A confused atheist.

razeontherock · Oct 31, 2011

Foolish said:
So Christ didn't know that heaven existed and he wasn't sure he was going there? As that is the position a real 100% human would be in.

Instead of making ridiculous assertions you can't possibly defend, ask yourself why Jesus prayed for "this cup" to pass from Him, and why He asked G-d why He had been forsaken.

Foolish · Oct 31, 2011

IndieVisible said:
He sacrificed his human life, that's not loss?

Firstly my churlish answer would be that god mustn't see the loss of human life as all that important, as he seemed to extinguish it in genocidal proportions in his floods, plagues etc. Throughout history

But my serious answer would be that I find it hard to believe that an omnipotent god who has been around for 4.5 billion years (and presumably for much, much longer in the future) would be too precious about a 30 odd year period in his existence, regardless of how important those years were to his believers.

Add the fact that he knew nothing long lasting would affect him I.e. He would be going to paradise then it's not much of a loss. And it must be remembered that he can come back whenever he wants, unlike you and me.

hedrick · Oct 31, 2011

Foolish said:
Oh. That's interesting. So he's worshipped because he is god full stop, as opposed to his sacrifice?

Yes. Some Christians try to claim the Jesus' sacrifice was worse than anyone else's. I'm dubious about that, at least on the physical level. The most plausible claim is that as he bore our sins God cut him off, and given his nature and experience, that was far more painful for him that anything physical. But at any rate the severity of his suffering is not the basis of treating him as the incarnation of God.

The usual Christian view is that God chose to redeem mankind by joining him, and both taking on his sin, and providing an example of obedience which could not just inspire but work in us through spiritual union. His death was part of the process, but not what made him God. What made him God was God's decision to send Christ as his means of redemption.

As you surely know by now, there are multiple Christian views on just about everything. Some folks will say that our sin creates an infinite debt, because God is infinite and so offending him is infinitely bad. Thus Christ's sacrifice has to be infinite. While Christians will certainly magnify Christ's suffering, at least part of the infinite nature of his sacrifice, in this analysis, has to be the fact that he was God, and hence his sacrifice is infinite because of the infinite value of the victim. This seems to come from the medieval period, when offenses were judged at least in part by the person who was offended. But the version I gave is considered by most to be an oversimplification. And at any rate, it's only one of several explanations.

The one I prefer comes from both Calvin and Paul: Calvin's first explanation of the atonement is that it is based not on just the sacrifice as on Christ's obedience. Being his follower establishes what he calls a "community of righteousness" with him, through which we are transformed, and he takes on our sin and gets rid of it. How does he get rid of it? By experiencing it and still maintaining loving obedience to God, and eventually turning defeat into victory through his resurrection. And I would say also that the mere fact that God joins us in human life changes the effect of sin on us. Without that, sin separates us from God. But by joining us and experiencing our sins, they no longer isolate us from him.

Note that this is not physics, and ultimately not even law. We're talking about matters of personal relationships. So when you ask how this works, we're not dealing entirely with something that I can prove objectively. We're in the realm of how relationships among persons work.

For the background of this, I suggest something on how God deals with evil, written by N.T. Wright, Response: The Seattle Pacific University Magazine

I'm going to answer two others comments of yours. You might want to read those before responding, as they have things relevant to this posting as well.

hedrick · Oct 31, 2011

Foolish said:
Don't worry about immediate responses itisdeliciouscake as I'm of to bed now.

But couldn't resist one last post in reference to your last.

My own personal view of the trinity is that it's a bit of a fudge borne out of the worry of contradicting the first commandment. Simple really.

Well, yes. Jesus in his teaching, but also symbolically in his actions, seemed to act as God. But he was obviously a human being. And of course Jesus was quite clear that there is only one God. So we really can't contradict the 1st commandment. The New Testament uses several different ways to understand all of this, but the Church, for reasons both good and bad, needed to get more precise about drawing doctrinal boundaries. This resulted in something that kind of "flattened" the complexities in the New Testament.

