Trusting apologists

Nihilist Virus · Mar 28, 2020

1.)a.) Let's assume that Christianity is actually the one true religion.

1.)b.) Therefore, Judaism was the one true religion before Christianity was formed.

1.)c.) Christianity formed after Jesus was crucified.

2.) Before Jesus was crucified, he distrusted most Jewish religious leaders.

3.) If Jesus distrusted most religious leaders, then they were untrustworthy.

4.) ???

5.) We can trust most or all modern Christian apologists.

I'm guessing that the popular plug for this hole is something along the lines of, "The Holy Spirit was given to the church in the Book of Acts and this was sufficient to fundamentally change human behavior at the church leadership level."

An obvious problem is that precisely 100% of the Catholic hierarchy either is a pedophile, or prefers to protect pedophiles instead of children, or is willing to remain with an institution which does this.

Catholics will point out that the percentage of pedophile priests is roughly equivalent the percentage of pedophiles among the world population, as though that somehow absolves them from engaging in a worldwide coverup conspiracy. They'll also point out that Protestants rape children with roughly the same regularity, but their disorganization makes it difficult to track how much rape occurs. There is merit to this, as the Boy Scouts/Cub Scouts/Girl Scouts are essentially a Protestant organization (atheists are explicitly prohibited from becoming scout leaders) and they are going bankrupt because they have raped so many children.

Now, it might be said that I am engaging in an ad hominem attack here. No amount of child rape would render apologetics invalid. However, it does render the proposed Christian response above invalid, where I suggested that they might say, "The Holy Spirit was given to the church in the Book of Acts and this was sufficient to fundamentally change human behavior at the church leadership level."

Even if we ignore all the coverups, we're still left with the same percentage of child rape as we would expect among the world population. This indicates that the Holy Spirit has no effect on church leadership, at least with regards to this issue. But I suspect I'm not the only one who would find it disturbing for the Holy Spirit to influence church leadership on various issues while totally ignoring child rape.

I hope we can now reject the assertion that the Holy Spirit is influencing church leadership. We're now back at square one. How do we bridge the gap in my syllogism above? If Jesus distrusted religious leaders in his day, and if the Holy Spirit is insufficient to make them trustworthy today, then for what reason should unbelievers listen to apologists?

Barney2.0 · Mar 28, 2020

Yes, Christianity is the one true religion, modern day Judaism has nothing to do with the religion of the Mosaic Covenant, it is a religion of the rabbis which it is precisely why its referred to as Rabbinical Judaism. After the second temple period second temple Judaism was pretty much reconstructed to the modern day faith we now know as Judaism. Liturgical Christianity is more alike to second temple Judaism in terms of theology and practice then Rabbinical Judaism. So define what you mean by Judaism, Christianity is a fulfillment of the Mosaic Covenant, so technically speaking there was no true religion called Judaism before Christianity. The fulfillment of the Mosaic Covenant happened at the moment of the resurrection, when salvation was opened to the many, starting the Christian faith, in which Christ extends the message to the Gentiles during the Great Comission in which he commands the Apostles to preach to all nations. Your assertion that Christ distrusted the leadership of his day in its entirely is not exactly true, Christ respected the teachings of the priesthood and revered them, what he distrusted are the certain people not practicing what they preach as we see here:

“The scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So practice and observe everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.“

Matthew 23:2-3

Christ both revered and respected the legitimate teachings of the Pharisees and those among them that recognized his claims such as Nicodemus a true teacher of the law and believer in Christ. The reason Christ distrusted most of the religious leadership of his day was because they didn’t practice what they preached nor did they believe who he was namely the Messiah and God made manifest in the flesh. Had the majority of them not been hypocrites or disbelievers then we wouldn’t see Christ displaying antagonism towards them in the Gospels at all. Similarly we can trust a Christian apologist when he’s doctirnally correct, sound, and practices what he preaches.

Where’s your source that 100% of the Catholic Church’s hierarchy are pedophiles, chooses to protect pedophiles, or is willing to remain in an institution that does so? By the the way, the third statement requires the first two to actually be true. The real cause of the widespread sexual abuse is the Catholic Church allowing homosexuals to be ordained into the priesthood and carelessly allowing them to be in contact with minors and children. As for the supposed coverups, I’m not a Catholic and I don’t agree with many of their Church’s doctrines, but I don’t see any evidence for a massive cover up conspiracy going on here and there. Bishops not reporting sexual abuse to the police are usually because the families of victims don’t want it reported and prefer to keep things peaceful and low key. And as for the transferring of priests and clergy to new parishes, that’s not evidence of a cover up since it’s usually done with the common belief that people who commit such crimes are just physiologically traumatized people who just need treatment, and because the leadership of the Catholic Church doesn’t like to lose clergy and believes in second chances. It could be argued as incompetence on the part of the Church’s leadership, but not as a widespread cover up.

What does the Holy Spirit have to do with any of this? The Holy Spirit has protected the Church in the face of the most impeccable dangers, from the Pagan Roman Empire, to Mohammadanism, to Communism, and etc, oh and let’s not forget the many heresies that plagued the Church from Arianism, to Nestorianism, to Eutychianism, and we can keep going on and on. The Church has faced all these dangers and won, has kept the same faith handed to it by the Apostles, and is still doctrinally sound. So the Holy Spirit does guide and protect the Church even in its most dire situations.

com7fy8 · Mar 28, 2020

First, yes, it is wrong to violate a child. And if a person violates a child, this includes betraying the child and betraying all the people who have trusted the predator. So, it is betrayal of trust, as well as abusing the child. And betraying is an act of hatred. So, it is a hate crime, I can see, against the child plus against various other people.

It shows what evil people can do, in order to get a pleasure they treasure. Sexual sensations feel quite nice; so sexual pleasure can be indeed a treasure for a lot of people. And people in their deep ruin can treat pleasure like a great treasure. Therefore, there are various other ways, how people betray and hurt people in order to get sexual pleasure . . . instead of finding out how to relate with a companion for reproducing children who know how to love. So many have not brought up children who appreciate how to love; and so their children, too, have become able to just use others for sexual pleasure; and ones just using others include pedophile predators.

And others who also do not know how to love can not tell the difference. They can personally know a predator and find the person to be very nice and desirable, even . . . even so they can trust such a person to be their pastor ! ! ! ! So, predators are a product of a culture of people who do not know how to love, who seek pleasure instead of love, and who can not tell the difference about whom they need to trust.

And if religious people can't tell the difference between a cruel person of hate, and someone who is caring and sharing in real love, then such religious people have a major problem. And there is no telling whom they have married while being so in darkness that they can't tell the difference between a real pastor and a person of cruelty and abuse and the hatred which makes someone able to betray the trust of one's family and church and children.

This is not a problem only of misguided ways of getting pleasure, then. And there is a culture of this . . . not only in churches but also in secular areas. Ones have their preference for pleasure, and act on this preference in various unwise ways . . . while they may blame and criticize others not into their own pleasure methods and tactics for getting it.

So, all of that is not how the Bible says to live. So, in my opinion, if someone really thinks that is Christianity, the person does not really know God's word. And Jesus says many are on the broad and wrong way of destruction. And ones of these are pointing at others as proof against there being Christianity.

