Paul Doland's Case for Faith Critique [Archive I]

January 3, 2002, 08:52 AM

I found Paul Doland's critique of Case for Faith thought provoking. Though I'm a Christian, I would agree that Strobel shows his bias in easily accepting answers from the theology experts that he interviews. Stobel's book does not prove Christianity to be true, a goal that is literally unattainable. As strongly as I believe, I still acknowledge that my trust in Christ and His teaching IS faith - something that can't be definitively proven.

My challenge to Doland and others reading this post is this: read the Bible – especially Christ’s teachings in the Gospels - with an open heart and open mind. Attempt to keep whatever biases you may have out of the process. Then, decide in your heart and head what to do about Jesus. I would challenge that the position that Christ was only a man but a great teacher – the position that many agnostics and followers of others religions take – as untenable, and a copout. He is either who He says He is, or He is the greatest schizophrenic megalomaniac of all time. Decide if His teachings are inspired or insane. Decide why even His foes at His time had no explanation for His Resurrection. Decide why many of His followers died rather than recanting their faith in Christ.

I will never be able to answer all of my questions about God, and why things are the way they are, while I’m here on earth. I have accepted that. I believe in a God that is so much greater than I, that it is silly to think that I could understand everything. What I do believe is that He made me and everyone else. We are more special than a random by-product of chemical reactions. We are valuable enough that God entered space and time in the person of Jesus Christ to redeem us. The fact that I can’t answer every question that I have about this world in the context of this faith is, to me, acceptable.

-DM-

January 3, 2002, 11:27 AM

You challenge Doland and others who read your post to read the Bible, especially "Christs teachings in the Gospels ... with an open heart and mind," apparently assuming that neither he nor any of the rest of us has done so. While I cannot speak for Doland, I can speak for myself and many others here: we have read the Bible, including the alleged teachings of Jesus in the Gospels, and many of us have done so with an open heart and mind do not find sufficient reason to believe -- or even find sufficient reason NOT to believe. After all, a very large percentage of our resident population is composed of ex-Christians.

Keep in mind that your challenge to us is little different than the challenge that a Muslim could make to you regarding the Koran and the teachings of Mohammed, or little different than the challenge that we could make to you in suggesting that you read a book such as <a href="http://www.secweb.org/bookstore/bookdetail.asp?BookID=94" target="_blank">The Case Against Christianity,</a> by Michael Martin or <a href="http://www.secweb.org/bookstore/bookdetail.asp?BookID=41" target="_blank">Losing Faith in Faith,</a> by Dan Barker with an open heart and mind.

Keep in mind, too, that Christ represents a title, not a name. It is a matter of faith on your part that Jesus was, in fact, the Christ. So far as we are concerned, there are solid reasons for believing that your faith is misplaced and that he was NOT the Christ. In fact, even the assumption that Jesus was a great teacher can be challenged on the grounds that much of what he is alleged to have taught had actually been taught by others before him; worse, much of what he taught was unrealistic and impractical, certainly not what someone who was truly a "great teacher" would likely teach.

You say: [quote]Originally posted by <Tom from KC>
He is either who He says He is, or He is the greatest schizophrenic megalomaniac of all time. Decide if His teachings are inspired or insane. Decide why even His foes at His time had no explanation for His Resurrection. Decide why many of His followers died rather than recanting their faith in Christ.<hr></blockquote>

Seldom in one short paragraph do we see so many erroneous statements. Briefly, Your claim that he is either who he says he is or the greatest schizophrenic megalomaniac of all time represents an obvious logical fallacy in that it doesn't begin to exhaust the possibilities. For example, he may not have said what it is said that he said, or if he did say what it is said that he said, he could simply have been mistaken. Your claim that his foes at the time had no explanation for his resurrection represents at least two obvious logical fallacies: that there was a resurrection at all and that his foes had no explanation for the alleged resurrection. Keep in mind that no one is said to have witnessed the actual resurrection in progress; what we have instead are reports of an empty tomb and reports that various people allegedly saw Jesus post-resurrection. Unfortunately for the sake of the believability of these stories, they are riddled with problems and inconsistencies. You claim that many of his followers died rather than recant their faith. Keep in mind that the stories of the Christian martyrs have likely been exaggerated but, regardless, the question of why it is that someone is willing to die for his/her faith can be answered quite simply by observing that every religion has its followers who are willing to die for their faith. The willingness to die for one's faith proves the strength of that faith but it says nothing necessarily about the the truth of that faith.

Suggested reading from our <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/index.shtml" target="_blank">Library</a>:
---------

<a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/resurrection/4b.html" target="_blank">Lord, Liar, or Lunatic?</a>

<a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/robert_price/fiction.html" target="_blank">Christ a Fiction</a>

<a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/resurrection/lecture.html" target="_blank">Why I Don't Buy the Resurrection Story</a>

<a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/empty.html" target="_blank">Historical Evidence and the Empty Tomb Story</a>

<a href="http://www.ffrf.org/nontracts/jesus.html" target="_blank">why Jesus</a>

<a href="http://infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/jesus_was_hypocrite.html" target="_blank">Jesus Was a Hypocrite</a>

<a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/FalseProphet.html" target="_blank">Jesus Was a False Prophet</a>

<a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/musonius.html" target="_blank">On Musonius Rufus</a>

<a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1997/4/4why97.html" target="_blank">Why Did the Apostles Die?</a>

<a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1997/4/4front97.html" target="_blank">How Did the Apostles Die?</a>

<a href="http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/martyrs.htm" target="_blank">The Martyrs</a>

--Don--

[ January 03, 2002: Message edited by: Donald Morgan ]

HelenM

January 3, 2002, 11:43 AM

[quote]Originally posted by <Tom from KC>:
My challenge to Doland and others reading this post is this: read the Bible – especially Christ’s teachings in the Gospels - with an open heart and open mind.<hr></blockquote>

I'm guessing there are people here who are 'ex-Christians', who would say to you "I was a Christian until I began to do that - that was the beginning of the end for me". For them, perhaps 'reading it with an open mind' meant "this might not be true" or "perhaps I should read it not through the lens of all the Christian commentary I usually bring to it".

Reading the Bible 'with an open mind' could mean all kinds of things.

I think you mean, 'read it and try to believe it might be true'.

But how do you do that if you are already convinced it cannot be true?

I'm just asking; I'm a Christian actually (the regulars know what I am :) )

love
Helen

-DM-

January 3, 2002, 12:11 PM

[quote]Originally posted by HelenSL:

I'm guessing there are people here who are 'ex-Christians', who would say to you "I was a Christian until I began to do that - that was the beginning of the end for me". For them, perhaps 'reading it with an open mind' meant "this might not be true" or "perhaps I should read it not through the lens of all the Christian commentary I usually bring to it".<hr></blockquote>

Good point! I don't know why I forgot to mention that myself given that reading the Bible with an open mind is EXACTLY the reason that I am no longer a Christian.

--Don--

P.S. I'm going to go back and edit my post in Feedback in order to include that point. Thanks!

HelenM

January 3, 2002, 01:10 PM

[quote]Originally posted by Donald Morgan:
Thanks!<hr></blockquote>

You're welcome, Don :)

Happy New Year!

love
Helen

Tom in KC

January 3, 2002, 04:16 PM

Donald,

I'm curious what about your experience reading the Bible has convinced you that nothing in the Bible can be trusted? If you really are convinced that it is fictional, why have you spent so much energy studying and refuting it? You say:

[/QUOTE]Your claim that he is either who he says he is or the greatest schizophrenic megalomaniac of all time represents an obvious logical fallacy in that it doesn't begin to exhaust the possibilities. For example, he may not have said what it is said that he said, or if he did say what it is said that he said, he could simply have been mistaken.[QUOTE]

If you believe that Christ actually said what is recorded in the Bible, you must understand my point. He says that he is God the Son, and the only way to salvation. If you are sure that the Bible is a doctored account, on what basis do you justify your non-faith? I don't understand why Christianity is held to an impossible standard of proof, while atheism is not. By the standards that you propose, everyone should be agnostic.

Thanks for your feedback. Very thought interesting to get another perspective.

Tom

[ January 03, 2002: Message edited by: Tom in KC ]

HelenM

January 3, 2002, 04:42 PM

Tom

Thanks for registering so you could interact on this thread :)

Some people here are agnostics, in fact.

love
Helen

diana

January 3, 2002, 04:43 PM

I'll address the middle paragraph, as this looks like the one that contains all <Tom from KC>s presumed arguments, thus far. Don already addressed them, but this is my short version:

My challenge to Doland and others reading this post is this: read the Bible – especially Christ’s teachings in the Gospels - with an open heart and open mind.

I think you're attempting to engage us in serious discussion here, so I'll refrain from the obvious sarcastic response. I ask you to consider what you mean when you say "open heart," since you were careful to differentiate this from "open mind." Do you honestly believe that your heart has anything to do with what you think or feel--or is this unintentional figurative language? (I ask because I've encountered Xns who honestly believe that the organ that pumps blood is the real seat of their emotions because the bible says so. In other words, I'm check to see if you're a loony.)

Attempt to keep whatever biases you may have out of the process.

This from a person who has decided before reading it that it is the word of God. The hypocracy of this "recommendation" always tickles me.

Then, decide in your heart and head what to do about Jesus.

There's that thinking with your heart thing again. I'm beginning to think you're a loony.

I would challenge that the position that Christ was only a man but a great teacher – the position that many agnostics and followers of others religions take – as untenable, and a copout.

Actually, I take the position that I have no good reason to believe he ever even existed--just so you can add this to your "untenable/copout" list.

He is either who He says He is, or He is the greatest schizophrenic megalomaniac of all time.

False dilemma. See Don's post above.

Decide if His teachings are inspired or insane.

Oversimplification and another false dilemma. I see his "teachings" as largely borrowed from Jewish thoughts that were centuries old, a little bit of Confucias, some common sense, and a great deal of obfuscation. Jesus didn't directly answer questions. The scripture teaches that he intentionally muddied the waters with parables so only his disciples would understand (and he'd explain what he meant to them later--or not at all).

And yes, some of what he taught is certifiable, such as "if thine hand offend thee, cut it off," and "take no heed for the morrow," and "sell everything you own and follow me" and "give to those he who asks, neither ask it back again"--advice no Xn even takes seriously, as it's so obviously deluded.

Decide why even His foes at His time had no explanation for His Resurrection.

