Do we KNOW Christianity is true?

[Consecrated Life]

What I see with this sort of "pretend certainty" is FEAR, not confidence.

2Ti 1:12
I am not ashamed: for I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded...
" pretend certainty " ?

Really?

What I see in the circumscribed sufficient enough, yet plausibly deniable if pressed faith of epistemology is cowardly shame.
Shame that craves the world's approval more than the gift of God in Christ Jesus .

 

[Mister E]

The more I learn, the less I know. Since we are essentially talking about philosophy, let's begin with Socrates. Or as Albert Einstein put it-

“The more I learn, the more I realize how much I don't know.”​

It's the fool who thinks he knows it all and that all he knows is all there is to know.

 

[Cooper]

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.

The Bible is 100% true, this cannot be said of our understanding. The age of the earth is an example. The Hebrew word for day is yome. It means a period of time, anything from a few hours right up to eternity. We are in the seventh day now and look what a long day it is. The best thing you can do is to stop reading those who philosophise, it is only guess work, and pray for a proper understanding.

 

[Mister E]

The Bible is 100% true, this cannot be said of our understanding.

Wonderful! This is progress!

 

[Dorothy Mae]

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!!!"

No, actually they don’t.

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.

The evidence makes all the difference. Christians make claims that the metaphysical enters the physical. We don’t merely have convictions, we have evidence outside of our heads.

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!"

Have you considered another reason? What if a believer thinks a life following the teaching of Jesus is the best of all possible lives for them and they’d do so with equal zeal if there were no afterlife? That would disprove your theory. I know believers like this.

I don’t say fear is not the reason in some. But it’s not the only possible reason. It might be that they’ve actually found the truth in vital matters and think untruth less appealing.

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.

How sad!! But it might be so.

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."

I agree. Many reject a faith that isn’t true but fail to find the truth. I’ve observed the parents of devote christians at church to see if I could figure out why their offspring are solid atheists (not a few.) In some cases I found it. The parents have a very superficial faith they inherited and never really thought about it.

"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.

Conviction and certainty are pretty much the same when it comes to obedience. No difference.


This is from Josh McDowell, about as solid an evangelical as there is (https://www.josh.org/christian-doubt-okay-faith/?mwm_id=496610987446&utm_campaign=MW_googlegrant&mwm_id=496610987446&gclid=Cj0KCQjwzqSWBhDPARIsAK38LY9C3aamdO-NsE7tQxO3KTbvb5Wu3MaCgLHBYddx6HGr4AUgojqesVYaAkTIEALw_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.​

Actually the unbelieving and fearful do not please Him. Insisting we must understand or see in order to believe is what doubting Thomas said. Jesus didn’t say it was OK, because Thomas didn’t see. I’m sure Thomas was at least embarrassed. Insisting we must understand in order to believe is a weak faith that is controlling the matter and not trusting.

“My righteous one will live by faith; and if he shrinks back, I will take no pleasure in him.”

Doesn’t sound OK.

​

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?​

Because God’s recorded response to questioning Him is not one of tolerance. Accusing Him of wrong will render a man unable to hear Him…or He justly refuses to speak. I cannot think of a time God responded blithely to unbelief or questioning Him in scripture having an accusing manner.

But this is understandable, When I am falsely accused of evil, I will not share anything with my accusers. It’s the foolish man who throws their pearls to those who trample.

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.

Wow! I cannot speak for others, but to surrender solid evidence to doubt is to return to the darkness I left. It’s difficult to put into words but I understand completely the faith of Daniel’s friends who staked their lives and those of their children on their faith in God. To doubt was unthinkable, as much as you think it’s just “pretending.”

 

[for_his_glory]

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.

It's not so much the replies back, but the number of those who read the threads. I've had many post that no one replied to, but the numbers showed that many did read them and to me that is what matters.

 

[Corn Pop]

The only way the scripture can prove itself as truth and trustworthy Is through prophecy. Even all Jesus spoke and said and that he would raise in 3 days and still who believed him, no one until he had to prove it and show himself to his disciples.

Jesus was always a lone soldier on earth on his own mission. He knew what was going on. He knew no one knew what he was doing. He wasn't there to impress people.

 

[Mister E]

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

That's Hebrews 11:1 btw...

Conviction and certainty are pretty much the same when it comes to obedience. No difference.

-but no. Conviction and certainty are not the same, not when it comes to matters of faith that scripture refers to as things unseen. As scripture explains-- that eleventh chapter of Hebrews in particular-- where there is certainty, there is no faith and where there is faith there is no certainty.

You can have the conviction of your beliefs. That is not the same as certainty.

This is a basic tenet of philosophy and theology alike. Perhaps you disagree-- which would simply be further evidence of Runner 's entire point. Falling on deaf ears, so to speak.

 

[Mister E]

The only way the scripture can prove itself as truth and trustworthy Is through prophecy. Even all Jesus spoke and said and that he would raise in 3 days and still who believed him, no one until he had to prove it and show himself to his disciples.

Jesus was always a lone soldier on earth on his own mission. He knew what was going on. He knew no one knew what he was doing. He wasn't there to impress people.

Ahhh yes...... and look what he ran into. A world of "experts" who thought and taught and knew it all.

And he asked them to reexamine their beliefs. He challenged their understanding, and it cost him his life. He died at their hands --the price for asking them to reconsider some of their ideas.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

That's Hebrews 11:1 btw...



-but no. Conviction and certainty are not the same, not when it comes to matters of faith that scripture refers to as things unseen. As scripture explains-- that eleventh chapter of Hebrews in particular-- where there is certainty, there is no faith and where there is faith there is no certainty.

Not when it comes to the faith shown by the men and women in Hebrews 12. No difference. They were certain.

You can have the conviction of your beliefs. That is not the same as certainty.

As long as that conviction never leaves the piece of paper, that is true. But just as soon as a believer is required to act staking a great deal on trusting God, that changes. Obedience in this way is, btw, how faith grows.

This is a basic tenet of philosophy and theology alike. Perhaps you disagree-- which would simply be further evidence of Runner 's entire point. Falling on deaf ears, so to speak.

The theology sounds one way to those who never had to take great risk if they were to obey God and a different way to those who know what loss is solely because they obeyed the Living God.

 

[Corn Pop]

Irs not easy. Even his own followers that were there with everything he spoke and done still did not believe. It took Jesus to be raised from the dead and show himself for someone to believe him.

And we have to believe as someone who was not there and have not seen or witnessed having to trust 2000 year old text.

 

[Mister E]

Irs not easy. Even his own followers that were there with everything he spoke and done still did not believe. It took Jesus to be raised from the dead and show himself for someone to believe him.

And we have to believe as someone who was not there and have not seen or witnessed having to trust 2000 year old text.

Jesus prayed-- "If it's possible, may this cup be taken from me."

Likely considered heretical in some circles, but have you considered that Jesus had doubts? And yet he moved past them, saying- "Not my will, but Thine." He surrendered himself despite any personal doubts he had.

This is faith. Rising from the dead was evidence that his faith was well founded. "Warranted" to use Plantinga's terminology.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Jesus prayed-- "If it's possible, may this cup be taken from me."

Likely considered heretical in some circles, but have you considered that Jesus had doubts? And yet he moved past them, saying- "Not my will, but Thine." He surrendered himself despite any personal doubts he had.

This is faith. Rising from the dead was evidence that his faith was well founded. "Warranted" to use Plantinga's terminology.

Jesus didn’t have any doubts. He didn’t ask, “are you sure” or are you there?”


He didn’t want to do it. Anyone asked by God to do something very unpleasant will know what that is like.

 

[Runner]

What I see with this sort of "pretend certainty" is FEAR, not confidence.

Quoting myself, the ultimate form of flattery! Will I get an alert that Runner just quoted me?

I want to clarify that I regard this fear as perfectly understandable, not pathological. We live in times that are almost disorienting for a Christian. Traditional values and morals are under attack like never before. Ridicule of mainstream Christian beliefs is becoming the norm. Actual persecution is on the rise. It certainly appears supernatural evil has been unleashed to an unprecedented degree and 2 Timothy 3:1-5 is unfolding around us.

In these circumstances, it's understandable many Christians want CERTAINTY. We'll wrap ourselves in our literalist Christianity like some sort of protective cocoon and pretend what's happening isn't happening - even though Jesus said it would happen. I'm sometimes prone to this myself. I can see the appeal. But it's very shallow and artificial. When the issue is epistemology - as it's supposed to be here - an honest Christian doesn't hide from competing views or pretend he has certainty he doesn't and can't.

Conviction and certainty are pretty much the same when it comes to obedience. No difference.

I'll agree to a degree. A strong conviction and certainty might well "look" the same in practice. But epistemically - which is what this thread is about, even if most participants don't realize it - there is a very fundamental, foundational difference.

The evidence makes all the difference. Christians make claims that the metaphysical enters the physical. We don’t merely have convictions, we have evidence outside of our heads.

Do you folks realize that Jews, Muslims, Buddhists and Hindus have their own miracles that correspond to everything in Christianity? Prophetic visions, miraculous healings, full-blown mystical experiences, answered prayers, all of it. Are you aware of the large body of evidence that supports reincarnation - a belief more widespread and ancient than anything in Christianity? Do you have any familiarity with the depth and profundity of the Buddhist and Hindu scriptures, many of which I've found informative for my own Christianity?

I'm not promoting any of this. I am saying it's absurd to claim we have "evidence" and the other religious traditions don't. Their evidence is all what - demonic deception? (YES!!!) It's entirely understandable that someone raised in a Hindu family in a Hindu nation, steeped in Hindu culture and tradition, and acquainted with the history of Hindu miracles and mysticism is convinced he "knows" the truth of Hinduism. Much Christianity, of course, is similarly a product of rearing, culture and tradition.

An honest individual doesn't hide from any of this. He confronts it and decides where the truth is most likely to be found. He reaches conviction, not certainty.

2Ti 1:12
I am not ashamed: for I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded...

Oh, dear. "Persuaded" is the language of conviction, not certainty. I'm persuaded too.

That's Hebrews 11:1 btw...

Those dang semicolons! Who invented those things?

 

[Mister E]

Jesus didn’t have any doubts. He didn’t ask, “are you sure” or are you there?”


He didn’t want to do it. Anyone asked by God to do something very unpleasant will know what that is like.

-are you certain?

 

[Mister E]

Those dang semicolons! Who invented those things?

Chapters and verses in general. I’d do away with them all. Thought for thought. Investigate. Explore. Learn. Study to see if it’s true!

I’m truly not a stickler about these things. It’s just my way of showing that some folks are paying attention.

 

[Runner]

Chapters and verses in general. I’d do away with them all. Thought for thought. Investigate. Explore. Learn. Study to see if it’s true!

I’m truly not a stickler about these things. It’s just my way of showing that some folks are paying attention.

I appreciate it. My eyesight is pretty terrible, and when I go back through my posts I see that I'm frequently using commas when I meant to use periods and vice-versa. In fact, I'm going to be moving on because squinting at a laptop for hours on end is the last thing I should be doing.

 

[Consecrated Life]

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!!!"

Herein is the duplicitous intent foisted by the author.
Claiming " level of conviction" based on legitimacy as the paramount factor , and yet in light of that proclamation, choosing to call their own the one faith out of all the hundreds of the world's faiths that makes the most fantastic, most unprovable, silliest, & mother of all least legitimate claims , one risen from the dead !
Why would you even go there if you are this author ?
They never explain the contradiction.
With so many hundreds of other faiths to choose from, faiths providing a legitimacy factor and intellectual comfort level of conviction, epistemic levels light years ahead of one requiring people risen from the dead, virgin birth, people swallowed by fish, etc,etc,etc, & etc, yet still espousing society's desirable and socially acceptable tenants of kindness, charity, service, honesty , why would someone espousing this author's epistemological credo choose the one faith with absolute lowest provable legitimacy level?
Why would you choose to be scorned and laughed out of the smoke filled confines of the faculty lounge. labeled a narrow minded, knuckle dragging, bible carrying neanderthal, when you could just as easily be patted on the back & crowned king of the faculty lounge by espousing the fine innumerable & admirable tenants of Buddhism, Hinduism as your own ?
Notice that nowhere in this entire thread has the author who makes clear their high esteem for comfortable conviction and epistemic levels , supported by provable legitimacy, given the slightest inkling as to why they have chosen to hitch their wagon and be hampered, walled in, by the one faith the world considers without exception to contain more backwards & silly superstitions than all other faiths combined ?
What is the stated goal that caused the author, clearly so desirous of high conviction levels and proven legitimacy to choose a faith of talking mules, men swallowed fish, a ship full of all the world's animals, while averting all the world's other faiths which contain none of these silly unprovable superstitions inviting the sure chastening inflicted by educated society .
No reason , no goal , not even an acknowledgment, of a life choice made in such stark contrast to the stated epistemic credo of high conviction levels based on legitimate truth.
Nowhere in this thread is contained the stated motivation for choosing a faith so clearly in conflict with the high epistemological ideals that runner has belabored when an abundance of other faiths containing nowhere near the fantastical unprovable baggage of Christianity are readily available.
For me, if one actually existed we would have heard it by now .

" But so shall it not be among you.' ( Mark 10:43 )

 

[Runner]

-are you certain?

It will come as a shock to Dorothy Mae, but the vast majority of Christian leaders and scholars disagree with her. Google "Did Jesus doubt?" This is from an article in Christianity Today entitled "Jesus was the God-Man, Not the God-Superman," https://www.christianitytoday.com/c...-god-superman-doubt-temptation-holy-week.html:

What Jesus brought with him into our world was his godness, which included a deep trust and faith in his Father; part of what he received from us in his humanness was our ability to doubt—and doubt he did.​

​

Doubt is a real part of human experience. And Jesus was so committed to entering humanity that he dared to enter human doubt as well.​

It's interesting that my quote from Josh McDowell was rather pointedly ignored as well.

If Dorothy Mae ever decides to adopt a heraldic crest, I have a motto for her. (Just tweaking you, Dorothy Mae. My own would say "Often in doubt and proud of it.")

​

 

[Runner]

Herein is the duplicitous intent foisted by the author.

You really need to review the Terms of Service, and perhaps cut back on the caffeine.