Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

  • Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
  • The Gospel of Jesus Christ

    Heard of "The Gospel"? Want to know more?

    There is salvation in no other, for there is not another name under heaven having been given among men, by which it behooves us to be saved."

Why believe in God when there are more logic solutions?

2024 Website Hosting Fees

Total amount
$905.00
Goal
$1,038.00
TanNinety said:
A lot of people attest to personal experience with God. Just because YOU don’t/can’t acknowledge subjective evidence does not mean evidence doesn’t exist.

But the problem lies in the application of said 'evidence'. The Hindu 'evidence' for their 'God' doesn't count as 'evidence' for the Christian 'God' because somehow their 'God' doesn't exist to the Christian? If the 'evidence' is only religion specific who is right? Well, the Christians claim their right, but then you are faced with which branch of Christianity is right where you will get a whole other difference of opinions between the divisions. On the other hand, Muslims say Allah is the only 'true' God. And so goes the 'my religion is better than your religion argument.'

So, if by 'logic', all 'Gods' but the Christian God are false, then it really becomes opinion more than evidence wouldn't you say. The Athiest is really only believing there is one less God than others think.

TanNinety said:
For someone who wants to be logical in their thinking, you are dismissing God under a ‘lack of evidence’ as ‘evidence of lack there of’ reasoning which is a logical fallacy.

There is no observable 'evidence' of God. One can only go on 'evidence' by personal experience. Well, by 'personal observations' of 'God', many Gods exist, each with their own 'twist'.

When those that believe 'God' exists, but yet in the same manner will say other 'Gods' don't exist, does it really constitute as 'evidence'? The 'evidence' points to many different 'Gods' but 'opinions' point to one 'God.' So if by your observance of the 'evidence' leads you to believe only one 'God' how can you say to one that decides all 'beliefs' in 'Gods' are circular and chooses to believe that these 'Gods' don't exist until further 'evidence' is provided as wrong?

cheers
 
TanNinety said:
I know of numerous people who quote Dawkins when they want to muster up their argument against theism. His books are his testimony to his atheism. Again, I don’t find atheists much different to theists.
Dawkins offers argument, not testimony. He expressly rejects the validity of personal experience as evidence.

Great! Now we have some varied intersubjective experience of different gods from different theists of different disciplines. Where’s the atheists evidence?
Different religions contradict each other and people of all religions have personal experience of their gods. If we accept personal experience as evidence we have to conclude that several contradictory things are all true. That's one reason not to accept personal experience as evidence.

Personal opinion. Should we throw out the court system?
You think the fact that lots of people believe in God counts as evidence? Argument ad populum is always a fallacy.

Where’s the atheists evidence so Cheyenne can go ‘meh’ at? That’s right, she has to go ‘meh’ at atheist’s opinion instead since she doesn’t have their evidence.
How are we supposed to prove a negative? Wherever humanity has looked for evidence of gods, no evidence has been found. That's the evidence. How can you prove there's no Loch Ness monster? You look in the loch and you don't see it. Does that mean monster deniers have no evidence?

I can't think of anything that would directly falsify the idea that there's a god. You might think that makes theism strong. It actually makes it vacuous.

True, so you agree your opinion is based on ‘nothing’. So to a mostly agnostic person like me, a theist seems to have the upperhand over you.
This is poor quality wordplay using “nothing.†If it persuades you, by all means be a theist.

As I see it, Cheyenne never said, atheism was a religion.
She didn’t say that in as many words. She said it relied on faith and expected that it should need testimonies because Christianity needs them.
 
seekandlisten said:
But the problem lies in the application of said 'evidence'. The Hindu 'evidence' for their 'God' doesn't count as 'evidence' for the Christian 'God' because somehow their 'God' doesn't exist to the Christian? If the 'evidence' is only religion specific who is right?
But, ‘which god is right’, isn’t the question we are discussing though. I hope you are not suggesting, because there is no objective evidence about which religion is true that the atheist is right in his opinion of ‘there are no gods’?
I fail to see how ‘there are no gods’ follows from ‘there is confusion about which God is true’?

