You Know... Maybe The 'Church' is on to Som'n Here?

Tone · Aug 22, 2020

James 4:8
"Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you. Cleanse your hands, ye sinners; and purify your hearts, ye double minded."

James 4:10
"Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and he shall lift you up."

cloudyday2 · Aug 22, 2020

I had a thought on evangelism which is maybe relevant to the idea that reason alone cannot persuade a person to believe in Christianity.

So the idea is this:
What did the early Christians believe before conversion and what did they believe after conversion?
Were they atheists before conversion? No.
Were they polytheists before conversion? No.
They were Jews and Gentiles who were fascinated by Judaism.

So these early Christians already believed in Judaism and they already expected a Messiah to come in their time to establish the Kingdom of Heaven. The Christians evangelists had only to persuade these people that Jesus of Nazareth was this expected Messiah even though he was crucified.

In other words, maybe conversions usually only require a small modification to existing beliefs. A modern atheist who converts to Christianity probably already has a degree of childhood indoctrination that results in unconscious preference for Christian theological claims. An evangelist only needs to fan the flames of that dormant indoctrination to make the atheist a Christian.

Tone · Aug 22, 2020

cloudyday2 said:
I had a thought on evangelism which is maybe relevant to the idea that reason alone cannot persuade a person to believe in Christianity.

So the idea is this:
What did the early Christians believe before conversion and what did they believe after conversion?
Were they atheists before conversion? No.
Were they polytheists before conversion? No.
They were Jews and Gentiles who were fascinated by Judaism.

So these early Christians already believed in Judaism and they already expected a Messiah to come in their time to establish the Kingdom of Heaven. The Christians evangelists had only to persuade these people that Jesus of Nazareth was this expected Messiah even though he was crucified.

In other words, maybe conversions usually only require a small modification to existing beliefs. A modern atheist who converts to Christianity probably already has a degree of childhood indoctrination that results in unconscious preference for Christian theological claims. An evangelist only needs to fan the flames of that dormant indoctrination to make the atheist a Christian.

1 Corinthians 3:6-9
"I planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but God has been making it grow. So neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but only God, who makes things grow. The one who plants and the one who waters have one purpose, and they will each be rewarded according to their own labor. For we are co-workers in God's service; you are God's field, God's building."

What about an Athiest with no indoctrination, do you believe/think seed can reach into there?

Remember, the gospel has spread across the entire planet.

cloudyday2 · Aug 22, 2020

Tone said:
What about an Athiest with no indoctrination, do you believe/think seed can reach into there?

One scenario I have seen is romantic love between an atheist and a Christian. That is an example of emotional appeal for conversion (as mentioned by @cvanwey in the OP). The conversion might go either way.

Another scenario might be an atheist who is impressed by the faithful behavior of a Christian and becomes fascinated with Christianity as a result.

Also there is the possibility that an atheist might be impressed by something in the Bible such as the Sermon on the Mount and become interested in Christianity.

Tone · Aug 23, 2020

cloudyday2 said:
One scenario I have seen is romantic love between an atheist and a Christian. That is an example of emotional appeal for conversion (as mentioned by @cvanwey in the OP). The conversion might go either way.

Another scenario might be an atheist who is impressed by the faithful behavior of a Christian and becomes fascinated with Christianity as a result.

Also there is the possibility that an atheist might be impressed by something in the Bible such as the Sermon on the Mount and become interested in Christianity.

1 Corinthians 9:20-23
"To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God's law but am under Christ's law), so as to win those not having the law. To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some. I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings."

2 Corinthians 5:13
"If we are "out of our mind," as some say, it is for God; if we are in our right mind, it is for you."

That's a vicious apologetic up there ^ huh?

bèlla · Aug 23, 2020

cloudyday2 said:
One scenario I have seen is romantic love between an atheist and a Christian. That is an example of emotional appeal for conversion (as mentioned by @cvanwey in the OP). The conversion might go either way.

cloudyday2,

Missional dating does more harm to the believer than the atheist. It has been statistically proven they are more likely to be swayed by the other than influence them. Lee Strobel addressed the issue in Surviving a Spiritual Mismatch in Marriage.

The premise is flawed. You’re a conduit and don’t impress your will on the other party. You exemplify your faith and allow the Lord to address the issue directly. No amount of reason or niceness will compel surrender (that lasts) unless the individual has an internal impetus to do so.

Where most go awry is making it personal and taking offense if the process takes too long or the change doesn’t happen as they hoped.

