Maintaining a Current Belief?

[2PhiloVoid]

Where does 'metaphor' begin and end? If 'Adam and Eve', 'the flood', the 'Tower of Babel', 'the Exodus', and much of 'Revelation' is all metaphor/other, then maybe so too is the 'resurrection' story?

You've asked this of me before. Do you remember what my answer was back when I answered it previously?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Where does 'metaphor' begin and end? If 'Adam and Eve', 'the flood', the 'Tower of Babel', 'the Exodus', and much of 'Revelation' is all metaphor/other, then maybe so too is the 'resurrection' story?

Also, keep in mind that my comment about 'metaphor' was to another poster, not to yourself and it was in specific reference to a bit of the book of Revelation, not in reference to other books of the Bible.

 

[Tone]

You seem incapable of answering direct and straight forward questions. A or B that is, in this case. I'll pass.

My answer is ABBA.

 

[cvanwey]

Why the Bible? Well, I'd side with Pascal in averring as to "why the Bible," [Pascal does briefly treat this in his Pensees, believe it or not.]

The best part is that since I've studied World Religions and Eastern Philosophies at the university level (i.e. their doctrines and histories of doctrine) like I've done for the Western Religions, I have no reason to think that anything "Eastern" holds any clear leverage over and against biblical religion. In other words, I've done my homework......... and no one gets to try to spin the Outsider Test for Faith canard on me in this regard.

I'm going to answer, based upon what was said in this response. So please do not get in a twist, if some of the stuff I state below seems 'elementary'... I'm only responding based upon what you stated. I already know Pascal speaks more about what I state below. But I am not yet sure what you are exactly driving at?

In regards to 'Pascal's Wager', one can state 'what if you are wrong' about all other claims in current existence, as well as the ones we yet do not know about. And even if 'Christianity' IS the correct one to be 'right' about', we still have many conflicting doctrines to salvation - under the direct cloke of this one religion alone.

And isn't it also safe to say that many, whom have a specific faith, before going into a world religions class, hardly ever come out at this class believing in a different one? Thus, I don't think stating you studied other religions really says much, does it? I doubt you believe, due to reason. Just like the ones, whom oppose your beliefs and faith(s), in an opposing religion likely believe due primarily to reason and logic alone.

Sorry if I'm needling here. However, I do not feel satisfied with your direct responses, thus far.

I'll ask again, in short. Why Jesus?

 

[Rachel20]

Under such a set of conclusions, seems as though morals/Commandments are irrelevant?

How does the inability to keep a moral standard make that standard irrelevant? Minimally, as Walvoord showed, and Paul argues in Galatians 3:22, it serves the purpose of concluding all under sin.

 

[Tone]

Do you believe that Christ will reign in Jerusalem for 1000 years following his 2nd coming and that at the end of that time Satan will be released and will incite nations to attack Jerusalem?

I believe that He is coming with the clouds and we will meet Him in the air!

 

[cvanwey]

1) Tolerating slavery to a certain degree.

2) Tolerating animal sacrifices.

3) Tolerating polygamy.

4) Prohibiting pork.

5) Ordering circumcision.

All of the above were Middle Eastern customs that made it into the OT.

The idea behind 'Covenant based theology', the claim you ascribe to, states the following:

If an instruction is posed in the NT, it's binding forever.
If an instruction is posed in both the OT and NT, it's binding forever.
If an instruction is posed in the OT, but never mentioned in the NT, it is no longer binding.

This must mean the first topic you brought up, 'slavery', is then considered moral by God forever? Care to discuss? Slavery continues to be a 'custom' for some. Not just in the "middle east". And why does God focus His efforts on the Middle East alone? Wasn't God aware that people lived in other areas of the globe?

Why would such a God be so 'weak', as to not mention His disdain for the five topics above, when many other 'customs' of the Middle East were said to be a sin' all along?

I'll answer preemptively...

What's more likely...?

A) God asserted such commands.
B) People asserted such commands, and passed them off as God pronouncements

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'm going to answer, based upon what was said in this response. So please do not get in a twist, if some of the stuff I state below seems 'elementary'... I'm only responding based upon what you stated. I already know Pascal speaks more about what I state below. But I am not yet sure what you are exactly driving at?

In regards to 'Pascal's Wager', one can state 'what if you are wrong' about all other claims in current existence, as well as the ones we yet do not know about. And even if 'Christianity' IS the correct one to be 'right' about', we still have many conflicting doctrines to salvation - under the direct cloke of this one religion alone.