So, if by your logic, all 'Gods' but the Christian God are false, then it really becomes opinion more than evidence wouldn't you say.
Not really.

For a Christian, his experience with God is ‘evidence’ against some other religions God. For a Hindu, his experience with God is his evidence against another religions God.
What experience or evidence does an Atheist have to reject all the gods other than an opinion? So a Christian rejecting a Hindu and a Hindu rejecting a Christian god are not the same as an atheist rejecting god.

The Athiest is really only believing there is one less God than you think.
Nope. He has an opinion that there is no God whereas a Hindu has his personal experience by which he can reject a Christian god and a Christian has personal experience by which he can reject a Hindu god. The way they reject other gods with respect to how an atheist rejects god is way different. So apples and oranges. An atheist does not have an experience of ‘no god’ or nothing as logical_bob himself put it.

There is no observable 'evidence' of God. One can only go on 'evidence' by personal experience. Well, by 'personal observations' of 'God', many Gods exist, each with their own 'twist'.
Yup. This still does not provide enough information to say, ‘there are no gods’ conclusively.

So if by your observance of the 'evidence' leads you to believe only one 'God' how can you say to one that decides all 'beliefs' in 'Gods' are circular and chooses to believe that these 'Gods' don't exist until further 'evidence' is provided as wrong?
Let’s take string theory. No way to test for this theory yet. So I reserve all judgment against string theory until evidence shows it to be either true or false.
So simply put,
Statement 1: I don’t know if string theory is true.
Statement 2: I don’t believe string theory is true.

Based on the lack of evidence for string theory, which of my above statements holds more water? Statement 1 requires no faith whereas Statement 2 requires faith if I have no evidence of my own, against string theory. Atheists don’t say, I don’t know if there is a god, they say, I don’t believe there is a god. That’s the subtle difference I am trying to point out.

I am not saying that an atheist is wrong, he might as well be right and there is no god. But to think that atheism is somehow a logically superior position to theism is what I find fault with.
 
logical_bob said:
Different religions contradict each other and people of all religions have personal experience of their gods .. .. That's one reason not to accept personal experience as evidence.
So, we are still rejecting evidence here. At the end of the day we are defining evidence in such a way that ‘personal experience’ is out of scope. It’s like saying, prove macro evolution is true, while ‘fossils’ are excluded from my definition of evidence. It wouldn’t fly with an evolutionist, why should this line of reasoning fly with a theist while a major part of his evidence is personal.

If we accept personal experience as evidence we have to conclude that several contradictory things are all true.
Not necessarily. If we accept personal experience as evidence the result would be – it’s inconclusive and unverifiable objectively. If religions are contradictory, the possibility still exists that one is true and the rest false, or even a couple are partially true while partially false. All religions are false is not the single inescapable conclusion here. Again, I am not saying evidence based on personal experience is true intrinsically. Just acknowledging that evidence exists, however we cannot verify the veracity of said evidence.

How are we supposed to prove a negative? Wherever humanity has looked for evidence of gods, no evidence has been found. That's the evidence. How can you prove there's no Loch Ness monster? You look in the loch and you don't see it. Does that mean monster deniers have no evidence?
I am a bit confused here. Part of humanity continues to find evidence for God. If that weren’t the case we would all be atheists after all these generations. I am sure you know some theists who were former atheists (or heard of some even if not personally)

I can't think of anything that would directly falsify the idea that there's a god. You might think that makes theism strong. It actually makes it vacuous.
Almost all religions rely on God as the first cause for creation. If we can show that the first cause is something entirely different, like an ekpyrotic universe, then God is falsified.

This is poor quality wordplay using “nothing.†If it persuades you, by all means be a theist.
I apologize if that’s how it came off. There was no wordplay. “A moment when we have a sudden experience of ... nothing.â€, I was borrowing the idea from you. Your opinion is based on your experience of ‘nothing’.

She said it[atheism] relied on faith
So there is no faith in the statement “there are no gods†whatsoever?
 