Let's see...if the whole thing is a fabricated story, good for power and profit, then...let's see...yep. The myth theory fits nicely in making this a non-question.

Decide why many of His followers died rather than recanting their faith in Christ.

The same reason Muslims die for Allah, I suspect.

d

crackrabbit

January 3, 2002, 05:35 PM

[quote]Originally posted by Tom in KC:
Donald,

I'm curious what about your experience reading the Bible has convinced you that nothing in the Bible can be trusted? If you really are convinced that it is fictional, why have you spent so much energy studying and refuting it? You say:<hr></blockquote>

First of all, I think it's cool that you registered and seem interested in having an actual discussion about this, rather than the hit-and-run posting that usually happens.

I'm not Donald, but I can answer your question from my perspective. I spent a lot of energy studying the Bible because I was a Christian. After studying it with an open mind, I had no choice but to refute it. I didn't become an Atheist and then devote all my time to reading and debunking the Bible. It happened the other way around: I started as a Christian, but the more I read, the less plausible it seemed. A large number of Atheists are in the same boat. As Donald said, reading the Bible with an open mind is often what turns people away from Christianity because in all honesty, if you read the book without looking through the lens of Christian faith, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

Also, many Atheists do continue to study and refute the Bible after embracing Atheism. It's called an educated analysis. If I told you that I believe 99% of the Bible is bullshit, but I know nothing about the Bible and have never read it, how seriously will you (or should you) take my opinion? Atheists are in the minority and are often taken to task for their beliefs. Given that fact, it seems quite obvious that they'd educate themselves so they know what they're talking about and can engage in informed debate when someone questions their lack of religion.

[quote]I don't understand why Christianity is held to an impossible standard of proof, while atheism is not.<hr></blockquote>

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof."

Christianity asks us to believe that God created the earth in 7 days fewer than 10,000 years ago, despite all scientific evidence to the contrary. Christianity asks us to believe that mankind is worthless and naturally evil and would be damned if not for Jesus. Christianity asks us to believe that anyone who doesn't believe in Jesus, regardless of their own religion or how good a person they are, is going to hell. Christianity asks us to believe that women are, by nature, inferior to men, and that gays are, by nature, evil. Christianity asks us to put our faith in a God who practices genocide and condones rape, incest, and the stoning of disobedient children. Christianity asks us to believe what it tells us to believe by taking literally every word of a book that was written long after the events told therein took place, and to live by those rules or be damned forever. Christianity asks us to believe that God, in his infinite loving wisdom, will hurl us into a pit of fire for all eternity if we don't do what he says.

Personally, I find the above to be extraordinary, and it would take some pretty extraordinary evidence to make me buy any of it.

[quote]By the standards that you propose, everyone should be agnostic.
<hr></blockquote>

See, now you're catching on. ;)

Edited for clarity.

[ January 04, 2002: Message edited by: Melly ]

Sandy

January 3, 2002, 06:27 PM

Tom posted:

"My challenge to Doland and others reading this post is this: read the Bible – especially Christ’s teachings in the Gospels - with an open heart and open mind. Attempt to keep whatever biases you may have out of the process. Then, decide in your heart and head what to do about Jesus."

Tom, your "attempt to keep whatever biases you may have out of the process> piqued my interest. Am I to assumed you didn't start out being raised a christian, being taught that the bible was "inspired" by God and that Jesus was the way to salvation, and so YOU yourself are not biased in your opinions?

Color me curious.

Sandy

Jobar

January 3, 2002, 06:33 PM

Tom, I also will give you a serious response- not the usual thing in this forum, because far too many come here just to damn us or sneer at us. You disagree with a civil tongue; more should follow your example.

That said, your point is way out at the tip of a limb, when we have sawed down the tree. If you wish to convince us you have to start from the roots and work upward. What I mean is, I personally think that Jesus was completely mythical. From much study of the books of the New Testament, from reading many books of history, and from hundreds of thousands of words of discussion, I conclude that Paul's Messiah (who was 'unknown to the world' in 50 AD) was built up, embroidered upon, over the next hundred years or so. Read Don's link on Jesus as fictional.

Many of us who were raised in Christian churches are as qualified as many theologians. Our unbelief is often a result of this.

Euromutt

January 3, 2002, 07:01 PM

I'm sorry, just for clarification; we are talking about this Joshua bloke from Nazareth, right? Son of Miriam? The Galilean guerilla leader with the gift of the gab, the party tricks, and the sycophantic megalomaniac followers with the tendency to falsify history?

Sephiroth

January 3, 2002, 11:25 PM

[quote]Originally posted by <Tom from KC>:
My challenge to Doland and others reading this post is this: read the Bible – especially Christ’s teachings in the Gospels - with an open heart and open mind.<hr></blockquote>I use my organs in the way they were intended (I think only with my brain) to be and by reading the Bible with an open mind it is clear that Christianity can't be right. [quote]Attempt to keep whatever biases you may have out of the process.<hr></blockquote>LOL! Deciding to that is what made me an atheist in the first place. [quote]Then, decide in your heart and head what to do about Jesus.<hr></blockquote>I decided that Jesus was just another illogical rabbi and once again, I refuse to think with my heart. Emotions shouldn't be allowed to cloud judgement. [quote]I would challenge that the position that Christ was only a man but a great teacher – the position that many agnostics and followers of others religions take – as untenable, and a copout.<hr></blockquote>I don't think it is either, but I find it amazing that Jesus gets so much credit that's completely undue. [quote]He is either who He says He is, or He is the greatest schizophrenic megalomaniac of all time.<hr></blockquote>Considering he killed a fig-tree for not bearing fruit at a time it wasn't supposed to and called a woman who went to him for help a dog, I'd say he was another religious nut like Falwell. [quote]Decide if His teachings are inspired or insane.<hr></blockquote>He didn't teach, he preached. [quote]Decide why even His foes at His time had no explanation for His Resurrection.<hr></blockquote>The bodies of many Egyptian pharoahs haven't been found either. Personally, I think the body was burned just like most crucified criminals were. [quote]Decide why many of His followers died rather than recanting their faith in Christ.<hr></blockquote>Same reason why David Koresh's followers died at Waco. Delusion. [quote]I will never be able to answer all of my questions about God, and why things are the way they are, while I’m here on earth.<hr></blockquote>Of course you won't. [quote]I have accepted that.<hr></blockquote>Good. [quote]I believe in a God that is so much greater than I, that it is silly to think that I could understand everything.<hr></blockquote>And you believe in a hypothesis that has no reasonable evidence to support it. [quote]What I do believe is that He made me and everyone else.<hr></blockquote>Guess what? He didn't. [quote]We are more special than a random by-product of chemical reactions.<hr></blockquote>No, we're not. Sorry if your need for ego calls for this grand level of self-delusion, but the facts are facts. [quote]We are valuable enough that God entered space and time in the person of Jesus Christ to redeem us.<hr></blockquote>I haven't been to a church in 3 years and you get 3 guesses as to why. Here's a hint, it has to do with preaching. [quote]The fact that I can’t answer every question that I have about this world in the context of this faith is, to me, acceptable.<hr></blockquote>To you, indeed.

P.S.~ I want Eternal back :( !

[ January 03, 2002: Message edited by: Sephiroth ]

Tom in KC

January 4, 2002, 11:13 AM

Thanks to everyone for being cool about this ”invasion” of your list, and my apologies if any of my comments or the comments of other Christians have offended. I promise that this is not my intent. Nor do I think that I can persuade anyone (especially via a list) to accept Christ.

There have been three common threads in the responses that have been made that I’d like to address to the extent that I’m capable. They relate to my ‘read the Gospels with and open mind and heart’ challenge:

1. We have read the Bible and that’s why we (and other thinking people) don’t believe.

I have met many brilliant people who are atheists, agnostics, Christians, and followers of other religions. There are convincing arguments that can be made by any group that supports or refutes these belief systems. The interesting thing to me is that there is no consensus coming from all of this thought and debate. If the human mind is all we need to pursue truth, then why can’t all of these brilliant people agree on one truth?

2. What are you talking about with this ‘open heart’ idea?

This relates to my first answer. The best illustration I can give is to compare faith to a decision of whom to marry or whom to entrust as our closest confidants. These are arguably life’s most important decisions. Yet, I would argue that the best marriages and friendships are formed because of a “gut feel”, not an intellectual assessment. I knew that my wife was the person I should marry because I could feel it. Christians would attribute this to the Spirit of God. In any event, what I didn’t adequately explain was that I think everyone should read the Gospels with the “heart” that it might be true. That it might change their lives. That Christ’s teachings might be the missing ingredient in their jobs, marriages, friendships, etc.

3. Didn’t you read the Gospels as a Christian, and therefore wasn’t your perspective skewed?

That’s possibly the hardest one to answer. I went to church as a kid, and had a basic belief in God and Jesus. I was what might be called a cultural Christian – someone who believed enough to claim the title but not enough to have it change my life. Reading the Bible is the primarily reason that I have invested myself in my faith now.

HelenM

January 4, 2002, 12:19 PM

[quote]Originally posted by Tom in KC:
Thanks to everyone for being cool about this ”invasion” of your list, and my apologies if any of my comments or the comments of other Christians have offended. I promise that this is not my intent.

Tom, this forum was set up as a place where Christians are free to share so it's not 'an invasion' for a Christian to post here. However, nonChristians are free to respond also of course, as they have :)

I'm sure your politeness is appreciated though!

Whether something is offensive is rather context-sensitive, actually. If you care whether your comments offend I'd say that's a good thing. A lot of Christians don't seem overly concerned about that and that can be annoying. They don't seem to have a good understanding that not all 'offense' is 'the offense of the cross' - some of it can be the tone/character of the poster :) . If you see what I mean.

Nor do I think that I can persuade anyone (especially via a list) to accept Christ.

Well, never say never :D . But it's good that you didn't come in here thinking you had the 'magic' argument that would convert everyone. That's very annoying when people do that :) .

[snip]

Reading the Bible is the primarily reason that I have invested myself in my faith now.

I have found reading the Bible to be rather frustrating in that the more I read it, the more I realize how Christians pick and choose what to believe and how, despite saying they believe it's the Word of God, it doesn't seem to bother them how far short they sometimes fall in obeying it.

That's confusing and frustrating to me.