But from our point of view, things like the Trinity are in effect "models", and like scientific models, they have to be consistent with the evidence. The evidence in this case is that Jesus acted as God, but that there is only one God. If you don't accept this as evidence, i.e. something that our ideas have to explain, then of course the Trinity looks unnecessary. (If you want to see *really* weird models, just look at quantum mechanics. The Trinity is nothing compared with that. But again, it was driven by evidence, and the evidence forces us to models that aren't obvious to macroscopic intelligences like us.)

Scripture was also considered revealed, and so its explanation of Christ was also evidence. There's no question that the exact form of the Trinity as it developed was affected by explanations such as John's concept of Christ as the Logos. However I would argue that something like the Trinity, even if not described quite the same, was inevitable given Jesus' actions, as well as his death and resurrection as he seems to have understood them and as Christians experience them.

First, the key doctrine isn't the Trinity but the Incarnation, even though it was finally codified later. While Jesus acted with the authority of God, he was clearly human. There were at least 2 ways to understand this. One saw Jesus as a body used by God as a way to be present in human life. When it became clear that this made a mockery of Jesus, it developed so it wasn't just a body, but a whole human life, with his own human will and human actions, distinct from God, but used by God as God's presence among humans. The other approach saw Jesus as a human being* through whom God acted in a unique way. However if you qualify these two approaches properly they end up turning into pretty much the same thing. So the council of Chaledon basically adopted rules that theology had to follow, but which allowed either approach. They said that you had to properly deal with the fact that Jesus was a full human, but also that this human was united to God in such a way that he was actually God's human existence, i.e. his personal identity was in some way God (or visa versa). This whole line of thought developed from the obvious fact that Jesus was human, but also that he seemed to act as God. My strong preference is the second approach, by the way, but most current Christians take the other and see my approach as barely Christian. Chalcedon, however was intended to allow either.

The Trinity is less obviously implied by the evidence, but I think it's there. If Jesus shows us God, what kind of God does he show us? One whose essence is love. But more, if Jesus' sacrificial love actually shows us God, then God experiences existence as something like an obedient son as well as the divine boss. The Trinity says that inherent in God's nature is personal relationship. That is, he didn't have to create a universe in order to love. Love, including obedient love, is part of his nature. I'm not sure that the specific doctrine of the Trinity was inevitable, but if you take seriously the idea of Jesus as a revelation of God, you end up with more complexity than is the case in Judaism or Islam.

-------------

* It is controversial whether you can actually call Jesus a human being. Human, yes. All the parts, including a human will, are there. But under the prevailing philosophical rules, you couldn't really say that a human person was present, because of the concept that Jesus' ultimate identity was God's. I noted that there were two approaches, both accepted as valid. While that was true at Chalcedon, in succeeding discussions, pretty much every representative of the second approach was condemned. And I think the real issue was the reality of Jesus as an actual human being. Whether stated or not, the 2nd approach pretty clearly thought of him as a human being, and ultimately that was not acceptable to the majority. However I believe the official standard allowed it, and was designed to allow it. I assert that understanding Jesus as a human being is critical, and I think most modern theologians would agree. But the dominant position tended to refuse to call him a human being, and most lay people today follow that tradition.

hedrick · Oct 31, 2011

Foolish said:
I havn't encountered god's presence. But I find It completely hilarious that you believe that christ could've defeated the might of Rome and yet refused to.

Why didn't he?

He could have made his greatness indisputable and prevented many wars and subsequent deaths. Seems silly for an omnipotent god to miss an opportunity to prevent what he must have foreseen.

This is where I again recommend Wright's paper on evil. It is the heart of the Christian vision, and Jesus' teaching, that God chooses to operate not by brute force but by renewing people from within. And from that results the high priority Christians place on forgiveness and reconciliation, and the very debatable status of war as an acceptable activity for Christians (whether you see this in all Christians or not in my view large parts of Christianity have hijacked the Gospel, and turned it from Jesus' vision of a community that shows the world how God wants us to live, and transforms it as leaven does a loaf of bread, into a way to save ourselves as individuals from hell).

Of course Jesus as a human being couldn't conquer Rome. But God could, and Jesus was acting as God, on the basis of God's choice to take a different approach.