So . . . I will offer > the real Holy Spirit is succeeding in making people wise to people they should not trust. And I have scripture which says this, and says to expect this with God. So, if you throw out God, you are leaving yourself without the only Resource who can have us find out how to really love, and be able to tell the difference between ones we are wise to trust and ones we aren't wise to trust.

A basic is we get with God and He has us finding out how His word says for us to relate with Him and one another in His love. Then we have the real thing as our standard so we can tell who is not doing this.

"Love does not harm to a neighbor" (in Romans 13:10).

"nor as being lords over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock." (1 Peter 5:3)

1 Timothy 3:1-10 says who is qualified just to be considered to be trusted to "take care of the church of God". To me, this means people can be expected to tell the difference, so they know who is really "blameless" and who is just an actor. Acts 6:1-7 > when Peter decided to have deacons, he told "brethren" to pick out qualified men > Peter knew he could trust the people to know who was of the real Holy Spirit.

The real Holy Spirit makes God's children able to tell the difference. And Romans 8:14 says >

"For as many are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God." (Romans 8:14)

The Holy Spirit guides us according to what God our Father knows is good for us. But yes there are church culture religious people who are in denial about this, so they are excusing themselves for being fooled by evil people who have pretended to be pastors and church hierarchy leaders.

"But evil men and impostors will grow worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived." (2 Timothy 3:13)

I personally realize that an impostor is a person who does not belong in a position of trust, and therefore God will not have us trusting that person.

And Jesus is clear how His sheep . . . not only His leaders . . . will not follow a false person > John 14:1-30. So, we are not excused to go along with a wrong person. And with God we can make sure about who is really who, so we have no excuse for being fooled by an evil person. But, yes, for that matter, in history we also have people who claimed to be Christians and yet they supported Adolph Hitler. No excuse. We can make sure with God.

You might look at what happened when the Jewish leaders did not make sure with God > Joshua chapter nine. They went by evidence, by the way

2PhiloVoid · Mar 28, 2020

Nihilist Virus said:
1.)a.) Let's assume that Christianity is actually the one true religion.

1.)b.) Therefore, Judaism was the one true religion before Christianity was formed.

1.)c.) Christianity formed after Jesus was crucified.

2.) Before Jesus was crucified, he distrusted most Jewish religious leaders.

3.) If Jesus distrusted most religious leaders, then they were untrustworthy.

4.) ???

5.) We can trust most or all modern Christian apologists.

I'm guessing that the popular plug for this hole is something along the lines of, "The Holy Spirit was given to the church in the Book of Acts and this was sufficient to fundamentally change human behavior at the church leadership level."

An obvious problem is that precisely 100% of the Catholic hierarchy either is a pedophile, or prefers to protect pedophiles instead of children, or is willing to remain with an institution which does this.

Catholics will point out that the percentage of pedophile priests is roughly equivalent the percentage of pedophiles among the world population, as though that somehow absolves them from engaging in a worldwide coverup conspiracy. They'll also point out that Protestants rape children with roughly the same regularity, but their disorganization makes it difficult to track how much rape occurs. There is merit to this, as the Boy Scouts/Cub Scouts/Girl Scouts are essentially a Protestant organization (atheists are explicitly prohibited from becoming scout leaders) and they are going bankrupt because they have raped so many children.

Now, it might be said that I am engaging in an ad hominem attack here. No amount of child rape would render apologetics invalid. However, it does render the proposed Christian response above invalid, where I suggested that they might say, "The Holy Spirit was given to the church in the Book of Acts and this was sufficient to fundamentally change human behavior at the church leadership level."

Even if we ignore all the coverups, we're still left with the same percentage of child rape as we would expect among the world population. This indicates that the Holy Spirit has no effect on church leadership, at least with regards to this issue. But I suspect I'm not the only one who would find it disturbing for the Holy Spirit to influence church leadership on various issues while totally ignoring child rape.

I hope we can now reject the assertion that the Holy Spirit is influencing church leadership. We're now back at square one. How do we bridge the gap in my syllogism above? If Jesus distrusted religious leaders in his day, and if the Holy Spirit is insufficient to make them trustworthy today, then for what reason should unbelievers listen to apologists?

Without getting into a protracted analysis of your OP, I'll just say that I think the general thrust of your post is correct, NV, but in a general way. If anything, and if I bother to reify what you've stated, all I would do is 'scale' the terms and attempt to more firmly define certain aspects of the language you've used within your arguments, doing so in a slightly more extensive way and along a continuum of measures, both moral and conceptual.

In the end, though, I'll still agree with you that there is a big problem, as you've generally articulated it, and that I think it is of the kind that seems to be addressed by the writers of the New Testament books via the representations of Christ's Words which we believe we have from those same writers (assuming that, they too, are to be trusted...) [e.g. Matthew chapter 23; Revelation chapters 2 & 3, among others, of course].

More later, perhaps, but right now, my wife says we have to go track down our 2 day supply of food and some other essentials.

For once, I think you've offered a thoughtful post, NV. Hopefully, I'll have some time later to express the extent to which I might rephrase bits and pieces of your overall argument.

Be well, live long (and be blessed, even if you don't believe in that at the moment).

RBPerry · Mar 28, 2020

Nihilist Virus said:
1.)a.) Let's assume that Christianity is actually the one true religion.

1.)b.) Therefore, Judaism was the one true religion before Christianity was formed.

The old testament historical accounts of Israel ultimately shows us that man couldn't live up to God's standards.

1.)c.) Christianity formed after Jesus was crucified.

No Christianity formed after the resurrection.

2.) Before Jesus was crucified, he distrusted most Jewish religious leaders.

Where do you get Jesus mistrusted the Jewish leaders. He was attempting to point out many of their misunderstanding of God. After the resurrection Jesus reached out to Paul who was a well educated Jewish leader that was on a campaign to stomp out Christianity. That doesn't sound like he mistrusted all Jewish leadership.

3.) If Jesus distrusted most religious leaders, then they were untrustworthy.

4.) ??? So your assumption is since Jesus has issues with some of the Jewish leadership that all were untrustworthy. We have may medical doctors that have made terrible mistakes, so with your logic, we shouldn't trust any medical professionals. Police officers have also failed in their duties at times, so I guess we are to mistrust all law enforcement. That is pretty poor logic in my opinion.

5.) We can trust most or all modern Christian apologists.

Not so, God gave you a brain, he expects you to use it. Evaluate what a person is teaching or professing and decide for yourself if you can trust that individual. One needs to make evaluations with an open mind, and that is where many fail, they look with presuppositions that may be unchangeable in their mind.

I have my own issues with the Catholic Church, but just because a Priest commits a horrid crime doesn't imply they are all corrupt. The one thing I will agree with, they should never cover up a crime, especially one against a child that had trusted them.

Nihilist Virus · Mar 28, 2020

Al Masihi said:
Yes, Christianity is the one true religion, modern day Judaism has nothing to do with the religion of the Mosaic Covenant,

I never said it does. Read what I said a little more carefully:

1.)b.) Therefore, Judaism was the one true religion before Christianity was formed.

it is a religion of the rabbis which it is precisely why its referred to as Rabbinical Judaism. After the second temple period second temple Judaism was pretty much reconstructed to the modern day faith we now know as Judaism. Liturgical Christianity is more alike to second temple Judaism in terms of theology and practice then Rabbinical Judaism.

