Intellectual Honesty?

[cvanwey]

What do you not agree with?
When a man is properly the head of the household, things seem to run smoother.

You would make a perfect 1950's wife

 

[cvanwey]

I dont follow Paul, I follow Jesus only as Jesus never wrote anything, He spoke the words of God and they where recorded.

Then what would be the point in reading the Bible?

 

[cvanwey]

Is the Bible written from society's perspective or is it the Word of God, applicable at all times, in all societies, and in every situation?

We can either take a humanistic approach and pick and choose what to believe and what to reject, or we can BELIEVE that the wisdom of God has also been applied to the teachings of the New Testament.

God has ordained different roles for men and women in the local church and in the home ever since the Church was established. It is the Christian's duty to faithfully obey God's commands and directives, and not to imagine that he or she is wiser than the Almighty.

If belief is your meter stick for truth, but many people believe many false things, how did you determine the Bible presents truth?

Since human experience, reason, logic, evidence, and faith are all considered flawed, by what standard did you conclude the Bible is correct?

 

[Danielwright2311]

Then what would be the point in reading the Bible?

for Jesus, to know him.

 

[Micah888]

Since human experience, reason, logic, evidence, and faith are all considered flawed, by what standard did you conclude the Bible is correct?

What one has to do in order to establish that the Bible is correct is to firstly OBEY THE GOSPEL.

Which means that one has to totally set aside "human experience, reason, logic, evidence" and come to God as a little child with full trust and confidence in what God has said about the Lord Jesus Christ and what He has accomplished for mankind.

Only after that will God open your eyes to the truth.

 

[cvanwey]

What one has to do in order to establish that the Bible is correct is to firstly OBEY THE GOSPEL.

Which means that one has to totally set aside "human experience, reason, logic, evidence" and come to God as a little child with full trust and confidence in what God has said about the Lord Jesus Christ and what He has accomplished for mankind.

Only after that will God open your eyes to the truth.

I can see this is never going to end very quickly. But I feel I must still probe...

If full trust is identified as flawed, as it represents a firm belief in reality, which Christians also acknowledge as flawed and unreliable, by what absolute standard is one then left with?

How would this above method differ from reading any alternative asserted religious text?

 

[cvanwey]

for Jesus, to know him.

If I only have my brain to determine reality, and all response to human experience can be acknowledged as faulty, by what extra mechanism is used to determine Jesus is speaking to me? Furthermore, how am I to 'know' this message is from Jesus, and not thoughts from my own faulty reasoning, or even from another entity, or even Satan?

 

[Danielwright2311]

If I only have my brain to determine reality, and all response to human experience can be acknowledged as faulty, by what extra mechanism is used to determine Jesus is speaking to me? Furthermore, how am I to 'know' this message is from Jesus, and not thoughts from my own faulty reasoning, or even from another entity, or even Satan?

You know because God tells you its him, you know because there is no way the miracles that happen can be from Satan or anything else.

When things in your life change and or you know things you never learned or you can do things you never learned, that is God.

Like when all my dreams rush to my remembrance, all at the same time, and I remember I dreamed them all, all at one moment, hundreds of dreams, but then the next moment, I forget them.

God said he is the reveler of dreams, then God talks to you and reviles things to you never knew.

That's not all, but that is just one good example of what I have been through many times.

When a miracle like that happens and you know its scriptural then you know you are talking to God.

Plus God never lies to you or leads you to sin or destruction, the devil does.

God bless you.

 

[Radagast]

Sorry, I tried. But I do not appear to have access to post there :-/

That's because you haven't agreed to abide by the terms and conditions for that subforum.

 

[GodsGrace101]

You would make a perfect 1950's wife

Hey, don't go too far back!!

 

[GodsGrace101]

I can see this is never going to end very quickly. But I feel I must still probe...

If full trust is identified as flawed, as it represents a firm belief in reality, which Christians also acknowledge as flawed and unreliable, by what absolute standard is one then left with?

How would this above method differ from reading any alternative asserted religious text?

Any religious text is valid to get to God.
Those born in Asia believe in Buddha, or Confusius or Krishna.
I like the writings of Krishna, they're very beautiful.

God desires to make Himself known to man - He does this by revealing Himself.

What makes Christianity different is that it's the only religion that claims its man of light died and then came back to life.
Are we to believe this?

We can throw the entire New Testament out if we wish not to believe it. Or we could trust those who tell of the story of this man, Jesus. That would be the Apostles. They lived with Jesus for over 3 years and knew Him and His teachings very well. They do seem to be very reliable persons...they all died for their belief in Jesus as God incarnate. Why would they die for a lie? If their story is a lie, it is the biggest lie in history and the biggest hoax in history. I can think of no other.

As far as absolute truth --- man does not possess absolute truth. In fact, we're in the era of relative truth, relative morality. The situation makes the rule for ME. Situatinal ethics.

Only God can have the authority of absolute truth--otherwise it will not work. It has to come from an entity far above us and we must respect that entity for AM and AT to work.

If you notice, even atheists believe in the Natural Law.
Even they believe murder is wrong. Why? Where did they get the idea that it's wrong?

 

[cvanwey]

They do seem to be very reliable persons...they all died for their belief in Jesus as God incarnate. Why would they die for a lie?

Even if everything you stated is true, if martyrdom verifies truth, then radical Muslims are the clear winners. Many die for 'beliefs'. However, this does not mean it's 'true.' It only means they believed. Most non-believers do not claim the believers were lying.

As far as absolute truth --- man does not possess absolute truth. In fact, we're in the era of relative truth, relative morality. The situation makes the rule for ME. Situatinal ethics.

I will pose the question again. If no truth can be established by humans, and our brains, by what mechanism do you then use to establish that the Bible presents the truth?

Only God can have the authority of absolute truth--otherwise it will not work. It has to come from an entity far above us and we must respect that entity for AM and AT to work.

So when a Muslim is in their Mosque praying, and states they are receiving responses from Allah/God, how do we know their claims are false, but the Christian's are all true? Do Christians possess some extra special external proxy mechanism, which no one else knows how to use or have besides the Christians?

If you notice, even atheists believe in the Natural Law.
Even they believe murder is wrong. Why? Where did they get the idea that it's wrong?

Consequences, empathy, sense of community, cooperation, culture, upbringing, homeostasis, and fear of loneliness, all which are actually demonstrably proven to exist (unless we live in the Matrix or some other philosophical habit trail).

For example, it 'might' be 'rational' to conclude that the consequence of raping someone's else's wife may ultimately cause the retaliation of vengeance, leading to the rapist later being murdered by the victim's husband. However, it's purely subjective, in the sense that both the rapist, or the perspective murderer think they are right in doing so. All thoughts, pertaining to applied behaviors, are subjective.

Simple awareness of consequences refrains many from rape or murder. In a sense, this is one minor facet, in the argument of how 'morals' are 'regulated'. Though, it is not a perfect system. But as stated above, many mechanisms contribute accordingly...

 

[cvanwey]

That's because you haven't agreed to abide by the terms and conditions for that subforum.

dollar short and a day late now, huh?

 

[GodsGrace101]

Even if everything you stated is true, if martyrdom verifies truth, then radical Muslims are the clear winners. Many die for 'beliefs'. However, this does not mean it's 'true.' It only means they believed. Most non-believers do not claim the believers were lying.

Muslims are kind of brainwashed.
But they do die for their beliefs.
This is to speak nothing of the fact that they kill themselves, other innocents, including children. Any idiot understands these are satanic acts and not Godly in nature.

The Apostles didn't die for their beliefs, they stuck to their "story" because they saw a man die on a cross and then come back to life.

They were afraid after Jesus died. Only the Apostle John was at the foot of the cross, the other 10 were hiding, probably in Lazarus' house in Bethany. The next week they boldly went to Jerusalem proclaiming what they had seen.

What happened to cause this great change?

There was persecution in those days. Do you suppose they got together and planned to die a martyers death for some guy that was dead because of His beliefs?

I will pose the question again. If no truth can be established by humans, and our brains, by what mechanism do you then use to establish that the Bible presents the truth?

To me the bible represents the truth because I've read it and find that even though it was written over a period of about 1,500 to 2,000 years, it is cohesive and sounds like one continuous book. Also, the more that is found out about bible stories, the more historians and archeologists discover its stories to be true. For instance, no proof could be found that Jericho ever existed and it was questioned until archaeologists found remnants in the 1930's (I believe). Science believes in the Big Bang --- God said "Let there be light". I also don't quite understand how science could believe that this universe came from nothing. They used to think that it always existed; now they know it did NOT always exist -- so how did it come about? The best answer for me is that a superior being created it - this belief is helped along by the physical laws of the universe. As they say, a watch must have a watch-maker.

So when a Muslim is in their Mosque praying, and states they are receiving responses from Allah/God, how do we know their claims are false, but the Christian's are all true? Do Christians possess some extra special external proxy mechanism, which no one else knows how to use or have besides the Christians?

First of all Muslims believe more in Muhammad than Allah. They follow the laws of Muhammad, just as the pharisees followed their own rules in Jesus' time.

How do we know they're false? By what God says.
Does God say to kill?
Does God say to keep yourself apart from all others or to go out into the world and teach what He taught?
God does not go against Himself.
We are for Him or we are against Him.
A house divided will not stand.
These are biblical principles with verses, if you want them, I'll post them.

Consequences, empathy, sense of community, cooperation, culture, upbringing, homeostasis, and fear of loneliness, all which are actually demonstrably proven to exist (unless we live in the Matrix or some other philosophical habit trail).

For example, it 'might' be 'rational' to conclude that the consequence of raping someone's else's wife may ultimately cause the retaliation of vengeance, leading to the rapist later being murdered by the victim's husband. However, it's purely subjective, in the sense that both the rapist, or the perspective murderer think they are right in doing so. All thoughts, pertaining to applied behaviors, are subjective.

Simple awareness of consequences refrains many from rape or murder. In a sense, this is one minor facet, in the argument of how 'morals' are 'regulated'. Though, it is not a perfect system. But as stated above, many mechanisms contribute accordingly...

Sure. But where do the moral ideas come from?
Progression from the caveman days?
Trial and error?

When the O.T. was written, people were making human sacrifices. Yet the bible, written at that time, states that life is in the blood and it is not right to kill.

You know, it comes down to a simple understanding.
Here we are. Who made us? How could evolution have created us? We're so fine tuned. Just think of the eye.
So we're here. It does seem that something made us for whatever reason. We look around and we see good and we see evil. God and satan. They must surely exist. What to do?
Worship the right one. Make the right choice. Paschal's wager.
If I'm right, I'll be with God in heaven and not with satan.
If I'm wrong, it won't matter.

 

[cvanwey]

The Apostles didn't die for their beliefs, they stuck to their "story" because they saw a man die on a cross and then come back to life.

According to what source? Even inside the Bible itself mentions very little to support this vast assertion, and outside, even less:

How Did the Apostles Die?

'Jesus’ death on the cross, as described in the New Testament, has become one of the most famous events. But what happened to the 12 disciples who were his closest followers? Not as much information has survived about their fates, but here is what’s available from various sources, including the a) New Testament itself, b) apocryphal texts, c) early Christian historians, d) legends and lore.'

a) Bible
b) doubtful authenticity
c) bias Christian historians
d) legend

For instance, no proof could be found that Jericho ever existed and it was questioned until archaeologists found remnants in the 1930's (I believe).

History reports the existence of Alexander the Great, that he fought in war, people feared him, and that he died of fever. But he also claimed to be the son of Zeus. If we verify his existence, that he conquered nations, resided upon a then known Alexandria, and died in fever, this must also mean he was the son of Zeus.

The Bible does get some physical stuff correct. So what, so does Homer's The Iliad.

Science believes in the Big Bang --- God said "Let there be light". I also don't quite understand how science could believe that this universe came from nothing.

Most Cosmologists don't, but that the 'universe' is eternal. But even you somehow 'proved' the Big Bang false, as you interpret it, this does not therefore, conclude your specific God. This is committing a severe logical fallacy.

As they say, a watch must have a watch-maker.

Yea, I only know humans create watches. I can demonstrate the existence of the specific humans which created specific watches. Can you demonstrate existence of your specific god, whom created this specific universe?” Again, we are right back to square one.

We're so fine tuned. Just think of the eye.
So we're here. It does seem that something made us for whatever reason. We look around and we see good and we see evil. God and satan. They must surely exist. What to do?
Worship the right one. Make the right choice. Paschal's wager.
If I'm right, I'll be with God in heaven and not with satan.
If I'm wrong, it won't matter.

You know, all these provided 'justifications' have been refuted many times over. I'm not going to repeat them. You can look them up for yourself, if you want to be intellectually honest with yourself.

 

[Sanoy]

Sorry, I tried. But I do not appear to have access to post there :-/

There are actually two apologetics sections, "Christian Apologetics Center" and "Christian Apologetics", it's the latter one that you want. If it won't let you start a post there I bet you hit the "center" one, that one is just for Christians.

Just hit report on your post and they will move it for you.

 

[ToBeLoved]

If one does not agree with 1 Timothy 2:11-12 (A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.), but claims Christianity, how might one reconcile their faith in an intellectually honesty way?

Thank you in advance for any/all responses.

I think that many times people only look at scripture from their own 2018 viewpoint, but scripture has existed throughout history and things were not like 2018 for most of history.

My second point is that a man making the final decision in the family is how God set things up in the Bible. The problem arises because people have to add their own experiences and biases of life to what God says.

My last point is that I think back in the days of the apostles, if women spoke up I think it was a big issue. Women in Hebrew culture could not inherit and had little rights, so IMHO I think of a woman spoke up it would cause issues between say her husband and the elders or say her son and the elders.

 

[Radagast]

There are actually two apologetics sections, "Christian Apologetics Center" and "Christian Apologetics", it's the latter one that you want.

No it isn't. Non-Christians have no access to "Christian Apologetics" unless they first read and agree to the SoP for that forum, and indicate their agreement on the forum signup thread.

If I understand the situation correctly, the OP doesn't wish to do that.

 

[Sanoy]

No it isn't. Non-Christians have no access to "Christian Apologetics" unless they first read and agree to the SoP for that forum, and indicate their agreement on the forum signup thread.

If I understand the situation correctly, the OP doesn't wish to do that.

You mean, no, he probably didn't sign the thread. Yeah, could be.

@cvanwey see above, that might be the problem you are having. All you have to do is agree in the sign up thread. This section isn't really for polemics.

 

[hedrick]

If one does not agree with 1 Timothy 2:11-12 (A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.), but claims Christianity, how might one reconcile their faith in an intellectually honesty way?

Thank you in advance for any/all responses.

There are three possible answers. (Typically people don't believe all of them. E.g. if you believed 3 you wouldn't bother with 1.)

1) The same Greek term is used for man and husband, woman and wife. Thus the passage could be translated as saying that a man should not have authority over his wife. In that case the reference to Gen 3 would be: Adam simply did what his wife suggested without taking his proper role of judging whether it was wise. I certainly hope that’s what he meant, since the traditional reading would be that women in general are too unreliable to be leaders. That would have effects far beyond just not having them as pastors.

2) The author of 1 Tim is wrong. Please note that not all Christians believe in the inerrancy or Scripture. Many believe that Jesus’ 1st Cent followers met Jesus, experienced his effects on their lives, and are witnesses, but that doesn’t stop them from being 1st Cent people.

3) The author of 1 Tim was not Paul, and it should be disregarded as a forgery.