Do we KNOW Christianity is true?

[Runner]

So this " sufficient " conviction you speak of that just managed to get you over the line suggests a sense of Christ's Love for you that is adequate yet less than superlative in feeling ?
A soul filled not with the sense of the profoundest depths of Love which cannot be fathomed , but a love neutralized on some level , straining in it's sufficiency , all the while possibly even being " very wrong " ?

" As the Father hath loved me , so hath I loved you " (John 15:9)

I think you're right on the edge of the Terms of Service, if not over, so I'm going to wish you well and bid you a fond adieu.

 

[Cooper]

Here is a post I wrote on an atheist forum, responding to the "Santa Claus" argument. It fits right in with this thread. (BTW, Charles Schulz was a deep and complex guy, and the Peanuts strip in its heyday of the 1950's to the 1970's was a goldmine of theological insights.)
________________________________________________
The points I made on the other thread, and that you presumably saw, were basically:

• We don't disbelieve in Santa Claus in a vacuum. Most of us at some point did believe, but we shifted to disbelief and have continued in disbelief.
• There are reasons for our disbelief. Our disbelief has a foundation. That foundation might be based on assurances from authority figures that Santa doesn't exist or on our own study, observation and experience.
• Because the vast majority of sane and intelligent people over the age of five or so don't believe in Santa, we're very confident in our disbelief.
• Theoretically, and unlikely as it might seem in the case of Santa, our disbelief could be shaken by new evidence. We might even be persuaded Santa does exist. Unless he actually appeared, however, we could never be certain; we could only have some level of conviction. We likewise can never be certain Santa doesn't exist. We can have only a high level of conviction (in this case near-certainty) that he doesn't.
• Given the current state of the positive evidence (none), the negative evidence (lots) and the overwhelming disbelief on the part of sane and intelligent people, an insistence that Santa exists would be deemed irrational and even pathological.
• The situation isn't at all the same for theism. Billions of people, including many of the best philosophers, scientists, academics and professionals who laugh at the idea of Santa nevertheless believe in a theistic God. They can't reasonably be dismissed as irrational or pathological. However, a substantial minority of other sane and intelligent people don't believe in any God. They likewise can't be dismissed.
• The fact is, the state of the evidence is such that where one comes out on the question of God depends on what evidence, inferences and arguments each individual deems most relevant and compelling. As with Santa, we can never be certain God exists unless he appears. Some believers are convinced he has revealed himself in history, but this is likewise a matter of the evidence and arguments an individual finds compelling; sane and intelligent people may disagree. Other believers insist God has appeared to them, but again this is subject to legitimate debate and possible alternative explanations.
• As with Santa, we can never be certain God doesn't exist. We can only have a level of conviction one way or the other depending on our assessment of the evidence, inferences and arguments.
• I thus see the Santa Claus analogy as a weak and flawed one because the evidence, inferences and arguments for Santa are nowhere near as strong as they are for God and billions of completely sane and intelligent people don't believe in Santa.
• A valid analogy would require something where (1) the truth can't be established with certainty, and (2) the evidence, inferences and arguments are strong enough on each side that a substantial number of sane and intelligent people may be found on both sides.
• All these attempts to make religious belief appear silly always boil down to two things: "I disagree with the type of evidence, inferences and arguments you are using to reach your convictions" or "I disagree with your assessment of the evidence, inferences and arguments."
• Anyone - believer or nonbeliever - can say this with perfect sincerity. We each must decide for ourselves what evidence, inferences and arguments are most relevant and compelling.

I have spent years talking to atheists, and I feel I am back there, on this, a Godly Christian forum. Perhaps I should redefine myself as a disciple of Jesus. Where he sends me I will go, what he asks of me I will do. The same as for the man I called father when I was a child, who gave me presents every Christmas. Father Christmas was real in my house the same as in millions of other homes and my heavenly Father is with me now as I write this, at peace resting in his tender care. I pray you will find the same peace I have before it is too late. He said, and I know it is true, “Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid.” (Joh 14:27 KJV)

 

[Runner]

In post #40, where I quote my response to the atheists' Santa Claus argument, note that this was on an atheism forum and I was defending any variety of deism or theism against atheism. Hence, there is nothing specifically Christian in my post.