However I'm still reading it; in fact I 'signed the card' to say I'd read the whole thing through this year, which my church is encouraging all members and attenders to do. (It's not mandatory)

And I was surprised how encouraged I was by reading Matthew 5 (as part of the read-through). If only because it reminded me how Biblical my views are even though I seem to be at odds with other Christians, at times. I think it's an awesome chapter; I think I always will.

love
Helen<hr></blockquote>

PopeInTheWoods

January 4, 2002, 12:46 PM

[quote]Originally posted by Tom in KC:
Thanks to everyone for being cool about this invasion of your list, and my apologies if any of my comments or the comments of other Christians have offended. I promise that this is not my intent. Nor do I think that I can persuade anyone (especially via a list) to accept Christ.<hr></blockquote>
Welcome, and thanks for sticking around for what looks like could become quite a pleasant chat. Hey moderators, if this keeps up would this thread become eligible for tranfer OUT of the Lion's Den to somewhere like MRD?

I'd like to address the first comment on your list.
[quote]
1. We have read the Bible and that's why we (and other thinking people) don't believe.

I have met many brilliant people who are atheists, agnostics, Christians, and followers of other religions. There are convincing arguments that can be made by any group that supports or refutes these belief systems. The interesting thing to me is that there is no consensus coming from all of this thought and debate. If the human mind is all we need to pursue truth, then why can't all of these brilliant people agree on one truth?<hr></blockquote>
My first thought would be for the same reason that it's also not been possible to get brilliant minds to agree on the one best political system, economic system, or all-time greatest football team. What exactly this reason is may not be entirely definable, but may be based largely on the fact that no two peoples' minds or experiences are the same.

Andy (PITW)

Darwin's Finch

January 4, 2002, 01:35 PM

Tom in KC:
I also welcome you to II and hope you enjoy the discussions here.

I think your reaction to the critique of Strobel's work (haven't read it myself) is interesting, honest, and refreshing. I have never understood why some Christians (whose final appeal, as you've acknowledged, is to faith) would spend so much time and effort engaging in apologetics, trying to "prove" their faith. As a believer, do you have any ideas why this should be so?

I suspect that some believers are fundamentally uneasy with faith as such. They need the window dressing of "reasons," however poorly formed they may be, because they suspect on some level that there may be something contemptible about not having any. Perhaps, too, there is an underlying need to be taken seriously in a world that has largely dispensed with appeals to authority and revelation as the last word on some subject.

I am an atheist, so faith is something rather alien to my character. What's your take on this? And have you read any apologetics that made an impression on you. If so, why?

HelenM

January 4, 2002, 02:23 PM

Darwin's Finch

If you don't mind me commenting even though you asked Tom... :)

Apologetics is like sales. It's like someone coming along and saying "you thought that this washing powder was best but let me tell you why ours is in fact better".

Well, it's like sales where the salesperson really believes their product is better, I should say :D

So, the apologist comes along and says 'here's some information'.

You still need faith in either situation. I mean, the salesperson could be lying to you. Maybe he's not lying but someone lied to him and he believed that person. It's faith in his information that leads you to change products. Down the road you will find "hmmm, this really is better" or you might think "actually this is just the same!" (or worse, even)

The bias comes in because even if you start to suspect you've been had, you might resist it, you might find excuses rather than change again, like "oh, this maybe was a bad batch but it's really a great product".

But anyway, as annoying as aggressive salespeople can sometimes be, sales pitches do sometimes work.

Do you see what I'm saying? Realistically most people don't just wake up one day and think "oh, I'm going to try talking to an invisible person called God - in case He's out there". (But it could happen ;) )

It's usually when they come across new information that causes them to reevaluate their beliefs, that they might change their mind and think "hmmm...maybe there is that invisible person after all".

So, yes, Christians (and other theists) have faith but it's always based on some sort of information. Where you would disagree with them is in whether the information is reliable enough to base faith upon. They would say yes and presumably you would say no.

But perhaps you just didn't realize how much evidence there is for God - perhaps you're lacking information - and so the Christians and others will continue to come here and say "have you considered this?" etc. :)

And their motivation, as you know, is to keep you from eternal torture, rather than to earn $ commissions for successful 'conversions' (so I hope, anyway!)

love
Helen

Sephiroth

January 4, 2002, 02:38 PM

[quote]Originally posted by Tom in KC:
Thanks to everyone for being cool about this ”invasion” of your list, and my apologies if any of my comments or the comments of other Christians have offended. I promise that this is not my intent. Nor do I think that I can persuade anyone (especially via a list) to accept Christ.<hr></blockquote>Ok, welcome to the board :) . [quote]There have been three common threads in the responses that have been made that I’d like to address to the extent that I’m capable. They relate to my ‘read the Gospels with and open mind and heart’ challenge:<hr></blockquote>Fire away. [quote]1. I have met many brilliant people who are atheists, agnostics, Christians, and followers of other religions. There are convincing arguments that can be made by any group that supports or refutes these belief systems. The interesting thing to me is that there is no consensus coming from all of this thought and debate. If the human mind is all we need to pursue truth, then why can’t all of these brilliant people agree on one truth?<hr></blockquote>Same reason why we don't agree on politics, everyone's experiences is different and there's of course, personal biases to deal with as well :) . [quote]2. This relates to my first answer. The best illustration I can give is to compare faith to a decision of whom to marry or whom to entrust as our closest confidants. These are arguably life’s most important decisions.<hr></blockquote>You can see your spouse, you can't see god. [quote]Yet, I would argue that the best marriages and friendships are formed because of a “gut feel”, not an intellectual assessment.<hr></blockquote>Which is probably why divorce is so common, anyways, not everyone marries and I doubt I ever will. [quote]I knew that my wife was the person I should marry because I could feel it. Christians would attribute this to the Spirit of God.<hr></blockquote>But, do they have evidence to support that assertion? [quote]In any event, what I didn’t adequately explain was that I think everyone should read the Gospels with the “heart” that it might be true.<hr></blockquote>In other words, I should turn off my brain and force myself to be a Christian? Not interested. [quote]That it might change their lives.<hr></blockquote>As an ex-Christian it is my priviledge and right to say that my life is better now than it was back then. [quote]That Christ’s teachings might be the missing ingredient in their jobs, marriages, friendships, etc.<hr></blockquote>Funny, Christians tend to have a higher divorce rate then atheists and they're more likely to quit being friends with an atheist then say Buddhists would be. Not to mention that Jesus' teachings are not impressive to me and in many situations, downright fallacious. [quote]3. Reading the Bible is the primarily reason that I have invested myself in my faith now.<hr></blockquote>Good for you.

Daggah

January 4, 2002, 03:44 PM

[quote]By the standards that you propose, everyone should be agnostic.<hr></blockquote>

Tom, you're confusing atheism with agnosticism here. You're implying that the atheist makes a claim himself, but he does not necessarily do that. Atheism is only a lack of belief in a god or gods. Strong atheists go further; weak atheists do not. Agnostics are not mutually exclusive to atheism or theism (IMHO) - most agnostics are weak atheists, because they don't believe in god. Other agnostics admit that they cannot know whether a god exists, but still believe.

Others: maybe this thread should be moved out of RR&P?

Tom in KC

January 4, 2002, 04:54 PM

Helen,

Thanks for the answer to Darwin’s Finch’s question about apologetics, which was much better than I could have mustered.

Darwin,

The only thing that I’d add is that I was happy to see that there were intelligent people asking tough questions and still believing. Apologetics have made me confident that I can be a thinking person and a Christian at the same time.

You also asked which one’s I liked. I liked Lee Strobel’s books (Case for Christ and Case for Faith). I also loved C. S. Lewis’ Mere Christianity. I’m not sure Lewis’ book is technically apologetic, but it’s a tremendously well-written summary of Christianity. I agreed with Paul Doland's Case for Faith critique in that Strobel accepted answers to tough questions too easily (which was part of my posting that started this topic). The same can be said to a lesser extent in Case for Christ.

If you have to pick two, I’d go with Case for Christ and Mere Christianity.

Tom

Celsus

January 4, 2002, 05:27 PM

Do you think that the "Case for Christ"'s standards could just as easily verify the Mormon religion? I read that book when it first came out (years ago), and remember that was my gut instinct to it. Can't actually remember much about the rest.

Darwin's Finch

January 4, 2002, 06:05 PM

Helen and Tom:
Thank you both for your responses. Helen, I agree with Tom that your post was spot-on. The sales analogy is a good one. However, my concern is less with the producers of apologetics (their motives seem clear enough, and I mean that charitably) or with their potential converts. I'm not even particularly concerned with people like you both seem to be, who may read apologetics
but are otherwise sanguine and secure in their faith. (Having reread my earlier post, I see that I was not clear about that.)

Rather, my interest is in those people who will use apologetic literature or -- worse yet -- their own homespun brand of apologetics to go to the mat, to fight to the <figurative> death, with those who simply disagree or hold to different standards of evidence. I've lurked and posted around these parts long enough to know that there are a lot of people like that. You pin them down on a factual error, a bit of illogic, or uncontroversially contradictory scriptural passages and, rather than concede the point and move on, they will shift ground on you, indulging in post hoc interpretations, or fanciful etymologies, or what-have-you: none of which is likely to inspire confidence in the sceptic whom they are engaging.

My point is that there are a lot of people who seem to desperately cling to "facts" and debating points even as they will look you in the eyes and tell you that it's all about faith. As such, my question stands. What, in your opinion, compels such behavior?

dwp666

January 4, 2002, 06:47 PM

Tom,

Responding very briefly to some of your comments:

You asked, "If you are sure that the Bible is a doctored account, on what basis do you justify your non-faith?" I don't know if non-believers think the Bible is necessarily a "doctored account" as you say as opposed to just plain hard to believe or impossible take very seriously. The crust of the matter is whether belief in any particular religion is warranted or is a more skeptical attitude more prudent. The reasons supporting non belief are too numerous and voluminous to outline in this forum. If you are truly interested in the answer to this question then I recommend that you spend some time in the Secular Web's library which contains many articles with the information you are after. Here is the link:

<a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/index.shtml" target="_blank">http://www.infidels.org/library/index.shtml</a>

I think you suffer from a misunderstanding when you think non-believers are holding your religion to an impossible standard compared to their lack of beliefs. It is simply much easier to believe that claims of virgins giving birth and men walking on water are just legends and myths as opposed real life incidents. Extraordinary claims are held to a higher standard then less extraordinary ones but that is the only prudent course of action. Do you believe in everything you hear or read about? I doubt it. Please keep in mind that you probably share the same skepticism of the world's religions as Atheists do. The only probable difference is your skepticism just stops one religion short of ours. That one being yours!