Irrelevant.

So define what you mean by Judaism,

Nope. I refuse to play word games. Judaism is well defined. Judaism of the era before Christ is well defined. I'm not slowing down the train. Hop on or get left behind!

Christianity is a fulfillment of the Mosaic Covenant, so technically speaking there was no true religion called Judaism before Christianity.

Except there was though.

The fulfillment of the Mosaic Covenant happened at the moment of the resurrection, when salvation was opened to the many, starting the Christian faith, in which Christ extends the message to the Gentiles during the Great Comission in which he commands the Apostles to preach to all nations.

Irrelevant.

Your assertion that Christ distrusted the leadership of his day in its entirely is not exactly true,

Your assertion that I asserted this is not exactly true.

2.) Before Jesus was crucified, he distrusted most Jewish religious leaders.

Pursuant to Proverbs 18:13, please read what I say before responding.

Christ respected the teachings of the priesthood and revered them, what he distrusted are the certain people not practicing what they preach as we see here:

“The scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So practice and observe everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.“

Matthew 23:2-3

That's exactly my point. I'm not asking how we unbelievers are expected to trust the Bible. I'm asking how we are to trust apologists.

Christ both revered and respected the legitimate teachings of the Pharisees and those among them that recognized his claims such as Nicodemus a true teacher of the law and believer in Christ. The reason Christ distrusted most of the religious leadership of his day was because they didn’t practice what they preached nor did they believe who he was namely the Messiah and God made manifest in the flesh. Had the majority of them not been hypocrites or disbelievers then we wouldn’t see Christ displaying antagonism towards them in the Gospels at all. Similarly we can trust a Christian apologist when he’s doctirnally correct, sound, and practices what he preaches.

I'm going to assume that "practicing what one preaches" involves not raping children. How am I to know who to trust on this issue? Should I just ask them about it and take them at their word?

Where’s your source that 100% of the Catholic Church’s hierarchy are pedophiles, chooses to protect pedophiles, or is willing to remain in an institution that does so? By the the way, the third statement requires the first two to actually be true.

Is this a serious question? It is considered a common fact that there was a worldwide coverup. I'm not going to waste my time proving that the earth is a sphere.

The real cause of the widespread sexual abuse is the Catholic Church allowing homosexuals to be ordained into the priesthood and carelessly allowing them to be in contact with minors and children.

An ugly and bigoted statement. As a heterosexual, I'm not attracted to little girls; I see no reason to assume that homosexual men are attracted to boys. Pedophiles are often attracted to boys and girls equally and are often not attracted to adults. Occasionally, when a predator priest preys upon a young boy through puberty and into early manhood, the priest may find himself attracted to other young men as an "acquired taste." But this is the opposite of what you suggested, which is homosexuals infiltrating the church and becoming attracted to children. You are totally wrong and have it backward. Please accept this correction and cease the slander of gays. Thank you.

As for the supposed coverups, I’m not a Catholic

and I don’t agree with many of their Church’s doctrines, but I don’t see any evidence for a massive cover up conspiracy going on here and there.

It's not my responsibility to ensure that you keep up with the news.

Bishops not reporting sexual abuse to the police are usually because the families of victims don’t want it reported and prefer to keep things peaceful and low key.

What a disgusting thing to say. The church was concerned with its own reputation. They knew that keeping cases quiet made it easier to pay off families and have them agree to sign away their rights to sue. When it became public that priests were raping children, lawyers could reach out to victims and convince them to sue for more than the pittance that the church would offer.

And as for the transferring of priests and clergy to new parishes, that’s not evidence of a cover up since it’s usually done with the common belief that people who commit such crimes are just physiologically traumatized people who just need treatment, and because the leadership of the Catholic Church doesn’t like to lose clergy and believes in second chances. It could be argued as incompetence on the part of the Church’s leadership, but not as a widespread cover up.

I'm done with you.

What does the Holy Spirit have to do with any of this? The Holy Spirit has protected the Church in the face of the most impeccable dangers, from the Pagan Roman Empire, to Mohammadanism, to Communism, and etc, oh and let’s not forget the many heresies that plagued the Church from Arianism, to Nestorianism, to Eutychianism, and we can keep going on and on. The Church has faced all these dangers and won, has kept the same faith handed to it by the Apostles, and is still doctrinally sound. So the Holy Spirit does guide and protect the Church even in its most dire situations.

Nihilist Virus · Mar 28, 2020

com7fy8 said:
First, yes, it is wrong to violate a child. And if a person violates a child, this includes betraying the child and betraying all the people who have trusted the predator. So, it is betrayal of trust, as well as abusing the child. And betraying is an act of hatred. So, it is a hate crime, I can see, against the child plus against various other people.

It shows what evil people can do, in order to get a pleasure they treasure. Sexual sensations feel quite nice; so sexual pleasure can be indeed a treasure for a lot of people. And people in their deep ruin can treat pleasure like a great treasure. Therefore, there are various other ways, how people betray and hurt people in order to get sexual pleasure . . . instead of finding out how to relate with a companion for reproducing children who know how to love. So many have not brought up children who appreciate how to love; and so their children, too, have become able to just use others for sexual pleasure; and ones just using others include pedophile predators.

And others who also do not know how to love can not tell the difference. They can personally know a predator and find the person to be very nice and desirable, even . . . even so they can trust such a person to be their pastor ! ! ! ! So, predators are a product of a culture of people who do not know how to love, who seek pleasure instead of love, and who can not tell the difference about whom they need to trust.

And if religious people can't tell the difference between a cruel person of hate, and someone who is caring and sharing in real love, then such religious people have a major problem. And there is no telling whom they have married while being so in darkness that they can't tell the difference between a real pastor and a person of cruelty and abuse and the hatred which makes someone able to betray the trust of one's family and church and children.

This is not a problem only of misguided ways of getting pleasure, then. And there is a culture of this . . . not only in churches but also in secular areas. Ones have their preference for pleasure, and act on this preference in various unwise ways . . . while they may blame and criticize others not into their own pleasure methods and tactics for getting it.

So, all of that is not how the Bible says to live. So, in my opinion, if someone really thinks that is Christianity, the person does not really know God's word. And Jesus says many are on the broad and wrong way of destruction. And ones of these are pointing at others as proof against there being Christianity.

So . . . I will offer > the real Holy Spirit is succeeding in making people wise to people they should not trust. And I have scripture which says this, and says to expect this with God. So, if you throw out God, you are leaving yourself without the only Resource who can have us find out how to really love, and be able to tell the difference between ones we are wise to trust and ones we aren't wise to trust.

A basic is we get with God and He has us finding out how His word says for us to relate with Him and one another in His love. Then we have the real thing as our standard so we can tell who is not doing this.

"Love does not harm to a neighbor" (in Romans 13:10).

"nor as being lords over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock." (1 Peter 5:3)

1 Timothy 3:1-10 says who is qualified just to be considered to be trusted to "take care of the church of God". To me, this means people can be expected to tell the difference, so they know who is really "blameless" and who is just an actor. Acts 6:1-7 > when Peter decided to have deacons, he told "brethren" to pick out qualified men > Peter knew he could trust the people to know who was of the real Holy Spirit.