 

[Mister E]

In post #40, where I quote my response to the atheists' Santa Claus argument, note that this was on an atheism forum and I was defending any variety of deism or theism against atheism. Hence, there is nothing specifically Christian in my post.

When I read your OP I knew this was going to be a fun thread- hence the missionary roastage stamp.

Folks do not like their closely held beliefs challenged (threatened). Most of them don’t even recognize such concepts as beliefs at all. To them, they have the facts and proofs and the case has long been closed, as are their minds.

Such posts are disturbing the peace.


Of course there was this one guy....

 

[Runner]

When I read your OP I knew this was going to be a fun thread- hence the missionary roastage stamp.

Folks do not like their closely held beliefs challenged (threatened). Most of them don’t even recognize such concepts as beliefs at all. To them, they have the facts and proofs and the case has long been closed, as are their minds.

Such posts are disturbing the peace.


Of course there was this one guy....

Yeah, when I signed off yesterday, there were no responses and I thought "Well, that was a dud." Your analysis is pretty much right on.

 

[Hopeful]

I'm sorry, but that is simply your mistake. There is nothing antithetical about having faith in Christ and recognizing the possibility you could be wrong.

That is called unbelief.

Quite the opposite. It would be closer to the truth to say "certainty" is antithetical to faith.

Faith genders certainty.
I'm thinking of all the folks Jesus told..."Thy faith hath saved thee".
There is no certainty without faith.

 

[Hopeful]

OK, a question for you. How would God convince the sceptic if He returned today?

Start a new thread !!!!

 

[Dorothy Mae]

It must be wonderful to have this psychic ability of critiquing the views of someone you've "never heard of."

When you write out the views of a man you admire, be aware that we are allowed to critique those views without having to either read his wirks or know him personally.

Plantinga is the consensus leading Christian philosopher of our era. Whether you have heard of him is really not relevant.

Hard to believe since no consensus leader I ever heard speak mention him.

Plantinga's epistemology has been dubbed Reformed epistemology because it relies on a notion of sensus divinitatis that originated with Calvin. Plantinga believes in libertarian free will and taught at Notre Dame almost his entire career. In his autobiography, he wrote "These five points [of Calvinism] summarize the declarations of the Synod of Dort (1618-1619); they essentially distinguish one kind of 17th century Calvinist from another kind (and do not at all obviously represent what John Calvin himself had in mind).” He is a Calvinist of sorts - typically called a Neo-Calvinist - but hardly a 5-pointer.

I've read most of his works without having any sense that his epistemology was unique to Calvinism or had anything to do with predestination.

You would need to read non-Calvinist views to see if this were so, not only his views.

If this were true, he would be so influential throughout all of Protestantism.

The influential part has yet to be established.

I think you've painted yourself into a corner by critiquing someone you've "never heard of" and are now trying to tap dance out of it. Let it go - Plantinga isn't important to the points I'm making.

That why praise and quote him at length? And your personal insults weaken your defense.

"The evidence is overwhelming" is a statement of conviction, not certainty.

That’s your semantics.

"Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." Hebrews 1:11 (NASB).

Faith isn't the certainty of things hoped for, the knowledge of things not seen.

I see you don’t address Paul’s certainty as to where he was about to go. You will find it hard to tell those who paid a high price to obey God or remain faithful that they’re not certain. There are others besides Paul whose assurance was much more than your favorite theologian writes is possible.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

It’s the one thing I remember of this particular philosophical avenue when discussing the basis for our beliefs. People ask- or should ask, and in talks with my boy the question was posed- Why is what we say we believe any different than children who believe in Santa, the Easter Bunny or the Great Pumpkin?

Now I know where he got it.

Cartoon explanations.

 

[Cooper]

In post #40, where I quote my response to the atheists' Santa Claus argument, note that this was on an atheism forum and I was defending any variety of deism or theism against atheism. Hence, there is nothing specifically Christian in my post.

The thoughts of philosophers are not required reading for Christians.

 

[Cooper]

There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death. (Pro 14:12 KJV)

There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, and yet he will be punished if he follows it, for his perverted conscience may arise from his desertion of God, and his refusal of the light He offered. (Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers.)