TanNinety said:
If we accept personal experience as evidence the result would be – it’s inconclusive and unverifiable objectively.
Thank you. You make my point for me. When we're offered evidence from personal evidence we haven't been offered anything conclusive or verifiable. That entitles us to say that we haven't been given any proper evidence.

Actually, I suspect you and I aren't miles apart here, just interpreting the same evidence in slightly different ways.

Almost all religions rely on God as the first cause for creation. If we can show that the first cause is something entirely different, like an ekpyrotic universe, then God is falsified.
Sadly, I doubt it. There are plenty of theists who say God used evolution without realising that evolution leaves God nothing to do. And I can just hear them saying that the scientific explanation provides the how but not the why, or that something must have made the ekpyrotic universe that way.

I apologize if that’s how it came off. There was no wordplay. “A moment when we have a sudden experience of ... nothing.â€, I was borrowing the idea from you. Your opinion is based on your experience of ‘nothing’.
In that case it's me who failed to make myself understood. I used that sentence to show why there couldn't be an atheist road to Damascus moment because you can't have an experience of nothing. My opinion certainly isn't based on such an experience.

So there is no faith in the statement, “there are no gods†whatsoever?
This is the key point. If I said "there are no gods, and that is absolutely and unquestionably true and I will always believe it no matter what because I just know" then that would be a faith statement. My actual view is that "there are no gods" is a working hypothesis which fits all the evidence avialable and isn't contradicted by any of it. If somone offers me good reason to change my mind then I will. I'm clear about what would falsify my current position. Like some theists, you're assuming that atheism is a different belief held in a similar way. Again, it isn't.
 
For the message about the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. Rom 1:16; 19 For it is written, “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and I will thwart the cleverness of the intelligent.â€1 Job 5:12; Isa 29:14; 20 Where is the wise man? Where is the expert in the Mosaic law?1 Where is the debater of this age? Has God not made the wisdom of the world foolish? Isa 33:18; 21 For since in the wisdom of God the world by its wisdom did not know God, God was pleased to save those who believe by the foolishness of preaching. Matt 11:25; Luke 10:21; 22 For Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks ask for wisdom, Matt 12:38; Matt 16:1; John 4:48; 23 but we preach about a crucified Christ,1 a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles. Matt 11:6; John 6:60; John 6:66; 24 But to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God. Col 2:3; 25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom,1 and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength.2
26 Think about the circumstances of your call,1 brothers and sisters.2 Not many were wise by human standards,3 not many were powerful, not many were born to a privileged position.4 John 7:48; Jas 2:5; 27 But God chose what the world thinks foolish to shame the wise, and God chose what the world thinks weak to shame the strong. 28 God chose1 what is low and despised in the world, what is regarded as nothing, to set aside what is regarded as something, 29 so that no one can boast in his presence. 30 He is the reason you have a relationship with Christ Jesus,1 who became for us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification and redemption, Jer 23:5; John 17:19; 31 so that, as it is written, “Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord.â€1 Isa 65:16; Jer 9:23-24; 2Cor 10:17;
1 Corinthians 1 vs 18

We have a Christian forum where we can discuss and debate issues. Where as Christians we look at world events and relate them to our walk with God. We disagree within the structures of our belief, but we acknowledge that Christ died for our sins. Now we have people who are clearly not Christian and who's only purpose is to try and prove our faith in Christ false and there is no logic to it, or try and make us prove God exist. I'm on a Christian forum because I know God exists. I have read His Word, I have accepted his offer of grace. I do not need to seek the wisdom of man and his theories. They are not eternal and have no substance.
I do not think as Christians we should even argue with them, as Logical Bobs hero and mentor (Richard Dawkins) has said he will not debate with Christians either.
There is nothing I can say as a Christian to change their minds, and to be quit honest as long as we entertain people like logical Bob and others in debate we will encourage them to continue in their attack on our faith.
 