You also wrote, "The interesting thing to me is that there is no consensus coming from all of this thought and debate. If the human mind is all we need to pursue truth, then why can't all of these brilliant people agree on one truth?" Again you misunderstand. The human mind isn't necessarily all we "need" to pursue the truth but it is the major tool we have to try and obtain it. If what you are looking for in life is absolute certainty or "truth" then you are bound to be disappointed no matter what side of the theology fence you sit on. As you have noticed the members of humanity often disagree with each other. This is no more noticeable then among the believers of the world. For all the theist's claims to knowing the absolute truth there is an astonishing number of different religions and Christian sects and denominations among them, each one claiming the truth as their own. Humans are fallible and they always will be. There are things that can be done however to help us achieve more certainty in our endeavors. The scientific method is the best tool we have to determine answers to empirical questions. As far as more subjective issues go I wouldn't presume to answer these for you except to say I would be skeptical that religion offers many original answers of merit. Again I would recommend the Secular Web's library for a deeper look into this.

If you are very concerned about the notion that there are very few if any absolute truths in the world then all I can say is, that's how it is and there isn't much you can do about it so you may as well get used to it. After that you can then get on with living your life.

Again and finally, you really should spend some time in the library if you want to learn more details about why Atheists think the way they do.

I hope you find my brief comments helpful.

HelenM

January 4, 2002, 07:31 PM

Darwin's Finch

Actually, there are lots of things that Christians do (some Christians, anyway) that I am at a loss to explain. :eek:

love
Helen

Tom in KC

January 4, 2002, 08:03 PM

I'll take a stab at responding Darwin and dwp666's comments.

First, the “facts vs. faith” issue is tricky for believers. I agree with Helen that many of us Christians display curious behavior when confronted with arguments. In fact, I'm sad to say that I believe many non-believers - especially former Christians - have been driven from Christianity by the curious behavior of Christians in various forms – behavior that is from consistent with their beliefs. All Christians are guilty of that at times. The reason that I like to study in ways that "test" my beliefs is probably the same reason that most people engage in this type of list. I feel that the issue of faith is the most important issue that there is. Therefore, I want to get as much information from different perspectives as possible.

dwp666, I promise to read some of the information on this site as part of that process. I'll admit, it is less emotionally trying to discuss faith with Christians; however, I have found the members of this forum to be bright and genuine in their search for truth. By the way, I didn't mean to imply that I expected to find absolute provable truth in my earlier post. I was only clarifying my take on the need for both mind and "heart" in this journey we're on.

Tom

[ January 04, 2002: Message edited by: Tom in KC ]

critical thinking made ez

January 4, 2002, 08:20 PM

Helen, you are so damned cool :cool: , its scary. Nice post!

-DM-

January 4, 2002, 11:23 PM

[quote]Originally posted by Tom in KC:
Donald,

I'm curious what about your experience reading the Bible has convinced you that nothing in the Bible can be trusted?<hr></blockquote>

If you could show me where I have said that nothing in the Bible can be trusted, I would be glad to answer your question.

[quote] If you really are convinced that it is fictional, why have you spent so much energy studying and refuting it?<hr></blockquote>

If you could show me where I have said that I am convinced that the Bible is fictional, I would be glad to answer your question.

You see, Tom, I have not said either of these things, at least not so all-inclusively as you put it. And from past experience, I don't want to get into the position of trying to defend what is in essence a straw man position foisted on me by someone else. You are going to have to quote me accurately, or else ask me what I believe, before I am going to want to answer your questions.

I had said: Your claim that he is either who he says he is or the greatest schizophrenic megalomaniac of all time represents an obvious logical fallacy in that it doesn't begin to exhaust the possibilities. For example, he may not have said what it is said that he said, or if he did say what it is said that he said, he could simply have been mistaken.

[quote]Tom continues:
If you believe that Christ actually said what is recorded in the Bible, you must understand my point.<hr></blockquote>

Neither you nor anyone else has demonstrated sufficient reason for me to believe that Jesus was, in fact, the Christ. (I thought I had made that clear in my first response.) But no, I don't believe that Jesus said everything that was attributed to him by the Gospelists, do you? But if you do, I have a question for you: do you believe that everything that he [is alleged to have] said is true?

[quote]He says that he is God the Son, and the only way to salvation.<hr></blockquote>

1.) The Bible says that the Gospelists say that Jesus said that he is the Son of God (not God the Son) and the only way to salvation. To us, it is thirdhand hearsay testimony. He may have said it, he may not have said it.
2.) Assuming that he did say that, he isn't the only person who has allegedly made that claim. You dismiss the others (if you know about them), I'm sure. I dismiss that claim on the part of Jesus for a number of reasons. The likely difference between us on this score is that you reject the others but not Jesus.

[quote]If you are sure that the Bible is a doctored account, on what basis do you justify your non-faith?<hr></blockquote>

If the Bible is a doctored account, and I think it is clear that we know that it is doctored to at least some extent, that alone is sufficient reason to doubt the authenticity of what the Bible alleges that the Gospelists allege that Jesus said.

[quote]I don't understand why Christianity is held to an impossible standard of proof, while atheism is not. By the standards that you propose, everyone should be agnostic.<hr></blockquote>

Where have I said that I hold Christianity to an impossible standard of truth? Where have I elucidated my standards of proof for either Christianity or agnosticism? Where have I said that everyone should be agnostic?

For the record, it is perfectly OK with me if you are a Christian, a Muslim, a Hindu, a Jew, a Zoroastrian, a Mormon, a JW -- you name it. Myself, I find all theistic religions lacking sufficient evidence for me to want to believe. In the case of Christianity, I couldn't believe if I wanted to.

The main difference between you and me is likely that I disbelieve only one more religion than you disbelieve.

--Don--

HelenM

January 5, 2002, 04:56 AM

[quote]Originally posted by critical thinking made ez:
Helen, you are so damned cool :cool: , its scary. Nice post!<hr></blockquote>

Thanks! :D

Tom, you wrote this to Don:

[quote]I'm curious what about your experience reading the Bible has convinced you that nothing in the Bible can be trusted? If you really are convinced that it is fictional, why have you spent so much energy studying and refuting it? <hr></blockquote>

I'd say that all people who study the Bible in any serious way do so because the claims made about it are so enormous. They, like you, do in fact want to take a position on it.

And like you, some of them feel strongly enough about what they find, that they want to tell others.

But, unlike you - some of them are telling others they believe the claims are untrue. That would be the position of people like Don Morgan.

Like you they want people to know the truth and be set free by it. But to them the truth is that the claims made about the Bible are not true.

It seems ironic that in some ways the goals of 'fundamentalist Christians' and the people who most strongly are opposed to Christianity are very similar - i.e. both groups are trying to spread 'the truth'.

When you look at Paul, he was fiercely opposed to Christianity then (according to the book of Acts) in a day, due to some surprising new information ;) he did a big U turn and devoted his life to trying to persuade people of the truth of it.

It doesn't surprise me, looking at that and people here and others I know, that people who are passionate about a cause will always be passionate about a cause even if the cause changes and even if they do a U turn as dramatic as Paul's.

There are probably people here who've done a U turn from being passionate about Christianity to passionately opposing it. In fact there are people who post here who used to be on the staff of churches probably a lot like yours.

Taking the POV of a nonChristian: if the claims made for the Bible are in fact untrue and if all Christians are kidding themselves and wasting their lives away doing things that are really worthless...then it's actually a very 'loving' thing to do, to undeceive them, isn't it?

I hope that helps answer your 'why so much time and energy' question.

love
Helen

lpetrich

January 5, 2002, 06:26 AM

As to being willing to die for Christianity, I note that Muslims celebrate those who are willing to die for Islam; does that willingness prove the truth of Islam?

[quote]
Tom in KC:
I'm curious what about your experience reading the Bible has convinced you that nothing in the Bible can be trusted? If you really are convinced that it is fictional, why have you spent so much energy studying and refuting it?
<hr></blockquote>

First off, being factual is not all-or-nothing; the Bible does contain some legitimate history, and some things that I believe to be pure fiction.

[quote]
If you believe that Christ actually said what is recorded in the Bible, you must understand my point. He says that he is God the Son, and the only way to salvation. If you are sure that the Bible is a doctored account, on what basis do you justify your non-faith?
<hr></blockquote>

The principle that the burden of proof is on the positive. Imagine if a Muslim apologist was to claim that if you reject the premise that the Koran had existed eternally in Heaven, that you must therefore justify that rejection?

To me, those claiming that Jesus Christ had been God, Son of God, and 1/3 of God ought to be the ones to defend their position -- just like those who claim that the Koran had not been created but had existed eternally in Heaven.

And the same for other creeds.

[quote]
I don't understand why Christianity is held to an impossible standard of proof, while atheism is not. By the standards that you propose, everyone should be agnostic.
<hr></blockquote>

This is no different from the standards of proof employed everywhere else.

lpetrich

January 5, 2002, 06:39 AM

[quote]
dwp666 to Tom:
I think you suffer from a misunderstanding when you think non-believers are holding your religion to an impossible standard compared to their lack of beliefs. It is simply much easier to believe that claims of virgins giving birth and men walking on water are just legends and myths as opposed real life incidents.
<hr></blockquote>

Especially as Tom has evaded the question of what he believes about other religions. Just to take one example, does he believe that Alexander the Great's father was the Greek god Zeus instead of Philip of Macedon? And if not, then why does he believe one divine-impregnation story and not another?

dwp666

January 5, 2002, 07:17 AM

[quote]Originally posted by Tom in KC:
I'll take a stab at responding Darwin and dwp666's comments.

dwp666, I promise to read some of the information on this site as part of that process. I'll admit, it is less emotionally trying to discuss faith with Christians; however, I have found the members of this forum to be bright and genuine in their search for truth. By the way, I didn't mean to imply that I expected to find absolute provable truth in my earlier post. I was only clarifying my take on the need for both mind and "heart" in this journey we're on.

Tom

[ January 04, 2002: Message edited by: Tom in KC ]<hr></blockquote>

Tom,

Are you under an impression that non-believers don't have a need for both "mind and heart" as you call them? If that is the case than you are suffering from another misunderstanding. Non-believers can't avoid either of these things even if we wanted to. Non believers I think would avoid the term mind and use objective or empirical (i.e. capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment or having a reality independent of the mind) and use subjective as opposed to "heart".

The scientific method is the best tool humanity has developed so far to address objective issues. It's not perfect of course but no human enterprise is?

As far as subjective goes I may be venturing into an area of philosophy I'm not qualified to comment much on but my layman's take is that there are no right or wrong answers as they can always only be a personal opinion. For example, I think jazz is the best music in the world but I'm sure most of Garth Brooks' (who I think has about 1/1000th of the entertainment value of a rodeo clown) fans can't stand jazz for a second. I don't think there are any objective ways of determining whose right in this type of argument.

As far as religion goes, I think that you will come to see after spending some time in the Secular Web's library that, on an objective basis, there are grounds to be at least skeptical about the claims theists make about their various faiths. Subjectively there is of course no more reason for me to abandon my lack of beliefs for yours, the Jehovah's Witness, Mormonism, etc. then there is for me to rush out and buy Garth Brooks' latest CD. I find my Atheism to be as satisfying and pleasing to my "mind and heart" as I do a swinging Oscar Peterson solo.

Non believers do tend to dismiss talk of spirituality as a bunch of voodoo psycho babble hocus pocus mumbo jumbo because there isn't much credible evidence to suggest that there are spirits, souls or the supernatural. Nevertheless, non-believers feel the same sense of appreciation, awe and wonder about the universe and its offerings as any theist does. We just experience life for what it is and see no need to attribute qualities to it that probably aren't there.

doc58

January 5, 2002, 07:24 AM

To Tom in KC,

I do not post all that much but you remind me so much of myself that I thought I might interject some comments. I was a strong believer for 40 years, elder in a Bible Church, man of strong and genuine faith, teacher of the Bible and apologetics. In the past year, using my mind and my "heart", I have very, very reluctantly found myself to be without belief. The first pillar that fell was the inerrancy and infallibility of the Bible. When I realized that certain scriptures simply could not have been written/inspired by an omniscient God, I was staggered. (if you are interested I can be very specific) When the presupposition that the Bible is the inerrant word of GOd falls, it doesn't take long for all else to crumble. Now I cannot believe I was so foolish as to believe. I investigated the origins of the N.T. and realized that we really don't know who wrote many of the books and when they were written and that the manuscripts we have are only distant copies with a multitude of discrepancies and errors.
My view of God was always very high and I realized that it would take no effort for a God such as I believed in to make sure that originals were preserved, that copies were exact and that translations were precise. However, even conservative, evangelical scholars know that certain passages thought to be scripture for 100's of years are now known to be additions. (check out the end of Mark in the KJV vs the NIV or NASB) So you have a God who has left us second or third hand accounts written by unknown authors 30+ years after the events that have been copied in an inexact way.
I fought my deconversion the entire time. I pleaded with God to make his word clear to my mind and heart, to preserve my faith. I did not want to lose my faith. And yet it happened. In fact, personally, one evidence which makes me certain that CHristianity is not true is the fact that I lost a genuine faith; the Bible says that can't happen. "Seek and Ye shall Find"- NOT TRUE. "If you seek me, you will find me if you seek me with all your heart" NOT TRUE
In fact you alluded to this when you said there were people here who sincerely searched the truth. Therefore you believe that for some people who sincerely seek the truth, seek GOd; that He will not honor that seeking and reveal himself to them.

Regarding the "heart" issue, I have thought a lot about this. When I look into my heart, I cannot believe that Anne Frank and other Jews from the Holacaust are currently in their 60th year of continual torture in an oven because they didn't believe in Jesus as the Messiah.

If the evidence was there and my "heart" went along, I would happily "surrender" to the Lordship of Christ. I am no more immoral now than when I believed.
However, the evidence is not there(I have read all the books) and my heart rejects it also.
SO I am a completely sincere seeker of the truth who has looked with both heart and mind into Christianity after having believed for many years and found an empty shell.

critical thinking made ez

January 5, 2002, 10:15 AM

[quote]Originally posted by doc58:
To Tom in KC,

In the past year, using my mind and my "heart", I have very, very reluctantly found myself to be without belief. <hr></blockquote>

doc58, that was very well articulated. I remember those same withdrawal symptoms when I kicked the habit. It really is like a drug. I can remember how really emotionally high I was in the middle of a deep worship session one time at age 16 (now I'm 43). I still remember saying to myself that if I died right then, it would be ok because of the security, love, and emotion I felt in that moment. Not that I wanted to die. Just the high was so good. Jump a few years later. Although reality of my deconversion took only moments with the realization of the errors, it took an addition few years (due to me not wanting to think about it at all and one last real effort of having FAITH) to finally be honest with myself and accept the fact I was simply believing in another Santa Claus.

[ January 05, 2002: Message edited by: critical thinking made ez ]

critical thinking made ez

January 5, 2002, 11:19 AM

Thought I would throw in this definition from the Skeptic's dictionary site. ]<a href="http://skepdic.com/faith.html" target="_blank">Visit Site</a>

faith:
Faith is a non-rational belief in some proposition. A non-rational belief is one which is contrary to the sum of evidence for that belief. A belief is contrary to the sum of evidence for a belief if there is overwhelming evidence against the belief, e.g., that the earth is flat, hollow or is the center of the universe. A belief is also contrary to the sum of evidence if the evidence seems equal both for and against the belief, yet one commits to one of two or more equally supported propositions.

[ January 05, 2002: Message edited by: critical thinking made ez ]

HelenM

January 5, 2002, 12:05 PM

doc58

Wow, thanks for sharing your own experience.

I'm guessing that the response of Christians is either that you never really were a 'true' Christian, or you left the faith because you wanted to commit some sin you weren't allowed to commit otherwise...

Have you had any other responses? How did your church deal with your leaving Christianity?

[quote]Regarding the "heart" issue, I have thought a lot about this. When I look into my heart, I cannot believe that Anne Frank and other Jews from the Holacaust are currently in their 60th year of continual torture in an oven because they didn't believe in Jesus as the Messiah. <hr></blockquote>

I have a lot of trouble with that one. That's why insofar as I'm a Christian I'm a universalist. I wrote a 17 page thing on my site about the doctrine of hell, actually. When I look at who Jesus said would be in hell it seems that it's a place for people who knew a lot more than they lived up to. Or who had power that they abused. That doesn't seem like it's atheists per se...yes I know how unorthodox that is :) .

And I still don't see why Jesus couldn't have died for everyone if he died for anyone :confused:

I hope this will not draw any standard Christian responses because I'm sure I've heard them a thousand times already :rolleyes:

love
Helen

Sephiroth

January 5, 2002, 01:38 PM

[quote]Originally posted by HelenSL:
I hope this will not draw any standard Christian responses because I'm sure I've heard them a thousand times already :rolleyes:

love
Helen<hr></blockquote>Only a thousand? You have it easy :p !

HelenM

January 5, 2002, 04:24 PM

[quote]Originally posted by Sephiroth:
Only a thousand? You have it easy :p !<hr></blockquote>

Well, I was using numbers symbolically ;)

As in, it seems like more; it may be less :p

love
Helen

critical thinking made ez

January 5, 2002, 06:01 PM

To have faith, you must first believe that what you believe, is not likely given the evidence, yet you still choose to believe.

Anyone disagree?

[ January 05, 2002: Message edited by: critical thinking made ez ]

HelenM

January 5, 2002, 07:06 PM

Actually I disagree. You have faith anytime you believe anything unproven. It can be the most likely option but if it's not 100% certain you are still exercising faith to believe it.

I mean, each time you get in an airplane you believe it's going to get safely to its destination. That's the most likely possibility but you still exercised faith if you took it believing it's going to get there.

Faith in something that is unlikely but you choose to believe it anyway, I'd give that an adjective like - I dunno - 'surprising' faith, or something :) .

love
Helen

lpetrich

January 5, 2002, 09:04 PM

As to having an open mind, I remember reading the New Testament long ago and not finding it very inspiring.

In particular, I was appalled by that fig-tree story; that seemed to me like an uncalled-for temper tantrum.

And I found Romans 13 rather odd -- claiming that all government comes from the Christian God -- even ones that worship pagan deities, like the Roman Empire.

And the Book of Revelation seemed like someone's drug trip. What kind of mushrooms was John eating on the island of Patmos?

critical thinking made ez

January 6, 2002, 01:23 AM

[quote]Originally posted by HelenSL:
I mean, each time you get in an airplane you believe it's going to get safely to its destination. That's the most likely possibility but you still exercised faith if you took it believing it's going to get there.

<hr></blockquote>

Helen, you wouldn't need "faith" in that instance, just a "belief" that you are going to make it.
Example:

Acting on Faith
You are about to get on an airplane that you feel most likely won’t make it to the destination, yet you feel that it will make it, and you go anyway.

Acting on Belief
You are about to get on an airplane that you feel most likely will make it, but you don’t know 100% for sure, and you go anyway.

critical thinking made ez

January 6, 2002, 01:26 AM

Faith is based more on feelings and less on reason.

Belief is based more on reason and less on feelings.

Any disagreements?

HelenM

January 6, 2002, 04:52 AM

hi ctez

I see what you are saying - you've explained it well :) - I'm not sure whether those differences in meaning/concept/nuance you make between the two words are 'standard' or ones that you ascribe to them.

What I was saying myself was that I see belief and faith as pretty much synonymous and that's why I'd add an adjective to 'faith' if I were describing a kind of faith that seems counter to evidence. Or held in the apparent absence of clear evidence or reason to hold it.

I haven't actually looked the words up in a dictionary but even if I did that might not reflect well the way that people use them.

love
Helen

critical thinking made ez

January 6, 2002, 10:42 AM

[quote]Originally posted by HelenSL:

I haven't actually looked the words up in a dictionary but even if I did that might not reflect well the way that people use them.

[/QB]<hr></blockquote>

I agree that most people in society use the two terms synonymously, even some dictionaries have completely opposing definitions however, they are accepted as different when referenced in the study of Religion.

Dictionary term:
Faith is the acceptance of something, without logic or material evidence.

Whereas, Belief is the acceptance of something based on logic or material evidence.

For Faith not to be based on Logic, then it must be based on illogic or in the case of evidence, it must be based on evidence which tends to prove the opposite.

Therefore, in order for one to have faith, means a person must believe that his belief is unlikely, given the evidence.

Once a person witnesses a miracle performed and they believe that it was accomplished by God, they no longer need faith, they can simply believe.

Once a person no longer believes that something is unlikely, they can no longer have faith. They have belief based on logic and evidence.

