Help with hard questions...

[RadioGuy80]

I am a Christian. I've not had much luck in past years holding a mature debate with others about my beliefs, and I feel that I have failed well short of my goal of standing up for my faith, but tonight was a different story.

My job has quite a bit of down time, and because of that, I find myself part of many odd conversations. Tonight, the guy next to me and I had quite the long talk (5+ hours) about philosophy and how it applies to theism in general, and of course Christianity in specific. He made many points that appealed to my logical mind, and it was hard for me to defend my faith. I was not left with a doubt of my faith, but I was left perplexed at the issues he brought up, and it's bothering me.



There are several questions that he asked. I am going to paraphrase what he said, please answer as if I were the one arguing these points.



1: If a concept of God is something that cannot be comprehended within the standards of human senses (touch, smell, etc..), nor can it be explained within any realm of our understanding, how can we then assume that we can speak about such a God at all with our abilities? Furthermore, if we then cannot speak or converse about such a thing, how is theism in general even possible, and how can we assume that scriptures such as the Bible are valid, considering the above.



2: People frequently use the analogy of wind to help others understand the non-physical yet real presence of God. That’s convenient, however invalid. I can bottle wind, feel wind with my senses, move wind, use wind to move things, I can do many things with wind. I have never experienced God with any of my available senses. How are we then to believe that, with no physical evidence of God, He exists?



3: To add to the previous question, if we are to assume that there is in fact a God, how are we to make the strong and vast leap from that basis to the staples of Christianity? How can we know that the Bible is not various information fictionally created two thousand years ago?



4: Why are there no logical and substantial arguments for the common atheist viewpoints, and why can’t Christians debate their belief in the same manner secularists debate theirs?



5: What is faith? How can we define it? How strong can ones beliefs be when they cannot back them up to logical human thinking. Furthermore, if the Christian belief that humans are far from perfect, how can somebody defending an all-powerful God not counter the seemingly simple arguments of such a person?



Again, these are not my questions, but when faced with them, I found myself unable to provide confident answers that would satisfy them. This person that I speak of has an unusual arsenal, as he attended Bible college for 4 years, claims he was once a saved man, and now claims that such beliefs have been invalidated by the theories that he has read. He stands on his claim that there are so many questions, like the one above, that cannot be answered in any logical way, and that the typical Christian response of “faith” simply does not answer a single question. As he put it, “I have faith that a purple elephant is on your head making you believe what you do, does that prove to you that I am correct?”

Please let me know your takes on this, and please try to avoid typical apologetic replies. I'm trying to find a fresh take on these issues.

 

[Gracchus]

1: If a concept of God is something that cannot be comprehended within the standards of human senses (touch, smell, etc..), nor can it be explained within any realm of our understanding, how can we then assume that we can speak about such a God at all with our abilities?

The experience of the numinous is common to mystics of all religions and to some acid-heads. Like the blind men and the elephant, they come away with only part of the reality.

http://www.wordfocus.com/word-act-blindmen.html

It is quite understandable for people, even mystics, to interpret what they experience through cultural filters. And those who have never experienced the elephant are soon substituting, "the elephant is a tree", for "the elephant is very like a tree."

In fact, one of the first deadly intestine arguments in Christianity was whether the Son was of the same substance as the Father (Grk. homousion) or similar substance to the Father (Grk. homoiusion). (Note the difference is the iota, or jot. The irony is delicious.) Note also, that the early Christians were killing, damning and anathematizing each other over a point of theology with no practical application, and probably an unreal point at that.

Furthermore, if we then cannot speak or converse about such a thing, how is theism in general even possible, and how can we assume that scriptures such as the Bible are valid, considering the above.

Because there is something. Now, I am not a Christian, but a pantheistic deist of the Zen school. There is some truth and edification in the Christian bible, but there is also a lot of nonsense. You have to refine it, like some sort of gold ore. It is silly to treasure the dross as though the ore were pure gold.

2: People frequently use the analogy of wind to help others understand the non-physical yet real presence of God. That’s convenient, however invalid. I can bottle wind, feel wind with my senses, move wind, use wind to move things, I can do many things with wind. I have never experienced God with any of my available senses. How are we then to believe that, with no physical evidence of God, He exists?

The illusion is that we are separate from God. Even the bible says that it is God's life (ruah, pneuma, breath) that makes us in the image of God, but we cannot be expected to open our wallets to a clergymen if we can find God within ourselves.

And if God is in every human being, how can we claim superiority over our brethren.

3: To add to the previous question, if we are to assume that there is in fact a God, how are we to make the strong and vast leap from that basis to the staples of Christianity? How can we know that the Bible is not various information fictionally created two thousand years ago?

The staples of human morality is contained in Micah 6:8

He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?

Note that this is a rhetorical question. That is all that is required of us. It is not required that we pray, tithe, go to church on specified days or believe what is contrary to reason.

4: Why are there no logical and substantial arguments for the common atheist viewpoints, and why can’t Christians debate their belief in the same manner secularists debate theirs?

Because Christians have a lot of emotional investment in proving their moral superiority, and absent any outstanding and obvious virtue, assert that their superiority is not in what they do but rather in what they believe. And it would not serve if their belief was common, but it must be a minority belief so that they can be superior to almost everyone. This is why there are so many Christian sects.

5: What is faith? How can we define it? How strong can ones beliefs be when they cannot back them up to logical human thinking. Furthermore, if the Christian belief that humans are far from perfect, how can somebody defending an all-powerful God not counter the seemingly simple arguments of such a person?

faith
Pronunciation: 'fAth
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural faiths /'fAths, sometimes 'fA[th]z/
Etymology: Middle English feith, from Old French feid, foi, from Latin fides; akin to Latin fidere to trust -- more at BIDE
1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : LOYALTY b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs
synonym see BELIEF
- in faith : without doubt or question : VERILY

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary 01/10/05

The word is kind of slippery. Notice that phrase at the end "without doubt or question". Strip off all that dogma and scripture. Leap into the hands of the Lord and fear no evil.

Again, these are not my questions, but when faced with them, I found myself unable to provide confident answers that would satisfy them. This person that I speak of has an unusual arsenal, as he attended Bible college for 4 years, claims he was once a saved man, and now claims that such beliefs have been invalidated by the theories that he has read. He stands on his claim that there are so many questions, like the one above, that cannot be answered in any logical way, and that the typical Christian response of “faith” simply does not answer a single question. As he put it, “I have faith that a purple elephant is on your head making you believe what you do, does that prove to you that I am correct?”

Mark Twain once remarked that faith is believing what you know ain't so. That is just the kind of faith we should abandon.

 

[Phred]

I am a Christian.

And there's your problem. Try starting without the dogma, examine the evidence that exists and then come to a conclusion. If asked, you can then simply show the evidence you've examined and how it led to your conclusion. The reason you're losing debates about your faith is that you start with a conclusion and try to find evidence that supports it.

.​

 

[Eph. 3:20]

1: If a concept of God is something that cannot be comprehended within the standards of human senses (touch, smell, etc..), nor can it be explained within any realm of our understanding, how can we then assume that we can speak about such a God at all with our abilities? Furthermore, if we then cannot speak or converse about such a thing, how is theism in general even possible, and how can we assume that scriptures such as the Bible are valid, considering the above.

This argument commits a fallacy; that our physical senses are the only thing by which we can determine if God exists. A concept of God is something that can be comprehended within the standards of human senses, although not always the physical ones. A person can understand the qualities that God portrays and reveals of Himself within the pages of Scripture. We can understand love, mercy, compassion, strength, intellect ect... It is not to say that we as humans can fully comprehend each of those qualities to its fullest dimension, but it is to say that we can understand them enough to discuss them and in many cases reflect theose qualities in our own lives.

2: People frequently use the analogy of wind to help others understand the non-physical yet real presence of God. That’s convenient, however invalid. I can bottle wind, feel wind with my senses, move wind, use wind to move things, I can do many things with wind. I have never experienced God with any of my available senses. How are we then to believe that, with no physical evidence of God, He exists?

Again your speaking strictly in the physical sense.

Here's a test...
Prove to me you have intellect without using any of your physical abilities. You cannot type, speak, make hand gestures or anything else that might make use of anything physical. Do you still possess your intellect? Yes you do without bearing any physical proof. The object here is to prove that something exist without there being physical proof that I can distinguish. The critic will say, "Ahh, no one but yourself can know that intellect unless it is demonstrated." Well you know don't you? You can think and use reason.

The difference between the two is that God does give us physical proof in many ways. His Scripture is one validation in it's consistency throughout human history, it's predictions and revelations and by the accounts by those that have witnessed and interacted with God and Jesus. Creation, the visible world around us, is another evidence and something that's spoke about in Scripture.

3: To add to the previous question, if we are to assume that there is in fact a God, how are we to make the strong and vast leap from that basis to the staples of Christianity? How can we know that the Bible is not various information fictionally created two thousand years ago?

Well, it is not a vast leap at all. Keep in mind the God of Israel predicts that a Messiah will come and will be witnessed by many and will be raised from the dead and will establish His kingdom.

"Christ fulfilled sixty major Messianic prophecies and approx. 270 ramifications. Using the science of probability, the chances of just eight of these prophecies being fulfilled in one person to be one in 10 to the 157th power (that is one followed by 157 zero's)." [A Ready Defense, Josh McDowell]

4: Why are there no logical and substantial arguments for the common atheist viewpoints, and why can’t Christians debate their belief in the same manner secularists debate theirs?

There are myriads of objections to common atheistics viewpoints. Some Christians do debate these issues in the same manner as do secularist. A look in the apologetics forum should clear this up.

5: What is faith? How can we define it? How strong can ones beliefs be when they cannot back them up to logical human thinking. Furthermore, if the Christian belief that humans are far from perfect, how can somebody defending an all-powerful God not counter the seemingly simple arguments of such a person?

I don't want to give you a shallow answer and something that is offered in a flippant way. A critical examination of what faith, will take more time than I have available right now. Check out this explanation http://www.tektonics.org/whatis/whatfaith.html

Please let me know your takes on this, and please try to avoid typical apologetic replies. I'm trying to find a fresh take on these issues.

The arguments presented are as old as the faith it is in objection to. To come up with "fresh" apologetics does not mean they are any more valid then apologetics that have stood the test of time. In fact because they have stood the test of time and weathered the strongest storms, they are your best bet IMO.

And there's your problem. Try starting without the dogma, examine the evidence that exists and then come to a conclusion. If asked, you can then simply show the evidence you've examined and how it led to your conclusion. The reason you're losing debates about your faith is that you start with a conclusion and try to find evidence that supports it.

Great suggestion. One journey we all must take if we want to honestly examine our faith.

Eph.

 

[RadioGuy80]

And there's your problem. Try starting without the dogma, examine the evidence that exists and then come to a conclusion. If asked, you can then simply show the evidence you've examined and how it led to your conclusion. The reason you're losing debates about your faith is that you start with a conclusion and try to find evidence that supports it.

.​

This is the statement he made as well. However, we were not debating, he was telling me the issues he has with Christianity and theism as a whole. I was not attempting to answer his questions, I was attempting to understand his point of veiw. To list that me first saying "I am a Christian" is my problem is to foolishly assume that any believer would have beliefs of faith improved or disputed by discussions of logic.

The language of man fails to describe God, and ultimatly fails to define Him. Does the Bible contain every piece of information about God? Not likely. Why, then, are we to assume that explanations of "logic" are best used to dictate His true existance.

It's foolishness, this is evident. My questions are centered around the specific debate points that my friend brough up, and I'm simply wondering if there is an answer. If so, what is it. Are these questions attempting to define faith in logic, and are they valid?

Never assume that what you are about to say has never been said before.

 

[RadioGuy80]

More...



Another thing he brought to the conversation was the definition of certain terms that Christians use so liberally, but are hardly ever questioned on.



For example...



God

Faith (mentioned in the first post)

Belief

Savior

Sin

Spirituality



When I say God, what do I mean? How can I define God? Am I to explain His existence in a way that I would explain a rock, or a tree? I cannot fully explain God using analogies of every day life, as He does not exist physically to satisfy our need of proof. His argument is that since we cannot have this discussion, any written and established view of God is fiction as well, hence invalid.



As I've stated before, my personal belief is different from his. To assume that the limitations of our communication must also apply to God is foolish. To think that not being able to identify God within the boundaries of my intelligence leads to his non-existence is to think that since no man can logically and without a doubt prove how the sun was created. Sure, you say, you can see the sun.



When man first walked the Earth, did he have a ready and thorough explanation of a rock? Was he able to tell me how the weather patterns on the Earth move and affect certain regions? Was he able to properly identify why it kept getting dark every now and then? Of course this is absurd. So is the thought that we have reached our pinnacle and are now able to explain God.



I see God’s work through many things in this world, and they are far more convincing than any "logical" argument brought against him.



In the same way people challenge me to remove the dogma and examine my faith from step one, without bias, I can tell you to step outside the comfort of your own understanding and logic and realize that not you, not any psychologist, not any professor of theism, not any man can understand the workings of our world within even a vague degree. Therefore, don't limit your available doors to just the ones you know how to open.

 

[HouseApe]

More...



Another thing he brought to the conversation was the definition of certain terms that Christians use so liberally, but are hardly ever questioned on.



For example...



God

Faith (mentioned in the first post)

Belief

Savior

Sin

Spirituality



When I say God, what do I mean? How can I define God? Am I to explain His existence in a way that I would explain a rock, or a tree? I cannot fully explain God using analogies of every day life, as He does not exist physically to satisfy our need of proof. His argument is that since we cannot have this discussion, any written and established view of God is fiction as well, hence invalid.



As I've stated before, my personal belief is different from his. To assume that the limitations of our communication must also apply to God is foolish. To think that not being able to identify God within the boundaries of my intelligence leads to his non-existence is to think that since no man can logically and without a doubt prove how the sun was created. Sure, you say, you can see the sun.



When man first walked the Earth, did he have a ready and thorough explanation of a rock? Was he able to tell me how the weather patterns on the Earth move and affect certain regions? Was he able to properly identify why it kept getting dark every now and then? Of course this is absurd. So is the thought that we have reached our pinnacle and are now able to explain God.



I see God’s work through many things in this world, and they are far more convincing than any "logical" argument brought against him.



In the same way people challenge me to remove the dogma and examine my faith from step one, without bias, I can tell you to step outside the comfort of your own understanding and logic and realize that not you, not any psychologist, not any professor of theism, not any man can understand the workings of our world within even a vague degree. Therefore, don't limit your available doors to just the ones you know how to open.

I submit to you that God is simply the cause of all things for which you cannot provide a natural explanation. You say that you "see God's work through many things in this world". I must assume that these "things" are things that you would not expect to happen, given your understanding of the world. So either God exists (whatever God is), or you have an insufficient understanding of the world. Which is more likely? I recognize I have an insufficient understanding of the world. So I do not assume God exists.

 

[Phred]

In the same way people challenge me to remove the dogma and examine my faith from step one, without bias, I can tell you to step outside the comfort of your own understanding and logic and realize that not you, not any psychologist, not any professor of theism, not any man can understand the workings of our world within even a vague degree. Therefore, don't limit your available doors to just the ones you know how to open.

That is simply not true. The workings of our universe, our world, are better understood with each passing day. That's why we don't have any deities who are clearly defined anymore. Give a deity attributes and it can be shown not to exist.

What we're left with are these vast unimaginable beings who can't ever be defined. This Christian God I hear so much about has no discernable attributes. You can't prove this deity exists without giving someone else a chance to prove it doesn't. So you don't try.

Still... this isn't about my opening doors... it's about your choosing to open one and only one. You can't offer any logical validity to your faith if you've only ever believed in just that one thing without question. So now you resort to the usual tactic of calling everything else into question. Not offering anything in support of your conjecture... just an attempt to bring everything else down to your level of belief.

If your faith were so easily validated, why do this?

.​

 

[morningstar2651]

2: People frequently use the analogy of wind to help others understand the non-physical yet real presence of God. That’s convenient, however invalid. I can bottle wind, feel wind with my senses, move wind, use wind to move things, I can do many things with wind. I have never experienced God with any of my available senses. How are we then to believe that, with no physical evidence of God, He exists?

The abcence of evidence is not the evidence of abcence.

 

[DJ_Ghost]

1: If a concept of God is something that cannot be comprehended within the standards of human senses (touch, smell, etc..), nor can it be explained within any realm of our understanding, how can we then assume that we can speak about such a God at all with our abilities? Furthermore, if we then cannot speak or converse about such a thing, how is theism in general even possible, and how can we assume that scriptures such as the Bible are valid, considering the above.

Whilst it is true that God is a metaphysical concept and therefore beyond the ability of empirical methods to verify or falsify, this in itself does not make the notion of God an invalid one. Karl Popper, in many ways the father of the modern scientific method, vehemently opposed the notion that something had no meaning simply by didn’t of being a metaphysical question. he argued the notion still had validity and importance but was beyond the means of empirical science to discus and therefore was something we should not attempt to apply empirical methodology to. It becomes a matter of faith and should remain in the realms of metaphysics.

2: People frequently use the analogy of wind to help others understand the non-physical yet real presence of God. That’s convenient, however invalid. I can bottle wind, feel wind with my senses, move wind, use wind to move things, I can do many things with wind. I have never experienced God with any of my available senses. How are we then to believe that, with no physical evidence of God, He exists?

The wind analogy is a bad one, wind is a physical phenomenon and as such lies within the realm of empirical investigation. Metaphysical notions (such as the existence of God or none existence of God) are by their very nature metaphysical. Since empiricism can not be brought to bear on metaphysical concepts there is no reason either to believe or to disbelieve, instead each person must decide according to their own criterion.

3: To add to the previous question, if we are to assume that there is in fact a God, how are we to make the strong and vast leap from that basis to the staples of Christianity? How can we know that the Bible is not various information fictionally created two thousand years ago?

If we accept the notion that a God exists then there is no reason why we should make the inductive leap that the God in question is the Christian one. Again we must come to our own decision based on criterion other than empiricism as we are still in the realms of metaphysics. In short, we can believe as we will but should be prepared for the possibility that we are wrong.

4: Why are there no logical and substantial arguments for the common atheist viewpoints, and why can’t Christians debate their belief in the same manner secularists debate theirs?

I am not certain exactly what the question is, could you clarify it?

5: What is faith? How can we define it? How strong can ones beliefs be when they cannot back them up to logical human thinking. Furthermore, if the Christian belief that humans are far from perfect, how can somebody defending an all-powerful God not counter the seemingly simple arguments of such a person?

Faith is fairly well defined in most dictionaries, if we assume that there is a curnel of truth in Christianity then there is no reason we should be able to convince an atheist, as free will is an important part of the belief system.

I hope there is something of use in that for you.

Ghost

 

[kedaman]

1: If a concept of God is something that cannot be comprehended within the standards of human senses (touch, smell, etc..), nor can it be explained within any realm of our understanding, how can we then assume that we can speak about such a God at all with our abilities? Furthermore, if we then cannot speak or converse about such a thing, how is theism in general even possible, and how can we assume that scriptures such as the Bible are valid, considering the above.

It's not useful for epistemology the slightest, but it is necessary for any application of morality. Whatever your friend does, he is using the concept in his mind we call God, without any needing any contemplation on it.

2: People frequently use the analogy of wind to help others understand the non-physical yet real presence of God. That’s convenient, however invalid. I can bottle wind, feel wind with my senses, move wind, use wind to move things, I can do many things with wind. I have never experienced God with any of my available senses. How are we then to believe that, with no physical evidence of God, He exists?

By faith, since faith require no physical evidence, it is evidence of its own. Thought we can believe in God for a physical reason, it is not enough for conversion.

3: To add to the previous question, if we are to assume that there is in fact a God, how are we to make the strong and vast leap from that basis to the staples of Christianity? How can we know that the Bible is not various information fictionally created two thousand years ago?

By faith again, it becomes evident. The average Christian I meet refer to the scripture and says they just believe it, but Christ taught to us to judge for ourselves, these things will make sense to them who practices them. You can't just come here, ask a bunch of question and throw arguments at some atheists - you need to understand them, they must makse sense to you.

4: Why are there no logical and substantial arguments for the common atheist viewpoints, and why can’t Christians debate their belief in the same manner secularists debate theirs?

We can't debate it with them, because logic cannot be used to prove our position, but our position is the right for a correct philosophical position, by which we can refute any secularists arguments.

5: What is faith? How can we define it? How strong can ones beliefs be when they cannot back them up to logical human thinking. Furthermore, if the Christian belief that humans are far from perfect, how can somebody defending an all-powerful God not counter the seemingly simple arguments of such a person?

Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen (Hebrews 11) It's strength is because of its independence of empirical evidence, and as such it cannot be defeated, thus doesn't need to be defended. Pray that The Holy Spirit will show you.

 

[tcampen]

Here's a test...
Prove to me you have intellect without using any of your physical abilities. You cannot type, speak, make hand gestures or anything else that might make use of anything physical. Do you still possess your intellect? Yes you do without bearing any physical proof. The object here is to prove that something exist without there being physical proof that I can distinguish. The critic will say, "Ahh, no one but yourself can know that intellect unless it is demonstrated." Well you know don't you? You can think and use reason.

The difference between the two is that God does give us physical proof in many ways. His Scripture is one validation in it's consistency throughout human history, it's predictions and revelations and by the accounts by those that have witnessed and interacted with God and Jesus. Creation, the visible world around us, is another evidence and something that's spoke about in Scripture.

There is a qualitive difference between proving the existence of one's intellect and the existence of god, let alone a very particular type of god. Intellegence can be objectively tested, measured and recorded by people of a variety of faiths, cultures and backgrounds. There is no method of doing the same for anything supernatural. Period. Can't be done. The idea that some particular scriptures are self evident in this regard are only self evident to those who already accept those scriptures as authoritative. The Jehovah's Witness, the Momon, and the Evangelical Christian all have the exact same claims about scripture, yet believe some very differenct things about God. Think about it.

"Christ fulfilled sixty major Messianic prophecies and approx. 270 ramifications. Using the science of probability, the chances of just eight of these prophecies being fulfilled in one person to be one in 10 to the 157th power (that is one followed by 157 zero's)." [A Ready Defense, Josh McDowell]

According to who? The same scriptures that make the same claims in the first place. Suppose I now write down that I knew you were going to quote McDowell in this exact thread four years ago. What are the odds of THAT? 100%, since I'm talking about fulfilling the prediction after the fact.

Look, the opposite of faith is certainty. (I can't recall the name of the Catholic Priest/theologian who put it that way.) Faith is a very personal thing. If the scriptures speak spiritual truth to you, then there you go. It is pointless to try and apply logic and reason to the supernatural, when by definition the supernatural transcends logic and reason. This makes faith a far more subjective phenomena, but no less real to you.

 

[RadioGuy80]

That is simply not true. The workings of our universe, our world, are better understood with each passing day. That's why we don't have any deities who are clearly defined anymore. Give a deity attributes and it can be shown not to exist.

Give a deity only limited inquisition and you will receive a limited answer. Considering we know somewhere in the neighborhood of 1/10²º (/sarcasm) of the knowledge to be had, why assume the criteria by which you judge can come to any kind of reasonable conclusion.

What we're left with are these vast unimaginable beings who can't ever be defined. This Christian God I hear so much about has no discernable attributes. You can't prove this deity exists without giving someone else a chance to prove it doesn't. So you don't try.

Definition is, by itself, flawed. If all you know in life are the orange and banana in your hand, how do you define the pineapple that just fell at your feet? You use terms and understanding that you already possess to describe that which you simply cannot grasp. In time, you may develop another name for the new fruit, sure, and that is the luxury of having something physical (read: able to be understood with human means) fall into your lap.

Still... this isn't about my opening doors... it's about your choosing to open one and only one. You can't offer any logical validity to your faith if you've only ever believed in just that one thing without question. So now you resort to the usual tactic of calling everything else into question. Not offering anything in support of your conjecture... just an attempt to bring everything else down to your level of belief.

If your faith were so easily validated, why do this?

It's rather convenient for you to stand on your laurels (as you claim I do), call me closed minded, and accuse me of bringing everything down to my level of belief. When I admit to myself that I am not capable of understanding so much of this world, I'm also stating the fact that you share the same ignorance and bewilderment towards such things, and therefore can be fingered for bringing things down to your understanding as well.



If human logic cannot be questioned, and humans are by nature imperfect, why assume you are right? Do you not see the conundrum you face? Do I assume I am right? Not at all! I do, however, find it easier to believe in the deity of the "God of the Bible" than I do the logic of the "man of the posting board." I can ditch my belief of God, and go the humanist route. This may provide me the enjoyment of thinking I have a better understanding of the world than “those stupid Christians.” I would be self sufficient in my thinking, not bowing to any dogma. As fulfilling as this may seem, I could never shake the fact that I would be following a life provided only by the knowledge of myself and my peers. How limited a life that would be.



“I’ll show you the new world, here’s your nail-hole to look through.”



I do thank you, however, for validating many of the true answers to my original set of questions. Faith, by itself, is not a questionable subject, as it has no reasonable basis. Just as you challenge me on this subject, I challenge your humility.

 

[HouseApe]

I can ditch my belief of God, and go the humanist route. This may provide me the enjoyment of thinking I have a better understanding of the world than “those stupid Christians.” I would be self sufficient in my thinking, not bowing to any dogma. As fulfilling as this may seem, I could never shake the fact that I would be following a life provided only by the knowledge of myself and my peers. How limited a life that would be.

It is exactly the same! Even as a Christian, you are following a life provided only by the knowledge of yourself and your peers. The only difference between you and an atheist is that you choose to believe that a book written 2000 years ago, by 5 or 6 guys, 3 or 4 of whom no one knows anything about, is true. And that book, the New Testament, just sets up a concept of eternal life in Hell and shows you how to avoid it. Other than that, it gives essentially no knowledge. And trust me, once you cast off the limited view given by traditional Christian dogma, you can find out just how fascinating life can really be.

 

[RadioGuy80]

It is exactly the same! Even as a Christian, you are following a life provided only by the knowledge of yourself and your peers. The only difference between you and an atheist is that you choose to believe that a book written 2000 years ago, by 5 or 6 guys, 3 or 4 of whom no one knows anything about, is true. And that book, the New Testament, just sets up a concept of eternal life in Hell and shows you how to avoid it. Other than that, it gives essentially no knowledge. And trust me, once you cast off the limited view given by traditional Christian dogma, you can find out just how fascinating life can really be.
[/font][/color][/size][/color][/font]

Funny that, I've not been born into this faith, nor did I learn it as a child and never choose to investigate.

I never claimed to be different than others clinging to knowledge not complete. I did, however, say that I choose to believe Biblical scriputres as opposed to the words of men claiming to know everything.

Furthermore, back off with the claims that I'm missing out by not being a confused atheist. If you want to enjoy your empty life, be my guest. Don't drag me down with you.