I agree we aren’t miles apart in our thinking :). I will hopefully show the very subtle differences that we hold.
logical_bob said:
You make my point for me. When we're offered evidence from personal evidence we haven't been offered anything conclusive or verifiable. That entitles us to say that we haven't been given any proper evidence.
I concur with most of the above except for the use of the word ‘proper’. Imagine a theist saying, “I am entitled to say that you don’t have any proper tools/setup to verify my evidenceâ€. That becomes another subjective battle. When you use ‘not proper’ you are indirectly suggesting that the evidence which is presented is at fault. But honestly, we don’t know that. Our universe is filled with data, but unless we have the proper tools, this data is hidden from us. Is it the data’s fault that it is hidden? What the theist presents is ‘personal evidence’ as data. What I feel entitled to say is, “I cannot verify your data. So I still do not know if there is a godâ€. So your statement becomes – I am entitled to say that I haven’t been given any conclusive, verifiable data. To add the word proper, you would need faith that you already have all the necessary tools to measure deity.

My actual view is that "there are no gods" is a working hypothesis which fits all the evidence avialable and isn't contradicted by any of it.
If we say a proposition P of a theist is based on faith, how does ‘not P’ a derivative of P be not based on faith? Unless ‘not P’ is verifiable and conclusive unlike its predecessor. But is ‘not P’ verifiable and conclusive? If no, how does it escape the category of faith?

You said your ‘there are no gods’ hypothesis has no contradictory evidence. But the theist begs to differ. His evidence directly contradicts your ‘there are no gods’. What we are then doing is special pleading. We reject all unfavorable evidence against our hypothesis as not proper.

Going back to my string theory example,
Statement 1: I don’t know if string theory is true.
Statement 2: I tentatively believe string theory is not true.

Regardless of the tentativeness of my Statement 2, as soon as I believe string theory to be not true without evidence of my own against it, I am in the realm of faith. It is however tentative faith, but faith nonetheless. To disown all faith, we have to chose Statement 1.

I don’t see the tentativeness of the hypothesis ‘there are no gods’ saving it from being faith for the timeframe of however long that hypothesis is tentatively held to be true.
 
Ed the Ned said:
to be quit honest as long as we entertain people like logical Bob and others in debate we will encourage them to continue in their attack on our faith.
I'm sorry you feel that way, but so far I haven't found logical_bob being disingenuous in his approach at all. However, I do know the people you are referring to, who are a distraction on religious forums, but I don't see that logical_bob fits into that category.
 
TanNinety, I enjoy debating and I enjoy discussing issues, I have strong beliefs in certain areas and in others I am found lacking. My main objection to Logical Bob and his comments are that they are against our faith. He openly suggests reading Richard Dawkins books so we can understand what we disagree with. He refuses to acknowledge that our faith in Christ as we believe it. Is proclaimed through the word of God the Bible. He mocks personal experiences that a Christian feels. Why should I want to accept that on a Christian forum. What is he trying to prove? Is he trying to convince us God does not exist? I have enough of that in the normal world. I seek a Christian outlet and inlet, this forum, to state my views and feel that my beliefs are respected. Reading the verses above my previous post should highlight my objections.
 
Ed the Ned said:
I do not think as Christians we should even argue with them, as Logical Bobs hero and mentor (Richard Dawkins) has said he will not debate with Christians either.
There is nothing I can say as a Christian to change their minds, and to be quit honest as long as we entertain people like logical Bob and others in debate we will encourage them to continue in their attack on our faith.
Hi Ed. I'm sorry if my being here bothers you. I don't think I've attacked anyone's faith in my time on this forum. I don't share your faith, but that's not the same as attacking it. I take care to post within the forum rules and as I have never been contacted by a moderator I take it that what I'm doing is generally acceptable here.

I came here because I enjoy discussion and I think it's more interesting and enjoyable to do that with people who don't agree with you about everything. I'm not trying to win converts to atheism and I've never for a moment pretended that I'm considering becoming a Christian. Surely nobody converts anyone on an internet forum? I've learnt quite a lot about what Christians think and believe and I don't think that can be a bad thing.

I also notice that there are lots of threads called things like "what do you say to an atheist?" and "a message to atheists." I joined this thread here in response to Cheyenne's comments on what puzzled her about atheism. If you guys are going to discuss atheism then surely having a few actual atheists will help the discussion, no?

