Help from Skeptics

[brightlights]

Hello everyone.

I work with a collegiate ministry. We have some upcoming training for our students during which we want to help them begin wrestling with their faith and thinking critically about their faith. Our plan is to walk them through our statement of faith and then to give them critical questions to think about and try to answer in the hope they would come to a deeper understanding of what they believe. I will include our statement of faith in this thread. Would you be willing to ask some critical questions about some of these propositions? If they're good then we'll probably use them. Thanks.

Our statement of faith can be found in its entirety here --> http://www.navigators.org/us/ministries/navmissions/about/Statement%20Of%20Faith.pdf

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Why questions, when you have all the answers?

 

[brightlights]

Why questions, when you have all the answers?

This is not helpful.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

This is not helpful.

OK, how about:
How can I tell that I really believe this [stuff] and am not just reciting (to me) empty phrases?

 

[brightlights]

OK, how about:
How can I tell that I really believe this [stuff] and am not just reciting (to me) empty phrases?

Great question.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

The only scriptures (or "maps") I really believe are in some way my own posts, and even than I know I am human and likely to err. But even if I can have only limited confidence in myself I can generally argue it is based on experience and reflexive rationality rather than notoriously fallible leaps of faith. Of course I might be mislead, and have been in the past, but I feel that "authenticity" is the better option in the long run.

 

[Skavau]

This statement of faith is just a generic Christian statement of faith. It is unlikely in its content to make any skeptic ask themselves any challenging questions.

 

[brightlights]

This statement of faith is just a generic Christian statement of faith. It is unlikely in its content to make any skeptic ask themselves any challenging questions.

I'm not asking you to ask yourself anything. I want you to ask the person who confesses this statement some challenging questions. Questions that would challenge these beliefs.

Thanks

 

[Skavau]

I'm not asking you to ask yourself anything. I want you to ask the person who confesses this statement some challenging questions. Questions that would challenge these beliefs.

Thanks

Okay.

How does the person know that any of them are true?

 

[Stoneghost]

I know this isn't quite what you meant but...

...that God created Adam and Eve in the divine image; that they sinned, and
thereby incurred not only physical death but also spiritual death, which is
separation from God; and that, as a result of Adam’s sin, all human beings
are now born with a sinful nature and stand guilty before God.

Adam's sin? Not Eve's sin?

 

[brightlights]

I know this isn't quite what you meant but...



Adam's sin? Not Eve's sin?

Great question! Thanks.

 

[Gadarene]

Why would God make Adam and Eve (or anyone for that matter) knowing that they would freely commit sin? Why not simply create humans who freely choose not to sin?

One can recast this question in the context of the dilemma Christ offers (accept salvation or perish) - why would God create individuals knowing that they would reject him? We know that people exist who freely accept Christ, so why not simply create a world of such individuals? Far less inefficient than sending so many people to hell.

 

[quatona]

Hello everyone.

I work with a collegiate ministry. We have some upcoming training for our students during which we want to help them begin wrestling with their faith and thinking critically about their faith. Our plan is to walk them through our statement of faith and then to give them critical questions to think about and try to answer in the hope they would come to a deeper understanding of what they believe. I will include our statement of faith in this thread. Would you be willing to ask some critical questions about some of these propositions?

Well, all of these statements of faith are just that, since they come without any substantiation, support or reasoning whatsoever. So I´m not sure why a skeptic should even take a closer look at them.

Anyway, here´s a question for you:
What definition of "God" and "man" must I use in order to make "He was and remains true God and true man" a meaningful statement?

If they're good then we'll probably use them. Thanks.

Will you - in returning the favour - also post your answers here?

 

[brightlights]

Well, all of these statements of faith are just that, since they come without any substantiation, support or reasoning whatsoever. So I´m not sure why a skeptic should even take a closer look at them.

I think the reason a skeptic would bother to question them would be to challenge them or to demonstrate that they're problematic.

Anyway, here´s a question for you:
What definition of "God" and "man" must I use in order to make "He was and remains true God and true man" a meaningful statement?


Will you - in returning the favour - also post your answers here?

I can post how I might begin to address the questions, but my purposes here are not to answer questions. Simply to gather good questions.

Let me take a shot at the question you've raised.

That Jesus was and is true God means that he is identical to the person who created the universe whom we call "God".

That he was and is true man means that he became a human being and is today a human being.

Does that help give some meaning to that statement?

 

[quatona]

I think the reason a skeptic would bother to question them would be to challenge them or to demonstrate that they're problematic.

Well, in order to challenge them or to demonstrate that they´re problematic they would have to have some sort of reasoning, logic, support, substantiation coming with them.
Unsupported claims of faith are as problematic as it can get, in the eyes of a skeptic. You would have to bring at least something to the table.

I can post how I might begin to address the questions, but my purposes here are not to answer questions. Simply to gather good questions.

Let me take a shot at the question you've raised.

That Jesus was and is true God means that he is identical to the person who created the universe whom we call "God".

That he was and is true man means that he became a human being and is today a human being.

Does that help give some meaning to that statement?

No. It seems that the implication that "God" and "human being" aren´t mutually exclusive terms poses a lot of theological problems for the Christian doctrine. I´m sure your students are smart enough to point them out.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

I think the reason a skeptic would bother to question them would be to challenge them or to demonstrate that they're problematic.

They are inherenly problematic to a skeptical mindset. A skeptic might believe stuff, no question. However, it will be a tentative and essentially unfaithful belief. The various faiths statements and creeds are not this sort of belief and they ask something else entirely.

ETA: And this is partly why you got such a tartly reply from me first.

 

[brightlights]

No. It seems that the implication that "God" and "human being" aren´t mutually exclusive terms poses a lot of theological problems for the Christian doctrine. I´m sure your students are smart enough to point them out.

What problems does it pose?

 

[quatona]

What problems does it pose?

Since these would be issues within Christian doctrine they don´t fall into the competence of a skeptic who is merely asked to take a look at the creeds you have posted. That´s why I suggested you Christians discuss them among yourselves.
But since you asked me: When I take a look at the Christian descriptions and definitions of "man/human" and "God" they mostly signify irreconcilable differences and even downright antagonisms.
E.g.: Physical vs. non-physical, sinful vs. sinless, imperfect vs. perfect, natural sin vs. sinlessness, temporal vs. eternal. limited vs. omni-whatever etc.
If I am not mistaken, a lot of Christian doctrines downright hinge on these irreconcilabilities.

 

[Elioenai26]

They are inherenly problematic to a skeptical mindset. A skeptic might believe stuff, no question. However, it will be a tentative and essentially unfaithful belief. The various faiths statements and creeds are not this sort of belief and they ask something else entirely.

ETA: And this is partly why you got such a tartly reply from me first.

And the definition of an unfaithful belief is......

 

[Elioenai26]

Since these would be issues within Christian doctrine they don´t fall into the competence of a skeptic who is merely asked to take a look at the creeds you have posted. That´s why I suggested you Christians discuss them among yourselves.
But since you asked me: When I take a look at the Christian descriptions and definitions of "man/human" and "God" they mostly signify irreconcilable differences and even downright antagonisms.
E.g.: Physical vs. non-physical, sinful vs. sinless, imperfect vs. perfect, natural sin vs. sinlessness, temporal vs. eternal. limited vs. omni-whatever etc.
If I am not mistaken, a lot of Christian doctrines downright hinge on these irreconcilabilities.

Yes you are mistaken.