And isn't it also safe to say that many, whom have a specific faith, before going into a world religions class, hardly ever come out at this class believing in a different one? Thus, I don't think stating you studied other religions really says much, does it? I doubt you believe, due to reason. Just like the ones, whom oppose your beliefs and faith(s), in an opposing religion likely believe due primarily to reason and logic alone.

Sorry if I'm needling here. However, I do not feel satisfied with your direct responses, thus far.

I'll ask again, in short. Why Jesus?

Why is it that every time I mention Pascal, people automatically jump to referencing his Wager? Y'all need to get over that. Pascal's Pensees include a lot more than his Wager, and the Wager, if it's to be considered at all, can only be considered as one part of Pascal's Pensees.

As for the other religions, here's what I learned in class in very, very general terms:

Confucianism was never originally a religion. Rather it was a legal reification.

Hinduism, although interesting in some aspects, is a highly diverse, incoherent, a-historical collection of winding philosophical fancy, almost none of which can be placed within the realm of real world relevance (i.e. historical places, times, etc). Don't believe me: just ask Arjuna!

Buddhism relishes what is otherwise a protest by Siddhartha Guatama against the form of Hinduism of his own time----and he, despite his story of the Bo Tree---wasn't considered in any way deified for something like 300 years after the supposed stories of his place in history. So, Buddhism wasn't originally a religion but rather a philosophy of reform.

Taoism wasn't originally a religion either. It began as a nature philosophy from a sage whom we don't know much about. Only much later did it turn into anything of a religious texture.

Other religions of the East which I haven't listed but which I've studied are, by my lights, even less impressive and significant than those I have listed.

Islam ............. well, ever read the Qu'ran? It is practically a-historical, not to mention in direct contravention to the statements of the New Testament.

Judaism. This is a whole other ball of wax and will depend upon the conglomerate studies of various fields of religious study by which to decide if it trumps Christianity.

I can say more, but I'm not here to write a dissertation. The point is that generally speaking, I'm an Existential Skeptic, and from what I can tell a posteriori, it's either Christianity or bust!

If you want sources, I'll list the books and professional journal articles I had to read and be tested over at the university level, along with everything else (of about several hundred sources and books) that I've ever studied in addition to all that I engaged at the university.

 

[cvanwey]

How does the inability to keep a moral standard make that standard irrelevant? Minimally, as Walvoord showed, and Paul argues in Galatians 3:22, it serves the purpose of concluding all under sin.

Easy. When I present this one question, you will see why morals become arbitrary:

Of the two choices below, under [grace by faith], which one of the two choices below more likely goes to heaven, and which one of the two likely goes to hell?

A. Stalin confesses his faith to Christ 10 seconds before he dies.
B. A life long philanthropist, whom happens to be an atheist or believes in an opposing god or god(s).

 

[cvanwey]

Why is it that every time I mention Pascal, people automatically jump to referencing his Wager? Y'all need to get over that. Pascal's Pensees include a lot more than his Wager, and the Wager, if it's to be considered at all, can only be considered as one part of Pascal's Pensees.

Please re-read what I wrote at the top of my previous response to you

But I'll answer anyways here... It's the same reason Einstein is most known for E=MC2. It's the same reason Friedrich Nietzsche might be known for his famous single line "God is dead". It's the same reason Dwight Clark will be remembered for 'the catch'. When you mention someone, and not give specifics, we will likely infer their most notable(s)

As for the other religions, here's what I learned in class:

Confucianism was never originally a religion. Rather it was a legal reification.

Hinduism, although interesting in some aspects, is a highly diverse, incoherent, a-historical collection winds of philosophical fancy, almost none of which can be placed within the realm of real world relevance. Don't believe me: just ask Arjuna!

Buddhism relishes what is otherwise a protest by Siddhartha Guatama against the form of Hinduism of his own time----and he, despite his story of the Bo Tree---wasn't considered in any way defied for something like 300 years after the supposed stories of his place in history. So, Buddhism wasn't originally a religion but rather a philosophy of reform

Taoism wasn't a religion. It began as a nature philosophy from a sage whom we don't know much about. Only much later did it turn into anything of a religious texture.

Other religions of the East which I haven't listed but which I've studied are, by my lights, even less impressive and significant than those I have listed.

Islam ............. well, ever read the Qu'ran? It is practically a-historical, not to mention in direct contravention to the statements of the New Testament.

Judaism. This is a whole other ball of wax and will depend upon the conglomerate studies of various fields of religious study by which to decide if it trumps Christianity.

I can say more, but I'm not here to write a dissertation. If you wan't sources, I'll list the books and professional journal articles I had to read and be tested over at the university level, along with everything else (of about several hundred sources and books) that I've ever studied in addition to all that I engaged at the university.

Honestly @2PhiloVoid , I did not ask what you learned. I believe you did take a world religion class, or even three. This was not what I asked of you. Let me elaborate a bit...

You seem to adhere to both covenant based theology, as well as dispensationalism. This looks to present an even larger heap of potential pitfalls?.?.?.? Did you watch the video? If so, then you might know which ones I'm speaking about. How are you to continue navigating Jesus as the answer? Sure, you can find much fault in all the others. How about yours? Why is yours so special? Why is yours excluded from the same scrutiny for which you seem so easy to be able to apply all the others?

What I ask is, why Jesus?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'm going to answer, based upon what was said in this response. So please do not get in a twist, if some of the stuff I state below seems 'elementary'... I'm only responding based upon what you stated. I already know Pascal speaks more about what I state below. But I am not yet sure what you are exactly driving at?

In regards to 'Pascal's Wager', one can state 'what if you are wrong' about all other claims in current existence, as well as the ones we yet do not know about. And even if 'Christianity' IS the correct one to be 'right' about', we still have many conflicting doctrines to salvation - under the direct cloke of this one religion alone.

And isn't it also safe to say that many, whom have a specific faith, before going into a world religions class, hardly ever come out at this class believing in a different one? Thus, I don't think stating you studied other religions really says much, does it? I doubt you believe, due to reason. Just like the ones, whom oppose your beliefs and faith(s), in an opposing religion likely believe due primarily to reason and logic alone.

Sorry if I'm needling here. However, I do not feel satisfied with your direct responses, thus far.

I'll ask again, in short. Why Jesus?

One more thing--I think you and I will disagree on just what concepts such as Logic, Reason, Rationality, Critical Thinking and Epistemic Justification are and can amount to, which quite apart from all of the various academic aspects of Christianity we could discuss would take us into other discussions that, to my mind, are antecedent to any rational consideration of Christianity.

So, forgive me if I do not submit to your own conceptual deliberations as to what constitute the having of 'reasons' for belief in Christianity.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Please re-read what I wrote at the top of my previous response to you

But I'll answer anyways here... It's the same reason Einstein is most known for E=MC2. It's the same reason Friedrich Nietzsche might be known for his famous single line "God is dead". It's the same reason Dwight Clark will be remembered for 'the catch'. When you mention someone, and not give specifics, we will likely infer their most notable(s)



Honestly @2PhiloVoid , I did not ask what you learned. I believe you did take a world religion class, or even three. This was not what I asked of you. Let me elaborate a bit...

You seem to adhere to both covenant based theology, as well as dispensationalism. This looks to present an even larger heap of potential pitfalls?.?.?.? Did you watch the video? If so, then you might know which ones I'm speaking about. How are you to continue navigating Jesus as the answer? Sure, you can find much fault in all the others. How about yours? Why is yours so special? Why is yours excluded from the same scrutiny for which you seem so easy to be able to apply all the others?

What I ask is, why Jesus?

I just answered you as to "why Jesus?". Furthermore, I said nothing about my own point of view being excluded from scrutiny. Why do you aver that I did? I also DID'NT say that I adhere to any or either of covenant based theology or dispensationalism, but here you are supposedly reading into what I've said and asserting that I somehow did by default. Yeah, see, I don't assume anything by 'default.' That seems to be your go to mode for argument, however. I'd suggest you simply stop doing that.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Please re-read what I wrote at the top of my previous response to you

But I'll answer anyways here... It's the same reason Einstein is most known for E=MC2. It's the same reason Friedrich Nietzsche might be known for his famous single line "God is dead". It's the same reason Dwight Clark will be remembered for 'the catch'. When you mention someone, and not give specifics, we will likely infer their most notable(s)



Honestly @2PhiloVoid , I did not ask what you learned. I believe you did take a world religion class, or even three. This was not what I asked of you. Let me elaborate a bit...