All that said, it's your perfect right to ignore me completely! Please feel free to do so.

And for clarification, Dawkins is neither my hero nor my mentor. His science books are excellent at explaining evolution to a non-specialist but his anti-religion arguments are, in my view, pretty lame. Perhaps they would have been improved if he'd spent more time in discussion with Christians!
 
Ed the Ned said:
He mocks personal experiences that a Christian feels.
Woah! I have to respond to that. I have absolutely not mocked anyone's experiences. Nor do I disrespect Christian belief. That is absolutely not the case. If you can point out one place where I've done either of those things then I will unresevedly apologise.
 
Secondly, testimonies don't actually offer us any reason to believe. OK, you felt transformed or at peace or a strong sense that this was meant to be. You were absolutely certain that you felt the presence of God. Things went well for you in a way that you had no reason to expect. I don't mean to be rude and I don't doubt your sincerity but it all gets a resounding "Meh" from us atheists.

Maybe I am being to sensitive, but "meh" to me seems a little rude. and disrespectful. Saying I don't mean to be rude does not take away the fact that you were. I used to drink a lot and swear a lot and I have no doubt that through Gods grace I managed to overcome those problems. And if you were in my situation it would not just be a "meh" thing.
Please note I do not know you personally and I am not trying to make a judgement on your character or anything else, I am also not trying to get you kicked off this forum. I just feel that some of us seem to waste our time trying to make our point as Christians that we tend to entertain subjects like the naming of this thread. For what? I am not going to be able to convince you that my faith in Christ is real and you will not convince me otherwise.
I have objections to people only coming onto Christian forums to disrupt. If that is not you purpose. I apologize for my abruptness.

Regards

Ed the Ned
 
OK, perhaps the "meh" was a little flippant. If it caused you offence then I do indeed apologise for it and I'll try to avoid that kind of thing in the future. I stand by the point I was making about the capacity of personal experience to convince someone else but try I'll express myself more carefully.

I agree with you about the title of this thread. The guy who started it clocked up two posts and disappeared. That's just a driveby and it's not helpful.

Hopefully we can have respectful discussiom secure in the knowledge that neither of us is out to convert the other.

Take it easy.
 
not convert the lost? that kinda of pointless for a christian at times. i dont try to convert a person with each and every conservation, but overall that should be the goal.

the lost need to be saved.
 
I should have replied earlier but it slipped my mind....
seekandlisten wrote:
[quote:o63hynn9]ivdavid wrote:
[quote:o63hynn9]seekandlisten wrote:
'God' tells us, according to scripture, to recognize that which is in front of us and the rest will be revealed yet I see so many 'believers' discard observable evidence in favor of their beliefs based on what they call 'faith'.
I'd like it if you could give me an example to help my understanding.[/quote:o63hynn9]

I'm assuming here that you want an example of what 'observable evidence' is discarded in favor of 'religious beliefs', correct me if I'm wrong at what you are looking for here. What I meant is things like evolution vs literal 6-day creation, old age earth vs young age earth, noah's flood, the bible is infallible as the literal word of God, and so on. For instance when one chooses to believe that the earth is only 6,000 years old and ignore all physical evidence against it they aren't believing in 'truth' they are believing in their own opinion, I would assume you would classify this with 'blind faith' correct?[/quote:o63hynn9]

Well, if that's what you're talking about, you needn't take pains to dig up the account of creation or the flood or any such thing. Take the crux of Christianity - the two foundational pillars of truth -
1) Jesus Christ is the Son of God who came in the flesh as full man and full God to die for our sins.
2) Jesus Christ rose from death on the third day - resurrected unto glory as Lord and King of all creation

If we Christians are called Christians for believing in the above statements, which are so obviously against 'observable evidence', then I'm sure we can believe anything else God says - be it floods or six-day creations etc.

What you've got to understand is that Christians too know what is at stake in our professing of our beliefs. And more than that - we are to preach this message to others too. We know how it will be received and yet we do it because we know that it is the absolute truth. Take for example these passages in the Bible that reflect the same awareness -

1Co 1:22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:
1Co 1:23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
(read this entire chapter if possible)

Note, though apostle Paul knows that this is foolishness, he persists with the proclamation of the Gospel.
Rom 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
Rom 1:17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.

And the stark reality of what it means if all this were false is also perceived - but not feared for we have absolute faith ( and personally experienced 'evidence') that all this is indeed true. (It just wasn't meant to be provable to others - each has to find the proof himself by believing)
1Co 15:12 Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?
1Co 15:13 But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen:
1Co 15:14 And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.
(Read this chapter too if possible)
1Co 15:19 If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.

So, if there is to be any issue about faith, it should not be over creation and flood - instead over Jesus Christ. If Christ is believed to be true, then everything else is believed on His merit because He says so.

I'd perhaps reply in a later post on how I deal with some of these 'observable evidences'... But for now I'd just explain why I believe that the Bible is infallible -

1) The main reason is that - The Bible tells me so.
2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
I know this seems like absurd logical reasoning but this is the way I see it -

This above verse was written by apostle Paul where he was referring to the Old Testament Scriptures. In all likelihood, he may not have known at the time that his epistles would become part of the New Testament Scriptures later. But so was the case with many of the Old Testament writings that are now part of Scripture. Their authors would have probably thought they were documenting some history for reference. Or maybe they wrote down what God revealed to them because He asked them to or for their own documentation, not knowing that it would become sacred text later. Some may have written down their creative works as what our poets do - some may have compiled and documented all wise sayings for ease of reference. There could be so many more reasons. When these were recorded, I don't know if all their authors knew that these writings would become Holy Scripture later and yet they did become so. The Holy Spirit inspired people to compile the Old Testament Scripture - similarly the Holy Spirit inspired the compilation of the New Testament Scripture. And the Holy Spirit leads all true believers into the truth that they earnestly seek.

The point i'm making in the above para is that the compilation of the New Testament Scripture is similar to that of the Old Testament Scripture.

Now, I see Jesus referring to Old Testament Scripture often and He doesn't seem to find any fault with any part of it. He brings in new revelation that adds to it and in some places, appeals to what is written in the Scriptures for the people to accept Him as the Messiah. Jesus, being the Son of God, had perfect opportunity to refute or edit the Scriptures if He wanted it to be changed. In fact, He does the opposite - He quotes them without fail. He even quotes Jonah in the belly of the fish making it quite clear that this literally did happen and was not some form of legend or myth. If Jesus considered them literally, I have no reason not to do so. And if this were how the Old Testament Scriptures were considered, this is how the New Testament Scriptures should be considered.

I see no other reason required to doubt the infallibility or the literal interpretation of the Bible. Of course, the interpretation should be done in context and as a whole instead of twisting certain Scriptures to our carnal convenience.

2) The second reason is that all the observable parts of the Bible match with my current experiences. If this is so, then I am willing to believe the validity of all other parts that I can't observe now. Note, this reason is not a reason by itself - it is just the confirmation of the first reason.

I hope I've made some sense here....
 
ivdavid said:
Well, if that's what you're talking about, you needn't take pains to dig up the account of creation or the flood or any such thing. Take the crux of Christianity - the two foundational pillars of truth -
1) Jesus Christ is the Son of God who came in the flesh as full man and full God to die for our sins.
2) Jesus Christ rose from death on the third day - resurrected unto glory as Lord and King of all creation

Personally, I think the main point Jesus put forth in the bible is to 'love the Lord YOUR God' and 'love your neighbor as yourself'. After all, this is what sums up the 'law and the prophets'.

ivdavid said:
If we Christians are called Christians for believing in the above statements, which are so obviously against 'observable evidence', then I'm sure we can believe anything else God says - be it floods or six-day creations etc.

These kind of statements is where I have have a problem with religions. Just because you can't 'observe' God doesn't automatically make everything else that goes against observable evidence true because 'God says so.' The flood and creation are stories not history and people should be encouraged to find the 'meaning' in these stories rather than take them as 'literal history' when we have evidence that contradicts these as 'facts'. Scripture says to recognize what is in front of us and the rest will be revealed so if we are being blind to 'what's in front of us' how can one expect to learn more?

ivdavid said:
What you've got to understand is that Christians too know what is at stake in our professing of our beliefs. And more than that - we are to preach this message to others too. We know how it will be received and yet we do it because we know that it is the absolute truth. Take for example these passages in the Bible that reflect the same awareness -

1Co 1:22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:
1Co 1:23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
(read this entire chapter if possible)

Note, though apostle Paul knows that this is foolishness, he persists with the proclamation of the Gospel.
Rom 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
Rom 1:17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.

Sure the 'just shall live by faith' but that doesn't mean the 'just should live blindly and be ignorant of observable evidence'.

ivdavid said:
And the stark reality of what it means if all this were false is also perceived - but not feared for we have absolute faith ( and personally experienced 'evidence') that all this is indeed true. (It just wasn't meant to be provable to others - each has to find the proof himself by believing)
1Co 15:12 Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?
1Co 15:13 But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen:
1Co 15:14 And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.
(Read this chapter too if possible)
1Co 15:19 If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.

So, if there is to be any issue about faith, it should not be over creation and flood - instead over Jesus Christ. If Christ is believed to be true, then everything else is believed on His merit because He says so.

Faith should be put in your 'God', not religion, the bible, or anything else that comes from our world.

ivdavid said:
I'd perhaps reply in a later post on how I deal with some of these 'observable evidences'... But for now I'd just explain why I believe that the Bible is infallible -

1) The main reason is that - The Bible tells me so.
2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
I know this seems like absurd logical reasoning but this is the way I see it -

Yeah, men were 'inspired' by 'God' to write scripture. I'm pretty sure it wasn't referring only to Constantine's council approved bible though.

ivdavid said:
This above verse was written by apostle Paul where he was referring to the Old Testament Scriptures. In all likelihood, he may not have known at the time that his epistles would become part of the New Testament Scriptures later. But so was the case with many of the Old Testament writings that are now part of Scripture. Their authors would have probably thought they were documenting some history for reference. Or maybe they wrote down what God revealed to them because He asked them to or for their own documentation, not knowing that it would become sacred text later. Some may have written down their creative works as what our poets do - some may have compiled and documented all wise sayings for ease of reference. There could be so many more reasons. When these were recorded, I don't know if all their authors knew that these writings would become Holy Scripture later and yet they did become so. The Holy Spirit inspired people to compile the Old Testament Scripture - similarly the Holy Spirit inspired the compilation of the New Testament Scripture. And the Holy Spirit leads all true believers into the truth that they earnestly seek.

Can I ask what the Holy Spirit was 'inspiring' here?

23 The owner of the house went outside and said to them, "No, my friends, don't be so vile. Since this man is my guest, don't do this disgraceful thing. 24 Look, here is my virgin daughter, and his concubine. I will bring them out to you now, and you can use them and do to them whatever you wish. But to this man, don't do such a disgraceful thing."
25 But the men would not listen to him. So the man took his concubine and sent her outside to them, and they raped her and abused her throughout the night, and at dawn they let her go. 26 At daybreak the woman went back to the house where her master was staying, fell down at the door and lay there until daylight.
(Judges 19)

Now I'm not going to dig up every passage in the bible of this sort but there are more than a few that don't line up with being 'inspired'. The bible is not infallible. Truth is infallible but you must be willing to follow it. If it is not truth is will be shown to be false.

ivdavid said:
The point i'm making in the above para is that the compilation of the New Testament Scripture is similar to that of the Old Testament Scripture.

Now, I see Jesus referring to Old Testament Scripture often and He doesn't seem to find any fault with any part of it. He brings in new revelation that adds to it and in some places, appeals to what is written in the Scriptures for the people to accept Him as the Messiah. Jesus, being the Son of God, had perfect opportunity to refute or edit the Scriptures if He wanted it to be changed. In fact, He does the opposite - He quotes them without fail. He even quotes Jonah in the belly of the fish making it quite clear that this literally did happen and was not some form of legend or myth. If Jesus considered them literally, I have no reason not to do so. And if this were how the Old Testament Scriptures were considered, this is how the New Testament Scriptures should be considered.

Jesus referred to Jonah symbolically as a 'sign'. Show me were he says to take it literally as Jonah surviving being eaten by a whale and 'spit out' 3 days later. Better yet, research and see what the possibility of surviving being inside a whale for 3 days. I'd suggest looking for the symbolic meaning rather than as a true story.

ivdavid said:
I see no other reason required to doubt the infallibility or the literal interpretation of the Bible. Of course, the interpretation should be done in context and as a whole instead of twisting certain Scriptures to our carnal convenience.

There are plenty of reasons to 'doubt the infallibility or literal interpretation' of the bible. When one 'believes' that the bible is infallible they just choose to ignore any evidence against this. I could agree with you on the 'twisting' certain scriptures to fit one's 'beliefs'.

ivdavid said:
2) The second reason is that all the observable parts of the Bible match with my current experiences. If this is so, then I am willing to believe the validity of all other parts that I can't observe now. Note, this reason is not a reason by itself - it is just the confirmation of the first reason.

I hope I've made some sense here....

Well, I know many people that believe as you do, i was even raised that way, but it just doesn't add up. 'Christianity' has become 'fake' in what I see. Don't get me wrong, I have met many Christians, who even though we don't hold the same beliefs, I know are being used by their 'God'. The belief that Jesus was God is unfounded in the bible that supposedly supports it, yet that is the main belief one must hold to be a Christian correct? I don't wish to debate this point as I have been in far to many discussions on this that simply repeat the same arguments. See here if you wish to understand where I'm coming from.
viewtopic.php?f=68&t=43513

Personally, I believe in 'God'. I don't believe in or agree with religion. I can understand why people choose to be Athiests yet I disagree with the trend that is making Atheism look more and more like a religion. You must be able to put yourself on the outside of your beliefs looking in. Why would someone who has had not 'experience from God' want to subscribe to a religion when the 'followers' of the Christian God attack abortion clinics and doctor's, treat homosexuals as second class citizens, ignore scientific evidence in favor of a book written 2000 years ago, and so on. Turn to Islam's God and well here lies the same violence towards nonbelievers. I think you get the point that in looking at what stems from religions and the history of bloodshed accompanied with many religions why would someone think 'your God' has 'evidence' of existing.

The promotion of salvation without works, once saved always saved, and condemning those that don't believe to hell isn't exactly the 'straight and narrow path' to me, and I believe in 'God', so why should I expect someone to 'believe' in 'God' without 'God' initiating the 'belief'? The bible says to let your light shine, so if Christianity would start evaluating themselves compared to Jesus rather than 'unbelievers' they would see that they are far from 'being perfect as their Father is perfect'. Instead of 'preaching' one must 'saved' you'd be surprised how far 'works' go in 'proving' your beliefs over just telling people them.

Here's a passage that goes along with my beliefs that when Jesus said 'love the Lord your God' there was a reason he didn't say 'my God' or 'our God'.

"...in the last days it shall come to pass, that the mountain of the house of the Lord shall be established in the top of the mountains, ... and people shall flow unto it. And many nations shall come, and say, Come, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord,...all people will walk every one in the name of his god, and we will walk in the name of the LORD, our God, forever and ever."

(Micah 4:1-5).

I'll quit rambling here but I hope you see what I'm getting at.

cheers
 
Hi David. I'm going to be very non-argumentative (for me) and simply say thanks for a very informative post there. I disagree with you so completely that I don't know where to begin, but it did explain to me a lot about where you're coming from. :thumb
 
nice post ivdavid. if one cant believe that the lord is onmipresent and able to preserve the word, then how can they be saved. after all if the Lord cant seem to tell the world what he wants to say and keep it that way. How can he possibly save us from our sins, as well might sin in a way that he didnt warn us about. or opps he did something i didnt know about. better send another sacrifice.
 
Back
Top