The concept of God defeating Rome is kind of silly in the first place. If God was interested in using that type of force, why would he allow evil to get started in the first place?

Foolish · Oct 31, 2011

hedrick said:
This is where I again recommend Wright's paper on evil. It is the heart of the Christian vision, and Jesus' teaching, that God chooses to operate not by brute force but by renewing people from within. And from that results the high priority Christians place on forgiveness and reconciliation, and the very debatable status of war as an acceptable activity for Christians (whether you see this in all Christians or not in my view large parts of Christianity have hijacked the Gospel, and turned it from Jesus' vision of a community that shows the world how God wants us to live, and transforms it as leaven does a loaf of bread, into a way to save ourselves as individuals from hell).

Of course Jesus as a human being couldn't conquer Rome. But God could, and Jesus was acting as God, on the basis of God's choice to take a different approach.

The concept of God defeating Rome is kind of silly in the first place. If God was interested in using that type of force, why would he allow evil to get started in the first place?

Hedrick: thanks for taking the time to write that - I enjoyed reading it.

You make much more sense than the other guys and, for what it's worth, you actually addressed my points and didn't avoid the issues I asked about.

I don't agree with your beliefs, but at least I Can get my head around what you're saying.

Ill look up that reference you mentioned too as I'm eager to learn.

Thanks again.

hedrick · Oct 31, 2011

Foolish said:
Hedrick: thanks for taking the time to write that - I enjoyed reading it.

You make much more sense than the other guys and, for what it's worth, you actually addressed my points and didn't avoid the issues I asked about.

I don't agree with your beliefs, but at least I Can get my head around what you're saying.

Ill look up that reference you mentioned too as I'm eager to learn.

Thanks again.

You might want to look at more things on the N T Wright page. N.T. Wright Page - An Unofficial Website Dedicated to Professor N. T. Wright

One of the problems with theology is that serous work isn't typically available on the web. Calvin and Augustine, yes, but not most recent stuff. The Wright page has quite a good collection by a good NT scholar.

His position is controversial. In the UK he's seen as a conservative, because he thinks the NT is roughly accurate in its portrayal of Jesus, and that basic Christian beliefs make sense. But because he rejects Biblical inerrancy, as well as the foundations of much US evangelical theology, he's seen as a dreaded liberal in the US. He rejects much of the agenda of US conservative Christians, both theologically and politically. (He is also clear that Jesus was inherently political, and that taking his Gospel seriously has fairly unambiguous political implications today, but not implications that most of the CF readers would agree with.)

At any rate, he's one of the leaders of a movement that sees Jesus' main point as rather different from typical US evangelicals. The disagreement is quite basic: what is the Gospel? For Wright it is that God has started his work to redeem the world, but in a rather different way than you might expect. Not by kicking out the Romans (which is what most Jews hoped for), but by establishing a "kingdom" of God (i.e. God's rule), which operates by renewing people instead of defeating them. Christianity have often seen the Gospel as the news that Jesus died to save us from hell. While I don't deny that that's part of his mission (although hell itself is increasingly controversial), his focus was more cosmic. Wright does a good job of presenting that, although I disagree with a few details (particularly in his handling of Paul). This is not just an excuse for a revolutionary who failed. It's build into Jesus' whole ministry, in a way that would have been hard to add later as an excuse.

You initially asked about the meaning of Jesus' death. That is also controversial. At least in Reformed theology, most folks today seem to believe that the primary model is "penal substitution", that God's holiness requires him to punish someone before he can forgive us, and Christ is punished for us. However that approach was never accepted by the Orthodox, and there is a growing (although still minority) concern among Protestants about its ethical foundation. The so-called "peace churches" such as the Mennonites have been leading in other approaches, but they're not the only ones involved. As I noted, even Calvin (who in my view was one of the best NT scholars ever) isn't so focused on penal substitution as his modern exponents.