 

[Dorothy Mae]

With all due respect, you clearly don't "get it."

This thread is not about my beliefs. I don't quantify my beliefs in that manner anyway. "Let's see, I guess I have an 83% level of confidence in the Virgin Birth, but maybe 96% in the Resurrection." That's nonsense.

I have a sufficient conviction in the truth of mainstream Christianity to live my life as though it were true. That is a very high level of conviction that I don't have to quantify or justify to you.

Because I'm a rational human being and not a "pretend certainty" sort of Christian, I accept the possibility my convictions could be very wrong.

I suppose it might come down to differing philosophies. The modern worldview of truth being relative undercuts the confidence of there being a truth out there. The confidence in absolute truth being there, supports the assurance one has found that which is true. This is a worldview difference.

It might be difficult for those trained in relative truth (the oxymoron of “your truth”) to understand those who foundational thinking is based on absolute truth. Probably the conclusion is that the only reason those who believe in absolute truth are confident in what they know is pride. That they know that they have the truth is not an option.

Jesus said if you keep his teaching you will actually come to know the truth. That is, 100% confident that what you understand matches the world outside of you. Jesus promised this, but it has the usual condition, obedience. This idea seems difficult for those schooled to think that the truth is relative. They’ll find it hard to know that they have found the truth.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

On the whole, proof is for mathematics. When it comes to many matters, all we have is evidence. There’s no proof so and so loves you and yet we stake our whole lives on evidence it’s so. There’s no proof you can trust someone but there can be evidence that is sufficient that you can. Spiritual matters, the whole spiritual world, only is believed by evidence. So evidence that demands a verdict is our claim.

The personal element can be a persuasive argument but it’s not all we have. People doing yoga also sing the praises of how it helped them.

 

[hawkman]

Folks do not like their closely held beliefs challenged (threatened).

I really don't think many are having their beliefs challenged in this thread .

To them, they have the facts and proofs and the case has long been closed, as are their minds.

Having facts and proofs does not close one's mind , at least mine .

 

[Dorothy Mae]

I really don't think many are having their beliefs challenged in this thread .

Having facts and proofs does not close one's mind , at least mine .

I think it stands or falls on whether one wants truth like the Bereans or simply has the view “please don’t confuse me with the facts. I’ve already made up my mind.”

Having said that, no correction is pleasant, but it’s how we learn.

 

[Cooper]

When I read your OP I knew this was going to be a fun thread- hence the missionary roastage stamp.

Folks do not like their closely held beliefs challenged (threatened). Most of them don’t even recognize such concepts as beliefs at all. To them, they have the facts and proofs and the case has long been closed, as are their minds.

Such posts are disturbing the peace.


Of course there was this one guy....

What makes people think they are challenging my beliefs when they talk about Santa Claus, elephants in the room, and fairies at the bottom of the garden! What planet do they come from? Is it Godless earth or Pluto?

It is not worth my time reading such posts. I stopped reading comics years ago. What I want is a little spiritual uplift, not downers.

 

[Consecrated Life]

There is nothing antithetical about having faith in Christ and recognizing the possibility you could be wrong. Quite the opposite.

So how is the message of your " sufficient" faith in Christ modified in accordance with epistemology when you have shared this gospel with a needy soul, troubled & distressed with the problems of life ?
Once you have seen the spiritual victory welling up into their eyes, defying all their past earthly experiences of the material order, and their burdens vanquished in front of you from the good news you have shared , is it at that point that you inform that it is quite possible that this could all be a lie ,& Christ actually did not overcome the world at all, and that His carcass could very possibly be lying in the grave somewhere & his bones could be discovered where the disciples hid them tomorrow?
Is it at that point that you tell them it all may not be true at all ?
Or do you preface your sharing of the good news of Christ with the cautionary note that this may be all wrong.
Is it before or after ?
Just asking ?

"Be of good cheer , I have overcome the world ." ( John 16:33

 

[Runner]

Oh, dear, Mister E's point is being reemphasized for us over and over.

Bear in mind, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, atheists and many others claim precisely the same sort of "knowing" and "certainty" you claim. "BUT THEY ARE WRONG!!! DECEIVED!!! ONLY I HAVE THE REAL KNOWING!!!"

Every religion makes truth claims. Metaphysical truth claims. They can't be proved or disproved in this life. We can only sort them out and reach convictions as to which are true.

What I see with this sort of "pretend certainty" is FEAR, not confidence. Whistling past the graveyard, if you will. "It HAS to be true, or I've wasted my life!" So we pretend there is no knowledge or truth outside the pages of a literal translation of the Bible, we surround ourselves with nothing but people who think the same way and call it "fellowship," and we cover our ears against anything that might cause us to think.

It's a species of Christianity, certainly, but it's a shallow, superficial Christianity. It can't handle the slightest crack in its dike. This is exactly why rigid fundamentalists like Bart Ehrman become atheists. It's exactly why Young Earth Christians have to live in a bizarre state of cognitive dissonance and call it "faith."

"Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." Hebrews 1:11 (NASB).

Faith isn't the certainty of things hoped for, the knowledge of things not seen.

This is from Josh McDowell, about as solid an evangelical as there is (https://www.josh.org/christian-doub...vb5Wu3MaCgLHBYddx6HGr4AUgojqesVYaAkTIEALw_wcB):

Do “real” Christians have the freedom to doubt the existence of God, Jesus, and the truths of the Bible? Or should we feel guilty when our faith wobbles like Jell-O? Notes Paul Tillich, “Doubt isn’t the opposite of faith; it is an element of faith.”​

​

God knows that we will have questions and doubts because we can’t see the big picture like He does. That’s why He repeatedly tells us, in His Word, to trust and chill (“Do NOT fear!”). But God also tells us to pursue the development of our faith. Doubt is a great motivator to fuel this pursuit.​

​

God is not offended by our doubt. God designed us to seek truth, that we might grow in our knowledge of Him. So why do we feel that it’s bad, if not wrong, to question God, the Bible, and even our particular church’s stance on an issue?​

But carry on with your "certainty" if it makes you happy. Your desperate need to shout down anyone who doesn't pretend along with you is rather telling.

 

[Runner]

Final thought: It occurred to me that my reference to Young Earth Creationism is illustrative.

I am 99.99999% percent sure that YEC is not only false but nonsense. In my view, the Bible doesn't require this view. The history of Christianity shows it is not a mainstream view. Literally every scientific discipline would have to be wrong by a factor of millions. It would mean we can't trust the minds and senses with which God blessed us. It would mean the heavens, which are supposed to proclaim the glory of God, are actually completely misleading. I believe it is inconsistent with God as Christians believe him to be.

But wait: Am I "certain" YEC is false? Do I "know" it's false? No, I have a much stronger conviction it's false than I do about many non-Christian claims, but I don't claim certainty. By all standards of objective knowledge about the natural order, it's false. But since it's a claim about God, a metaphysical claim, I can't assert anything more than a very strong conviction. Just as God might not exist, he might be the cosmic jokester of YEC.

 

[Mister E]

I really don't think many are having their beliefs challenged in this thread .

Having facts and proofs does not close one's mind , at least mine .

That’s true. This thread only approaches the broad idea, it isn’t challenging anyone’s particular beliefs.

But you can see how threatening it is as a concept. All this thread is doing is challenging people’s beliefs about their beliefs- and folks are losing their minds.

If we were to get specific, that’s when the real fireworks would begin.

Did you know that there are millions with particular beliefs about the rapture who are 100% convinced of their ideas yet they are 100% wrong? That statement is 100% true.

Or they are convinced about this or that, from the book of Revelation and they teach from their own point of view -as if it were true- and it’s completely wrong.

Or pick a point of contention within theology— where ever there are opposing, or many perspectives that don’t agree, some folks may be right while the others must be wrong. That’s basic logic. But even those who must be wrong are often absolutely convinced they are right.

It’s because we are talking about beliefs. Beliefs about ideas. About concepts.

Show me two people that say they are 100% convinced the Bible is 100% true. Which Bible? Okay- “that Bible” —but then it would take me only a few minutes to find something I could ask them about ‘from the Bible’ that they vehemently disagree about. Again, it’s their ideas about the subject that differ, their beliefs.