Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Outreach
Outreach
Exploring Christianity
Evidence other than hearsay
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Ing Bee" data-source="post: 73477019" data-attributes="member: 408193"><p>Of course, just like I believe you are real and that the above statement represents another mind that I can interact with.</p><p></p><p>Another way to think about it would be, "Does the Person revealing himself in history seem to encourage relational response?" That is, I believe , the right sort of tack given that we can enter into relationship at our will, responding to another person's overtures, lightyears before we arrive at anything approaching certainty. The historical, textual, and archeological evidence are helpful but not necessary to begin relating mind to mind, will to will, emotion to emotion (i.e. interpersonally). to the Divine Person revealed in scripture. </p><p></p><p>Even setting aside the idea of inspiration, Hebrews 11:6 is just common sense:</p><p>Trusting response (faith) is the minimum requirement for any relationship since NO relationship is possible without 1) believing there is a particular someone you can know and 2) believing that if you begin to seek that relationship, it will be a fruitful endeavor.</p><p></p><p>In saying "assuming the biblical accounts are true" there are two ways to go:</p><p style="margin-left: 20px">1) Don't assume they are true until we have "enough" evidence of all the particulars contained therein, but that means we will rely on <strong>other assumptions</strong> (e.g. What we will accept as evidence, What other human authorities we will trust given our limitations of knowledge and access to evidence, etc.) </p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">2) Option two is to assume the accounts are true <u>insofar as they accurately present a divine person you can begin to interpersonally relate to.</u> This approach allows for a range of knowledge, certainty, and even skepticism while not preventing actual relational engagement.</p><p></p><p>My contention is that we need not treat the God revealed in the Bible as a passive concept that must first be proved and only then "believed in" like we believe in quantum mechanics as a model of reality. Intellectual assent isn't the same thing as interpersonal relationship. God has shared more personal information about himself in history (and recorded in the Bible) than I know about anyone on this Forum, and yet that doesn't prevent me from responding to what people say about themselves using written words, (just like the Bible). It is disingenuous to say that the Bible is not good enough since God is different than we are. He is revealed in personal, relational terms so that we can respond with interpersonal relationship.</p><p></p><p>Even assuming for a moment that all religious text are equally true, no other deity in all of recorded history:</p><ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Has always existed in a divine community of self-giving, other-benefitting love (agape 1 John 4:8)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Invites relationship</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Is characterized as THE faithful God, patient, forgiving, not wanting anyone to perish</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Allows "testing" to a degree</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Condescends to localize himself</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Opens up relationship to everyone</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Personally takes on the results of human evil in order to rescue human rebels</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Wants to involve all of humanity in the divine life</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Is characterized by persistent, other-benefiting love</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Connects himself to actual historical places, times, rulers, and events</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">and the list goes on.</li> </ol><p>There is simply no other God worth trying to get to know. It could all be false, but it seems a reasonable decision to make the attempt at relational interaction based on the personal self-disclosure provided, especially in the person of Jesus of Nazareth who actually existed in time and space. But delaying the relationship is iffy because we don't know when our clock will run out.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Ing Bee, post: 73477019, member: 408193"] Of course, just like I believe you are real and that the above statement represents another mind that I can interact with. Another way to think about it would be, "Does the Person revealing himself in history seem to encourage relational response?" That is, I believe , the right sort of tack given that we can enter into relationship at our will, responding to another person's overtures, lightyears before we arrive at anything approaching certainty. The historical, textual, and archeological evidence are helpful but not necessary to begin relating mind to mind, will to will, emotion to emotion (i.e. interpersonally). to the Divine Person revealed in scripture. Even setting aside the idea of inspiration, Hebrews 11:6 is just common sense: Trusting response (faith) is the minimum requirement for any relationship since NO relationship is possible without 1) believing there is a particular someone you can know and 2) believing that if you begin to seek that relationship, it will be a fruitful endeavor. In saying "assuming the biblical accounts are true" there are two ways to go: [INDENT]1) Don't assume they are true until we have "enough" evidence of all the particulars contained therein, but that means we will rely on [B]other assumptions[/B] (e.g. What we will accept as evidence, What other human authorities we will trust given our limitations of knowledge and access to evidence, etc.) 2) Option two is to assume the accounts are true [U]insofar as they accurately present a divine person you can begin to interpersonally relate to.[/U] This approach allows for a range of knowledge, certainty, and even skepticism while not preventing actual relational engagement.[/INDENT] My contention is that we need not treat the God revealed in the Bible as a passive concept that must first be proved and only then "believed in" like we believe in quantum mechanics as a model of reality. Intellectual assent isn't the same thing as interpersonal relationship. God has shared more personal information about himself in history (and recorded in the Bible) than I know about anyone on this Forum, and yet that doesn't prevent me from responding to what people say about themselves using written words, (just like the Bible). It is disingenuous to say that the Bible is not good enough since God is different than we are. He is revealed in personal, relational terms so that we can respond with interpersonal relationship. Even assuming for a moment that all religious text are equally true, no other deity in all of recorded history: [LIST=1] [*]Has always existed in a divine community of self-giving, other-benefitting love (agape 1 John 4:8) [*]Invites relationship [*]Is characterized as THE faithful God, patient, forgiving, not wanting anyone to perish [*]Allows "testing" to a degree [*]Condescends to localize himself [*]Opens up relationship to everyone [*]Personally takes on the results of human evil in order to rescue human rebels [*]Wants to involve all of humanity in the divine life [*]Is characterized by persistent, other-benefiting love [*]Connects himself to actual historical places, times, rulers, and events [*]and the list goes on. [/LIST] There is simply no other God worth trying to get to know. It could all be false, but it seems a reasonable decision to make the attempt at relational interaction based on the personal self-disclosure provided, especially in the person of Jesus of Nazareth who actually existed in time and space. But delaying the relationship is iffy because we don't know when our clock will run out. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Outreach
Outreach
Exploring Christianity
Evidence other than hearsay
Top
Bottom