New non-Christian on the forum

[farouk]

"You mention evidence; here is what Hebrews 11.1 says. (The whole chapter is of great interest, actually, if you read it.)

"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

I've heard this before and have absolutely no idea what it means. To say that "faith is the substance of things hoped for" is to equate it to a hope or a wish that is based on "things not seen." Implying once again that faith is believing in something without evidence, but hoping that evidence will present itself in the future.

Can you address my other questions?

Many of the great scientists of history were also professed a firm belief in God. They evidently didn't see what you see as an apparent contradiction.

But I think we are going round in circles, and it's not too profitable. Again, you would find Hebrews 11 very helpful.

 

[TheBeardedDude]

'Many of the great scientists of history were also professed a firm belief in God. They evidently didn't see what you see as an apparent contradiction.

But I think we are going round in circles, and it's not too profitable. Again, you would find Hebrews 11 very helpful."

Many of the great scientists of history believed in alchemy too. They did not have access to what we know today. Their beliefs on god lend no more credibility to its existence, than their beliefs on alchemy lend it credibility.

(Sir Issac Newton believed in both god and alchemy)

 

[farouk]

'Many of the great scientists of history were also professed a firm belief in God. They evidently didn't see what you see as an apparent contradiction.

But I think we are going round in circles, and it's not too profitable. Again, you would find Hebrews 11 very helpful."

Many of the great scientists of history believed in alchemy too. They did not have access to what we know today. Their beliefs on god lend no more credibility to its existence, than their beliefs on alchemy lend it credibility.

(Sir Issac Newton believed in both god and alchemy)

Actually I think now you're promoting unbelief, rather than wanting to be informed about the Biblical faith, so maybe I can't help you.

 

[TheBeardedDude]

Addressing your reply by pointing out that it isn't sufficient, isn't promoting anything other than seeking clarity and truth.

 

[Ryan]

I am a former believer having come from a Southern baptist background.

Very interested to hear how you came from being a believer, to what you have come to believe today. Sorry to pry, just want some more information to know where you are coming from. I'll be honest, my desire, and I know the Heavenly Father's desire is to restore a relationship with you again. That may not be what you want, and I can accept that.

 

[TheBeardedDude]

I am a former believer having come from a Southern baptist background.

Very interested to hear how you came from being a believer, to what you have come to believe today. Sorry to pry, just want some more information to know where you are coming from. I'll be honest, my desire, and I know the Heavenly Father's desire is to restore a relationship with you again. That may not be what you want, and I can accept that.

Long or short version?

 

[Ryan]

I am a former believer having come from a Southern baptist background.

Very interested to hear how you came from being a believer, to what you have come to believe today. Sorry to pry, just want some more information to know where you are coming from. I'll be honest, my desire, and I know the Heavenly Father's desire is to restore a relationship with you again. That may not be what you want, and I can accept that.

Long or short version?

It is your testimony, so you decide what is pertinent and what is not. Either way, I will read the short or the long version.

 

[TheBeardedDude]

I am a former believer having come from a Southern baptist background.

Very interested to hear how you came from being a believer, to what you have come to believe today. Sorry to pry, just want some more information to know where you are coming from. I'll be honest, my desire, and I know the Heavenly Father's desire is to restore a relationship with you again. That may not be what you want, and I can accept that.

Long or short version?

It is your testimony, so you decide what is pertinent and what is not. Either way, I will read the short or the long version.

It will take a few minutes to type up. I just don't like the idea of doing the long version only to have it edited down to nothing by the mods. Since it will necessarily show my progression towards non-belief and may be interpreted as promoting it, and therefore worthy of censoring.

 

[Ryan]

Long or short version?

It is your testimony, so you decide what is pertinent and what is not. Either way, I will read the short or the long version.

It will take a few minutes to type up. I just don't like the idea of doing the long version only to have it edited down to nothing by the mods. Since it will necessarily show my progression towards non-belief and may be interpreted as promoting it, and therefore worthy of censoring.

Can't censor a PM.

 

[farouk]

Addressing your reply by pointing out that it isn't sufficient, isn't promoting anything other than seeking clarity and truth.

In a context for informing enquirers about the Biblical faith, the onus is not on believers to answer every possible, supposed objection from the standpoint of unbelief. Again, Hebrews 11 is a helpful passage here about the nature of faith and evidence.

 

[TheBeardedDude]

In a context for informing enquirers about the Biblical faith, the onus is not on believers to answer every possible, supposed objection from the standpoint of unbelief. Again, Hebrews 11 is a helpful passage here about the nature of faith and evidence.

The responsibility lies with the one making the claim.

 

[farouk]

In a context for informing enquirers about the Biblical faith, the onus is not on believers to answer every possible, supposed objection from the standpoint of unbelief. Again, Hebrews 11 is a helpful passage here about the nature of faith and evidence.

The responsibility lies with the one making the claim.

...and Scripture is the authority.

This is why I have kept referring to it.

 

[TheBeardedDude]

...and Scripture is the authority.

This is why I have kept referring to it.

Then you are correct in saying that we are "going around in circles."


The bible is not something I regard as being true for the sake of being true. If you are going to use it, then I will necessarily have to ask how you know it to be true?

 

[farouk]

...and Scripture is the authority.

This is why I have kept referring to it.

Then you are correct in saying that we are "going around in circles."


The bible is not something I regard as being true for the sake of being true. If you are going to use it, then I will necessarily have to ask how you know it to be true?

If you read Hebrews 11, as mentioned, you will find the answer. Faith in God's declarations and promises, as recorded in Scripture, has to be the starting point. There is nothing neutral about secular unbelief; it is a belief system in itself; even Wittgenstein, far from an orthodox believer, admitted that the language of doubt presupposes the language of affirmation.

 

[TheBeardedDude]

Secular means absent an opinion on religion. It isn't a belief.

And, just to clarify, you are saying that the bible proves the bible?

 

[farouk]

Secular means absent an opinion on religion. It isn't a belief.

And, just to clarify, you are saying that the bible proves the bible?

If you read the Bible, determined to doubt the Savior and the Creator, you may simply say you don't have proof.

If you read the Bible, God's Word, recognizing that we need the Savior to redeem us from from our sin and blindness, and recognize that God Who created and sustains the world and keeps His promises to those who trust in His beloved Son, you will find that the Bible multiplies proof upon proof in overwhelming abundance.

 

[TheBeardedDude]

If you read the Bible, determined to doubt the Savior and the Creator, you may simply say you don't have proof.

If you read the Bible, God's Word, recognizing that we need the Savior to redeem us from from our sin and blindness, and recognize that God Who created and sustains the world and keeps His promises to those who trust in His beloved Son, you will find that the Bible multiplies proof upon proof in overwhelming abundance.

A simple 'yes' would have sufficed.

 

[farouk]

If you read the Bible, determined to doubt the Savior and the Creator, you may simply say you don't have proof.

If you read the Bible, God's Word, recognizing that we need the Savior to redeem us from from our sin and blindness, and recognize that God Who created and sustains the world and keeps His promises to those who trust in His beloved Son, you will find that the Bible multiplies proof upon proof in overwhelming abundance.

A simple 'yes' would have sufficed.

Since your view of my 'yes' would be greatly colored by your presuppositions, doing you the courtesy of explanation from Scripture was what I thought I would do.

 

[TheBeardedDude]

Coloring ones replies in light of your presupposition, seems to be the impetus with which the christian movement asserts itself.

 

[farouk]

Coloring ones replies in light of your presupposition, seems to be the impetus with which the christian movement asserts itself.

There is no such thing as neutrality. Even negation and doubt presuppose the trustworthiness of the language of assertion, even if it's being used in negative terms. For the Christian, God's Word is the reference point, ultimately.