9; Dan 6) and of Jesus, the God-man (miracles in the Gospels), you should have no difficulty with miracles. Your issues relate to the nature of God. Let the evidence speak! Your anti-supernatural presuppositions against miracles are taking over. Acknowledge that your agnosticism towards miracles is coming from your skeptical mind and it is not based on the nature of God and the evidence before you in the Bible.

The same applies to fulfilment of prophecy. It’s a huge issue for me if the biblical writers were making up stories. That makes them liars or creators of fake stories.

The issue of the bodily or apparitional resurrection of Jesus is a big deal and, since you are enjoying N T Wright, you owe it to yourself to read through his massive research in The Resurrection of the Son of God (Fortress Press 2003). I’ve attempted to address some of these issues in my brief articles:

• Junk you hear at Easter about Jesus’ resurrection
• Jesus’ resurrection appearances only to believers
• Easter and the end of death
• Can we prove and defend Jesus’ resurrection?
• Can Jesus Christ’s resurrection be investigated as history?
• What is the connection between Christ’s atonement and his resurrection?
• Christ’s resurrection: Latter-day wishful thinking
• The Resurrection of Jesus Christ: The Comeback to Beat Them All
• Was Jesus’ Resurrection a Bodily Resurrection?

Maybe that’s overload for you with all those links to my articles (with some repetition), but I have researched quite a bit on the resurrection of Jesus. However, please understand that I’m a cultural apologist who addresses the issues in my very secular Australian culture.

If you want to read a European theologian on Jesus’ bodily resurrection, try German theologian, Wolfhart Pannenberg. Here’s an assessment of this controversial theologian who died in 2014, The strange legacy of theologian Wolfhart Pannenberg. See Wolfhart Pannenberg, Jesus – God and Man, 2nd ed (Westminster Press 1977). For another European perspective on the Gospels, I recommend Martin Hengel’s, The Four Gospels and the One Gospel of Jesus Christ (Trinity Press International 2000).

Oz

 

[eddif]

John 14:26 KJV
But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

The human body nerves are equal to angels (symbolically). To have something come to our notice, toe pain for example, does not require a doctors examination. Suddenly we are notified. Physically we may have to do something, or the immune system may spring into action without our knowledge.

The groanings of the Holy Spirit may begin without our input.

eddif

 

[OzSpen]

The human body nerves are equal to angels (symbolically).
eddif

From where did you obtain that information?

 

[Silmarien]

Oz,

Now you've got presuppositions about my presuppositions! I'm comfortable with the idea of miracles, just disinclined to look at them as evidence when I think such claims would have ended up in the stories regardless of whether or not they happened. Just as I think that if prophecies were not fulfilled, the disciples would have started forcing prophecies to fit events (or events to fit prophecies) one way or the other. I don't accept these things as evidence, but that doesn't mean I don't acknowledge the possibility that they're true.

Wolfhart Pannenberg looks very interesting, thank you! And yes, I'm planning on grabbing Wright's work on the Resurrection eventually. Though he's got a ton of other books I'm interested in. I think it's finally time to dive into John of the Cross also, since I've been focusing too much on the "what" and "why" of faith and ignoring the "how."

I feel like I'm flirting with a Pascal's Wager approach here, which worries me a bit. If Christianity is true, obviously the only real option is to embrace it. If it's not, it's still a beautiful belief system and I'd rather try to live up to the moral standards anyway. I'm not sure if "I don't care, it's still the best thing we have" is a constructive way to deal with doubt, but it does seem to stave off the nihilism.

 

[OzSpen]

Oz,
Now you've got presuppositions about my presuppositions! I'm comfortable with the idea of miracles, just disinclined to look at them as evidence when I think such claims would have ended up in the stories regardless of whether or not they happened. Just as I think that if prophecies were not fulfilled, the disciples would have started forcing prophecies to fit events (or events to fit prophecies) one way or the other. I don't accept these things as evidence, but that doesn't mean I don't acknowledge the possibility that they're true.

Wolfhart Pannenberg looks very interesting, thank you! And yes, I'm planning on grabbing Wright's work on the Resurrection eventually. Though he's got a ton of other books I'm interested in. I think it's finally time to dive into John of the Cross also, since I've been focusing too much on the "what" and "why" of faith and ignoring the "how."

I feel like I'm flirting with a Pascal's Wager approach here, which worries me a bit. If Christianity is true, obviously the only real option is to embrace it. If it's not, it's still a beautiful belief system and I'd rather try to live up to the moral standards anyway. I'm not sure if "I don't care, it's still the best thing we have" is a constructive way to deal with doubt, but it does seem to stave off the nihilism.

You say, 'Now you've got presuppositions about my presuppositions!' Not really! What I've been trying to do is uncover your presuppositions as your post at #17 is loaded with your presuppositions, some of which you mentioned, like your 'liberal bias', but there were more presuppositions that needed to be exposed to try to see how they fit the evidence.

I think you need to ask: 'What is the truth about reality, especially concerning the person of Jesus Christ, his death, resurrection, and second coming?' The answer to that question, along with, 'What are the attributes of God?' will unlock a gold mine that will take you into eternity, with the beloved or the lost.

'What happens one second after your last breath?' is a dynamite question for which you need answers.

Your posts do read to me like a version of Pascal's Wager.

Without Christ changing your life, you will not be able to live up to the high moral standards of Christianity. It's wishful thinking trying to make it on your own.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Silmarien,

4. The view of the Gospel of John as a work of mysticism is ancient. It's only a problem in that it puts me on a different page than most people here--mysticism is one of the major reasons I'm not an atheist. I don't discount the claims because I think it's mysticism; I actually take them more seriously. I'm very much on the mystical side, that's a large part of why taking things at face value does nothing for me. As for Paul... suffice to say that I have no love for 1 Timothy. Apparently there are serious doubts as to its authorship, so that's one less problem, but there's still plenty of stuff I'm skeptical about, including his claim to authority when he was never there in the first place. Actually, if you know of any good material on him, I'd definitely appreciate it.

I acknowledge that the Gospel of John has some different emphases to the Synoptics, but a mystical interpretation, I find, is an imposition on the text. You seem to be engaged in a begging the question logical fallacy. When you start with John’s Gospel as mysticism and conclude with mysticism, you have achieved nothing. It is fallacious reasoning that doesn’t deal with differences between John and the Synoptics.

There are dangers in mysticism. I recommend a read of ‘What is contemplative Spirituality and Why is it Dangerous?’ (John Caddock 1997).

You say ‘taking things at face value does nothing for me’. I wish you luck in trying that approach with buying groceries, having an electrician install electricity to the kitchen hot plates, keeping the road rules, reading your local newspaper, or appearing in court to face the evidence?

Concerning the pastoral epistles, I recommend Gordon D Fee’s commentary, 'New International Biblical Biblical Commentary: 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus (Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 1988). A later edition gives details HERE. Fee has a considerable amount of exposition on the authenticity of the pastoral epistles. See his index on ‘authenticity’. R C H Lenski’s Introduction to the pastoral letters, in my view, more than adequately covers the authorship controversy. See Lenski (1961:473-484).

Oz

Works consulted

Lenski, R C H 1961. Commentary on the New Testament: The Interpretation of St. Paul’s Epistles to the Colossians, to the Thessalonians, to Timothy, to Titus, and to Philemon. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers (earlier published by Lutheran Book Concern 1937; The Wartburg Press 1946; Augsburg Publishing House 1961; Hendrickson Publishers, Inc edn 2001).

 

[OzSpen]

5. Christian existentialism. ;) I'm all about faith as the ultimate act of courage. It's what cured me of my atheism, so when I talk about leaps of faith, shutting off your brain is not remotely what I'm thinking of.
I mention that I'm pretty liberal so that people know what they're dealing with. I don't know where to start with conservative scholarship and definitely do want to take a look at the other side of the story. I know there's a lot of bad blood between the groups, but please leave me out of it, haha. The infighting is part of what's stressing me out.

Silmarien,

What is Christian existentialism? Would you conclude that this is a reasonable summary of Christian existentialism? It may be defined as

a philosophy of its own that is not compatible with either secular existentialism, nor traditional Christianity. There is a wide variety of forms of existential religion with differing doctrinal beliefs. Kierkegaard and later Karl Barth are sited for attempting to make theology, particularly the Christian faith, compatible with existentialism.
Its premise is that a person must submit themselves totally to God without reasoning -- that is, true absolute faith must be void of philosophy or intellect. Religious existentialism then states such things as:

• A person is autonomous and is fully free to make choices and fully responsible for them
• Rational grounds for theology and divine revelation do not exist
• True faith transcends rationalism and God’s commandments
• The true God is not the God of philosophers or of rationalism
• The destruction of wars throughout human history proves there cannot be rational understanding of God or humanity
• A Christian must personally resolve within self the content of faith from being a myth or mystery to being realty or truth before they will allow an understanding and acceptance of salvation
• It is impossible to discover personal Being and faith through rational reasoning (All About Philosophy: Christian existentialism).

If faith is ‘the ultimate act of courage’ for you, I have to ask, ‘Faith in what? The god of Zoroastrianism; the Jesus who was not raised bodily from the grave; a liberal Jesus who loves people but excludes damnation?

Where to start with conservative scholarship is what I’ve stated: Follow the evidence wherever it leads. However, if you are going to impose your liberal bias, mysticism and existentialism onto the biblical text, you will invent your own god and jesus and won’t allow the conservative scholars to present their cases. You’ll come out with a godhead that looks like the very one you began with. For an examination of the conservative side of the resurrection of Jesus, I’d recommend: (1) The debate between Gary Habermas (Christian) and Antony Flew (atheist who became deist). It’s available in: Gary R Habermas and Antony G N Flew 1987. Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? The Resurrection Debate. San Francisco: Harper & Row. In this book, there is a response to the debate by Wolfhert Pannenberg (pp. 125-135). Pannenberg is the European scholar on the resurrection that I mentioned previously to you. (2) Norman L Geisler 1989. The Battle for the Resurrection. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers. (3) James L Snyder 1991: In Pursuit of God: The Life of A. W. Tozer. Camp Hill, Pennsylvania: Christian Publications.

Yes, there is considerable controversy between liberal and evangelical Protestants. I encourage you not to become involved in slinging matches but to examine the evidence, based on the claims themselves. This will require for both sides to: (1) Examine their presuppositions in the light of reality; (2) Do not impose one’s worldview on the text. (3) Refrain from the use of logical fallacies in challenging an opponent.

Speaking of logical fallacies, do you remember your statement: ‘His [Norman Geisler’s] endorsement of Donald Trump.

In all seriousness, I disapprove immensely of the politicization of religion. He seems to mix the two a fair amount, and that makes me believe that I'm not his intended audience’ (Silmarien #29).

Here you have committed a genetic logical fallacy. Any Christian apologist worth his or her salt should be assessing politicians and their policies. You obviously don’t like Trump, but when you dump Geisler’s views because of his support for Trump, you have not engaged in debate of the issues that Geisler raised. Instead, you have wiped his views because of his assessment of Trump’s views. This is erroneous reasoning.

Oz

 

[eddif]

From where did you obtain that information?

Romans 1:19-20 KJV
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed itunto them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Matthew 10:27 KJV
What I tell you in darkness, that speak ye in light: and what ye hear in the ear, that preach ye upon the housetops.

We say that we are made in the image of God,
1. God created the physical world.
2. God inspired the writing of the Bible.

Get the Bible open on a subject and then the biology open on a similar subject.


Get the angel messerenger scriptures in one pile, and the nerve passages in another pile. The angel passages go from God to man and man to God. The human toe: the brain messages go to the toe, and the toe messages go to the brain.


Of course this thread is not open for us to get into a heated discussion. If you wish to get into oxen / preachers or clean unclean riders to the subject, start a thread and invite me.

When you get on the housetop, get ready to hear (get off that housetop, you know that isn't God / Bible).

It takes me a huge amount of His faith to discuss this subject. It would be easier just to drop it. But I mount the stairs to the rooftop often.


eddif

 

[th1b.taylor]

Oz,

Now you've got presuppositions about my presuppositions! I'm comfortable with the idea of miracles, just disinclined to look at them as evidence when I think such claims would have ended up in the stories regardless of whether or not they happened. Just as I think that if prophecies were not fulfilled, the disciples would have started forcing prophecies to fit events (or events to fit prophecies) one way or the other. I don't accept these things as evidence, but that doesn't mean I don't acknowledge the possibility that they're true.

Wolfhart Pannenberg looks very interesting, thank you! And yes, I'm planning on grabbing Wright's work on the Resurrection eventually. Though he's got a ton of other books I'm interested in. I think it's finally time to dive into John of the Cross also, since I've been focusing too much on the "what" and "why" of faith and ignoring the "how."

I feel like I'm flirting with a Pascal's Wager approach here, which worries me a bit. If Christianity is true, obviously the only real option is to embrace it. If it's not, it's still a beautiful belief system and I'd rather try to live up to the moral standards anyway. I'm not sure if "I don't care, it's still the best thing we have" is a constructive way to deal with doubt, but it does seem to stave off the nihilism.

If you will test God He willI respond, as long as the request comes from your heart and is centered in His will. Your felling the need for faith is what I read and faith is a gift from God. If you can, in the privacy of your bedroom. fall on your face and challenge God to give you His faith, He will. (Malachi 3:9-11) The only faith you need for testing this truth is sincere faoth that if He is real, He will give you the required faith to believe in Him and then I can welcome you into the family.

 

[OzSpen]

Romans 1:19-20 KJV
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed itunto them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Matthew 10:27 KJV
What I tell you in darkness, that speak ye in light: and what ye hear in the ear, that preach ye upon the housetops.

We say that we are made in the image of God,
1. God created the physical world.
2. God inspired the writing of the Bible.

Get the Bible open on a subject and then the biology open on a similar subject.


Get the angel messerenger scriptures in one pile, and the nerve passages in another pile. The angel passages go from God to man and man to God. The human toe: the brain messages go to the toe, and the toe messages go to the brain.


Of course this thread is not open for us to get into a heated discussion. If you wish to get into oxen / preachers or clean unclean riders to the subject, start a thread and invite me.

When you get on the housetop, get ready to hear (get off that housetop, you know that isn't God / Bible).

It takes me a huge amount of His faith to discuss this subject. It would be easier just to drop it. But I mount the stairs to the rooftop often.


eddif

eddif,

There is not a word in any of these Scriptures to confirm what you stated that 'the human body nerves are equal to angels (symbolically)'. That comes from your mind as allegorical interpretation that is imposed on the biblical text.

Nowhere does the text state that.

Oz

 

[Silmarien]

I think you need to ask: 'What is the truth about reality, especially concerning the person of Jesus Christ, his death, resurrection, and second coming?' The answer to that question, along with, 'What are the attributes of God?' will unlock a gold mine that will take you into eternity, with the beloved or the lost.

What if that's part of the problem? What if the idea of eternity itself is terrifying? What if Annihilationism doesn't sound that bad? What if damnation means that literally everyone you know is in trouble?

I've got some serious issues, and the liberal bias is really the least of it. Struggling a bit with the concept of eternity as well.

Your posts do read to me like a version of Pascal's Wager.

Without Christ changing your life, you will not be able to live up to the high moral standards of Christianity. It's wishful thinking trying to make it on your own.

He's certainly welcome to (and maybe He already is), but unless and until He makes it obvious, I'm not sure what else I'm supposed to be doing. You can't magically not struggle with doubt.

There are dangers in mysticism. I recommend a read of ‘What is contemplative Spirituality and Why is it Dangerous?’ (John Caddock 1997).

You say ‘taking things at face value does nothing for me’. I wish you luck in trying that approach with buying groceries, having an electrician install electricity to the kitchen hot plates, keeping the road rules, reading your local newspaper, or appearing in court to face the evidence?

Yeah, but religion has nothing to do with any of those things. If the human mind isn't sufficient to fully understand something, or human language to express it, why would you treat the Bible the same way you would a shopping list?

As for mysticism, I'm not really interested in the modern consumer version. It's shallow and inauthentic, but I would hope that the medieval saints knew what they were doing. I really don't understand the hostility, though. "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind" seems to encompass at least a bit of mystical dabbling.

What is Christian existentialism? Would you conclude that this is a reasonable summary of Christian existentialism? It may be defined as

No, it's a strawman version of existentialism (both the secular and religious versions). Anyone who thinks Kierkegaard was trying to make Christianity compatible with existentialism knows nothing about Kierkegaard, since he was the father of the whole movement. The atheists ran away with it afterwards, but there was no need to reconcile anything at the beginning. Kierkegaard doesn't talk about a leap of faith but a leap to faith--the argument isn't that faith is devoid of intellect so much as that the religious experience is in a different sphere entirely. I don't think I've seen it said that true faith transcends God's commandments, unless they're referring to "thou shalt not kill" and the sacrifice of Isaac. Kierkegaard did view that as trust in God superceding ethics. Can't blame existentialism for what shows up in Scripture. A lot of the other points are true enough, but oversimplified.

I appreciate Christian existentialism for embracing the idea that rationalism only gets you so far, because I've never seen a philosophical argument that couldn't be torn apart. And I don't think I'm ever going to be able to accept evidence as completely conclusive. There are a handful of things that make me lean more towards "yes" than "no," and I hope to find more, but the problem is Luke 16:31. I don't have an agenda, but if you've spent your life rationalizing away everything, it's hard to make yourself stop.

If faith is ‘the ultimate act of courage’ for you, I have to ask, ‘Faith in what? The god of Zoroastrianism; the Jesus who was not raised bodily from the grave; a liberal Jesus who loves people but excludes damnation?

Nope. Not sure why I'd be worshipping Ahura Mazda, but the bodily Resurrection and the concept of damnation are not things that I reject as unbelievable. My liberal leanings don't make me incapable of understanding what traditional Christianity is about, nor do they mean I'm comfortable with the extremes of Progressive Christianity. I'm actually not.

If you will test God He willI respond, as long as the request comes from your heart and is centered in His will. Your felling the need for faith is what I read and faith is a gift from God. If you can, in the privacy of your bedroom. fall on your face and challenge God to give you His faith, He will. (Malachi 3:9-11) The only faith you need for testing this truth is sincere faoth that if He is real, He will give you the required faith to believe in Him and then I can welcome you into the family.

Haha, I've been doing precisely that for about a month and a half now! No miracles, but I don't think I've been entirely ignored either. But then I backslide again. I felt like I was getting some actual instruction yesterday, and then all the walls went back up without warning. Perhaps specifically because of that.

 

[eddif]

Hebrews 6:4 KJV
For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,
5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,
6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame

The falling away mentioned here seems only to be after all the progress has been made.
1. Repenting of sins.
2. Accepting work of Christ. (Tasting ofword become flesh)
3. Baptism of Holy Spirit to become a witness.

Even then the wretchedness of the flesh is faced. Faced how? Sin no more has dominion, but trials of faith are faced. In this state we face trials, but we do not give up on Christ and rely on just repentance.

Of course some see the flesh having more than just having the dominion of sin broken. I sure am not perfect, and neither was Paul (according to his writings). Wide difference of opinion here.

Speaking of backsliding:
The ultimate example is only when all the progress is made. The OT folks went back and forth in progress, but losing faith in Christ is a kingdom discussion.

Redneck
eddif

 

[WIP]

Remember, this is not a debate forum.

 

[th1b.taylor]

What if that's part of the problem? What if the idea of eternity itself is terrifying? What if Annihilationism doesn't sound that bad? What if damnation means that literally everyone you know is in trouble?

I've got some serious issues, and the liberal bias is really the least of it. Struggling a bit with the concept of eternity as well.

That means that like me and tens of thousands of others, You will work to see as many of them as is possible saved. And every time one of them passes without conversion, it hurts. But if you convert, you might be the only Bible they will ever know, would you dny them the chance to be saved?

 

[th1b.taylor]

He's certainly welcome to (and maybe He already is), but unless and until He makes it obvious, I'm not sure what else I'm supposed to be doing. You can't magically not struggle with doubt.

I believe I, earlier, told you to challenge God, from the bottom of your heart.