I'm Being Honest From the Start

[Sanoy]

C) God (using claimed objective morality to prove god, and vise versa, is circular and does nothing to demonstrate the existence of a higher authority). All the theist is required to do is prove the claimed moral prescription was actually presented by a god, and the discussion can then start to begin coherently.

All knowledge is at base either a brute fact, axiomatic or circular. Even your statement of the four possibilities is ultimately circular if walked back to it's base within a knowledge system. What matters is where the circularity is. It must not be in the argument itself. So what argument are you claiming is circular?

I can say moral values are apprehended objectively apart from ones theological beliefs. One can be an athiest like Erik Wielenberg and tie them objectively to abstract objects, or one can be an agnostic like Michael Ruse and affirm their objectivety simple through apprehension.

 

[Hawkins]

You might want to hash this assertion out with a professor of Hermeneutics, most specifically, in Talmudical hermeneutics - whom happen to be Orthodox Jews.

If the Bible is the Word, and the Word is the chosen method for God to spread truth. And the most scholarly of individuals, whom study the Word for decades cannot conclude an objective conclusion, from the very same passages; this may suggest that God is the author of confusion.?.?.? How might one know whom is correct, and whom is incorrect, between the Jew and the Christian??? It becomes quickly circular... Why? Because they both use the very same passage, from the very same verse, from the very same Old Testament, to justify their opposite position.

So which one is right? Assuming this is a true dichotomy???? They are both referencing the SAME standard (the Bible). Quite the predicament

It seems to me that you are brainwashed by modern education to think the evidence is needed for humans to reach a truth. This reality however never operates that way.

Science:
What evidence do you have before you know for a fact that earth is revolving around the sun, black holes exist, electrons exist...etc. 99.99% humans don't have or examine any evidence before they know for a fact that these are facts. Humans in majority rely on putting faith in our scientists (the 0.01% humans) to reach such truths.

history:
What evidence do you have for any piece of history written 2000 years ago? None of us has any evidence of history. I randomly fetch the following sentence from a history book, The Wars of the Jews by Josephus. Book 2, chapter 3, section 1,

1. Now before Caesar had determined any thing about these affairs, Malthace, Arehelaus's mother, fell sick and died.

What evidence shows that Malthace and Arehelaus ever existed and what evidence shows that Malthace ever fell sick and died as stated?

Humans never need any evidence for the above statement to be treated as part of our history. History in a nutshell has no evidence under most circumstance. In this case, we rely on putting faith in the 0.01% humans, the historians, to reach a claimed historical truth. If we refuse to put in our faith and insist on evidence instead, it could only mean that we have no history at all.

Around you:
When you watch daily news do you look for evidence behind each piece of news before to treat it as a fact. We don't. In this case we rely on putting faith in the 0.01% humans, our media composed of reporters and journalists, to get to the facts happening around this world.

How about a future event:
Humans don't have any capability to reach a future lying ahead of us. But wait, we have same fundamental way to reach a possible truth lying ahead in the future. We can reach it by putting faith in the less than 0.01% humans who witnessed the existence God to bring us the "daily news" about our future. Whether they are telling a truth or a lie, it is the only way humans can reach a truth in the future. We can't verify our history to make it evidenced, we are futile about what would happen in the future. It is because humans are creatures of the present. We are cut from direct access to both the past and future. The only way we can reach the future as well as the past is by putting trust/faith in the less than 0.01% eyewitnesses. That's the way how humans approach a truth.

To put it another way (and for the sake of argument), even in the case that Jesus and Christianity is a truth, the only way humans can reach such a truth is by putting faith in what is recorded down by the less than 0.01% human witnesses. The other way is for God to show up in front of each of us to tell us directly. This is however impossible because humans are bound to a covenant which says that we need faith to be saved. If God shows up to everyone, it simultaneously means that all mankind shall go to hell.

 

[cvanwey]

There is no predicament.

Jesus is the Word, the New and Old Testaments are just witnesses to that central doctrine, all other doctrines derive from this one. That Christ took on flesh and walked among us, that he revealed the nature of the Father(a significant word in this context), in everything that he said and did.

That his life and his death, were established as a beacon, leading us back to Himself, by the work of His Spirit and the words of those who have gone before us.

So when Jesus says "Let the little children come unto me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these." I require nothing more than to become like them myself.

'Because I or it says so' is not a sufficient answer. I will ask again... in a clearer way...

A Christian and a Jew read the same prophesy verse from the Old Testament. The Jew states this is not about Jesus, and the Christian of course, says it does. How might one decide which one is right/wrong? They are both using the same book, looking at the very same verse. In conclusion, they both look at the same verse, to either translate it being for or against Jesus.

Stating, 'because it is', and then capitalizing pronouns, does not appear to be a sufficient rationale.

 

[cvanwey]

It seems to me that you are brainwashed by modern education to think the evidence is needed for humans to reach a truth. This reality however never operates that way.

Appealing to an ancient assembled 66 chapter book, asserting perfection, and yet later finding demonstrable imperfection, but then ignoring or denying the overwhelming demonstration which appears to poke many holes within it, and then also claiming 'faith' to retain the position, somehow is not 'brainwashed', and is a better pathway to 'truth'?

Science:
What evidence do you have before you know for a fact that earth is revolving around the sun, black holes exist, electrons exist...etc. 99.99% humans don't have or examine any evidence before they know for a fact that these are facts. Humans in majority rely on putting faith in our scientists (the 0.01% humans) to reach such truths.

I'll ask an easier, and even more relevant question, which demonstrates logic at a basic and fundamental level...

Based upon today's standards, and in light of all discoveries, will 'new' evidence come to light, demonstrating that the world is actually flat? So here is my assertion.... I state the world is at least semi spherical. Yes, 100 years ago, it was thought to be more of a perfect circle, but is now discovered to be more of a pair shape. Will this change in the future? Maybe. However, will we EVER later discover it is actually flat, (as it was thought to be 2000 years ago)?????

This is how I view much of the Bible. Too many discoveries exist, which appear to fly in the face of even the claimed Genesis account (without even going beyond this book). This raises severe pause for me...

Have I conducted science experiments myself? No. But I bet if someone told YOU, the world was flat, you could make a very reasonable case, as to how this assertion is most likely absurd. 100%? No. But again, we could all live in the Matrix.

It would help to provide, what I feel, presents acceptable standards for evidence to any claim. Please note standards of evidence may carry no true universal standard. However, in light of the up coming topics, it is only reasonable to establish a general overview, regarding a basic criterium for evidential standards:

1) Is the presented evidence met with any conformation bias, or, might the presented evidence be partial to one's own apriori position in any possible way? 2) Is the evidence situational, rather than repeatable at any time? 3) Does the evidence lack unbiased peer review in a controlled and/or well established environment? 4) Was the evidence unable to be corroborated with other pieces of independent and unbiased evidence? 5) Is the presented claimed evidence met with any fallacious reasoning? Meaning, inconsistent or demonstrable errors in reasoning. If the answer is 'yes' to any of these questions, then it may not meet an acceptable standard for evidence. This does not mean the claimed evidence is immediately discarded otherwise. The above five points can at least provide a baseline or starting reference point. Each claim merits individual scrutiny and examination accordingly.

history:
What evidence do you have for any piece of history written 2000 years ago? None of us has any evidence of history. I randomly fetch the following sentence from a history book, The Wars of the Jews by Josephus. Book 2, chapter 3, section 1,

1. Now before Caesar had determined any thing about these affairs, Malthace, Arehelaus's mother, fell sick and died.

What evidence shows that Malthace and Arehelaus ever existed and what evidence shows that Malthace ever fell sick and died as stated?

Humans never need any evidence for the above statement to be treated as part of our history. History in a nutshell has no evidence under most circumstance. In this case, we rely on putting faith in the 0.01% humans, the historians, to reach a claimed historical truth. If we refuse to put in our faith and insist on evidence instead, it could only mean that we have no history at all.

Around you:
When you watch daily news do you look for evidence behind each piece of news before to treat it as a fact. We don't. In this case we rely on putting faith in the 0.01% humans, our media composed of reporters and journalists, to get to the facts happening around this world.

You are presenting a very severe false analogy...

Physical places exist. Humans exist. Events happen. The supernatural claims require another level of proof. Just because a book describes a place, which is even known to exist today, does not then validate supernatural stuff happened there as well.

Example... Alexander the Great lived before Jesus. Did he exist? Most likely. Did he fight battles? Most likely. Was he feared by many? Most likely. Did he possess supernatural origins, like the stories express?????? You feel me now?

How about a future event:
Humans don't have any capability to reach a future lying ahead of us. But wait, we have same fundamental way to reach a possible truth lying ahead in the future. We can reach it by putting faith in the less than 0.01% humans who witnessed the existence God to bring us the "daily news" about our future. Whether they are telling a truth or a lie, it is the only way humans can reach a truth in the future. We can't verify our history to make it evidenced, we are futile about what would happen in the future. It is because humans are creatures of the present. We are cut from direct access to both the past and future. The only way we can reach the future as well as the past is by putting trust/faith in the less than 0.01% eyewitnesses. That's the way how humans approach a truth.

To put it another way (and for the sake of argument), even in the case that Jesus and Christianity is a truth, the only way humans can reach such a truth is by putting faith in what is recorded down by the less than 0.01% human witnesses. The other way is for God to show up in front of each of us to tell us directly. This is however impossible because humans are bound to a covenant which says that we need faith to be saved. If God shows up to everyone, it simultaneously means that all mankind shall go to hell.

Now I'm sorry, but this portion just reeks of Christian presuppositional conclusions. Quite honestly, a Muslim could assert every bit as much as you on this point.

Thanks for your response though.

 

[cvanwey]

This doesn't even make sense.

Talmudical hemenuentics are not the Bible, so why would we as Christians, look to the Talmud that we do not even believe in for answers to the New Testament from people (Jews) who do not believe in the New Testament or that even Jesus Christ is the Messiah?

You, my friend, just answered your own question(s).

Talmudical hermeneutics (Hebrew: מידות שהתורה נדרשת בהן) defines the rules and methods for the investigation and exact determination of the meaning of the Scriptures, within the framework of Rabbinic Judaism

Maybe you only mis-read my post, or maybe I was not perfectly clear...

A Jew, and a Christian could read an Old Testament prophesy verse. The Jew, will state this verse is NOT describing Jesus, and give 'reasons'. A Christian, will read the same verse, and give 'reasons' as to why it does apply to Jesus. If the Rabbi uses the above defined standard, which position is right, and by what standard are YOU using in it's place?.?.?.

My point? Presuppositionals appeal to their own bias and standards. Stating, no, 'the other side is wrong', does not suffice. Both sides claim their 'evidence' is sufficient. By what standard does one use to pick a side?.?.

 

[apogee]

'Because I or it says so' is not a sufficient answer. I will ask again... in a clearer way...

You misunderstand me.

A Christian and a Jew read the same prophesy verse from the Old Testament. The Jew states this is not about Jesus, and the Christian of course, says it does. How might one decide which one is right/wrong? They are both using the same book, looking at the very same verse. In conclusion, they both look at the same verse, to either translate it being for or against Jesus.

Christianity and a Judaism start from completely different perspectives on Christ and consequently on the postion and interpretation of the entire Hebrew scriptures. How do you choose between them? - However you like.

Stating, 'because it is', and then capitalizing pronouns, does not appear to be a sufficient rationale.

Speaking to me like I'm an idiot, doesn't render me one, but by all means feel free.

 

[cvanwey]

Christianity and a Judaism start from completely different perspectives on Christ and consequently on the postion and interpretation of the entire Hebrew scriptures. How do you choose between them? - However you like.

Are you concerned with what is actually real and true, or just what makes you feel good?

Speaking to me like I'm an idiot, doesn't render me one, but by all means feel free.

I, by no means, think you are an idiot, Quite the contrary. But I do feel many compartmentalize their own religious beliefs. I see many display a vast and wide array of extreme intelligence on many topics. But then once asked to 'justify' their own deeply rooted and personal beliefs, all of a sudden, I see a fairly large disconnect. Imagine if I presented the same argument to you, and was a Muslim. In all honesty, would my argument and reasoning carry any weight or evidence? Or would it, instead, be a blank assertion?

 

[AvgJoe]

I was born and raised Christian. Believed wholeheartedly for decades.... Believed all asserted claims from the many I admire. Just recently, I decided to finally read the Bible for myself. Found many topics and claims which do not appear to jive with reality. I've asked many questions, to many people. They accuse me of being a troll, dishonest, avoid my questions, some seem to present intellectual dishonesty, some provide ad hominem attacks, some commit many logical fallacies in their defense, some assert their case and have no interest in any of my observations.... This is for starters.... I'm not saying all devout believers do this, however. I'm just saying, this appears to be a good half of my responses.

I'm asking some very direct questions, which I feel place the Bible to the test. I feel I must explore these concerns of mine, in a completely intellectually honest way. My delivery may seem somewhat harsh. However, I possess no ill will. It is undeniable that personal beliefs, in practically anything, can stir much emotion.

Anywho, I would love to present many questions to Christians. However, I want to be honest and state, that I am now very skeptical to Christianity, after reading many parts which do not appear to jive with reason and logic.

I will present a very small tickler question here, and go from there??? It seems somewhat morbid. However, I'm placing the logic and claims of the Bible to the test, to assure whether I can find truth within it, rather that simply using my own circular logic.

So here it goes....

Does a still born go to heaven or hell?

TY in advance!!!!

The short answer...they go to heaven. The long answer...

Question: "Where do I find the age of accountability in the Bible? What happens to babies and young children when they die?"

Answer: The concept of the “age of accountability” is that children are not held accountable by God for their sins until they reach a certain age, and that if a child dies before reaching the “age of accountability,” that child will, by the grace and mercy of God, be granted entrance into heaven. Is the concept of an age of accountability biblical? Is there such a thing as an “age of innocence”?

Frequently lost in the discussion regarding the age of accountability is the fact that children, no matter how young, are not “innocent” in the sense of being sinless. The Bible tells us that, even if an infant or child has not committed personal sin, all people, including infants and children, are guilty before God because of inherited and imputed sin. Inherited sin is that which is passed on from our parents. In Psalm 51:5, David wrote, “Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.” David recognized that even at conception he was a sinner. The very sad fact that infants sometimes die demonstrates that even infants are impacted by Adam’s sin, since physical and spiritual death were the results of Adam’s original sin.

Each person, infant or adult, stands guilty before God; each person has offended the holiness of God. The only way God can be just and at the same time declare a person righteous is for that person to have received forgiveness by faith in Christ. Christ is the only way. John 14:6 records what Jesus said: “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, except through Me.” Also, Peter states in Acts 4:12, “Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved.” Salvation is an individual choice.

What about babies and young children who never attain the ability to make this individual choice? The age of accountability is the concept that those who die before reaching the age of accountability are automatically saved by God’s grace and mercy. The age of accountability is the belief that God saves all those who die never having possessed the ability to make a decision for or against Christ. One verse that may speak to this issue is Romans 1:20, “Since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.” According to this, mankind’s guilt before God is based, in part, on the fact that people reject what they can “clearly see” of God’s existence, eternality, and power. This leads to the question of children who have no faculty for “clearly seeing” or reasoning about God—wouldn’t their natural incapacity to observe and reason provide them with an excuse?

Thirteen is the most common age suggested for the age of accountability, based on the Jewish custom that a child becomes an adult at the age of 13. However, the Bible gives no direct support to the age of 13 always being the age of accountability. It likely varies from child to child. A child has passed the age of accountability once he or she is capable of making a faith decision for or against Christ. Charles Spurgeon’s opinion was that “a child of five can as truly be saved and regenerated as an adult.”

With the above in mind, also consider this: Christ’s death is presented as sufficient for all of mankind. First John 2:2 says Jesus is “the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.” This verse is clear that Jesus’ death was sufficient for all sins, not just the sins of those who specifically have come to Him in faith. The fact that Christ’s death was sufficient for all sin would allow the possibility of God’s applying that payment to those who were never capable of believing.

Some see a link between the age of accountability and the covenant relationship between the nation of Israel and the LORD where no requirement was imposed on a male child to be included in the covenant other than circumcision, which was performed on the eighth day after his birth (Exodus 12:48–50; Leviticus 12:3).

The question arises, “Does the inclusive nature of the Old Covenant apply to the church?” On the day of Pentecost, Peter said, “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself” (Acts 2:38–39, NAS). The word childrenhere (teknon in Greek) means “child, daughter, son.” Acts 2:39 indicates that forgiveness of sins is available to one and all (cf. Acts 1:8), including future generations. It does not teach family or household salvation. The children of those who repented were also required to repent.

The one passage that seems to identify with this topic more than any other is 2 Samuel 12:21–23. The context of these verses is that King David committed adultery with Bathsheba, with a resulting pregnancy. The prophet Nathan was sent by the Lord to inform David that, because of his sin, the Lord would take the child in death. David responded to this by grieving and praying for the child. But once the child was taken, David’s mourning ended. David’s servants were surprised to hear this. They said to King David, “What is this thing that you have done? While the child was alive, you fasted and wept; but when the child died, you arose and ate food.” David’s response was, “While the child was still alive, I fasted and wept; for I said, ‘Who knows, the LORD may be gracious to me, that the child may live.’ But now he has died; why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he will not return to me.” David’s response indicates that those who cannot believe are safe in the Lord. David said that he could go to the child but could not bring the child back to him. Also, and just as important, David seemed to be comforted by this knowledge. In other words, David seemed to be saying that he would see his baby son (in heaven), though he could not bring him back.

Although it is possible that God applies Christ’s payment for sin to those who cannot believe, the Bible does not specifically say that He does this. Therefore, this is a subject about which we should not be adamant or dogmatic. God’s applying Christ’s death to those who cannot believe would seem consistent with His love and mercy. It is our position that God applies Christ’s payment for sin to babies and those who are mentally handicapped, since they are not mentally capable of understanding their sinful state and their need for the Savior, but again we cannot be dogmatic. Of this we are certain: God is loving, holy, merciful, just, and gracious. Whatever God does is always right and good, and He loves children even more than we do.


www.gotquestions.org/age-of-accountability.html

 

[Hawkins]

Appealing to an ancient assembled 66 chapter book, asserting perfection, and yet later finding demonstrable imperfection, but then ignoring or denying the overwhelming demonstration which appears to poke many holes within it, and then also claiming 'faith' to retain the position, somehow is not 'brainwashed', and is a better pathway to 'truth'?

What is perfect? If a mirror can't talk, is it perfect?

Perfection means a product serves its purpose perfectly. A mirror is never designed to talk. So you can't say the the mirror is not perfect simply because it cannot talk.

Now let's get back to the perfection of the Bible. How much do you know about the design purpose of the Bible in order not to make the "mirror is not perfect because it can't talk" mistake?


Here's a list of some of its purpose.

It is a human account of witnessing, not supernatural account of witnessing. The testimonies are from the earnest humans but with only human capabilities. Though they are made under God's inspiration.

In terms of how the contents are carried forward, it is also in a human way. It is humans' capability (or the lack thereof) to keep the Bible contents intact. God on the other hand doesn't demand a super human to keep His book. However He will make sure that His Word is consistent at the theological level. That's why contextually the NIV and KJV are different. However theologically they are conveying the same contents consistently.

To simply put, God doesn't demand the perfection of humans to keep His Bible contents intact at the theological level for humans to get to His salvation message. That's the main purpose of the Bible.

It is because it is not a supernatural account of witnessing, you can always compare the Bible with any human history books written 2000 years ago to see how superior it is.

As for evidence, just try to open any human history books written 2000 years ago then come back to tell us how many pages are supported by evidence, how many are not. A recommendation is Josephus' works. It is organized in books, chapters and sections.

The Wars of the Jews, book 2, chapter 3, section 1, first sentence:
1. Now before Caesar had determined any thing about these affairs, Malthace, Arehelaus's mother, fell sick and died.

What evidence can be presented that Malthace and Arehelaus ever existed? What evidence says that Malthace truly felt sick and then died?


Please keep reading then come back to tell us your evidence. Or shall we scrape all human history altogether due to the lack of evidence?

 

[apogee]

Are you concerned with what is actually real and true, or just what makes you feel good?



I, by no means, think you are an idiot, Quite the contrary. But I do feel many compartmentalize their own religious beliefs. I see many display a vast and wide array of extreme intelligence on many topics. But then once asked to 'justify' their own deeply rooted and personal beliefs, all of a sudden, I see a fairly large disconnect. Imagine if I presented the same argument to you, and was a Muslim. In all honesty, would my argument and reasoning carry any weight or evidence? Or would it, instead, be a blank assertion?

OK, How do I understand Christianity to function theologically?

I think first off, we need to make a distinction between communal understanding and individual understanding.

We in our current era are incredibly individualistic. i.e. The emphasis is upon 'What do I believe?' about 'x', 'What can I prove?', 'How am I to be sure?', 'What is my opinion?'

I would argue that this is a modern predicament which we have inherited from those that have come before us. I would also argue that this approach to knowledge, essentially demands that we make statements about things that we are not necessarily best placed to assess.

What do I mean? I mean that we would never expect anyone to understand the complexities of an internal combustion engine in order for them to hold a driving licence, or that they must hold a PhD in computer science as a prerequisite to owning a laptop.

So community and individual.

I have just returned from a talk at a nearby theological college delivered by a relatively famous Christian speaker. I know many of the staff at the college, despite only ever having done a couple of introductory modules there, and they know me (although my wife did a degree there), it's a pretty intimate community.

Now I could at this point, start to elaborate on the role that I believe this community, and others like it have upon the spiritual formation of the church. How the linguists and the theologians, the historians and the archaeologists work together, to train the pastors and the preachers, to equip them with the intellectual tools they need, to in turn, be able to equip the church.

I could go on to describe how their authority flows through from their lives devoted to scholarly research and informed reflection. How their publications and lectures, bring knowledge and understanding to the most impenetrable of texts.

But actually, what I'm going to say is that I have just spent 2 hours of my life, sat in a room with a group of 'experts', listening to a handful of 'non-experts' (and the famous speaker) talk about their own personal stories and experiences as Christians in their world, and watched as the experts allowed the non-experts to speak truths to them, that they would otherwise never encounter.

So what is the point? - The point is that with Christianity, it is the story that is key.

All authority in Christianity, derives from one story, about one central figure. All theology, all ethics, all understanding, hinges on this central character and what we believe about him. It does not derive from a 'holy book', or a corpus of experts, or a circular statement of belief, but from a story, about a man who lived, and taught, and died and allegedly rose again.

The influence that this story has had on the past 2000 years of history, is beyond comparison with any other story. Not least because from it, has arisen a sea of equally extraordinary stories, of lives interrupted and transformed and cultures changed.

So how does this inform individual understanding, it doesn't, it grounds it.

For a Christian, the starting point, is having your own story. If you do not yet have one, then you need to get one, for your understanding to be built on anything solid.

So it all starts at the individual, but it does not stay at the individual.

It reaches out from the individual, into the community of believers past, present and future, and to the communal understanding (the teachings and traditions) of the church universal, it is here in the community of believers, where orthodoxy finds its home and it does so tentatively, with struggles and debates, in full knowledge, that there is no such thing as full knowledge.

So it is not so much a matter of shared intellectual processes, justifying individualistic deeply rooted beliefs, but rather of shared deeply rooted beliefs, justifying individualistic intellectual processes. Which is why it can sometimes appear that Christians disagree about everything, apart from Christ.

So when you ask me 'Do stillborn babies go to heaven?' my response is something like 'yes of course, what else would a person like Christ do with them? Toast them like marshmallows?'

 

[aiki]

I was born and raised Christian.

No one is born a Christian. In order to be a genuine child of God, a Christian, one must have a second spiritual birth:

John 3:3-7
3 Jesus answered and said to him, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God."
4 Nicodemus said to Him, "How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?"
5 Jesus answered, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.
6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
7 Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born again.'

Believed wholeheartedly for decades.... Believed all asserted claims from the many I admire.

By itself, belief does not save, it does not make one a true child of God. The apostle James pointed this out:

James 2:19-20
19 You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe--and tremble!

I feel I must explore these concerns of mine, in a completely intellectually honest way.

No one is completely intellectually honest. We all have various filters, philosophical/religious presuppositions, life experiences and prejudices that constrain what we believe and why.

My delivery may seem somewhat harsh. However, I possess no ill will.

Sometimes, this is code for "I can't be bothered to be polite." Is this what you mean?

However, I want to be honest and state, that I am now very skeptical to Christianity, after reading many parts which do not appear to jive with reason and logic.

Which is often code for, "I've been on a bunch of atheist websites and don't think there are good answers to their criticisms of Christianity." Of course, there are plenty of good answers; you just have to know where to find them:

www.crossexamined.org
www.str.org
www.reasonablefaith.org
www.coldcasechristianity.com

So here it goes....

Does a still born go to heaven or hell?

Yes. Why wouldn't it? Hell is a punishment for sin. Has a still-born baby sinned? No.

 

[cvanwey]

No one is completely intellectually honest. We all have various filters, philosophical/religious presuppositions, life experiences and prejudices that constrain what we believe and why.

Though I agree to 'some' extent, please tell me where my filter or bias would pertain in math, science, objective based observations, etc...?

Where religion is concerned, you are correct. I was raised in Christianity. Many people I respect and admire tell/told me stuff about the Bible which I wholeheartedly trusted as axiomatic fact. Many of the 'bad' verses I was unaware, at the time, because I admittedly did not read the Bible much, and just awaited my book report at church services.

However, a couple years ago, I started to actually read the Bible. I came across a bunch of stuff I find questionable. Furthermore, non-believers have/would bring up topics in which I could not defend, without spinning definitions or rationalizing them to support my existing bias.

Sometimes, this is code for "I can't be bothered to be polite." Is this what you mean?

I'm just stating that anyone reading my responses should not take offense, as I'm critiquing the claims, not the person whom believes the claim. And yes, there might be caveats... Such as, if I detect dishonesty.

Which is often code for, "I've been on a bunch of atheist websites and don't think there are good answers to their criticisms of Christianity." Of course, there are plenty of good answers; you just have to know where to find them:

www.crossexamined.org
www.str.org
www.reasonablefaith.org
www.coldcasechristianity.com

I've been to many sites, on both sides. However there's topics, for me, which appear 'not defensible', when it comes to Biblical claims. This is me being honest with myself, bias or no bias. God only cares what is in my 'heart'. I feel I must ignore or spin certain topics and claims to retain my indoctrinated beliefs. This is not honest.

Yes. Why wouldn't it? Hell is a punishment for sin. Has a still-born baby sinned? No.

Okay, I don't agree. According to the Bible, humans are born with 'original sin'. I would also assume you believe abortion is a sin. Which then means the unborn child already harbors the original sin. Secondly, since some may like to provide random Bible verses, please observe Mark 16:15-16. However, assuming you are right, would a 3 year old go to heaven or hell?

 

[cvanwey]

All knowledge is at base either a brute fact, axiomatic or circular. Even your statement of the four possibilities is ultimately circular if walked back to it's base within a knowledge system. What matters is where the circularity is. It must not be in the argument itself. So what argument are you claiming is circular?

I can say moral values are apprehended objectively apart from ones theological beliefs. One can be an athiest like Erik Wielenberg and tie them objectively to abstract objects, or one can be an agnostic like Michael Ruse and affirm their objectivety simple through apprehension.

I have seen countless videos, for and against theology. Looking back, one has resonated well above and beyond all others, when it pertains to 'morality'. It just so happens to be non-theistic. But I view the content and points themselves, not the slant of whether the provider believes in God or not.

I just came across this response of yours, which is good btw. I just wanted to provide you with the one video, which seemed to put the moral argument in perspective for me. Take it for a grain of salt. Just a very small window, as to what had/has impact upon me:

 

[aiki]

Though I agree to 'some' extent, please tell me where my filter or bias would pertain in math, science, objective based observations, etc...?

??? I know next to nothing about you. How, then, can I point out where, precisely, your biases and presuppositions are at work.

According to the Bible, humans are born with 'original sin'.

Oh? Where does the Bible talk about "original sin"?

would also assume you believe abortion is a sin. Which then means the unborn child already harbors the original sin

You'll have to explain this a bit. How does a child who is aborted "harbor the original sin"?

How is one saved? Answer that and you'll have the answer to your question about the three-year-old.

 

[Undead]

I was born and raised Christian. Believed wholeheartedly for decades.... Believed all asserted claims from the many I admire. Just recently, I decided to finally read the Bible for myself. Found many topics and claims which do not appear to jive with reality.

You started by saying "I will be honest"
And what I believe you meant to say after that, is that though you have grown up in church and rsised by Christian parents perhaps, you were never really born-again..
Below is not your actual question.

So here it goes....

Does a still born go to heaven or hell?

TY in advance!!!!

Or I should say, this is not your true objection, nor is it indicative of your true condition which is a much bigger issue.

No one is born Christian, remains a Christian for decades then decides to crack open a Bible. Without faith, every event in the Bible can be made to sound foolish.

You have an issue of faith.
The atheist says show me and I will believe.
But God says believe and then you shall see.

Please read the following parable:

"A Friend Comes at Midnight
5 And He said to them, “Which of you shall have a friend, and go to him at midnight and say to him, ‘Friend, lend me three loaves; 6 for a friend of mine has come to me on his journey, and I have nothing to set before him’; 7 and he will answer from within and say, ‘Do not trouble me; the door is now shut, and my children are with me in bed; I cannot rise and give to you’? 8 I say to you, though he will not rise and give to him because he is his friend, yet because of his persistence he will rise and give him as many as he needs.

Keep Asking, Seeking, Knocking
9 “So I say to you, ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. 10 For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened. 11 If a son asks for bread from any father among you, will he give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will he give him a serpent instead of a fish? 12 Or if he asks for an egg, will he offer him a scorpion? 13 If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him!”"

 

[cvanwey]

??? I know next to nothing about you. How, then, can I point out where, precisely, your biases and presuppositions are at work.

I'm not asking you to... I simply stated I agree with you that theology views are usually bias, but it may not pertain as much to many other topics.

Oh? Where does the Bible talk about "original sin"?

Eve bit the 'apple'. All humans are born with sin because of this, and are required to repent, believe, and be baptized, prior to death (i.e.) Mark 16:15-16

I would assume an unborn child is still considered human, therefore, has inherent sin attached, because one observes them as human....

So moving forward..., does a young child go to heave or hell? This question is assuming your prior response is correct, because the new born had not sinned.

 

[cvanwey]

You started by saying "I will be honest"
And what I believe you meant to say after that, is that though you have grown up in church and rsised by Christian parents perhaps, you were never really born-again..
Below is not your actual question.



Or I should say, this is not your true objection, nor is it indicative of your true condition which is a much bigger issue.

No one is born Christian, remains a Christian for decades then decides to crack open a Bible. Without faith, every event in the Bible can be made to sound foolish.

You have an issue of faith.
The atheist says show me and I will believe.
But God says believe and then you shall see.

Please read the following parable:

I'm sorry you do not accept my story. I was a fairly lazy Christian. I was willfully ignorant. Meaning, many spoon fed verses to me, which reinforced my prior beliefs. Through the years, I have been in contact with non-believers, whom brought up many topics. I read them in context, and was not able to justify them without 'spinning' many definitions. I later found this was being dishonest with myself. I started to study the origin of the Bible, from both believer and non-believer sites.

I'm sorry to say, that being intellectually honest with myself, I now read much of the Bible, and see nothing but flaws, errors, horror, and inaccuracies. From Genesis to Revelation, I see many...

I'm being honest, whether I"m actually right or wrong, does not matter. Because I cannot believe much of what is in there, I cannot 'will' myself to instead have blind faith.

This conclusion is not very uncommon, from my perspective. For example, when I cite 'slavery' for example, many around me, whom claim to be devout Christians, are not even aware of such passages from the Bible. So I am certainly not alone.

 

[aiki]

I'm not asking you to... I simply stated I agree with you that theology views are usually bias, but it may not pertain as much to many other topics.

I don't agree. Science is a good example of how bias creeps into things. It's been said that science doesn't say anything, scientists do. This is quite true. Scientists interpret the facts of science; they tell us what they mean - or, rather, what they think they mean. And scientists make their interpretations according to their various presuppositions about the nature of reality. Very often, in doing so, they stray far from science and deep into the realm of philosophy where, many times, they are very ill-equipped to offer a well-reasoned point of view. Richard Dawkins is a classic example. He may be a good biologist but he can't help making bad philosophical extrapolations from science. And he does so in tight conformity to his naturalistic presuppositions.

Eve bit the 'apple'. All humans are born with sin because of this, and are required to repent, believe, and be baptized, prior to death (i.e.) Mark 16:15-16

We are born under the curse of sin, but I don't see any verse in the Bible that says we are guilty of sin before we are even born. Humans have a propensity toward selfishness and indifference toward God. This always leads to sin. But having a propensity toward sin is not the same as having sinned.

I would assume an unborn child is still considered human, therefore, has inherent sin attached, because one observes them as human....

A baby is born with a tendency toward sin but cannot be guilty of sin, obviously, before it is born.

does a young child go to heave or hell? This question is assuming your prior response is correct, because the new born had not sinned.

Until such time as a child can understand the Gospel and choose to be saved - or not - they are not accountable for their behaviour as an adult is.

 

[Undead]

Ignorance: lack of knowledge or information.
"he acted in ignorance of basic procedures"
synonyms: incomprehension of, unawareness of, unconsciousness of, unfamiliarity with, inexperience with, lack of knowledge about, lack of information about.
==========

Ignorance is not a bad word, so I wanted to make sure I posted the definition before I used the term to describe even the basics of your understanding of the Bible.
It's not that I find your story to be untrue. (You said "I'm sorry you do not accept my story") so this too shows me that we have a misunderstanding.. I truly believe what you said-- what I was getting at is that being around Christians, being raised by Christians, growing up in a church and going to every youth group, and every Wednesday night does not make one a Christian.
"Ye must be born again"
But before I get to that part--I want to explain why I said you were ignorant on a couple of things in the Bible.
And this is ONLY because (I believe) you are not truly born-again and never have experienced God in a real personal way. In other words, God has always been "up there" somewhere. You do not get Christianity by osmosis. But first let's discuss the slavery issue that you bring up--which also is not your true objection. How can I say this? Because I've been preaching and ministering to atheists specifically, even before there was an internet.
I know precisely what your problem is, and precisely how to fix it--if I was a surgeon I would have already diagnosed you and given you a specific plan for your choices--which would probably consist of surgery or, if you refuse, then sending you to a hospice where they can comfort you until you slowly pass away. Because your sickness is deadly. (But the Good News is it is completely curable).
We all had the same disease you did--and I will also share with you my testimony soon. You may not be able to relate to my testimony since you grew up in the church, and I was out there on the streets sharing dirty needles and smoking crack--but to show that no matter how "good" or "bad" we feel we have been, we both had the same terminal illness, and Thank God, the procedure for the cure is the same for all of us.

Now: You mentioned slavery in the Bible, and this part really bothers me:

Through the years, I have been in contact with non-believers, whom brought up many topics. I read them in context, and was not able to justify them without 'spinning' many definitions. I later found this was being dishonest with myself. I started to study the origin of the Bible, from both believer and non-believer sites.

It seems you couldn't be bothered to read the boring old Bible, but when your unsaved friends handed you stuff, you read it in context. This is how you began to unravel. The Devil is not content with anyone sitting on the fence. God even says "I could wish you were either hot or cold, but because you are lukewarm, I will spew you out of my mouth." Because if you are hot for the Gospel, then great, and if you are cold, then great---some of the biggest baddest biker dudes in jail are the ones that are closest to getting radically saved and set free. But if you don't think you have a problem--it's like the doctor is telling you that you are sick, but you say "But I don't feel sick" many people who have a brain tumor may not even know about it--but it is there none-the-less, growing like a time-bomb.

Because of your spiritual condition, when someone presents what appears to be a Bible difficulty or contradiction, it may sound like "Hey yeah, what about that?"
The slavery one is an easy one to reconcile, and we could go through a list of over 100 supposed Bible difficulties that I've heard over the years-- but why am I still a Christian? Because I hear with spiritual ears, and I cannot deny that I have been radically saved.
I will suffer a few of these, but I will be honest with you since you said you will be honest with us-- I will not sit here and listen to "Well what about this?" and then after answering that one "Well what about what my other friend pointed out in Genesis 18?" etc... When the real problem is that these are not your true objections.

In the Biblical passages talking about slaveowners are to be kind to their slaves-- you have to understand, though slavery in the United States may be a sticking point with you--as it is with me, as I find it personally disgusting. The thought of selling another human and then the idea that killing and raping these people was somehow legal because they were property makes me want to cry--in real life. Break down and cry that this is our history in the United States.
But with the Israelites, what they had was called the same thing "Slavery" but it was vastly different. First of all, it was voluntary! Yes, that's true, it was voluntary--if you could not pay your debts, you could work it out with the person that you owed and say, I will be your slave and work off the money I owe you--but while this is happening, you would house me, and feed me while I was working.. But the great part about this sort of slavery was that it kept you out of jail--back then, if you could not pay your debts you could actually go to prison. We do not do this to people now days.. we let them file bankruptcy and they have bad credit for 7 years. Why 7 years? I believe this is spiritual--because there used to be something in the Israelites day where all debts were cancelled every 7 years. Carefully study Deuteronomy 15 and tell me if this sounds like the type of disgusting slavery we are guilty of in our US History:
Deut 15:1-5
"15 “At the end of every seven years you shall grant a release of debts. 2 And this is the form of the release: Every creditor who has lent anything to his neighbor shall release it; he shall not require it of his neighbor or his brother, because it is called the Lord’s release. 3 Of a foreigner you may require it; but you shall give up your claim to what is owed by your brother, 4 except when there may be no poor among you; for the Lord will greatly bless you in the land which the Lord your God is giving you to possess as an inheritance— 5 only if you carefully obey the voice of the Lord your God, to observe with care all these commandments which I command you today."

Now a few verses later we hear an even more specific way to deal with slaves:
Deut 15:12-18
"12 “If your brother, a Hebrew man, or a Hebrew woman, is sold to you and serves you six years, then in the seventh year you shall let him go free from you. 13 And when you send him away free from you, you shall not let him go away empty-handed; 14 you shall supply him liberally from your flock, from your threshing floor, and from your winepress. From what the Lord your God has blessed you with, you shall give to him. 15 You shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the Lord your God redeemed you; therefore I command you this thing today. 16 And if it happens that he says to you, ‘I will not go away from you,’ because he loves you and your house, since he prospers with you, 17 then you shall take an awl and thrust it through his ear to the door, and he shall be your servant forever. Also to your female servant you shall do likewise. 18 It shall not seem hard to you when you send him away free from you; for he has been worth a double hired servant in serving you six years. Then the Lord your God will bless you in all that you do."

Look at that! Some slaves, even after they were freed, may choose to stay if they liked serving for their master.
God knows (in vs 18) it may seem hard to send your slave away free in the 7th year, because he has been free help, but when you do so with a cheerful heart, the Lord will bless you in all that you do.
This is nothing like US slavery.

You could decide to go to jail instead and say to yourself "I will not work off my debt, I will go to jail and be fed 3 times a day and lay on my cot for 7 years until I am freed." but there was more honor and even perhaps more liberty for those that chose to work off their debts--afterall, a debt is a debt.

And God is wise and knew that some people that are owed large sums of money may get an evil thought in their heart about the person that owes them a lot of money, and yet the 7th year is upon us-- perhaps he will only have to be my slave for 6 months and be set free-- how fair is that?
And the Lord even provides for this situation in Deut 15 vs. 9:
" 9 Beware lest there be a wicked thought in your heart, saying, ‘The seventh year, the year of release, is at hand,’ and your eye be evil against your poor brother and you give him nothing, and he cry out to the Lord against you, and it become sin among you. 10 You shall surely give to him, and your heart should not be grieved when you give to him, because for this thing the Lord your God will bless you in all your works and in all to which you put your hand. 11 For the poor will never cease from the land; therefore I command you, saying, ‘You shall open your hand wide to your brother, to your poor and your needy, in your land.’"

So let us no longer trifle with trivial matters about miscarried children going to heaven or slavery in the Bible (which is nothing at all like the disgusting slavery we are guilty of in our history of the United States).
Let us be about what the true nature of your issue is-- the need for salvation.
You said "Let me be honest with you"
Now let me say: "Let me be blunt with you."
I hope you are not offended by my bluntness--but I have led many to the Lord--not as a boast---because no man can save another man--one plants a seed, another waters, but God gives the increase. Only Jesus Christ can save your soul from hell.

Note: This post was too long so this will be part 1 of 2

 

[Undead]

(Continued--part 2 of 2)

I thought I was too undeserving of God-- I never hated God, but I thought perhaps He was angry with me and would never take a crack-head like me.
I was delivered from crack addiction over night, when I had tried to stop for years--everything from therapy, to Narcotics Anonymous, to jail, nothing could stop me... but one night I heard a message I couldn't resist.. I said "But how can I repent, and tell God I'm sorry, when I know tomorrow I will have to go get a gun someway, somehow and go trade it for crack?" and my Bro-in-Law said "Don't clean yourself up before you come to God--come just as you are.. tonight give him your heart--and if tomorrow you want to go smoke crack, and you don't feel convicted of your sin, then keep doing it--there is no pressure on you to stop anything." I was like "WHAT?" that sounded too good to be true.. but I went in my room that night and I pictured myself throwing my man-made crown down at the feet of Jesus and saying "If you are real, and you take this crack from me, I will be a Bible-toting geek for you the rest of my life" (because I thought Christians were nerds who had no fun).
The next morning, I had zero cravings for crack, for cigarettes, for pornography, --my sister told me that my language had even changed over night--I did not realize it but I was using the F word as a descriptive for every other word, even when I wasn't upset, I cussed worse than Ozzy Osbourne--but then it all changed OVERNIGHT.
I had became a Christian, and my whole life was changed. Suddenly my old friends were like "What's the matter? You can't party with us anymore?" and for me it was like such a relief.. like *whew*, I don't have to go give my entire paycheck to cracktown on Friday night and be bumming cigarettes off of people on Saturday (like uh.. didn't you just get paid yesterday?)
I was on crack for over 5 years.. I started shooting up cocaine when I was 14 years old, heroine at 15, found crack at 16 and then it wasn't until age 21 that I gave my life to the Lord.
I had been kidnapped twice by crack dealers--had a blade to my throat one time (barber's straight razor). I sold my girlfriend's truck for $20 worth of crack and then reported it stolen.. everyone knew I was a liar-- my grandmother would come over to visit my mother, and she would hold on to her pocketbook the whole time she was over there--everyone knew I was a thief and a liar.
I would sit in church parkinglots and smoke crack in the wee hours of the morning, because I felt safe there.. I would talk to God and ask Him how I could ever get out of this mess-- I knew I couldn't be a hypocrite--I couldn't be Christian-crack-head.. so I thought this was my fate in life.. I had people I had ripped off looking to kill me. When I ran away one time (around 17 years old) people were calling my mother and telling her that they had me captive! (I found this out years later) she was tormented... I broke the back patio glass and made it look like someone broke into our house so I could go take our VCR down to crack town and sold it for $20 worth of crack that I smoked in 5 minutes.. meanwhile my mom was still making payments on it for 2 more years.
I was a mess... I was beyond salvation (so I thought).

But God met me where I was at, and He totally and radically changed my life.
So what can I say about all that stuff that happened in 1991?

I'm telling you, I used to try to be real good, and I could maybe go 2 or 3 weeks in my own power-- but then all it would take is a crack-dream and I would wake up shaking with the sheets soaking wet from sweat--and I knew that would be the start of a 3 day bender. What would I steal? Who's house would I break into? What friend would lend me $10?
Like I say, I was beyond all help.. no one loved me, no one trusted me, no one would let me near them. But my brother in law was not afraid to come speak to me--there I was in my Motorhead shirt, smoking on the back porch, cussing like a drunken sailor--but yet he saw through all that, and gave me an offer I couldn't refuse.
And God cleansed me.
It's only because I believed first, and then I saw.
I did not ask to see first, then I'll believe.
Now I will admit, I did say "If you take this away from me, I will be a Bible toting geek for the rest of my life", but never-the-less, at that point, I pictured throwing my crown at Jesus' feet and giving my heart to him completely.... and He took it! It's His!

Now maybe you're thinking "Yeah, but I'm not a crack head", or "that was your will power" but I'm telling you... I tried so many times, and nothing worked. Only Jesus!
Only Jesus could do what He did for me.

I have been changed ever since.
Now if you are sitting there saying-- I am not as bad as that-- maybe I don't need Jesus like a crack head does, or someone in prison does--believe me-- your tumor is just as deadly-- maybe even worse because you don't realize you headed for death. You think you're just fine... You are the worst ones--because you are luke-warm. At least a runner in a marathon who has shattered his leg KNOWS he has a problem--and must seek help.. but the runner that has diarreah running down his leg may not even know it--may not even care--they are still running just fine. This may be a gross analogy--but lukewarmness is grosss to God. Because you are like the Pharisees who thought they were just fine--and did not need any healing because they already had God.

I'll give you props for one thing though--and that is coming here and telling someone you are questioning the Bible and Christianity.

God bless all you atheists who are future Christians.
We'll talk at more length later.

(If you want to pray with me and have a powerful conversion in your life, and you feel like you are ready to throw your man made crown at the feet of Jesus, PM me and I will even call you on the phone and pray with you--so you that you can KNOW that you are truly a child of the King. But one thing--don't waste my time-- only PM me when you are ready to give Jesus control of your whole life--which may mean laying down some things-- but guess what? God is a loving and gracious God and He does not TAKE-- He may convict you to lay something down, but He never takes anything from you--He only gives. He doesn't force Himself upon anyone either-- when you are ready He will call you--and you will know you are ready to give your heart to Jesus. I don't care if you've raised your hand in church before and said some prayer--I don't care if you have a bowl of DMT sitting on your nightstand from your "friend", I don't care if you have a pornographic magazine under your bed, 10,000 devils could not keep you from Jesus if you want to get to know Him.)