If you want to understand the traditional view, I have two suggestions. One is the original book "The Fundamentalis", for which fundamentalism is named. It has two essays on the substitutionary atonement, THE FUNDAMENTALS - THE ATONEMENT and THE FUNDAMENTALS - AT-ONE-MENT BY PROPITIATION. Of course these take it for granted that you're a Christian, and accept the authority of Scripture. As usual, the best modern treatments aren't online. But if you want to know conventional Reformed theology, I recommend Tim Keller. His book "The Reason for God" does a good job of dealing with the difficult questions such as the problem of evil, although I think Wright's approach is closer to what Jesus would say. He has a book, King's Cross, that walks through the Gospel of Mark, and is a good introduction to issues such as the atonement. (R.C. Sproul is also a reliable source, but less concerned with engaging skeptics sympathetically.)

Foolish · Oct 31, 2011

hedrick said:
You might want to look at more things on the N T Wright page. N.T. Wright Page - An Unofficial Website Dedicated to Professor N. T. Wright

One of the problems with theology is that serous work isn't typically available on the web. Calvin and Augustine, yes, but not most recent stuff. The Wright page has quite a good collection by a good NT scholar.

His position is controversial. In the UK he's seen as a conservative, because he thinks the NT is roughly accurate in its portrayal of Jesus, and that basic Christian beliefs make sense. But because he rejects Biblical inerrancy, as well as the foundations of much US evangelical theology, he's seen as a dreaded liberal in the US. He rejects much of the agenda of US conservative Christians, both theologically and politically. (He is also clear that Jesus was inherently political, and that taking his Gospel seriously has fairly unambiguous political implications today, but not implications that most of the CF readers would agree with.)

At any rate, he's one of the leaders of a movement that sees Jesus' main point as rather different from typical US evangelicals. The disagreement is quite basic: what is the Gospel? For Wright it is that God has started his work to redeem the world, but in a rather different way than you might expect. Not by kicking out the Romans (which is what most Jews hoped for), but by establishing a "kingdom" of God (i.e. God's rule), which operates by renewing people instead of defeating them. Christianity have often seen the Gospel as the news that Jesus died to save us from hell. While I don't deny that that's part of his mission (although hell itself is increasingly controversial), his focus was more cosmic. Wright does a good job of presenting that, although I disagree with a few details (particularly in his handling of Paul). This is not just an excuse for a revolutionary who failed. It's build into Jesus' whole ministry, in a way that would have been hard to add later as an excuse.

You initially asked about the meaning of Jesus' death. That is also controversial. At least in Reformed theology, most folks today seem to believe that the primary model is "penal substitution", that God's holiness requires him to punish someone before he can forgive us, and Christ is punished for us. However that approach was never accepted by the Orthodox, and there is a growing (although still minority) concern among Protestants about its ethical foundation. The so-called "peace churches" such as the Mennonites have been leading in other approaches, but they're not the only ones involved. As I noted, even Calvin (who in my view was one of the best NT scholars ever) isn't so focused on penal substitution as his modern exponents.

If you want to understand the traditional view, I have two suggestions. One is the original book "The Fundamentalis", for which fundamentalism is named. It has two essays on the substitutionary atonement, THE FUNDAMENTALS - THE ATONEMENT and THE FUNDAMENTALS - AT-ONE-MENT BY PROPITIATION. Of course these take it for granted that you're a Christian, and accept the authority of Scripture. As usual, the best modern treatments aren't online. But if you want to know conventional Reformed theology, I recommend Tim Keller. His book "The Reason for God" does a good job of dealing with the difficult questions such as the problem of evil, although I think Wright's approach is closer to what Jesus would say. He has a book, King's Cross, that walks through the Gospel of Mark, and is a good introduction to issues such as the atonement. (R.C. Sproul is also a reliable source, but less concerned with engaging skeptics sympathetically.)

Wright seems to be the one to look at first.

I know I might have upset a couple on here, but I'm just trying to learn about your beliefs so that I can balance off what has been a pretty atheistic reading list I've had until now.

Thanks again Hedrick.

razeontherock · Oct 31, 2011

Note that what you may perceive as disagreement between posters, is actually different people saying the same things in different ways. I'm glad somebody is putting things in a way that makes sense to you! I will also point out that you can pursue understanding one aspect of Jesus' work on the cross, and that does nothing to minimize other valid meanings.