Now to put this into action:
At the time of Christ, the Apostles and others who saw the miracles of Jesus could be said to believe. However, those that they converted later on could believe only by faith. They were not in a position to prove anything other than accepting a testimony of claims. If some of the Apostles performed miracles then those people did not believe by faith, but rather just believed. So there would be a mix of people believing by faith and others by some amount of reason (belief)(although bad reasoning by today’s standards).

Skip to present time.

People become Christians by both methods, some do it by belief while others don't have a clue as to why they believe and can't see where the evidence is for really believing other than it feels right. Most people today become Christian based on some degree of logic or evidence. For example, "everyone else is doing it, it has stood the test of time, the prophecies seem to prove it," etc.

Those who believe by faith are admitting they don't really believe; it just feels good. Thus, their beliefs should be disregarded by others.

Those that have belief, admit that they believe by some bases of logic and reason. If any test of logic or reason fails to prove the fact, then they should drop that belief until proven. Otherwise, they are exhibiting faith and their belief should be disregarded by others.

Becoming a Christian based on belief should be a very long and difficult process. Of course, many would become Christian based on these steps but most people would not.

[ January 06, 2002: Message edited by: critical thinking made ez ]

-DM-

January 6, 2002, 11:12 AM

[quote]Originally posted by HelenSL:
...I haven't actually looked the words up in a dictionary but even if I did that might not reflect well the way that people use them.

love
Helen<hr></blockquote>

Helen:

I've seen you say this sort of thing on a number of occasions in the past. In a general sense, I disagree. If you looked the words up in any of the current editions of commonly used dictionaries the chances are nearly 100% that the definitions would reflect the way that people use them.

There are basically two kinds of word definitions::
1.) Descriptive (based on usage, the way that the words are commonly used).
2.) Prescriptive (tending to be based on stable historical usage, word etiology, what is acceptable in formal writing).

It is, to some extent, the same with dictionaries. They tend to be either descriptive or prescriptive.

Generally, a dictionary will tell something of the philosophy of the editors in the introduction to the dictionary itself. Descriptive dictionaries are the norm and prescriptive dictionaries the exception in the same way that glass is the norm and crystal the exception.

The purely descriptive dictionaries provide no real sense of what is stable usage and what is likely to disappear by the next edition. Neither do they provide any idea of what is considered acceptable in formal writing, which is perhaps not a concern for most people, but essential in certain situations.

Some academic presses require their editors to use the Webster's Collegiate Dictionary which is more prescriptive than, for example, the Random House Dictionary. Further, Webster's generally lets you know when it is being descriptive by means of citations and usage paragraphs.

[this information courtesy of Carol Roberts, indexer and copy editor, via the Internet]

---------

In other words, if people are NOT using the words according to dictionary definitions -- whether descriptive or prescriptive (and remember, descriptive is the norm) -- then they are likely wasting their words in the sense that many or most people will not know what the hell they are talking about.

Which brings me to one of my pet peeves. In discussions here with theists, I find that -- after a very lengthy and involved repartee back and forth -- that they were defining their words in some quirky way that means upfront that they "win" except that there was no way of knowing that upfront.

People need to use words according to their common meanings or else explain upfront exactly what they mean. Further, there is no use completely redefining words to the point that the definition in use doesn't resemble common meanings; if I say that nighttime is the period from sunrise to sunset and that daytime is the period from sunset to sunrise, that doesn't make it so and the discussion becomes confusing (to take an extreme example).

Regards,
--Don--

-DM-

January 6, 2002, 11:22 AM

[quote]Originally posted by HelenSL:
Actually I disagree. You have faith anytime you believe anything unproven. It can be the most likely option but if it's not 100% certain you are still exercising faith to believe it.

...

Faith in something that is unlikely but you choose to believe it anyway, I'd give that an adjective like - I dunno - 'surprising' faith, or something :) .<hr></blockquote>

This is your own quirky definition. If you don't stick to common dictionary or theological definitions, then the conversation becomes one of semantics rather than meaningful discussion.

[quote]I mean, each time you get in an airplane you believe it's going to get safely to its destination. That's the most likely possibility but you still exercised faith if you took it believing it's going to get there.<hr></blockquote>

If you are a reasonably rational individual, you believe -- based on what you know to be the facts and based on empirical observation -- that it is much more likely to get there then not get there. You know that there is a slight chance that it will not get there. No faith need be involved at all.

Regards,
--Don--

-DM-

January 6, 2002, 11:33 AM

[quote]Originally posted by critical thinking made ez:
Faith is based more on feelings and less on reason.

Belief is based more on reason and less on feelings.

Any disagreements?<hr></blockquote>

Exactly.

Again, as the author of Hebrews put it: "Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." That is FAR different than the definition which Helen would give the word "faith," namely beief in that which isn't 100% proven.

--Don--

-DM-

January 6, 2002, 11:41 AM

[quote]Originally posted by HelenSL:
... When I look at who Jesus said would be in hell it seems that it's a place for people who knew a lot more than they lived up to. Or who had power that they abused. That doesn't seem like it's atheists per se...yes I know how unorthodox that is :) .<hr></blockquote>

So many of your beliefs, Helen, are "unorthodox" that I wonder why you use the "Christian" label at all. To me, you seem to be a theist who has a religion of her own making (as I have said in the past).

[quote]And I still don't see why Jesus couldn't have died for everyone if he died for anyone :confused: <hr></blockquote>

Unless you believe in a literal Fall of Man, then there is no need for a Savior-nailed-to-a-cross as a propitiation for sin in the first place.

[quote]I hope this will not draw any standard Christian responses because I'm sure I've heard them a thousand times already :rolleyes: <hr></blockquote>

That's ONE thing you won't have to worry about that from ME. ;)

--Don--

critical thinking made ez

January 6, 2002, 12:01 PM

critical thinking made ez

January 6, 2002, 12:06 PM

I also believe that the historic time line produced much of the evidence used by most Christians today. In the early days of Christianity, a greater lack of evidence caused people to join by faith. Thus, less people became Christians. Today, a higher rate of conversion takes place because of the evidence produced by nothing more than time. For example, the fact it has survived for thousands of years, millions of people believe it, prophecies can be formed fitted given more history, claims of miracles by greater number of people, its family tradition, etc. While evidence created by time is less than impressive; to a Christian, quantity is very impressive. It is apparently enough most of the time to stake their soul on it.

-DM-

January 6, 2002, 12:06 PM

[quote]Originally posted by Tom in KC:
...The only thing that I’d add is that I was happy to see that there were intelligent people asking tough questions and still believing. Apologetics have made me confident that I can be a thinking person and a Christian at the same time.

You also asked which one’s I liked. I liked Lee Strobel’s books (Case for Christ and Case for Faith). I also loved C. S. Lewis’ Mere Christianity. I’m not sure Lewis’ book is technically apologetic, but it’s a tremendously well-written summary of Christianity. I agreed with Paul Doland's Case for Faith critique in that Strobel accepted answers to tough questions too easily (which was part of my posting that started this topic). The same can be said to a lesser extent in Case for Christ.<hr></blockquote>

I would agree with you 100% that it is possible to be a thinking person and a Christian. On the other hand, in my not so humble opinion, C. S. Lewis couldn't reason his way out of a brown paper bag if he had three hands and a flashlight. Although Strobel is a little better, both Lewis and Strobel leave a lot to be desired in the reasoning department. Thus if THAT is the kind of thing that you base being a thinking person and a Christian on, then I think you need to do more reading in the atheistic philosopher camp. For example:

<a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/087975124X/InternetInfidelsA" target="_blank">Atheism: The Case Against God</a> by George H. Smith

<a href="http://www.secweb.org/bookstore/bookdetail.asp?BookID=94" target="_blank">The Case Against Christianity,</a> by Michael Martin (which Helen and her husband characterize as rubbish, by the way, although I think they are WAY off in that assessment)

<a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0877226423/InternetInfidelsA" target="_blank">Atheism : A Philosophical Justification</a> by Michael Martin

--Don--

HelenM

January 7, 2002, 04:24 AM

[quote]Originally posted by Donald Morgan:
Which brings me to one of my pet peeves. In discussions here with theists, I find that -- after a very lengthy and involved repartee back and forth -- that they were defining their words in some quirky way that means upfront that they "win" except that there was no way of knowing that upfront.

Ah, I have entered the 'pet peeve' area. Well, all I can say is I did not deliberately change the meanings of words. I was not aware that Christians are particularly guilty of changing word meanings (and apparently doing it only to 'win' arguments); I can see how that would be annoying. :)

Maybe what I said reflects some Christian redefinition of words, in particular.

Anyway I'm not going to argue the point about faith anymore. I said what they mean to me. Maybe I was wrong.

People need to use words according to their common meanings or else explain upfront exactly what they mean. Further, there is no use completely redefining words to the point that the definition in use doesn't resemble common meanings; if I say that nighttime is the period from sunrise to sunset and that daytime is the period from sunset to sunrise, that doesn't make it so and the discussion becomes confusing (to take an extreme example).

Don that makes total sense to me. I find it frustrating myself that Christians often are talking an entirely different language than nonChristians even though it's all supposed to be English. I don't think it's fair to blame Christians entirely for this. Word meanings do get changed by societies. I don't agree with you about the dictionary, in my experience, and not because Christians change meanings. Other people do it too. Dictionaries don't reflect every whim of culture or every advertizing campaign - or, not quickly enough that they always reflect contemporary word usage. I guess we are just going to disagree on this one and if that means I'm wrong then I'm wrong.

So many of your beliefs, Helen, are "unorthodox" that I wonder why you use the "Christian" label at all. To me, you seem to be a theist who has a religion of her own making (as I have said in the past).

I take your point but who gets to define "Christian" anyway? I have my reasons :) .

In a world where a lot of Christians see a strict dichotomy between Christian and nonChristian, so I have to choose, to say I'm a Christian is less misleading to them than to say I'm not. If I said I was anything else it would imply to them a negative stance towards what they believe which is not an accurate reflection of where I'm at in my beliefs. And, worse, it would make it impossible to have any worthwhile discussions with them because the concept of me not being a Christian, would mislead them into us having a pointless interaction or no interaction at all. I know this from experience ;) . Me having questions about various doctrines doesn't necessarily mean I'm not a Christian. So there :p

Now I suppose you are going to counter that I have redefined 'Christian' in a confusing and inappropriate way...well, so be it...