The real Holy Spirit makes God's children able to tell the difference. And Romans 8:14 says >

"For as many are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God." (Romans 8:14)

The Holy Spirit guides us according to what God our Father knows is good for us. But yes there are church culture religious people who are in denial about this, so they are excusing themselves for being fooled by evil people who have pretended to be pastors and church hierarchy leaders.

"But evil men and impostors will grow worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived." (2 Timothy 3:13)

I personally realize that an impostor is a person who does not belong in a position of trust, and therefore God will not have us trusting that person.

And Jesus is clear how His sheep . . . not only His leaders . . . will not follow a false person > John 14:1-30. So, we are not excused to go along with a wrong person. And with God we can make sure about who is really who, so we have no excuse for being fooled by an evil person. But, yes, for that matter, in history we also have people who claimed to be Christians and yet they supported Adolph Hitler. No excuse. We can make sure with God.

You might look at what happened when the Jewish leaders did not make sure with God > Joshua chapter nine. They went by evidence, by the way

This is a little silly. We can't just "know" who is or isn't a rapist. The Holy Spirit is not making us wise to whom we can trust. It's simply trial and error. The public has trusted the priesthood for centuries. We've now found that the trust was not deserved. Unfortunately, we found out the hard way. I see no influence of a deity there. At least, I certainly see no influence of a benevolent deity there. So by my reckoning, you've not explained how to know we can trust apologists.

Nihilist Virus · Mar 28, 2020

2PhiloVoid said:
Without getting into a protracted analysis of your OP, I'll just say that I think the general thrust of your post is correct, NV, but in a general way. If anything, and if I bother to reify what you've stated, all I would do is 'scale' the terms and attempt to more firmly define certain aspects of the language you've used within your arguments, doing so in a slightly more extensive way and along a continuum of measures, both moral and conceptual.

In the end, though, I'll still agree with you that there is a big problem, as you've generally articulated it, and that I think it is of the kind that seems to be addressed by the writers of the New Testament books via the representations of Christ's Words which we believe we have from those same writers (assuming that, they too, are to be trusted...) [e.g. Matthew chapter 23; Revelation chapters 2 & 3, among others, of course].

More later, perhaps, but right now, my wife says we have to go track down our 2 day supply of food and some other essentials.

For once, I think you've offered a thoughtful post, NV. Hopefully, I'll have some time later to express the extent to which I might rephrase bits and pieces of your overall argument.

Be well, live long (and be blessed, even if you don't believe in that at the moment).

Thanks!

Nihilist Virus · Mar 28, 2020

RBPerry said:
1.)a.) Let's assume that Christianity is actually the one true religion.

1.)b.) Therefore, Judaism was the one true religion before Christianity was formed.

The old testament historical accounts of Israel ultimately shows us that man couldn't live up to God's standards.

Irrelevant.

1.)c.) Christianity formed after Jesus was crucified.

No Christianity formed after the resurrection.

Ok. Do you know what "after" means? I wasn't wrong. I assume you mean that the resurrection was the cause of Christianity. I'm not talking about causes. I'm just talking about chronology.

2.) Before Jesus was crucified, he distrusted most Jewish religious leaders.

Where do you get Jesus mistrusted the Jewish leaders.

I said he distrusted most of them. Anyway, I suspect that you cannot find a flaw in my logic and you dislike the conclusion, so you're trying to nitpick every little thing and make me prove trivial facts like 2+2=4. I'm not going to play your game. Get on the platform and do intellectual combat with me, or simply walk out of the arena.

He was attempting to point out many of their misunderstanding of God. After the resurrection Jesus reached out to Paul who was a well educated Jewish leader that was on a campaign to stomp out Christianity. That doesn't sound like he mistrusted all Jewish leadership.

I said MOST. Now you're deliberately misquoting me. I'm not going to tolerate that. Please stop it.

3.) If Jesus distrusted most religious leaders, then they were untrustworthy.

4.) ??? So your assumption is since Jesus has issues with some of the Jewish leadership that all were untrustworthy.

No. It isn't. We're done.

We have may medical doctors that have made terrible mistakes, so with your logic, we shouldn't trust any medical professionals. Police officers have also failed in their duties at times, so I guess we are to mistrust all law enforcement. That is pretty poor logic in my opinion.

5.) We can trust most or all modern Christian apologists.

Not so, God gave you a brain, he expects you to use it. Evaluate what a person is teaching or professing and decide for yourself if you can trust that individual. One needs to make evaluations with an open mind, and that is where many fail, they look with presuppositions that may be unchangeable in their mind.

I have my own issues with the Catholic Church, but just because a Priest commits a horrid crime doesn't imply they are all corrupt. The one thing I will agree with, they should never cover up a crime, especially one against a child that had trusted them.

RBPerry · Mar 28, 2020

Nihilist Virus said:
I said MOST. Now you're deliberately misquoting me. I'm not going to tolerate that. Please stop it.

No. It isn't. We're done.

I've heard it said "If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen."

Bottom line is your implication is since some can't be trusted why trust any.

So you can't take the heat, have a nice day.

2PhiloVoid · Mar 28, 2020

Nihilist Virus said:
1.)a.) Let's assume that Christianity is actually the one true religion.

1.)b.) Therefore, Judaism was the one true religion before Christianity was formed.

1.)c.) Christianity formed after Jesus was crucified.

2.) Before Jesus was crucified, he distrusted most Jewish religious leaders.

3.) If Jesus distrusted most religious leaders, then they were untrustworthy.

4.) ???

5.) We can trust most or all modern Christian apologists.

I'm going to start with a quick look at your initial argument here, NV. I see that you've allowed for the Christian type assumptions in premises 1a to 1c, and for that, I thank you. I have nothing to add or to refute with these, but when we get to premise 2), I'm wondering if the "Jewish religious leaders" you're referring to are the Jewish religious leaders already installed in Judaism before Jesus came along, or if this designation of yours also includes those Jewish religious leaders (e.g. Peter, Matthew, Judas, etc.) whom Jesus installed upon His advent?

Being that there are certainly various levels of untrustworthiness expressed among each individual whom Jesus encountered and/or called upon, from the likes of Nicodemus to those others in the Sanhedrin who didn't like Jesus, to those disciples who later became Jesus' Apostles (and who, as we see in the Gospel account, had betrayed Him), wouldn't we want to instead say that premise 2) should probably read as in the following restatement?:

2) Before Jesus was crucified, he distrusted some or many Jewish religious leaders.

Likewise, since we really can't count how many religious leaders for sure turned away from Jesus, whether those Jewish leaders were from among the Pharisees, the Scribes or the Sadducees, along with all of his disciples who apparently failed Him on the night He was in the Garden of Gethsemane, shouldn't premise 3) read more along the lines of?:

3) If Jesus distrusted to varying degrees many religious leaders, then they were untrustworthy to varying degrees.

Please correct me if I get the form of the argument wrong, but in my estimation, premise 4) and conclusion at line 5) should probably say something like:

4) We should be as cautious and as wary as Jesus told His disciples to be about trusting various religious leaders, whether they're Jewish or even Gentile, especially if and when they attempt to 'defend' their said faith in Christ.

5) Therefore, we should all carefully consider the extent to which, and the reasons why, we might 'trust' each individual religious leader who claims authority over other Christians or who offers statements of truth on behalf the Christian faith.

Or something along these lines?

I'm guessing that the popular plug for this hole is something along the lines of, "The Holy Spirit was given to the church in the Book of Acts and this was sufficient to fundamentally change human behavior at the church leadership level."

... I wouldn't offer that plug, because I sure wouldn't plug it that way. In fact, I don't think the Book of Acts, or any other letter or work in the New Testament for that matter, actually teaches that the Holy Spirit will, in Calvinistic style, force-fit any follower of The Way to fully and instantaneously transform into a paragon of Christ-like virtue.

No, I've always been under the interpretive impression that the Christian Life, even when Existentially considered, is a growth process, one requiring a maturating dynamic in one's learning and moral discipline. l see it also as a process through which social ramifications can take place along with specific moments of spiritual and social disqualification, and these may be applied along the way due to various moral failures. With this in mind, instances where leaders of the Church (from any denomination) flout being appropriately accountable for various immoral choices they've made and have egregiously impacted other people in obviously unChristian ways shouldn't be allowed to continue on in either their ministries or in any official leadership positions within their respective churches.

An obvious problem is that precisely 100% of the Catholic hierarchy either is a pedophile, or prefers to protect pedophiles instead of children, or is willing to remain with an institution which does this.

Catholics will point out that the percentage of pedophile priests is roughly equivalent the percentage of pedophiles among the world population, as though that somehow absolves them from engaging in a worldwide coverup conspiracy. They'll also point out that Protestants rape children with roughly the same regularity, but their disorganization makes it difficult to track how much rape occurs. There is merit to this, as the Boy Scouts/Cub Scouts/Girl Scouts are essentially a Protestant organization (atheists are explicitly prohibited from becoming scout leaders) and they are going bankrupt because they have raped so many children.

Now, it might be said that I am engaging in an ad hominem attack here. No amount of child rape would render apologetics invalid. However, it does render the proposed Christian response above invalid, where I suggested that they might say, "The Holy Spirit was given to the church in the Book of Acts and this was sufficient to fundamentally change human behavior at the church leadership level."

Even if we ignore all the coverups, we're still left with the same percentage of child rape as we would expect among the world population. This indicates that the Holy Spirit has no effect on church leadership, at least with regards to this issue. But I suspect I'm not the only one who would find it disturbing for the Holy Spirit to influence church leadership on various issues while totally ignoring child rape.

I hope we can now reject the assertion that the Holy Spirit is influencing church leadership. We're now back at square one. How do we bridge the gap in my syllogism above? If Jesus distrusted religious leaders in his day, and if the Holy Spirit is insufficient to make them trustworthy today, then for what reason should unbelievers listen to apologists?

I reject the premise that the Holy Spirit will irresistibly transform a follower of Jesus, even if and when he/she claims the status of being 'born again.' Moreover, if a teacher or leader in the Church performs immoral acts, then depending on the significance of those acts, he/she may very well need to be ousted and/or face legal penalties, pending the severity of the immoral infraction.

I think you can see that I very much sympathize with your indictments, NV, and I don't really disagree with the general thrust of your OP, even if I might articulate a little bit differently.

As for apologists themselves, I wouldn't expect them to fully defend the Church and its actions as a whole, but rather to teach, explain and defend the essential teachings handed on from Jesus and His Apostles.

com7fy8 · Mar 28, 2020

Nihilist Virus said:
This is a little silly. We can't just "know" who is or isn't a rapist. The Holy Spirit is not making us wise to whom we can trust. It's simply trial and error.

Are you basing this on what God's word says, or on how people have failed because of not obeying God's word? God's word is clear about who qualifies just to be considered to be trusted to take care of God's church > 1 Timothy 3:1-10. So, God knows it is realistic to do this, if He says to do this; ones can make sure with God > He is not conceited and distant; He does personally speak to and guide His children who obey how He takes care of them.

There are even Bible claiming people, who would say the same thing, or pretty much, that you have said in the above quote.

They, too, essentially say there is no God who makes us able to tell the difference between one of God's approved pastors and an impostor. But the Bible says there is God our Father who makes His children able to tell the difference. So, in case people deny this, it can be they are denying that there is God . . . though they claim to believe the Bible. So, I am curious if this could mean they in truth are atheists . . . by the way - - if they deny the existence of the One the Bible represents.

And in case you know the Bible, it is possible you know what I am talking about, though you have said what you have in the above quote. May be you are saying this to draw me out

By denying the God represented in the Bible, people excuse themselves to stay in darkness so they can not see whom they are trusting. But "God is light" (in 1 John 1:5). God's love has light so in this love we can see right; if you have experienced natural light, you know how light can show you so much more than any amount of words can tell you; therefore, with God in His light, we don't even need to be told by God about whom to trust, because in sharing with Him we can see.

Hebrews 5:14 refers to how we can have "senses" "to discern both good and evil." And Jesus says not to evaluate by appearance > John 7:24. And our Apostle Paul prays for us to have how love gives us "knowledge and all discernment" > Philippians 1:9. Sheep have the senses of smell and of sight. We have love senses deeper than our natural human senses. This is why we need "faith working through love" (in Galatians 5:6). We go by love's faith, not only by sight and people's say-so claims about themselves. We can test each person, and hold to what is good >

"Test all things; hold fast what is good." (1 Thessalonians 5:21)

If we test something, we make sure about it. And the most reliable way of making sure is to submit to how God guides us in our evaluating. Proverbs 3:5-6 is very clear how we need to depend on God to guide us and not to ever take things into our own hands, I offer.

So, are you an expert who already know these things are in the Bible??

Now possibly you can see what I mean if I say I would not trust any and all apologists, since some might not believe there is God who personally shares with and personally guides His own children. They might be trying to prove the existence of some impersonal guy in the sky who is conceited and therefore distant.

But Jesus is not conceited and impersonal, though He is so superior; Jesus left Heaven itself in order to reach us and share with us and save us by dying for us, on Calvary's cross; so Jesus is not the one who is conceited; people can have God and Satan mixed up. But there are religious people who can be very into themselves, including certain so-called priests and hierarchical leaders; so they can represent God to be the way they are.

Not all are so, though; so we do well to be able to tell the difference . . . efficiently and not by time- and life-consuming trial and error!

Either I believe there is God who has us able to do this which the Bible says, or I am denying the existence of the God who is represented by the Bible, I would say. Yes, there are people who claim to be Christians, and they deny there is God our Father who personally cares for us and personally communicates with His own children, plus personally guides us so we are not fooled by evil people. He has things for us to do to serve Him, and He personally guides what His servants do; so it can be simple: we do what God has us doing, and this keeps us from being guided by evil people.

And this works very well with even ones who are more trustworthy, but they are not perfect. At times, a person might be trying to take me the wrong way, but I pray and submit to how God guides me and this keeps me from going along with someone while that one is mistaken. But other times he or she might be helpful. Plus, I can be guided . . . in spite of my own self!!!

Jesus does say we need to deny ourselves, doesn't He? > Luke 9:23 < now, why would this be ? ? ? :idea:

lololololololol he-he-he-he

But you already know this, right? You have checked out what you are supposed to be getting evidence for, haven't you? But this is worth attention. I myself need to feed on this, much more, so I am living and loving like this . . . not loving in the dark.

And, by the way, God's word says we in Jesus have been brought into God's kingdom of His "marvelous light" > 1 Peter 2.9.

Plus, I have given scripture which clearly says Jesus Christ's sheep know His voice and will not follow another > John 10:1-30. So, yes sheep can tell the difference between a Satanic leader and a person who is approved by God. Part of this process is how we in Jesus have been sharing with Him and His word; so we know the real Jesus and message; so if anyone ever comes along and tries to take us elsewhere, we can tell easily how that person is not right.

And our Apostle Paul gives us an example of this, how even Corinthian Christians with all their problems and deficiencies could tell the difference between leaders whom God approved and people whom Jesus did not choose to be their leaders >

1 Corinthians 11:18-20.

So, if I fool myself into trusting a wrong person because I did not make sure with God, this is my own fault. The Bible says we can make sure with God about every thing we do > I offer this, going by Romans 8:14, Joshua chapter nine, and Proverbs 3:5-6, and also 1 Thessalonians 5:21.

So, if anyone of the "public" trusted wrong people > they needed to follow the good example of people who were not going along with what the misled "public" was doing.

I mean, God's word says we are directed, even, to trust God to personally lead us, all the time (Romans 8:14, Proverbs 3:5-6, Colossians 3:15). Because our Father is personally interested in each of us. Part of our basic Christian calling > "in one body", our Apostle Paul does say, is to obey how our Father rules us in our "hearts" >

"And let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to which also you were called in one body; and be thankful." (Colossians 3:15)

This is very personal > right in our "hearts" > God ruling us with His own peace - - - in the heart of every child of God. And God is almighty; so this peace is almighty; and we are guaranteed by God's word, by the way, how His peace almighty "will guard your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus." Anyone, please see and feed on Philippians 4:6-7, about how to obey God so we are so sharing with Him in this peace, and trust Him to do this with us.

So, this is how personal the God represented by the Bible is; so therefore there are many who take people's attention elsewhere, plus they deny how our Heavenly Father is so personally loving and caring and sharing with His own children. Yes, some number of the public have been trusting people who do not minister them to this. At this time, we have political and media people who are totally highjacking people's attention elsewhere. But not all people of the public have been fooled. Whoever wrote these things in God's word know this, by the way

By the way > do you think evolution produced us, from atoms and molecules so we experience this ? ?

com7fy8 · Mar 28, 2020

Nihilist Virus you said:
1.)a.) Let's assume that Christianity is actually the one true religion.

and then said:
An obvious problem is that precisely 100% of the Catholic hierarchy either is a pedophile, or prefers to protect pedophiles instead of children, or is willing to remain with an institution which does this.

and in another post . . . #7 . . . you said:
The public has trusted the priesthood for centuries.

Possibly, you are considering the Roman Catholic Church to be Christianity. And so you are measuring Christianity by what the Roman Catholic Church's priests have been doing.

I myself do not consider the Roman Catholic Church to represent all of Christianity, and I do not trust that they have at any point in time ever been the sole representatives of God's word. I believe Jesus has always had His truly gentle and humble and kind and trustworthy people on this earth. However, big name public religious-and-political figures have possibly kept the real Jesus people from getting publicity in the media and politics.

But our leaders care for us with their example >

"nor as being lords over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock." (1 Peter 5:3)

These are people we can know personally so we can feed on their personal example in our real lives. This has always been going on, I believe, going by God's word.

But reports of history can be about more public people, and things can be rigged to look the way the ones controlling the history books want things to look.

The Bible describes who qualifies to be a Christian leader > 1 Timothy 3:1-10. This does not meet the description of ones some number of religious people have been ordaining!! But what wrong people do does not represent Christianity . . . in my opinion.

I have offered various scriptures in Post #12 about what I find God's word tells us about Christianity. But this is not what you seem to be talking about in discussing if Christianity is the one true religion.

Barney2.0 · Mar 28, 2020

Nihilist Virus said:
1.)b.) Therefore, Judaism was the one true religion before Christianity was formed.

Christianity is not a different religion to it, it is a fulfillment of the same faith given to Moses. Christ didn’t say I’m bringing another law, he said I’m fulfilling the law.

Nihilist Virus said:
Irrelevant

It is relevant since your question is wrong.

Nihilist Virus said:
Nope. I refuse to play word games. Judaism is well defined. Judaism of the era before Christ is well defined. I'm not slowing down the train. Hop on or get left behind!

For your information Judaism wasn’t monolithic at the time of Christ, by Judaism do you mean the Pharisees, Sadducees, Hellenists, or Essenes?

Nihilist Virus said:
Your assertion that I asserted this is not exactly true.

2.) Before Jesus was crucified, he distrusted most Jewish religious leaders.

Pursuant to Proverbs 18:13, please read what I say before responding.

And I already explained why that was the case so your point is irrelevant.

Nihilist Virus said:
I'm going to assume that "practicing what one preaches" involves not raping children. How am I to know who to trust on this issue? Should I just ask them about it and take them at their word?

The vast majority of Christian clergy around the world don’t rape children, it’s quite absurd and disgusting for your to formulate an argument on this. What about clergy outside of the Catholic Church such as Orthodox clergy? How about getting to know a priest yourself before presupposing that every Catholic priest is a pedophile.

Nihilist Virus said:
Is this a serious question? It is considered a common fact that there was a worldwide coverup. I'm not going to waste my time proving that the earth is a sphere.

No, there really isn’t a worldwide coverup. That fact that it’s referred to as a “coverup” pretty much gives away its factuality.

4 out of every 100 priests, or 1 out of 25 have accused of sexual misconduct with minors. The number includes both priests accused of pedophilia and the much larger number who have targeted adolescents.

What Percentage of Catholic Priests Have Been Abusive?

So much for the worldwide cover up. Don’t waste your time proving anything, because you can’t prove a conspiracy theory, which is all the “massive worldwide coverup” story really is which is disregarded in academic sources really looking into the issue.

Nihilist Virus said:
An ugly and bigoted statement. As a heterosexual, I'm not attracted to little girls; I see no reason to assume that homosexual men are attracted to boys. Pedophiles are often attracted to boys and girls equally and are often not attracted to adults. Occasionally, when a predator priest preys upon a young boy through puberty and into early manhood, the priest may find himself attracted to other young men as an "acquired taste." But this is the opposite of what you suggested, which is homosexuals infiltrating the church and becoming attracted to children. You are totally wrong and have it backward. Please accept this correction and cease the slander of gays. Thank you.

Ok, pulling the hate card, we’re at that step now, even though none of my statements slandered homosexuals. Well firstly you’ve not taken a vow to abstain from all sexual activity or lower your eyes every time an uncovered lady walks past you every single day of your life. And the only people in close contact with you are adolescents. The vast and I mean vast majority of clerical abuse in the Catholic Church targeted boys so this is a homosexual problem. Also a pedophile who preys on both sexes isnt heterosexually, but bi-sexual. Homosexuals aren’t infiltrating the Church, the Catholic Church actively ordains them which is a fault of Church leadership, and all the cases involved teenage boys.

Nihilist Virus said:
It's not my responsibility to ensure that you keep up with the news.

The news, are you kidding me? The same news that said Islam would be the largest religion in the world by 2015 or that Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world (failing to mention it grows through birth rate). Sorry I don’t take my information from western media, I go with statistics, and reading about the measures the Catholic Church takes in dealing with the actual situation from its sources.

Nihilist Virus said:
What a disgusting thing to say. The church was concerned with its own reputation. They knew that keeping cases quiet made it easier to pay off families and have them agree to sign away their rights to sue. When it became public that priests were raping children, lawyers could reach out to victims and convince them to sue for more than the pittance that the church would offer.

The Catholic Church isn’t a Church that specifically cares for its reputation, it has a history of doctrinal controversies, it’s not one that exactly cares how others view it. How can the Church keep things quite when people on they’re side are committed the abuse, what your saying doesn’t make sense. The only way for them to keep things quite is if the families agree to not report anything, and the Catholic Church can’t give them anything more then what they could gain by suing it. In almost every case of abuse families either went public about it and filed law suits or chose to never do anything about it of their own accord in which case it was too late to do anything about it, and this is what happens most of the time with families. By the way it only becomes public when victims actually speak out about it, how did it become public in the first place, so you clearly don’t know what your talking about here.

Redac · Mar 28, 2020

The idea of the Holy Spirit guiding the Church is not the same as every member of its hierarchy being made morally superior and free from sin. You've either deliberately misrepresented this or you just don't know what you're talking about.

Amittai · Mar 28, 2020

Al Masihi said:
...

The Catholic Church isn’t a Church that specifically cares for its reputation, it has a history of doctrinal controversies, it’s not one that exactly cares how others view it. How can the Church keep things quite when people on they’re side are committed the abuse, what your saying doesn’t make sense. The only way for them to keep things quite is if the families agree to not report anything, and the Catholic Church can’t give them anything more then what they could gain by suing it. In almost every case of abuse families either went public about it and filed law suits or chose to never do anything about it of their own accord in which case it was too late to do anything about it, and this is what happens most of the time with families. By the way it only becomes public when victims actually speak out about it, how did it become public in the first place, so you clearly don’t know what your talking about here.

Masihi, whose side are you on?

Then - NV is using the diatribe technique (or one half of it) that Paul & Jesus used. I have heard the reasoning NV cites, myself so it is not a misrepresentation of the misrepresentations of some Christians.

We have to fill in the gap as well as we can because not all christians can.

Amittai · Mar 28, 2020

Redac said:
The idea of the Holy Spirit guiding the Church is not the same as every member of its hierarchy being made morally superior and free from sin. You've either deliberately misrepresented this or you just don't know what you're talking about.

The people NV cites - and I've heard such people say it - are the ones misrepresenting. This is one half of the diatribe method used by Jesus & Paul. Comfy & Philovoid have risen to the challenge.

Nihilist Virus · Mar 28, 2020

2PhiloVoid said:
I'm going to start with a quick look at your initial argument here, NV. I see that you've allowed for the Christian type assumptions in premises 1a to 1c, and for that, I thank you. I have nothing to add or to refute with these, but when we get to premise 2), I'm wondering if the "Jewish religious leaders" you're referring to are the Jewish religious leaders already installed in Judaism before Jesus came along, or if this designation of yours also includes those Jewish religious leaders (e.g. Peter, Matthew, Judas, etc.) whom Jesus installed upon His advent?

I'm referring to the latter.

Being that there are certainly various levels of untrustworthiness expressed among each individual whom Jesus encountered and/or called upon, from the likes of Nicodemus to those others in the Sanhedrin who didn't like Jesus, to those disciples who later became Jesus' Apostles (and who, as we see in the Gospel account, had betrayed Him), wouldn't we want to instead say that premise 2) should probably read as in the following restatement?:

2) Before Jesus was crucified, he distrusted some or many Jewish religious leaders.

Uh, ok. Seems like a trivial distinction.

Likewise, since we really can't count how many religious leaders for sure turned away from Jesus, whether those Jewish leaders were from among the Pharisees, the Scribes or the Sadducees, along with all of his disciples who apparently failed Him on the night He was in the Garden of Gethsemane, shouldn't premise 3) read more along the lines of?:

3) If Jesus distrusted to varying degrees many religious leaders, then they were untrustworthy to varying degrees.

Ok, sure.

Please correct me if I get the form of the argument wrong, but in my estimation, premise 4) and conclusion at line 5) should probably say something like:

4) We should be as cautious and as wary as Jesus told His disciples to be about trusting various religious leaders, whether they're Jewish or even Gentile, especially if and when they attempt to 'defend' their said faith in Christ.

5) Therefore, we should all carefully consider the extent to which, and the reasons why, we might 'trust' each individual religious leader who claims authority over other Christians or who offers statements of truth on behalf the Christian faith.

Or something along these lines?

You're basically just saying that we should do our due diligence, and that some people can be trusted while others can't. I'd like to just cut directly to the point rather than dance around it like that.

... I wouldn't offer that plug, because I sure wouldn't plug it that way. In fact, I don't think the Book of Acts, or any other letter or work in the New Testament for that matter, actually teaches that the Holy Spirit will, in Calvinistic style, force-fit any follower of The Way to fully and instantaneously transform into a paragon of Christ-like virtue.

No, I've always been under the interpretive impression that the Christian Life, even when Existentially considered, is a growth process, one requiring a maturating dynamic in one's learning and moral disciplinel it is also a process through which social ramifications can take place as well as disqualifications, and these may be applied along the way due to various failures. With this in mind, instances where leaders of the Church in any denomination flout the appropriate accountability for various immoral choices they may make and which egregiously impact other people in obviously unChristian ways shouldn't be allowed to continue in their ministries or continue on in any official positions within their respective churches.

I reject the premise that the Holy Spirit will irresistibly transform a follower of Jesus, even if and when he/she claims the status of being 'born again.' Moreover, if a teacher or leader in the Church performs immoral acts, then depending on the significance of those acts, he/she may very well need to be ousted and/or, pending the severity of the immoral infraction, face legal penalties.

Otherwise, I'll say that I very much sympathize with your indictments, NV.

As for apologists, I wouldn't expect them to fully defend the Church and its actions as a whole, but rather the essential teachings handed on from Jesus and His Apostles.

As always, you're the exception to the rule. If you already don't blindly trust church leaders and apologetics, then there's nothing to debate on this particular thread.

Loversofjesus_2018 · Mar 28, 2020

com7fy8 said:
Are you basing this on what God's word says, or on how people have failed because of not obeying God's word? God's word is clear about who qualifies just to be considered to be trusted to take care of God's church > 1 Timothy 3:1-10. So, God knows it is realistic to do this, if He says to do this; ones can make sure with God > He is not conceited and distant; He does personally speak to and guide His children who obey how He takes care of them.

There are even Bible claiming people, who would say the same thing, or pretty much, that you have said in the above quote.

They, too, essentially say there is no God who makes us able to tell the difference between one of God's approved pastors and an impostor. But the Bible says there is God our Father who makes His children able to tell the difference. So, in case people deny this, it can be they are denying that there is God . . . though they claim to believe the Bible. So, I am curious if this could mean they in truth are atheists . . . by the way - - if they deny the existence of the One the Bible represents.