Yours in His Service,

~Bella

2PhiloVoid · Aug 23, 2020

cvanwey said:
Is it possible the 'church' learned long ago, that people to not come to, or even retain belief in YHWH, based upon logic/reason, and 'evidence'. Maybe the 'church' has long known that the way to keep it's audience, is by promoting or using emotion. Emotion looks to be the predominate prevailing 'reason' believers believe. Why can I state this with almost reckless abandon? Please read the following thread (Is the Whole of Apologetics Merely a Facade?). Please also reference the following video (

).

Even the most 'cunning' of apologists, when ultimately pressed for their primary reason they believe, has really nothing to do with arguments and evidence. It has to do with warm squishing felt feelings.

I have to hand it to the many preachers out there, I now understand why they read the Gospel, in the manor in which they read the Gospel. It's not the words, it's the emotion.

However, is it possible emotion, (in all it's glory), is not a sound measurement for truth?

Let me tell you an egregious lie here, cvanwey, because .... well.....y'know....I like to lie; in fact, I just love to lie, and I love to do so a whole heck of a lot, mainly because something called truth isn't meaningful to me and, moreover, presenting conceptual distortions and messing with people's minds is a favored hobby of mine. However, I'll do everyone a favor by admitting that I'm the only one who does this, too.

And so, my lie is this: Christian Philosophy as a field is anything BUT identical with Christian Apologetics as a field. Of course, you should't believe what I say because, well, I've admitted that I'm just being dishonest with you and I plan on continuing to practice subterfuge and obfuscation.

There, that felt so good to place into and to conceal within my chest!

Now, let's watch more of your video .................... ok. Here I go, I'm pressing .....................[play].

Kaon · Aug 23, 2020

cvanwey said:
Is it possible the 'church' learned long ago, that people to not come to, or even retain belief in YHWH, based upon logic/reason, and 'evidence'. Maybe the 'church' has long known that the way to keep it's audience, is by promoting or using emotion. Emotion looks to be the predominate prevailing 'reason' believers believe. Why can I state this with almost reckless abandon? Please read the following thread (Is the Whole of Apologetics Merely a Facade?). Please also reference the following video (

).

Even the most 'cunning' of apologists, when ultimately pressed for their primary reason they believe, has really nothing to do with arguments and evidence. It has to do with warm squishing felt feelings.

I have to hand it to the many preachers out there, I now understand why they read the Gospel, in the manor in which they read the Gospel. It's not the words, it's the emotion.

However, is it possible emotion, (in all it's glory), is not a sound measurement for truth?

Most all of the lot of humans cannot handle the truth, that is why scoffing is such a psychologically rewarding response to information for which we are unsure/suspicious. It protects us from the off chance that the "crazy" thing one hears is true - and the perceived inability to do anything about it (lack of control).

A few people know half of the truth; they have told others who have used that truth to dilute it into branches of faiths and denominations. There is only one truth, and it can be found. But, it is usually unbearable for humans to hear. Most people who tell the full truth are utterly rejected/forced into obscurity/killed by the world because the truth directly opposes the world system(s). The knee-jerk reaction is to see the alleged truth-teller as a threat to one's perception of reality; we are very good at doing this.

So, you cannot really fault an apologists for faults in Christianity considering the history of Christianity, what was done in the alleged name of the Most High, and how these things have affected the individual's ability to discern things beyond self. You alluded to this by recognizing many rely on "feelings" rather than "evidence" (both of which are subjective). There are a lot of wolves in sheep's clothing, and as many leaders who are not equipped to lead on spiritual things. That is why humanity never actually evolves, it just re-establishes systems from other/older ages.

Once one forgets everything one knows about these world systems then one can actually know the truth. Once one knows the truth, then one can see this plane of existence for what it is (over time, perhaps). Not one system, faith or academic approach on this plane of existence is the Truth; they are based on axioms and observations perceived from the rudimentary 5 senses. Our idea of "evidence" meaning something is based on human logic and reason - which is axiomatic to humans (not necessarily the truth). Again, this is why humanity always reaches a high point, then collapses onto its own footprint - only to re-establish old world orders et cetera.

cvanwey · Aug 24, 2020

childeye 2 said:
Respectfully, I made no blank assertions. I explained the meanings of two terms as used in scripture and I pointed to the implications as a matter of sound reasoning. To be more clear, we are here and we didn't simply appear out of nowhere. That's not a blank assertion. It's quite logical that people who want to know will ask questions.

I respectfully must disagree. Need I remind you of exactly what you stated:

"The term 'God' in scripture is an axiom meaning the source of the energy that created all things. Without such a term there can be no deductive nor inductive reasoning."

God has no 'finite definition'. If He did, your own definition would not differ from the many others.

Furthermore, you do not see the logical fallacy you violated, as highlighted above?

cvanwey · Aug 24, 2020

Tone said:
Yeah, I'm one (or two...or...etc...) Steps ahead of you bud.

You really need to address your fixation with emotion.

As I told @NBB in the other thread, the term emotion has many descriptors and/or synonyms. If you would like me to start branching out and using them, I certainly can... We've already ruled out reason and evidence it seems. Thus, this general category looks to be all that's left?

cvanwey · Aug 24, 2020

Tone said:
I've had the epiphany that @cvanwey may be trying to get a rise out of us for tactical reasons.

Either that, or he is easy prey to the emotions he so hates (or does he/she...).

Neither. I just finally completely placed two and two together and likely solved my own little puzzle, as to why most church leaders lead with emotion, during their services? They know to keep the pews full, and the belief unwavering, it has less to do with presented reason/evidence/arguments, and more to do with emotion. I'm just giving credit where credit is due. They cracked the code, long ago, as to how to bring and keep people in their beliefs. It wasn't all these 'apologetics' arguments after all... All they have to do is appeal to their senses.

Imagine if a school teacher used this tactic?

It's like @Nihilist Virus pointed out as well.... Don't drill them with 'facts', take another route.

cvanwey · Aug 24, 2020

2PhiloVoid said:
Let me tell you an egregious lie here, cvanwey, because .... well.....y'know....I like to lie; in fact, I just love to lie, and I love to do so a whole heck of a lot, mainly because something called truth isn't meaningful to me and, moreover, presenting conceptual distortions and messing with people's minds is a favored hobby of mine. However, I'll do everyone a favor by admitting that I'm the only one who does this, too.

And so, my lie is this: Christian Philosophy as a field is anything BUT identical with Christian Apologetics as a field. Of course, you should't believe what I say because, well, I've admitted that I'm just being dishonest with you and I plan on continuing to practice subterfuge and obfuscation.

There, that felt so good to place into and to conceal within my chest!

Now, let's watch more of your video .................... ok. Here I go, I'm pressing .....................[play].

I would like to hear your thoughts on the video. If you actually watched it? Anything that stands out as blatantly false, to you? I know it's 25 minutes and all....

cvanwey · Aug 24, 2020

Kaon said:
Most all of the lot of humans cannot handle the truth, that is why scoffing is such a psychologically rewarding response to information for which we are unsure/suspicious. It protects us from the off chance that the "crazy" thing one hears is true - and the perceived inability to do anything about it (lack of control).

A few people know half of the truth; they have told others who have used that truth to dilute it into branches of faiths and denominations. There is only one truth, and it can be found. But, it is usually unbearable for humans to hear. Most people who tell the full truth are utterly rejected/forced into obscurity/killed by the world because the truth directly opposes the world system(s). The knee-jerk reaction is to see the alleged truth-teller as a threat to one's perception of reality; we are very good at doing this.

So, you cannot really fault an apologists for faults in Christianity considering the history of Christianity, what was done in the alleged name of the Most High, and how these things have affected the individual's ability to discern things beyond self. You alluded to this by recognizing many rely on "feelings" rather than "evidence" (both of which are subjective). There are a lot of wolves in sheep's clothing, and as many leaders who are not equipped to lead on spiritual things. That is why humanity never actually evolves, it just re-establishes systems from other/older ages.

Once one forgets everything one knows about these world systems then one can actually know the truth. Once one knows the truth, then one can see this plane of existence for what it is (over time, perhaps). Not one system, faith or academic approach on this plane of existence is the Truth; they are based on axioms and observations perceived from the rudimentary 5 senses. Our idea of "evidence" meaning something is based on human logic and reason - which is axiomatic to humans (not necessarily the truth). Again, this is why humanity always reaches a high point, then collapses onto its own footprint - only to re-establish old world orders et cetera.

Except for when we finally wake up, and acknowledge the Christian God as the true source. Right?

2PhiloVoid · Aug 24, 2020

cvanwey said:
I would like to hear your thoughts on the video. If you actually watched it? Anything that stands out as blatantly false, to you? I know it's 25 minutes and all....

Wouldn't you also want to know what I think are true statements within it along with what I surmise are its faults?

cvanwey · Aug 24, 2020

2PhiloVoid said:
Wouldn't you also want to know what I think are true statements within it along with what I surmise are its faults?