Such as Christus Victor. One problem with denominationalism is it says "this not that," where G-d makes no such distinction. And yet I saw another poster put a relevant idea here very well: G-d didn't don human flesh shed His blood for us because G-d needed to punish somebody, but because we needed a blood transfusion.

That should give you plenty to chew on for a while? The subject is deep ...

Foolish · Nov 1, 2011

razeontherock said:
Note that what you may perceive as disagreement between posters, is actually different people saying the same things in different ways. I'm glad somebody is putting things in a way that makes sense to you! I will also point out that you can pursue understanding one aspect of Jesus' work on the cross, and that does nothing to minimize other valid meanings.

Such as Christus Victor. One problem with denominationalism is it says "this not that," where G-d makes no such distinction. And yet I saw another poster put a relevant idea here very well: G-d didn't don human flesh shed His blood for us because G-d needed to punish somebody, but because we needed a blood transfusion.

That should give you plenty to chew on for a while? The subject is deep ...

Actually, no. You aren't all saying the same thing.

That's like saying the democrats and republicans are saying the same thing when they say they want a successful economy: they want the same end, but have very different views on the method and details.

And the reason that Hedrick has made sense to me is that he actually addressed the issues of the trinity and sacrifice that makes no sense as opposed to saying I lack basic knowledge and need to go away and educate myself before I can grace myself on this board.

What do you think I'm doing here? A little informal conversation with people who have been born and bred in this stuff seemed to be a sensible idea to me...

oi_antz · Nov 1, 2011

Foolish said:
Actually, no. You aren't all saying the same thing.

I would say that we are each telling you what we think you need to know. At least you could acknowledge that we aren't arguing with each other, so in effect we are telling you the truth. Bits of the truth mind you, that's all we can do since only Jesus is the Way the Truth and the Life. If that is something you want for your own comprehension then you will need to ask Him and He is willing to give it freely to you.

Here are a few things He said that proves this:

John 4:10
Jesus replied, “If you only knew the gift God has for you and who you are speaking to, you would ask me, and I would give you living water.”

John 5:39-40
New International Version (NIV)
39 You study[a] the Scriptures diligently because you think that in them you have eternal life. These are the very Scriptures that testify about me, 40 yet you refuse to come to me to have life.

John 14
New Living Translation (NLT)

Jesus Promises the Holy Spirit

15 “If you love me, obey[d] my commandments. 16 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate,[e] who will never leave you. 17 He is the Holy Spirit, who leads into all truth. The world cannot receive him, because it isn’t looking for him and doesn’t recognize him. But you know him, because he lives with you now and later will be in you.[f] 18 No, I will not abandon you as orphans—I will come to you. 19 Soon the world will no longer see me, but you will see me. Since I live, you also will live. 20 When I am raised to life again, you will know that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you. 21 Those who accept my commandments and obey them are the ones who love me. And because they love me, my Father will love them. And I will love them and reveal myself to each of them.”
22 Judas (not Judas Iscariot, but the other disciple with that name) said to him, “Lord, why are you going to reveal yourself only to us and not to the world at large?”

23 Jesus replied, “All who love me will do what I say. My Father will love them, and we will come and make our home with each of them. 24 Anyone who doesn’t love me will not obey me. And remember, my words are not my own. What I am telling you is from the Father who sent me. 25 I am telling you these things now while I am still with you. 26 But when the Father sends the Advocate as my representative—that is, the Holy Spirit—he will teach you everything and will remind you of everything I have told you.

Catherineanne · Nov 1, 2011

Foolish said:
Im an agnostic atheist but am really interested in religion, so I would apreciate any feedback on my musings.

From what I understand of Christianity, the central (not sole) principal of worshipping christ I that he sacrificed himself for us and our sins.

What I don't understand is that; many people have sacrificed themselves for greater causes in our history - why shouldn't we worship them?

Imo, the only good reason for worshipping anyone is that they are worthy of being worshipped.

Our Lord is worthy of being worshipped because of who he is, not because of what he did. With or without the Incarnation, God is worthy of our worship because he is the Creator of all that is, seen and unseen, and the author of our life. With the Incarnation, he is doubly worthy, because he has provided for us a bridge which reaches between heaven and earth.

If you consider Judaism and Islam, they both take the same approach to God. God is seen as beyond our reach, beyond our understanding. He cannot be contained or defined, and whatever we say of him will always be inadequate, however hard we try. God is very much God, in other words.

In Christianity we have a radically different perspective. We have that same God; unknowable, unfathomable, ineffable, deciding to have mercy on creatures which sometimes try to do the right thing but often fail to manage it because we either do not understand him, or do not understand ourselves. God did not have to try to reach us, but he did so out of love.

In Christ, God puts off his immortality to wrap himself in our mortality, and is born as a tiny child. He then lives our life; fully human, and prone to the same as we are, except that he had the willpower not to fall into sin. He was fully human and fully God, both at the same time, just as each one of us is fully, 100%, the child of our mother and fully, 100%, the child of our father, not half of each. Fully God and fully man is a description of identity and relationship, in other words.

As has already been said, there are different views on the Passion. My own view is that the Lord's death would have been equally substitutionary however it happened. His birth necessarily denoted that he would die at some point. In the event he suffered a death that for a Jew was considered particularly disgraceful, and which caused him immense suffering. It enables those who suffer today to find in God an understanding and an empathy that would not be possible if the Lord had died an easier death.

In his dying, the Lord lost touch with God; he fell into doubt, confusion and despair, and God allowed this. There is no human emotion; no pain, no loss, no suffering, that the Lord did not suffer with us.

Having died, Christ rose again, not for his own sake, but for ours. He could have gone straight to eternity, but he chose to return to show us where the bridge is to be found; in belief in him. The cross is the bridge by which mankind can find God, and in finding God, find eternity.

In short, God exchanged his immortality for our mortality, so that through him we could exchange our mortality for his immortality. This is what is known as the Unequal Exchange. And this, imo, is the reason for the Incarnation. Having gained immortality through Christ, our role is then to remain where we are, in the place he has called us to serve him, and to be his representatives to those around us. Many people have their own cross to bear in this life, but it is made easier by knowing that we do not do this on our own, and that we follow in the Lord's footsteps.

As for your last point, we should certainly honour the memory of those who lay down their lives so that others may have freedom; the Lord himself said that no man has greater love than to do this. But the Lord did not just lay down his life; he laid down his divinity and made himself subject to death for our sakes. He took our sins upon him, and bore them all, so that we can now take those same sins and failings and lay them at the foot of the cross, and be freed from their power over us.

I could certainly lay down my life for my faith, or for something I strongly believed in; I think most people could. I could not by doing so take away anyone else's sins or failings, or provide a bridge for them by which they might reach God.

Catherineanne · Nov 1, 2011

miamited said:
My encouragement for you is to put aside your preconceptions and look into the prophecies of the Scriptures. Study them. Look into them. Daniel chapter 9 would be a great place to start.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

Although I can understand comments like this, and have some sympathy for them, the Lord did not ever send anyone away to read a book.

This (and other posts on this thread) remind me of the following:

Q Can you tell me the way to Dublin?
A Oh, I wouldn't start from here if I were you.

In other words, Foolish has come here to ask us. If we can't provide an answer from our own experience, it really is not going to help if we send him away to read a book, however wonderful the book.

And as for other far more unfortunate contributions complaining of his lack of understanding of our faith, can I remind people that if they cannot find anything nice to say, it is far better not to say anything. Just a thought.

elman · Nov 1, 2011

Foolish said:
Im an agnostic atheist but am really interested in religion, so I would apreciate any feedback on my musings.

From what I understand of Christianity, the central (not sole) principal of worshipping christ I that he sacrificed himself for us and our sins.

What I don't understand is that; many people have sacrificed themselves for greater causes in our history - why shouldn't we worship them?

I am an agnostic Christian. I don't agree that the central principle in Christianity is that Jeus sacrificed Himself for us. I believe the central principle in Christianity is God is good and loving and created us to be good and loving to each others. In my view, we should worship and love our Creator because He is loving and good, not because He is powerful.

chilehed · Nov 1, 2011

Foolish said:
I know that there's a plethora of evidence that Christ exists/ed and that he is the son of the one true god. It was the use of the word "objective" that interested me.