Helen:And I still don't see why Jesus couldn't have died for everyone if he died for anyone

Unless you believe in a literal Fall of Man, then there is no need for a Savior-nailed-to-a-cross as a propitiation for sin in the first place.

When I do say something Christian you ignore it, I see...because you've decided I'm not a Christian...

Helen: I hope this will not draw any standard Christian responses because I'm sure I've heard them a thousand times already.

That's ONE thing you won't have to worry about that from ME.

In fact I wasn't worried about hearing it from you :)

Thanks for your comments Don.

love
Helen<hr></blockquote>

[ January 07, 2002: Message edited by: HelenSL ]

Tom in KC

January 7, 2002, 10:16 AM

There have been a bunch of interesting things written since Friday (serves me right to take the weekend off!).

Donald, thanks for the acknowledgement that it is “possible to be a thinking person and a Christian” That’s all I was going for – the idea that thoughtful reflection and study doesn’t necessarily lead people from faith (as I felt was being implied by some others in response to my initial post). I’m amazed by your take on C.S. Lewis. You’re the first person I have heard that thought that he wasn’t insightful. Guess that is another example of subjectivity’s role in our decision-making! Also, I hadn’t concluded that you thought the Bible was purely fictional. My point was that it’s hard to discuss Jesus without using the Gospels as a reference. Your point that it’s possibly fictitious needs to be handled as a separate issue.

In fact, that’s the issue that Doc58 brings up. He said, “When I realized that certain scriptures simply could not have been written/inspired by an omniscient God, I was staggered. (if you are interested I can be very specific)”

I’m very interested.

You also said, “When the presupposition that the Bible is the inerrant word of God falls, it doesn't take long for all else to crumble. Now I cannot believe I was so foolish as to believe. I investigated the origins of the N.T. and realized that we really don't know who wrote many of the books and when they were written and that the manuscripts we have are only distant copies with a multitude of discrepancies and errors.”

This is an objection that Strobel confronts quite convincingly (in my opinion) in Case for Christ. The question of human authorship doesn’t trouble me that much, given that my belief is that all of the books are inspired. What’s more important to me is that the books in the Bible survived the rigorous tests required to stay in the “cannon” that became the Bible. They were consistent with the teachings of Jesus and the experiences of the witnesses, and (unlike other books that were rejected) judged to be free from legendary content. The “distant copies” argument isn’t that strong, in my opinion, either. For a work from antiquity, the Bible has VERY early copies that have been discovered and the sheer magnitude of the copies is staggering. The Bible was, of course, passed down by the oral tradition of the day until these transcripts supplemented the oral method. It was quickly translated into various languages. Given the number of copies and the various languages, why should we be surprised that some (a VERY small percentage) of the non-essential text is different between these transcripts. The end of Mark is an interesting example, but the translation I use (NIV) is quick to point out that the very end was not in the earliest discovered transcripts. Also, this passage only further illuminates (vs. contradicts) the message. If you could provide an example of a teaching that is materially different between transcripts, then that would be a cause for major concern. I’m not aware of any from my readings.

Finally, you bring up the troubling issue of the eternal destiny of non-Christians. Like Helen, I struggle with this issue a great deal. My faith, as Don and dwp666 have so thoughtfully defined, is that Jesus is my salvation; my hope and conviction in things not seen. I can’t say, nor do I believe that any person can, what will happen to righteous non-Christians. I don’t think that the Bible is clear on that. It’s certainly possible that they will be confronted with Jesus at death and given a chance to acknowledge Him. That’s how I’d like it to be. If I could design a religion, everyone would be saved. I do have faith that He’s the best way. My pastor uses this analogy: There may be other ways out of a burning building, but why not take the fire escape when it’s being offered? I don’t feel “superior” in claiming that path is best because Christianity is alone in its reliance on Grace – not acts – to achieve salvation. It’s an admission that we need God. It makes perfect sense that I can’t earn my place with God by acts alone. It also makes sense to me that my faith should cause me to act more righteously (though I often stumble mightily).

Love,

Tom

[ January 07, 2002: Message edited by: Tom in KC ]

-DM-

January 7, 2002, 08:17 PM

[quote]Originally posted by Tom in KC:
Donald, ... You’re the first person I have heard that thought that he wasn’t insightful.<hr></blockquote>

Please show me where I have said that C. S. Lewis wasn't "insightful."

You can't because I didn't.

I said, "C. S. Lewis couldn't reason his way out of a brown paper bag if he had three hands and a flashlight." To make it clear: that means that in my opinion he is lacking when it comes to the use of correct reasoning.

You have also misrepresented my position previously, and even though I called those misrepresentations to your attention in my post of January 04, 2002 10:23 PM, you left them standing, unaddressed.

As polite and courteous as you have been, Tom, this tendency to make it seem as if I said what I didn't say, believe what I don't necessarily believe, and/or think what I don't necessarily think -- is quite annoying.

[quote]Tom continues:
... The question of human authorship doesn’t trouble me that much, given that my belief is that all of the books are inspired. What’s more important to me is that the books in the Bible survived the rigorous tests required to stay in the “cannon” that became the Bible.<hr></blockquote>

Considerable haggling went into the determination of the canon of the Bible and it took a relatively long time to officially settle the canon.

[quote]For a work from antiquity, the Bible has VERY early copies that have been discovered and the sheer magnitude of the copies is staggering.<hr></blockquote>

There is not a single original of any book of the Bible still in existence. What you consider VERY early is not considered by some to be early enough to be convincing.

[quote]The Bible was, of course, passed down by the oral tradition of the day until these transcripts supplemented the oral method. It was quickly translated into various languages. Given the number of copies and the various languages, why should we be surprised that some (a VERY small percentage) of the non-essential text is different between these transcripts.<hr></blockquote>

There are tens of thousands of differences between the various extant scraps and manuscripts, and while many of the differences are minor, some are more significant.

[quote]The end of Mark is an interesting example, but the translation I use (NIV) is quick to point out that the very end was not in the earliest discovered transcripts.<hr></blockquote>

True. And it looks as if it the longer ending of Mark is an emendation to the text, meaning that it wasn't likely a part of the original.

[quote]Also, this passage only further illuminates (vs. contradicts) the message.<hr></blockquote>

Really? Then you speak in tongues and cast out demons? You cure the sick? You handle snakes and drink poison and suffer no harm?

[quote]If you could provide an example of a teaching that is materially different between transcripts, then that would be a cause for major concern. I’m not aware of any from my readings.<hr></blockquote>

You gave an example yourself: the longer ending of Mark vs. the shorter ending. That is a fairly major difference.

[quote]My pastor uses this analogy: There may be other ways out of a burning building, but why not take the fire escape when it’s being offered?<hr></blockquote>

That impresses you, I suppose, but not me. I don't ever want to take the chance on being tricked by someone whom I don't trust into taking what is alleged to be a fire escape when my judgement tells me that in reality it is a trap. In my opinion, Christianity is a trap and one of the religions least worthy of belief.

--Don--

[ January 07, 2002: Message edited by: Donald Morgan ]

Tom in KC

January 8, 2002, 08:48 AM

[quote]Originally posted by Donald Morgan:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Tom in KC:
Donald, ... You’re the first person I have heard that thought that he wasn’t insightful.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please show me where I have said that C. S. Lewis wasn't "insightful."

You can't because I didn't.

I said, "C. S. Lewis couldn't reason his way out of a brown paper bag if he had three hands and a flashlight." To make it clear: that means that in my opinion he is lacking when it comes to the use of correct reasoning.

You have also misrepresented my position previously, and even though I called those misrepresentations to your attention in my post of January 04, 2002 10:23 PM, you left them standing, unaddressed.

As polite and courteous as you have been, Tom, this tendency to make it seem as if I said what I didn't say, believe what I don't necessarily believe, and/or think what I don't necessarily think -- is quite annoying.

[January 07, 2002: Message edited by: Donald Morgan ]<hr></blockquote>

Don,

First off, I don't want to be annoying and I'll try to be more precise with my posts. My goal was never - in any posts - to misrepresent your positions. I was only attempting to infer a stance on critical issues, perhaps too loosely, from your arguments and other posts on II (like the Fatal Flaws in the Bible) so that we could discuss the importance of perspective/heart/subjectivity in addition to facts and reason. As I said in my earlier post, I only wanted an acknowledgement that agnosticism wasn’t the only result of a careful examination of the evidence by an intelligent person.

Regarding C.S. Lewis, I don’t understand how my post was a misrepresentation. I used the word "insightful" and you said he couldn't reason his way out of a paper bag. Since "reason" is defined as a "to think; to think logically", how could he have "insight (defined as “wisdom and understanding in dealing with people or with facts) ?

Love,

Tom

[ January 08, 2002: Message edited by: Tom in KC ]

-DM-

January 8, 2002, 12:06 PM

Tom:

In my dictionaries, "insight" is defined as follows:

[quote]American Heritage
insight
1 the power or act of seeing into a situation : penetration
2 the act or result of apprehending the inner nature of things or of seeing intuitively<hr></blockquote>

Neither of the two definitions of insight say anything necessarily about the ability to reason correctly; intuition is something of an opposite to logic and reason.

---------

The front cover of my copy of C. S. Lewis' The Case for Christianity asserts that C. S. Lewis is "the master apologist." I disagree. He is an amateur; I have read much, much better. In my opinion, he is confused as to the difference between belief and fact, he demonstrates repeatedly that he does not understand the most basic reasoning errors (or chooses to ignore them).

In my pre-computer days, I wrote a critique of The Case for Christianity. I will dig it out and if I can get it scanned and successfully converted to text, I will post it so that you and others can get a better idea of why it is that I think so poorly of Lewis' reasoning abilities. In the meantime, here are a few examples of Lewis-think:

[quote]C. S. Lewis
Being a Christian does mean thinking that, where Christianity
differs from other religions, Christianity is right and they are
wrong. Like arithmetic--there's only one right answer to a sum.

Very well then, atheism is too simple.... It is not good asking for a simple religion. After all, real things aren't simple.

Reality, in fact, is always something you couldn't have guessed. That's one of the reasons I believe Christianity. It's a religion you couldn't have guessed.

.... wickedness, when you examine it, turns out to be the pursuit of some good in a wrong way. You can be good for the mere sake of goodness: you can't be bad for the mere sake of badness. ... To be bad, he must exist and have intelligence and will. But existence, intelligence, and will are in themselves good.

But there's a difficulty about disagreeing with God. He is the source from which all of your reasoning power comes: you couldn't be right and He wrong any more than a stream can rise higher than its own source.<hr></blockquote>

--Don--

HelenM

January 8, 2002, 02:18 PM

[quote]Originally posted by Donald Morgan:
In my pre-computer days, I wrote a critique of The Case for Christianity. I will dig it out and if I can get it scanned and successfully converted to text, I will post it so that you and others can get a better idea of why it is that I think so poorly of Lewis' reasoning abilities. <hr></blockquote>

I would be interested to read it if you have the time to do that, Don.

Until then I'll keep reading A New Christianity for a New World (John Shelby Spong). There's another person who's invented his own religion and is trying to call it 'Christianity', Don. But maybe you knew that already :) . At least in reading it I know I'm not the only one...

love
Helen

doc58

January 8, 2002, 05:43 PM

Tom in KC,
Thanks for yout thoughtful reply to my post.
I will limit this post to one issue because I see it as so critical. This is a response to your interest in my telling you of part of the Bible that could not have been written or inspired by an omnipotent God. The reason this one jumps out at me is because I am a physician, although not an OB-Gyn.

First read the following Scripture,
Deut 22-
13
If a man takes a wife and, after lying with her, dislikes her
14
and slanders her and gives her a bad name, saying, "I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity,"
15
then the girl's father and mother shall bring proof that she was a virgin to the town elders at the gate.
16
The girl's father will say to the elders, "I gave my daughter in marriage to this man, but he dislikes her.
17
Now he has slandered her and said, `I did not find your daughter to be a virgin.' But here is the proof of my daughter's virginity." Then her parents shall display the cloth before the elders of the town,
18
and the elders shall take the man and punish him.
19
They shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver and give them to the girl's father, because this man has given an Israelite virgin a bad name. She shall continue to be his wife; he must not divorce her as long as he lives.
20
If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the girl's virginity can be found,
21
she shall be brought to the door of her father's house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done a disgraceful thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father's house. You must purge the evil from among you.

The issue is proof of virginity. The penalty for lack of proof is death.
There is NO reliable proof of virginity and an omnipotent God would know this.
When they talk about proof of virginity, they are talking about a bloody sheet due to hymenal tear at the first act of intercourse. We now know that this is wrong. Not all women bleed at their first intercourse. Some women bleed the first several times. Some women have very little hymen or absence of the hymen. This was a middle east superstition that I have heard continues today.
I would suppose that some women were killed because of this law. Again, an all-knowing God would never have put this law into His rules for society.

There are other similar scriptures but I will limit to just one right now so you can think about it and post a response.

[ January 08, 2002: Message edited by: doc58 ]

-DM-

January 8, 2002, 06:32 PM

[quote]Originally posted by doc58:
...There is NO reliable proof of virginity and an omnipotent God would know this. ....<hr></blockquote>

An omnipotent god would not necessarily know this. An omniscient god would necessarily know this, of course.

A perfect, omniscient, omnipotent god would necessarily do a better job of it.

--Don--

-DM-

January 8, 2002, 06:34 PM

[quote]Originally posted by HelenSL:
I would be interested to read it if you have the time to do that, Don.<hr></blockquote>

I will have time; the question is when. In the meantime, just the few quotes that I provided should demonstrate that Lewis is a lightweight in the reasoning department.

--Don--

doc58

January 9, 2002, 05:28 AM

Don,
Thanks for the correction. I got my "omni's" mixed up!
I guess I made a scribal error which of course shows I am not God as I surely would only allow perfect transmission if I was God...........

HelenM

January 9, 2002, 07:07 AM

[quote]Originally posted by doc58:
Don,
Thanks for the correction. I got my "omni's" mixed up!
I guess I made a scribal error which of course shows I am not God as I surely would only allow perfect transmission if I was God...........<hr></blockquote>

Actually that was in last Sunday's sermon :D . I suppose I had better not quote it for copyright reasons. There was a comparison between our words and God's words as in God's Word, the Bible.

Also

[quote]And the words of the LORD are flawless,
like silver refined in a furnace of clay, purified seven times.

Psalm 12:6<hr></blockquote>

If it says it is, it must be, right? ;)

(Seriously though, we ought to at least consider first-hand testimony, oughtn't we? Along with other evidence? I think that's only fair. I'm not saying it overrules other evidence necessarily but it ought to be considered, imo.)

love
Helen

-DM-

January 11, 2002, 05:32 AM

[quote]Originally posted by HelenSL:

... (Seriously though, we ought to at least consider first-hand testimony, oughtn't we?....<hr></blockquote>

WHAT first-hand testimony did you have in mind?

--Don--

-DM-

January 16, 2002, 01:26 PM

Helen:

I'm still interested in WHAT first-hand testimony you had in mind?

--Don--

-DM-

January 17, 2002, 10:56 AM

Helen:

Are you there?

--Don--

HelenM

January 17, 2002, 11:16 AM

Oh, sorry Don! I hadn't been back to this thread for a bit.

Um...I think I am unable to clarify what I meant at this time in any way that would turn it into a meaningful point. Sorry for such a useless response after unintentionally keeping you hanging :o

If I have further thoughts on what I might have meant I will post them in a more lucid manner.

love
Helen

scigirl

January 20, 2002, 12:28 AM

Tom in KC,

I read "The Case for Christ" where I found the following interesting tidbit. According to Mr. Strobel, the early church had several documents that described the life of Jesus. However, several of them were contradictory to the idea that Jesus was the perfect son of God. For instance, one of them talked about Jesus being married.

So guess what the Church did--they threw them out because they didn't fit with their idea of Jesus. How convenient. Les handwaves and says something like, "Well, the early church just knew in their hearts who Jesus was, so they assumed the contradictory gospels were false."

I draw a different conclusion. We know that the early church had some greed issues, and we know that they did try to falsify some artifacts in order to obtain more followers (ie more money).
Example from our library <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/marshall_gauvin/did_jesus_really_live.html" target="_blank">here:</a>
[quote]There were many Gospels in circulation in the early centuries, and a large number of them were forgeries. Among these were the "Gospel of Paul," the Gospel of Bartholomew," the "Gospel of Judas Iscariot," the "Gospel of the Egyptians," the "Gospel or Recollections of Peter," the "Oracles or Sayings of Christ," and scores of other pious productions, a collection of which may still be read in "The Apocryphal New Testament." Obscure men wrote Gospels and attached the names of prominent Christian characters to them, to give them the appearance of importance. Works were forged in the names of the apostles, and even in the name of Christ. The greatest Christian teachers taught that it was a virtue to deceive and lie for the glory of the faith. Dean Milman, the standard Christian historian, says: "Pious fraud was admitted and avowed." The Rev. Dr. Giles writes: "There can be no doubt that great numbers of books were then written with no other view than to deceive." Professor Robertson Smith says: "There was an enormous floating mass of spurious literature created to suit party views." The early church was flooded with spurious religious writings. From this mass of literature, our Gospels were selected by priests and called the inspired word of God. Were these Gospels also forged? There is no certainty that they were not. But let me ask: If Christ was an historical character, why was it necessary to forge documents to prove his existence? Did anybody ever think of forging documents to prove the existence of any person who was really known to have lived? The early Christian forgeries are a tremendous testimony to the weakness of the Christian cause. <hr></blockquote>

Strobel also uses faulty logic: Any similarities between the Gospels prove that they are true. Any differences between the Gospels equally prove they are true, because if they were exactly the same they would seem contrived. So he starts with an original premise (the Gospels are all true) and uses one or the other argument to show how every piece of evidence proves the gospels.

These examples alone makes me think the entire NT should be excluded as evidence. And therefore, case dismissed.

scigirl

HelenM

January 20, 2002, 03:39 AM

[quote]Originally posted by scigirl:
Strobel also uses faulty logic: Any similarities between the Gospels prove that they are true. Any differences between the Gospels equally prove they are true, because if they were exactly the same they would seem contrived. <hr></blockquote>

Convenient, huh? :rolleyes:

love
Helen

-DM-

August 25, 2003, 05:39 PM

Originally posted by Donald Morgan:
In my pre-computer days, I wrote a critique of The Case for Christianity. I will dig it out and if I can get it scanned and successfully converted to text, I will post it so that you and others can get a better idea of why it is that I think so poorly of Lewis' reasoning abilities.

Originally posted by HelenM:
I would be interested to read it if you have the time to do that, Don.

Until then I'll keep reading A New Christianity for a New World (John Shelby Spong). There's another person who's invented his own religion and is trying to call it 'Christianity', Don. But maybe you knew that already :) . At least in reading it I know I'm not the only one...

love
Helen It sounds quite lame when someone says that they are going to post something, and they never do. Well, I finally found my "critique" of C. S. Lewis' Mere Christianity (notes, really, which I compiled for my own use back years ago when I reread Mere Christianity--this time as a non-Christian) and I have finally made that post. The post is on the fourth page of the Mere-Christianity - Overview Please? (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=59858&perpage=25&pagenumber=4) thread in this same forum.

-Don-

HumanisTim

August 27, 2003, 12:28 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by
[B]I found Paul Doland's critique of Case for Faith thought provoking. Though I'm a Christian, I would agree that Strobel shows his bias in easily accepting answers from the theology experts that he interviews. Stobel's book does not prove Christianity to be true, a goal that is literally unattainable. As strongly as I believe, I still acknowledge that my trust in Christ and His teaching IS faith - something that can't be definitively proven.

My challenge to Doland and others reading this post is this: read the Bible – especially Christ’s teachings in the Gospels - with an open heart and open mind. Attempt to keep whatever biases you may have out of the process. Then, decide in your heart and head what to do about Jesus. I would challenge that the position that Christ was only a man but a great teacher – the position that many agnostics and followers of others religions take – as untenable, and a copout. He is either who He says He is, or He is the greatest schizophrenic megalomaniac of all time. Decide if His teachings are inspired or insane. Decide why even His foes at His time had no explanation for His Resurrection. Decide why many of His followers died rather than recanting their faith in Christ.

First of all we decide things with our minds. Our hearts are for pumping blood. not making choices. IMHO the lord liar or lunatic argument isn't valid. Somebody who suffers from mental illness can also be a good person. That argument shouldn't just apply to Jesus but his followers as well. If he existed whats to say he never claimed the things the bible says. His followers very well could have made up most of what he said and did.

The martydom argument doesn't work. We can see in modern times how many people are willing to die for a cause based on faith with out evidence. Look at cults who commit suicide or terrorists, who are willing to die.