You seem to adhere to both covenant based theology, as well as dispensationalism. This looks to present an even larger heap of potential pitfalls?.?.?.? Did you watch the video? If so, then you might know which ones I'm speaking about. How are you to continue navigating Jesus as the answer? Sure, you can find much fault in all the others. How about yours? Why is yours so special? Why is yours excluded from the same scrutiny for which you seem so easy to be able to apply all the others?

What I ask is, why Jesus?

And you're correct, you didn't specifically 'ask' what I learned: however, I simply reported to you what I learned since THOSE are the essential reasons in most basic terms as to why I DISCOUNT all other religions as viable contenders for top-dog in the religion department. This isn't to say that Christianity is true; rather, I answered you partly as to why I don't bother with the other religions and, if any religion deserves any of my time, it's Christianity or (atheistically speaking).........it'd be nothing.

Kapeesh?

 

[cvanwey]

One more thing--I think you and I will disagree on just what concepts such as Logic, Reason, Rationality, Critical Thinking and Epistemic Justification are and can amount to, which quite apart from all of the various academic aspects of Christianity we could discuss would take us into other discussions that, to my mind, are antecedent to any rational consideration of Christianity.

So, forgive me if I do not submit to your own conceptual deliberations as to what constitute the having of 'reasons' for belief in Christianity.

I find this quite ODD; as you seem to have absolutely no problem telling me why other religions are wrong; even when I did not ask

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Why the Bible, and not some other opposing claimed set of 'revelation'? Especially in light of the fact we, as humans, are flawed humans and get things wrong all the time? Many, in the past, and even in the preset day, claim to be of the divine. Why Jesus?

So..........you didn't ask THESE questions? These questions, as you've posed them, leave them open to implications that other religions need to be addressed, not simply other various Western religious claims coming from Judaism and Islam.

 

[cvanwey]

And you're correct, you didn't specifically 'ask' what I learned: however, I simply reported to you what I learned since THOSE are the essential reasons in most basic terms as to why I DISCOUNT all other religions as viable contenders for top-dog in the religion department. This isn't to say that Christianity is true; rather, I answered you partly as to why I don't bother with the other religions and, if any religion deserves any of my time, it's Christianity or (atheistically speaking).........it'd be nothing.

Kapeesh?

Not 'kapeesh', quite frankly. If Christianity is, in your mind, the only one deemed worth considering, do you also acknowledge the plausible pitfalls of both covenant based theology and dispensationalism simultaneously? At least give me that much....?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Not 'kapeesh', quite frankly. If Christianity is, in your mind, the only one deemed worth considering, do you also acknowledge the plausible pitfalls of both covenant based theology and dispensationalism simultaneously? At least give me that much....?

Of course. But it's not as if these are the only forms of Christian type theology out there..........

....you'd probably do well to avoid making it sound like they are.

 

[cvanwey]

So..........you didn't ask THESE questions? These questions, as you've posed them, leave them open to implications that other religions need to be addressed, not simply other various Western religious claims coming from Judaism and Islam.

You told me why you ruled out other choices. You told me nothing about --- why the Bible? You brought up the world religions class. I answered it. You then acknowledged what I said, in an answer, and still refused to tell me --- why the Bible.

Your navigational skillz continue to prove to be working quite well.

 

[cvanwey]

Of course. But it's not as if these are the only forms of Christian type theology out there..........

....you'd probably do well to avoid making it sound like they are.

Post #44:

"one can state 'what if you are wrong' about all other claims in current existence, as well as the ones we yet do not know about. And even if 'Christianity' IS the correct one to be 'right' about', we still have many conflicting doctrines to salvation - under the direct cloke of this one religion alone."

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You told me why you ruled out other choices. You told me nothing about --- why the Bible? You brought up the world religions class. I answered it. You then acknowledged what I said, in an answer, and still refused to tell me --- why the Bible.

Your navigational skillz continue to prove to be working quite well.

I haven't said specifically why the Bible because I'm still clearing the ground from the Outsider Test for Faith garbage that many skeptics throw at Christianity, and I want to make sure all of that is taken care of first so it doesn't rear it's head later.

As for the Bible, I'd say that the main reason I am drawn to it is for its prophetic aspects. But my saying this as an Existentialist isn't to say that my evaluations about the nature and truths of the Bible come by way of the very same form of reasoning that is prescribed and expected by Foundationalist and/or Evidentialist type skeptics. (Funny that, since I think I've said this kind of thing to you in the past ......)