What are you defining as objective?

It's objective in the same way as the evidence for past presidents is objective.

Or the evidence for the existance of Shakspeare. Or Beethoven. Or Rembrandt. Or William of Orange, Plato, or your great-great-great-grandmother.

Or any other historical person you care to name, whom you've never seen yourself.

oi_antz · Nov 1, 2011

elman said:
I am an agnostic Christian. I don't agree that the central principle in Christianity is that Jeus sacrificed Himself for us. I believe the central principle in Christianity is God is good and loving and created us to be good and loving to each others. In my view, we should worship and love our Creator because He is loving and good, not because He is powerful.

Wow, how do you mean "agnostic Christian"? Do you mean that you trust that the bible is true and that Jesus really did all that, but you have no personal conviction of God, or has God never introduced Himself to you? So what, you trust that God is real but you lack the conviction to say with certainty that He is real beyond doubt? I'm really curious about this!

Foolish · Nov 2, 2011

oi_antz said:
I would say that we are each telling you what we think you need to know. At least you could acknowledge that we aren't arguing with each other, so in effect we are telling you the truth. Bits of the truth mind you, that's all we can do since only Jesus is the Way the Truth and the Life. If that is something you want for your own comprehension then you will need to ask Him and He is willing to give it freely to you.

Here are a few things He said that proves this:

I agree, most that have replied to my questions have been trying tell me what they think I need to know. I've found that there are 2 types of people who've responded

1: "the question can't be answered as there isn't necessarily a satisfying answer, but here are my thoughts anyway" and

2 "you're asking the wrong question"

The people who answered with 1 at least tried to understand where I was coming from and I thank you. But found that my persistence that the number 2s ( no pun intended) answered my question didn't go down too well.

Foolish · Nov 2, 2011

Catherineanne said:
Although I can understand comments like this, and have some sympathy for them, the Lord did not ever send anyone away to read a book.

This (and other posts on this thread) remind me of the following:

Q Can you tell me the way to Dublin?
A Oh, I wouldn't start from here if I were you.

In other words, Foolish has come here to ask us. If we can't provide an answer from our own experience, it really is not going to help if we send him away to read a book, however wonderful the book.

And as for other far more unfortunate contributions complaining of his lack of understanding of our faith, can I remind people that if they cannot find anything nice to say, it is far better not to say anything. Just a thought.

Well that's much more succinct that the way I put it! I'll remember that one.

As for your other post catherineanne, thank you. I'm just starting to think that my mind isn't suitable for religion. I just can't suspend my analytical and logical mind in order to believe.

Having said that though, I am enjoying learning, so I'll keep asking questions.

Foolish · Nov 2, 2011

chilehed said:
It's objective in the same way as the evidence for past presidents is objective.

Or the evidence for the existance of Shakspeare. Or Beethoven. Or Rembrandt. Or William of Orange, Plato, or your great-great-great-grandmother.

Or any other historical person you care to name, whom you've never seen yourself.

That's not really the same thing though as there are accounts of beethoven and Rembrandt in newspaper articles and the views of competing contemporaries criticisizing their works.

The key for most of those you mention is that there're independent, objective sources rather than disciples or followers etc who have a vested interest in the success of the Christian message.

Foolish · Nov 2, 2011

oi_antz said:
Wow, how do you mean "agnostic Christian"? Do you mean that you trust that the bible is true and that Jesus really did all that, but you have no personal conviction of God, or has God never introduced Himself to you? So what, you trust that God is real but you lack the conviction to say with certainty that He is real beyond doubt? I'm really curious about this!

That was my thinking too.

Agnosticism is all about following the evidence and never being absolutely certain of anything, so that one's mind is never made up or closed. I'm not sure that's allowed in worship is it? Genuine question, not a p take.

A confused atheist.

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Newbie

Senior Veteran

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Opposed to Untruth.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

elman

Veteran

Opposed to Untruth.

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency