Originally posted by vistesdI would agree that faith is not 100% blind, nor should be. I think that is why Christ continually pointed to the prophesies about him and why he continually referred to the Torah as the basis for his theology. In a way, it was his credentials. Combine this with the super natural activity he displayed such as healings and raising people from the dead etc and what you have are a great many reasons to place ones faith in him. Yet even with all this, however, he was eventually forsaken by all when he went to the cross.
However one acquires belief, it seems to me that some belief must precede faith: one cannot place trust in what one finds no reason to believe.
I do not see any epistemic warrant for admitting the supernatural category: that is, I don’t think that appeals to the supernatural have any explanatory value. Suppose one actually has an experience of th ...[text shortened]... the content of the experience can be decisive, or else nobody would ever be fooled by a mirage.[/b]
As for myself, I view the Bible as a credible source of information. Historically the Bible has been shown to be grounded in truth as well as it moral teachings. I also study prophesy the accuracy of it is rather impressive from my vantage point. In addition, when I read the teachings of Christ there is within me a sense of truth that is undeniable. If you add to that the personal testimony of Christians going back to the disciples you have a great many reasons to place your faith in Christ. I have seen lives changed and even known people personally who seem to have been healed from physical problems after being prayed over. One such person had full blown MS. That was over 10 years ago. They went from not being able to get out of bed to having zero symptoms.
- Joined
- 07 Jan 08
- Moves
- 34575
Originally posted by whodey... I think that is why Christ continually pointed to the prophesies about him...
... I think that is why Christ continually pointed to the prophesies about him...
...why he continually referred to the Torah as the basis for his theology...
...Combine this with the super natural activity he displayed... and what you have are a great many reasons to place ones faith in him.....
Jesus of Nazareth did not continually point to prophesies about him; that was largely attached to him by others. Moreover, the prophesies attached to him are quite general in nature and there are a good many discrepencies, as No1 has listed.
...why he continually referred to the Torah as the basis for his theology...
Duh. He's a rabbi, why would he not use the Torah as the basis for his theology? At the same time he took a great many liberties with it.
...Combine this with the super natural activity he displayed... and what you have are a great many reasons to place ones faith in him.....
This is far from a compelling reason. In fact, if 'reason' is to enter the picture, then his supernatural activities must be held in suspicion. I am not convinced by the witness of other persons; for example, in every news story that I've had first hand knowledge of, there has been inaccuracies somewhere in the newspaper account. Every time. 100%. I take that into account in reading witness accounts of others.
Originally posted by vistesdWhat if what Jaywill—or anybody else—believes about the bible is wrong?
Jaywill wrote the following in another thread, and it triggered a line of questioning that I have been considering:
Jaywill: “If some impressionable mind is caused to disbelieve in Christ and thus perish because I taught them to disbelieve the Bible, their blood could be my head.”
Now, the question is this (and this could be applied to some other reli ...[text shortened]... _____________
Well, that ought to be a sufficient range of questions to fuel some discussion.
This is precisely why orthodoxy is so important. A person ought to know exactly what the Bible says in order to either accept or reject it on adequate grounds. Conrau will probably chide me for using his favorite word, but in this instance tradition is essential to the preservation of orthodox Christian belief. The established and accepted faith is probably boring compared to the excitement certain heretical notions instill, but boring is the price one pays for assurance.
I've noticed that orthodoxy is also desirable for atheists, as it sets a definite line of demarcation between him and the believer, making discussion about and criticism of Christian beliefs possible. There has been a number of occasions in these forums where I've witnessed an atheist successfully challenge the heretical theology of a self-proclaimed follower of Christ using standard Christian orthodoxy, for instance. There's nothing an atheist seems to despise more than a squirrelly Christian who can't get his beliefs straight or express them plainly enough. Orthodoxy is everybody's friend.
If the reasons that a person is exposed to, for example, are so irrational that no reasonable person could accept them, who is it that bears whatever condemnation results from disbelief?
What is irrational about a God who loves the people He created? Nothing as far as I can tell. Christian beliefs are coherent and reasonable, enough so that children are more than capable of understanding them; e.g., "there is an all-powerful, all-knowing, wholly good person (a person without a body) who created us and our world, who loves us and was willing to send his son into the world to undergo suffering, humiliation, and death in order to redeem us" (Plantinga).
Disbelief will arise due to other factors rather than what we can know about Christian doctrine. Miracles are the more likely culprit; and according to the Bible, this is as it should be, since Christ's miracles testify to His divinity and qualify His teachings.
Would God want anyone—at least anyone who has reached the “age of reason”—to accept him without, or in spite of, good reason?