Quite frankly, with you, nowadays, I'm not asking for too much.... You already seem to have your hand on the proverbial door knob - on your way out. You appear half-way checked out.

Unless your prior 'sayonara speech', along with some of your comments, from the past several months back, are a ruse?

childeye 2 · Aug 24, 2020

cvanwey said:
I respectfully must disagree. Need I remind you of exactly what you stated:

"The term 'God' in scripture is an axiom meaning the source of the energy that created all things. Without such a term there can be no deductive nor inductive reasoning."

God has no 'finite definition'. If He did, your own definition would not differ from the many others.

Furthermore, you do not see the logical fallacy you violated, as highlighted above?

Thank you for the response. If I may point out, it is not my personal definition of God I am referring to, but that which I qualified as presented in scripture. That definition was used for the many thousands of years before I was born by many generations of people.

I'm not sure what you mean by a finite definition. No one created has seen God nor witnessed the creation which is why the term God qualifies as an axiom. Certainly those who first used the term "God" or wrote about it in scripture had a subject in mind when expressing their sentiments. But I will say that there have been many images of god/gods throughout history, which is also pointed out in scripture. Again this shows the term as being an axiom.

Respectfully, I have pondered the words you highlighted with a forthright intent to understand what you mean, and can't see the logical fallacy you say exists there. You may be conflating the term God with religion.

In all honesty, I believe it's commonplace that a creator comes to mind when people use the term "God", and this is prevalent throughout all of literature. Moreover, we are here in time and space, and every scientist that studies the origins of our universe and ourselves, theorizes on a fundamental level that we came to be somehow and are proceeding to some end which requires deductive and inductive reasoning. Hence the source of the energy that created all things is an axiom being pondered when doing so, the same meaning applied to the Creator as presented in scripture.

2PhiloVoid · Aug 24, 2020

cvanwey said:
Is it possible the 'church' learned long ago, that people to not come to, or even retain belief in YHWH, based upon logic/reason, and 'evidence'. Maybe the 'church' has long known that the way to keep it's audience, is by promoting or using emotion. Emotion looks to be the predominate prevailing 'reason' believers believe. Why can I state this with almost reckless abandon? Please read the following thread (Is the Whole of Apologetics Merely a Facade?). Please also reference the following video (

).

Even the most 'cunning' of apologists, when ultimately pressed for their primary reason they believe, has really nothing to do with arguments and evidence. It has to do with warm squishing felt feelings.

I have to hand it to the many preachers out there, I now understand why they read the Gospel, in the manor in which they read the Gospel. It's not the words, it's the emotion.

However, is it possible emotion, (in all it's glory), is not a sound measurement for truth?

The first minute and a half can technically be false for at least some Christians... Why? Because the act of "being rational" does not in all necessity have to always end conclusively with an arrival at valid and sound conclusions, or in all cases having empirical validation for each and every religious (and/or historicized) notion in the Bible.

Arguing that Christians are utterly irrational IF they don't have final, absolute conclusions is a form of poisoning the well. To not have found absolutely incontestable, non-contingent facts in connection with the Christian Religion isn't necessarily an indication that any person (or any one Christian) hasn't been using their rational capacities as far as can be done.

It also doesn't mean they've never consulted a Logic textbook. And that's my gripe with the first 90 seconds of what is otherwise a smug laden video.

cvanwey · Aug 24, 2020

childeye 2 said:
Thank you for the response. If I may point out, it is not my personal definition of God I am referring to, but that which I qualified as presented in scripture. That definition was used for the many thousands of years before I was born by many generations of people.

I never claimed you personally had a direct hand in postulating any given written definition

See below...

childeye 2 said:
I'm not sure what you mean by a finite definition.

'God' looks to have many definitions.

childeye 2 said:
No one created has seen God nor witnessed the creation which is why the term God qualifies as an axiom.

Please be consistent in your own assertions. If you are to trust the Bible, then you just contradicted it's assertions...

"And there has not arisen a prophet since in Israel like Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face"

"The Lord our God made a covenant with us in Horeb. Not with our fathers did the Lord make this covenant, but with us, who are all of us here alive today. The Lord spoke with you face to face at the mountain, out of the midst of the fire"

"And when all the people saw the pillar of cloud standing at the entrance of the tent, all the people would rise up and worship, each at his tent door. Thus the Lord used to speak to Moses face to face, as a man speaks to his friend"

childeye 2 said:
Certainly those who first used the term "God" or wrote about it in scripture had a subject in mind when expressing their sentiments. But I will say that there have been many images of god/gods throughout history, which is also pointed out in scripture. Again this shows the term as being an axiom.

An argument from ignorance fallacy, or begging the question, is some sort of 'axiom'

childeye 2 said:
Respectfully, I have pondered the words you highlighted with a forthright intent to understand what you mean, and can't see the logical fallacy you say exists there. Frankly, I believe it's commonplace that a creator to comes to mind when people use the term "God", and this is prevalent throughout all of literature. Moreover, we are here in time and space, and every scientist that studies the origins of our universe and ourselves, theorizes on a fundamental level that we came to be somehow and are proceeding to some end which requires deductive and inductive reasoning. Hence the source of the energy that created all things is an axiom, the same meaning applied to the Creator as presented in scripture.

Please see above.

Silly Uncle Wayne · Aug 24, 2020

cvanwey said:
Is it possible the 'church' learned long ago, that people to not come to, or even retain belief in YHWH, based upon logic/reason, and 'evidence'. Maybe the 'church' has long known that the way to keep it's audience, is by promoting or using emotion. Emotion looks to be the predominate prevailing 'reason' believers believe.

Even the most 'cunning' of apologists, when ultimately pressed for their primary reason they believe, has really nothing to do with arguments and evidence. It has to do with warm squishing felt feelings.

I have to hand it to the many preachers out there, I now understand why they read the Gospel, in the manor in which they read the Gospel. It's not the words, it's the emotion.

However, is it possible emotion, (in all it's glory), is not a sound measurement for truth?

I agree that emotion is not a sound measurement for truth, but then I also don't think that a lot of believers, believe because of emotion either. Emotions rise and fall, but believers believe in spite of those ups and downs.

Emotions serve the purpose, even in sermons, of bringing people to God to help in dealing with the problems that cause those emotions. Belief in a God does not arise because people are emotive, it arises because there is a God.

cvanwey · Aug 24, 2020

Thank you. Please do not see the video as smug. Maybe the narrator could be? But the intent of the video is to elevate points, hardly recognized by some, once including myself....

The reason I keep blasting this video, over and over again, is to merely raise awareness to a topic I feel exists, but is hardly talked about.

It's kind of like if you see a new stand-up comedy routine. And they bring up observations you were subconsciously aware, but never expressed externally yourself

Okay, enough with the babbling...

2PhiloVoid said:
The first minute and a half can technically be false for at least some Christians... Why? Because the act of "being rational" does not in all necessity have to always end conclusively with an arrival at valid and sound conclusions, or in all cases having empirical validation for each and every religious (and/or historicized) notion in the Bible.

What would you define as rational? Is the provided description below suitable for you?

"based on or in accordance with reason or logic"

And sure, I myself admit I am not always rational. For instance, the 49ers are my favorite team, year after year after year. Eventually, the entire player roster is different. And yet, I always root for the ones on the team to do well; even if I opposed them, because they were on a team I hated the year before.

All I'm trying to convey or suggest is that it seems many/most did not come to Christianity due to 'rational' reasons. The churches know this. Likely a reason you hardly feel like you walk away from a sermon learning a whole lot, academically

2PhiloVoid said:
Arguing that Christians are utterly irrational IF they don't have final, absolute conclusions is a form of poisoning the well. To not have found absolutely incontestable, non-contingent facts in connection with the Christian Religion isn't necessarily an indication that any person (or any one Christian) hasn't been using their rational capacities as far as can be done.

It also doesn't mean they've never consulted a Logic textbook. And that's my gripe with the first 90 seconds of what is otherwise a smug laden video.

I would agree with you, in part, but I don't necessarily think that is exactly what he is trying to drive home?.?.?

Apologetics/reason/evidence/logic is likely not what brought you, or is keeping you, in Christianity.

I trust you are at least skimming my other thread? The topic of 'emotion' looks to be the front runner, not arguments and evidence. All I'm trying to convey, in this specific thread, is that the church already knows this. Hence, the reason you do not feel you are ever in a school lecture, filled with data, while at church. They focus on the 'heart.'

You Know... Maybe The 'Church' is on to Som'n Here?

"Whenever Thou humblest me, Thou makest me great."

Generic Theist

"Whenever Thou humblest me, Thou makest me great."

Generic Theist

"Whenever Thou humblest me, Thou makest me great."

❤️

Other scholars got to me before you did!

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Other scholars got to me before you did!

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Other scholars got to me before you did!

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads