Originally posted by twhitehead
And my point is that a theist faith is often at least partly based on some personal 'spiritual' experience they have had. The problem is that they take any such experience as evidence of far more than is actually justified by the experience.
For example suppose you feel the loving presence of someone near you. This is not evidence that it is the God of t It doesn't prove that what else he tells you about God or heaven or anything else is valid.
And my point is that a theist faith is often at least partly based on some personal 'spiritual' experience they have had.
In most of the Christians I know accepting
facts came before experience.
A seeking person accepted
facts first. He decided to accept some stated
fact of the word of God.
Faith was put into
fact or
promise of God's word. And it may have been only a
little bit of faith. Experience with feelings only followed the firt two matters.
Fact -> Faith -> then Feeling.
Promise + Faith in Promise led to Experience as Confirmation
I think that is more how our Christian life goes.
The problem is that they take any such experience as evidence of far more than is actually justified by the experience.
The normal Christian life is a daily experience of God.
It is even a moment by moment enjoyment of God.
It is by no means continuing to believe because of only
one powerful experience in the past.
As Paul, being a model for believers, said that he sought to forget the things which were behind and stretch forth to new experiences of Christ. In other words he did not like to linger in the past. There was too much riches of Christ to be experienced in the future.
For example suppose you feel the loving presence of someone near you. This is not evidence that it is the God of the Bible.
It may not be. But spiritual growth is like natural growth. The wise Father weans us gently off presumptions. He leads His cooperative and willing children into more substantial fellowship with God.
And eventually, as a airplane pilot has to learn to fly a plane with no visibility but perhaps only radar, so the Christian has to learn to walk not by feelings.
Yet a Christian will take it to be evidence of such and a Muslim may take it to be evidence of their religion etc.
I have yet to meet any Muslim who says that he knows God. If you know of one, invite him or her to come to this Forum and share.
More typically a Muslim will say that he knows:
1.) How to fast.
2.) How to give alms.
3.) How to prostrate himself to worship.
4.) How to abstain from alchohol.
5.) How to not eat pork.
6.) How to travel to Mecca
7.) How to pray 5 times a day.
The Muslim knows a lot about HOW TO DO religious things.
Rarely, have I heard one say that he knew God, communed with God, or had fellowship with God. That might even sound disrespectful to them.
But I am willing to hear such a testimony if you know of one.
What Muslim confessed definitely that he KNEW God Himself ?
(And the same could be said of at least some people of any religion, Christianity too)
It is rather too easy to see one man fly around the room and then conclude that the whole of starwars must be true - or whatever mythology that man tries to sell you.
Since I have become a believer it has been far more than just my individual witness. There is the collective witness. The corporate witness. That is people of all different walks of life who probably wouldn't even get along so well in themselves, who corporately are all experiencing the same Christ.
I can go all over this globe, call a brother in Christ, and
immediately there is a bond of commonality. We know that we are of the brotherhood. I know that the God I touch is the same God that he or she touches. It is something very deep.
Christians often cite Christ's miracles as evidence of his divinity or of the validity of his claims, yet this is not the case in the slightest. If Jesus feed five thousand with 2 fish, then all this proves is that he knew a way to feed five thousand with 2 fish. It doesn't prove that what else he tells you about God or heaven or anything else is valid.
I think you are making up Christians to be something and then leveling some criticisms.
I know of no Christian who accepts Christ's divinity based on that one incident alone. But if you want to talk about a miracle, I think the
resurrection is the one you should talk about.
That is the miracle that He announced beforehand a number of times. When He came through it, sure, we began to consider His claim of divinity as entirely plausible.
But saying, " Oh, Christians look at the feeding of 5,000, and it convinced them that Jesus was God in the flesh. " I think that is mostly your imagined Christians of your invention to suit your criticism.
Of course the accumalation of
many such "signs" was an contributing factor.
By the way,
John calls the miracluous events as
"signs" to indicate that Christ intended each of them to signify some more profound truth. They were not just "tricks" to show He could be supernatural. They were
"signs" usually with a more profound symbolic aspect to them.
Ie, The feeding of the multitude with what the disciples gathered up and distributed. I think this has something to do with the 12 disciples of Christ absolutely continueing to carry out what the Son of God did. This is the case.
We believe becausee of the apostles writing, preaching, ministering. And this obedient following of Jesus effectively was the work of Jesus Himself. He placed into thier hands. They enjoyed. And they miraculous distributed the very same thing by way of extension and continuation.
"Truly, truly, I say to you, He who believes into Me, the works which I do he shall do also; and greater than these he shall do because I am going to the Father." (John 14:12) 
23 Jun '12 16:08
Divine Evacuation Notices
Back to Top