The only acceptable reason to believe in Jesus Christ is because of God's own trustworthiness. Any other reason for believing in Jesus Christ is fruitless. Therefore, it doesn't matter on what rational grounds a person rejects the Savior of mankind.
Originally posted by BadwaterIf I were to ask Jesus "Why?" and He answered "Because I said it is so.", that would be a sufficient answer.
If we are to come to Jesus as a child, then 'why' would be the first thing off our lips, same as a child. 😉
"Why" is absolutely essential in any spirituality. If anyone cannot answer the 'why' of a given spiritual belief or practice then they are not going to engage in that spiritual belief or practice. The reasoning of others will not matter if one cannot find their own reasoning.
Originally posted by epiphinehasKnowing exactly what the bible says does not mean that what the bible says is true. The type of debate we typically see here involves skeptics who challenge the bible from a variety of external sources, and theists who respond ineffectually because they're only trained to argue within the narrow confines of the bible. Anyone who has watched Fiddler On The Roof can see that tradition has its merits. It's also plain that tradition must be flexible. An orthodox tradition that cannot adapt gets left aside. The problem is that when you believe you have arrived at the absolute truth then no positive change is possible. You're forever locked into defending positions that are increasingly untenable. Orthodoxy will be the death of Christianity, not its savior.
[b]What if what Jaywill—or anybody else—believes about the bible is wrong?
This is precisely why orthodoxy is so important. A person ought to know exactly what the Bible says in order to either accept or reject it on adequate grounds. Conrau will probably chide me for using his favorite word, but in this instance tradition is essen ...[text shortened]... re, it doesn't matter on what rational grounds a person rejects the Savior of mankind.[/b]
I don't know where you get the idea that orthodoxy is desirable for atheists. I, myself, have made several threads promoting the decidedly unorthodox positions of Bishop Spong and others.
There is nothing irrational about a god who loves his people (if we accept the concept of gods in the first place), but it is irrational to postulate a god who allegedly loves his people, but who then drowns them all in a great flood. Even children are capable of seeing the inherent contradiction there. Such actions are simply not compatible with a being who is supposedly "wholly good."
"What if what Jaywill—or anybody else—believes about the bible is wrong? Does God just want people to believe Jaywill (or whoever)?"
Everybody, believes something, about what the Bible teaches, that is wrong.
Understanding the truth about what the Bible teaches is acquired by the application of its' principles and precepts on the inner man.
God wants us to believe Him and no one else.
"What exactly is an “unimpressionable mind”? A mind that is not impressed by reason or experience? Do evangelists try to impress impressionable minds or unimpressionable minds?"
Imo, an "unimpressionable" mind, is one that makes decisions based on reason and experience. I believe that only someone interested in self aggrandizement would pursue the impressionable.
"If the reasons that a person is exposed to, for example, are so irrational that no reasonable person could accept them, who is it that bears whatever condemnation results from disbelief? Suppose that person’s reasoning capability is such that she could not honestly accept the reasons given, even if someone else might? Does God take such things into account?"
If I understand what you mean, God will judge each individuals motive, and whether that person responded in "faith" based on the knowledge of the truth that person possesses.
"If a person has been so conditioned, enculturated and, essentially, programmed from youth to believe—so that, even if occasionally questioned, such belief is as reinforced akin to a post-hypnotic suggestion—is such a belief as efficacious for salvation as one arrived at freely through reason and experience?"
Aren't we all programed and conditioned to one degree or another? We spend or lives doing just that.
But there are millions, billions of human beings that are unaware of their own conditioning. Such people are subject to false belief because they are unable or unwilling to examine the facts of their existence, and how and why they think and believe the way they do.
The last part of your question is, I think, the point. We must all arrive at a decision based on reason. I can only speculate as to how God will judge those who "believe" without reason. I'm just glad it's not up to me.
"Many parents seem dedicated to inculcating belief in their children as strongly as possible, lest those children one day lose their belief. How does something like that jibe with claims that God wants people to freely choose him?"
There is a verse that say that if we train up a child in the way he should go, when they are old they will not depart from it.
I believe that is true, but what if one trains up their child in error?
Free choice is only free when one chooses truth. Choosing in error is slavery.
"Would God accept someone who actually has been hypnotized to believe in him (and accept Christ as “lord and savior” ), while rejecting someone who did not believe on rational grounds?"
Hypnosis acts upon the susceptibility of the mind. Choosing Christ as Lord and saviour is an act of the will based on rational thought. God makes no mistakes. He knows who is true or false.
"Would God want anyone—at least anyone who has reached the “age of reason”—to accept him without, or in spite of, good reason?"
Good reason? The reason for "accepting/recieving/believing/trusting" Christ in the first place is because reason tells us that we are sinners.
"Many Christians on here seem to take the view that “if you don’t believe, then you’re not saved”—with absolutely no regard for the reasons or nature of a conclusion to disbelief. Does that mean that the nature and reasons for their belief is irrelevant as well?"
Not true! Apples and oranges. We Christians believe what the Bible very clearly teaches about the eternal destiny of believers and unbelievers alike.
The core reason for unbelief is centered in the "self". The Bible, and reason, tells us that we are flawed, and why. The cure is Christ.
If by "reasons or nature of a conclusion to disbelief" you mean by some external evidence, then you are on shaky ground. That debate will never end.
It's simple, the Bible teaches that it is "reasonable" to conclude that we are lost in sin, and that we need a saviour. It is "reasonable" to note, that after all evidence has been exhuasted, that Christ is our only hope.
"Can there be any “bad” (unjustified) reasons for believing? Can there be any “good” (justified) reasons for disbelieving? Does God care? Does God prefer an ill-informed believing to a well-informed disbelieving? Does God prefer a dishonest, deluded or self-deceptive believing to an honest disbelieving?"
Is there really any such thing as "bad" reasoning?
It seems to me that bad reasoning leads to wrong conclusions.
On the human level we are flawed. As a result we reason poorly. That it why we need to acknowledge the truth.
"If someone makes a claim about God (or Jesus, or the Bible) that seems to some of us unreasonable, does God not want such claims to be challenged?"
Yes and no.
If you know the truth about something, do you challenge that truth?
On the other hand, if you are not sure about something, then by all means keep questioning it untill you know the truth.
God is not unreasonable. He knows the heart of man. But He wants ALL of you. Your mind, heart, and soul.
I think this is the issue at the core of the whole matter. The self rejects the idea of complete surrender because we fear loosing our autonmy. The irony is that it is in the giving up of the self to God through His son that one gains the only freedon there really is.
It is my personal conclusion that Christ is the only reasonable way.
Originally posted by vistesdBy a QBLH view, the "Child" is the symbol of the sixth sephira;
[b]If we are to come to Jesus as a child, then 'why' would be the first thing off our lips, same as a child.
Despite the wink, I think this is a valid point. When people talk of the faith of a child, that could mean childlike acceptance, childlike gullibility, or childlike questioning and ongoing exploration—depending, perhaps on the age of the child ...[text shortened]... inquiry be considered unfaithful by anyone?
As for your other comments, I of course agree.[/b]
when you see the tree the "Child" stands between hesed and gevourah, whilst with your back towards it, it balances between qeter and yesoud; in addition the "Child" is the synthesis of hod and netzah
we should not assume that the "Child" itself is solely a unique agent, but rather a point from which you may go further and/ or change your personal nature; Tipharet is the place at which the spirit takes his material form (body), and this is the reason why it is called "Child"
This "flesh" form of the "god" is related with the sacred death of the "god in flesh", and this is the reason why "god the father" is attributed to qeter whilst "god the son" is attributed to Tipharet; and Tipharet is the point at which "god" gets his form and decends into the Human ("it desends into the area of the consiouness of the Human"😉
If we want to stabilize this "form" inside us, the forces that they caused its birth must come into a balance; for the student of QBLH, this is the point from which the idea of the "Savior" evolves, the idea that springs from the sixth sephira.
Due to the fact that, when the ultimate existence gets a "form", this form must be perfectly balanced, the student assumes that the ultimate existence can decend into him solely when he becomes a child
It seems to this miserable atheist that these are the children to which Jesus addressed so often
and these children they remain children thanks to their ever "questioning this and that" nature
😵
Originally posted by BadwaterOf course, you can argue that what the gospels say Christ said he never said, however, this is pure conjecture. What is evident from the gospels, however, is that Christ points to prophesies about him which I would be more than happy to share with you if you dispute this fact. In addition, I don't see anywhere on this thread where No1 disputes the prophesies about Christ, however, I am sure he points to prophesies not yet fulfilled. Of course, there are more to fulfill because they are not all fulfilled as of yet. People often point this out on the assumption that when the Messiah came he would finish the prophesies minus a second coming.
Jesus of Nazareth did not continually point to prophesies about him; that was largely attached to him by others. Moreover, the prophesies attached to him are quite general in nature and there are a good many discrepencies, as No1 has listed.
As for prophesies that point to him, the most amazing to me is Daniel 9:24-27. It is nothing more than a calendar for the coming of the Messiah that points to the time that Christ walked the earth.
Originally posted by rwingettWhat about a God who is confronted with people so wicked that if left to their own devices would destroy themselves and others around them eventually?
There is nothing irrational about a god who loves his people (if we accept the concept of gods in the first place), but it is irrational to postulate a god who allegedly loves his people, but who then drowns them all in a great flood. Even children are capable of seeing the inherent contradiction there. Such actions are simply not compatible with a being who is supposedly "wholly good."[/b]
Love is a double edged sword. On the one hand, you must allow for free will in order for one to be able to love you back. If there is no free will there is no allowance for a mutually loving relationship. However, if this free will is then used to inflict harm on the rest of creation, at what point do you stop the free will of someone in order to preserve the free will of another? It is a balancing act to say the least. It is all fine and dandy to sit back and judge the actions of another, but if you were God how would you set things up? Would you allow free will that defies your own? Assuming you did, they would inevitably cross you and mess things up for you. So if they did, at what point would their meddling be intolerable if at all and what would you do about it?
- Joined
- 07 Jan 08
- Moves
- 34575
Originally posted by PinkFloydNo, it wouldn't. It didn't work with my dad and it won't work with me.
If I were to ask Jesus "Why?" and He answered "Because I said it is so.", that would be a sufficient answer.
Besides, Jesus was very good at explaining why; otherwise, you wouldn't have parables.
- Joined
- 07 Jan 08
- Moves
- 34575
Originally posted by whodeyBla bla bla. You're not keeping up. 😛
Of course, you can argue that what the gospels say Christ said he never said, however, this is pure conjecture. What is evident from the gospels, however, is that Christ points to prophesies about him which I would be more than happy to share with you if you dispute this fact. In addition, I don't see anywhere on this thread where No1 disputes the prophesie ...[text shortened]... a calendar for the coming of the Messiah that points to the time that Christ walked the earth.
Originally posted by whodeyGive it a rest. You can try all you want to convince people that genocide equals love, but most ain't buyin' it. I'm not going to waste my time rehashing all the arguments about the 'problem of evil' again.
What about a God who is confronted with people so wicked that if left to their own devices would destroy themselves and others around them eventually?
Love is a double edged sword. On the one hand, you must allow for free will in order for one to be able to love you back. If there is no free will there is no allowance for a mutually loving relationship. ...[text shortened]... did, at what point would their meddling be intolerable if at all and what would you do about it?
If I were god I would set things up so I didn't need to destroy everything and start all over again. I think that as a god I would be expected to create things right the first time.
Originally posted by rwingettYou're forever locked into defending positions that are increasingly untenable. Orthodoxy will be the death of Christianity, not its savior.
Knowing exactly what the bible says does not mean that what the bible says is true. The type of debate we typically see here involves skeptics who challenge the bible from a variety of external sources, and theists who respond ineffectually because they're only trained to argue within the narrow confines of the bible. Anyone who has watched Fiddler On The R here. Such actions are simply not compatible with a being who is supposedly "wholly good."
Christianity already has its Savior, of course, and the orthodox belief about that Savior is of paramount importance to the well-being of countless individuals. For instance, the divinity of Christ was already orthodoxy by the time Paul wrote his letters (which predate even Mathew, Mark, Luke and John). Paul confirmed his message with the apostles and labored with them to help the early church flourish. We discover no opposition to the orthodoxy of their message among the first Christians, those who met Jesus, witnessed His miracles, and heard the content of his message about Himself firsthand.
Whether or not one deems Christ's divinity untenable in this day and age is irrelevant; the fact remains that this is what the early church believed about Jesus of Nazareth and you depart from anything recognizably "Christian" by contradicting those beliefs. You and Spong are more than welcome to do so, but the end result cannot be said to be the future of Christianity.
Originally posted by epiphinehasThat is simply not true. Belief in the divinity of Jesus is a later development. I think the very first Christians either did not believe in his divinity at all, or they had an adoptionist Christology. But that was not really my main thrust there. While the whole Christ mythology is certainly a big impediment for many people, there are certainly others. By clinging so tightly to your orthodoxy you are painting yourself into a smaller and smaller corner. You are erecting higher and higher barriers between your narrow understanding of Jesus and everyone else. Jesus wasn't about building barriers. He was about knocking barriers down and opening things up to everyone. He didn't speak in black and white absolutes. He spoke in parables which had a wide room for interpretation. For you to say that your understanding and your orthodoxy is the right way to worship, I think, is absurd. By building up your mythology and your exclusive orthodoxy, you are making Christianity an either/or choice. And frankly, there are are a lot of people who, because they can no longer buy into that orthodoxy, are driven away from Jesus altogether.
[b]You're forever locked into defending positions that are increasingly untenable. Orthodoxy will be the death of Christianity, not its savior.
Christianity already has its Savior, of course, and the orthodox belief about that Savior is of paramount importance to the well-being of countless individuals. For instance, the divinity of Christ was al ...[text shortened]... e than welcome to do so, but the end result cannot be said to be the future of Christianity.[/b]