And in case you know the Bible, it is possible you know what I am talking about, though you have said what you have in the above quote. May be you are saying this to draw me out

By denying the God represented in the Bible, people excuse themselves to stay in darkness so they can not see whom they are trusting. But "God is light" (in 1 John 1:5). God's love has light so in this love we can see right; if you have experienced natural light, you know how light can show you so much more than any amount of words can tell you; therefore, with God in His light, we don't even need to be told by God about whom to trust, because in sharing with Him we can see.

Hebrews 5:14 refers to how we can have "senses" "to discern both good and evil." And Jesus says not to evaluate by appearance > John 7:24. And our Apostle Paul prays for us to have how love gives us "knowledge and all discernment" > Philippians 1:9. Sheep have the senses of smell and of sight. We have love senses deeper than our natural human senses. This is why we need "faith working through love" (in Galatians 5:6). We go by love's faith, not only by sight and people's say-so claims about themselves. We can test each person, and hold to what is good >

"Test all things; hold fast what is good." (1 Thessalonians 5:21)

If we test something, we make sure about it. And the most reliable way of making sure is to submit to how God guides us in our evaluating. Proverbs 3:5-6 is very clear how we need to depend on God to guide us and not to ever take things into our own hands, I offer.

So, are you an expert who already know these things are in the Bible??

Now possibly you can see what I mean if I say I would not trust any and all apologists, since some might not believe there is God who personally shares with and personally guides His own children. They might be trying to prove the existence of some impersonal guy in the sky who is conceited and therefore distant.

But Jesus is not conceited and impersonal, though He is so superior; Jesus left Heaven itself in order to reach us and share with us and save us by dying for us, on Calvary's cross; so Jesus is not the one who is conceited; people can have God and Satan mixed up. But there are religious people who can be very into themselves, including certain so-called priests and hierarchical leaders; so they can represent God to be the way they are.

Not all are so, though; so we do well to be able to tell the difference . . . efficiently and not by time- and life-consuming trial and error!

Either I believe there is God who has us able to do this which the Bible says, or I am denying the existence of the God who is represented by the Bible, I would say. Yes, there are people who claim to be Christians, and they deny there is God our Father who personally cares for us and personally communicates with His own children, plus personally guides us so we are not fooled by evil people. He has things for us to do to serve Him, and He personally guides what His servants do; so it can be simple: we do what God has us doing, and this keeps us from being guided by evil people.

And this works very well with even ones who are more trustworthy, but they are not perfect. At times, a person might be trying to take me the wrong way, but I pray and submit to how God guides me and this keeps me from going along with someone while that one is mistaken. But other times he or she might be helpful. Plus, I can be guided . . . in spite of my own self!!! Jesus does say we need to deny ourselves, doesn't He? > Luke 9:23 < now, why would this be ? ? ? lololololololol he-he-he-he

But you already know this, right? You have checked out what you are supposed to be getting evidence for, haven't you? But this is worth attention. I myself need to feed on this, much more, so I am living and loving like this . . . not loving in the dark.

And, by the way, God's word says we in Jesus have been brought into God's kingdom of His "marvelous light" > 1 Peter 2.9.

Plus, I have given scripture which clearly says Jesus Christ's sheep know His voice and will not follow another > John 10:1-30. So, yes sheep can tell the difference between a Satanic leader and a person who is approved by God. Part of this process is how we in Jesus have been sharing with Him and His word; so we know the real Jesus and message; so if anyone ever comes along and tries to take us elsewhere, we can tell easily how that person is not right.

And our Apostle Paul gives us an example of this, how even Corinthian Christians with all their problems and deficiencies could tell the difference between leaders whom God approved and people whom Jesus did not choose to be their leaders >

1 Corinthians 11:18-20.

So, if I fool myself into trusting a wrong person because I did not make sure with God, this is my own fault. The Bible says we can make sure with God about every thing we do > I offer this, going by Romans 8:14, Joshua chapter nine, and Proverbs 3:5-6, and also 1 Thessalonians 5:21.

So, if anyone of the "public" trusted wrong people > they needed to follow the good example of people who were not going along with what the misled "public" was doing.

I mean, God's word says we are directed, even, to trust God to personally lead us, all the time (Romans 8:14, Proverbs 3:5-6, Colossians 3:15). Because our Father is personally interested in each of us. Part of our basic Christian calling > "in one body", our Apostle Paul does say, is to obey how our Father rules us in our "hearts" >

"And let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to which also you were called in one body; and be thankful." (Colossians 3:15)

This is very personal > right in our "hearts" > God ruling us with His own peace - - - in the heart of every child of God. And God is almighty; so this peace is almighty; and we are guaranteed by God's word, by the way, how His peace almighty "will guard your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus." Anyone, please see and feed on Philippians 4:6-7, about how to obey God so we are so sharing with Him in this peace, and trust Him to do this with us.

So, this is how personal the God represented by the Bible is; so therefore there are many who take people's attention elsewhere, plus they deny how our Heavenly Father is so personally loving and caring and sharing with His own children. Yes, some number of the public have been trusting people who do not minister them to this. At this time, we have political and media people who are totally highjacking people's attention elsewhere. But not all people of the public have been fooled. Whoever wrote these things in God's word know this, by the way

By the way > do you think evolution produced us, from atoms and molecules so we experience this ? ?

So are you saying that if someone can’t see who can be trusted before hand they are in darkness or they don’t actually know God? I’m just curious, if I’m way off just correct me. And I’m gonna keep reading but so far I haven’t seen anyone answer the question in the op.

com7fy8 · Mar 28, 2020

Loversofjesus_2018 said:
So are you saying that if someone can’t see who can be trusted before hand they are in darkness or they don’t actually know God? I’m just curious, if I’m way off just correct me. And I’m gonna keep reading but so far I haven’t seen anyone answer the question in the op.

It can mean a child of God is not being prayerful and attentive to how God enlightens and guides him or her.

And it can mean someone does not know God.

If I make a mistake of trusting the wrong person, I consider myself accountable for not having been attentive to how God would guide me. And I trust God to correct me so I do better.

Now, you say no one has answered the question in the original post >

Let's see what Nihilist Virus said:
If Jesus distrusted religious leaders in his day, and if the Holy Spirit is insufficient to make them trustworthy today, then for what reason should unbelievers listen to apologists?

First, the Holy Spirit does make God's approved leaders sufficient. So, this is a wrong "if" to use to start a question.

Even if the Holy Spirit does have really trustworthy leaders, this does not automatically mean apologists should be trusted. I would offer how you need to check out each individual. Just like there can be false church leaders, so also there can be false apologists, and there can be ones who have some all right points, but also they can be off. So, you do well to check out everything, by prayer and God's word and in sharing with people who are your good examples of teaching God's word and living God's way.

For you personally > my opinion is you are willing to care and find out what is good. And if I am right, God knows you care and He will honor this. And so it is good to meet you, and thank you for sharing. God bless you, too

Trusting apologists

Infectious idea

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Get my point, Web-Maker ???

Christian Baby Boomer

Infectious idea

Infectious idea

Infectious idea

Infectious idea

Christian Baby Boomer

Get my point, Web-Maker ???

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

baggage apostate

baggage apostate

Infectious idea

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads