Maintaining a Current Belief?

[2PhiloVoid]

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."

And for those 'various forms of doctrine' that float in and about within various denominations, I'm not overly concerned. I simply look for the more common, basic core of beliefs among historic, traditional Trinitarian Christians, and if some of my brethren don't think that's enough, well too bad, then. I and they can have a separate conversation if need be and form our fellowship as we go.

Then there is brass tack fact #2: many events and phenomena and ideas are open to various interpretations by limited human minds. And that is to be expected. Why should Christianity be an exception to this? It wasn't for the New Testament writers. Why should it be for you?

 

[cvanwey]

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.

Not sure what you mean here? Many Christians appeal to faith, and faith almost exclusively. Can you please tell me what you want to rule out exactly?

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 ......)

Let's cut to the chase. You believe the Bible to be the one true doctrine, due to given prophecy?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Not sure what you mean here? Many Christians appeal to faith, and faith almost exclusively. Can you please tell me what you want to rule out exactly?

I'm ruling out the canard that I'm not being rational because skeptics somehow think I haven't also considered the assertions about religious experiences and doctrines held by people in other religions.

Let's cut to the chase. You believe the Bible to be the one true doctrine, due to given prophecy?

Very, very generally speaking, yes. But this isn't to say that I don't think the bible has some historical import to it.

And here's Brass Tack Fact #3: Genesis is a different kind of writing than is Exodus, at the very least, and both are different in nature from Proverbs, and all of these are different in nature from the book of Revelation.

 

[cvanwey]

And for those 'various forms of doctrine' that float in and about within various denominations, I'm not overly concerned. I simply look for the more common, basic core of beliefs among historic, traditional Trinitarian Christians, and if some of my brethren don't think that's enough, well too bad, then. I and they can have a separate conversation if need be and form our fellowship as we go.

Then there is brass tack fact #2: many events and phenomena and ideas are open to various interpretations by limited human minds. And that is to be expected. Why should Christianity be an exception to this? It wasn't for the New Testament writers. Why should it be for you?

Sounds like you are trivializing your belief system, or maybe even attempting to poison the well, to avoid what you think I might later say????

When you make statements such as: "I simply look for the more common, basic core of beliefs among historic, traditional Trinitarian Christians" can you give me the best example of a 'core belief' Christians share with you?

 

[cvanwey]

I'm ruling out the canard that I'm not being rational because skeptics somehow think I haven't also considered the assertions about religious experiences and doctrines held by people in other religions.

Still not quite sure what you are driving at here. But I'll leave it alone, unless we need to address it later?

Very, very generally speaking, yes. But this isn't to say that I don't think the bible has some historical import to it.

And here's Brass Tack Fact #3: Genesis is a different kind of writing than is Exodus, at the very least, and both are different in nature from Proverbs, and all of these are different in nature from the book of Revelation.

Um, okay? Not sure where you are going here. Maybe we can table that for the moment as well.

Give me the best prophecy, which demonstrates the Bible is THE source for truth?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Sounds like you are trivializing your belief system, or maybe even attempting to poison the well, to avoid what you think I might later say????

When you make statements such as: "I simply look for the more common, basic core of beliefs among historic, traditional Trinitarian Christians" can you give me the best example of a 'core belief' Christians share with you?

Jesus of Nazareth (or Galilee), at the least, is a historical person who lived in the 1st century of the so-called Common Era and was crucified and died [for our sins]...and that He was in some way divine, even the sole Son of God via the Virgin Mary? WE Christians generally all believe that Jesus was resurrected (although exactly "how" we might all discuss and vary upon since we really don't know how it came to pass), and at the least, we share the recognition that some of the earliest disciples of Jesus (His Apostles) left for posterity various writings that we hold to be, at the least, representative and reflective of historical aspects of Jesus' life and of the experiences of the early Church.

Need I say more? Not enough?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Still not quite sure what you are driving at here. But I'll leave it alone, unless we need to address it later?



Um, okay? Not sure where you are going here. Maybe we can table that for the moment as well.

Give me the best prophecy, which demonstrates the Bible is THE source for truth?

Well, the problem here is that your question seems to presume there's some kind of consistent, unified, even UNVARYING nature of biblical prophecy, an idea that I don't assume is the case. So, before we could get to what constitutes a 'solid prophecy,' we'd have to vet out and study together all of the various academic convolutions of Jewish prophetic speech that are relevant to our individual understanding and interpretation.

Of course, I'm putting this out there to put a nail in your epistemic tire. Why? Because epistemologicall and hermeneutically speaking, I don't think any Christian can simply make a singular statement about some prophecy in the Bible and then sit back and assume there's some "weight" to that statement that will be readily obvious and instantly make a believer out of any interlocutor who poses an inquiry.

And you and I have already gone into all of that in the past as well.

 

[cvanwey]

Jesus of Nazareth (or Galilee), at the least, is a historical person who lived in the 1st century of the so-called Common Era and was crucified and died [for our sins]...and that He was in some way divine, even the sole Son of God via the Virgin Mary? WE Christians generally all believe that Jesus was resurrected (although exactly "how" we might all discuss and vary upon since we really don't know how it came to pass), and at the least, we share the recognition that some of the earliest disciples of Jesus (His Apostles) left for posterity various writings that we hold to be, at the least, representative and reflective of historical aspects of Jesus' life and of the experiences of the early Church.

Need I say more? Not enough?

So basically, you are giving me a tautology, and nothing more. All physical claims....

"Christians believe that Jesus is the Christ, whose coming as the Messiah was prophesied in the Hebrew Bible, called the Old Testament in Christianity, and chronicled in the New Testament."

I already know you all believe He is the one. Give me a little more please.

What does [He] teach about the way to salvation, for example? Wouldn't this ALSO be classified as a 'core belief'? No, you say? He cannot even relay something this important clearly?

 

[cvanwey]

Well, the problem here is that your question seems to presume there's some kind of consistent, unified, even UNVARYING nature of biblical prophecy, an idea that I don't assume is the case. So, before we could get to what constitutes a 'solid prophecy,' we'd have to vet out and study together all of the various academic convolutions of Jewish prophetic speech that are relevant to our individual understanding and interpretation.

Of course, I'm putting this out there to put a nail in your epistemic tire. Why? Because epistemologicall and hermeneutically speaking, I don't think any Christian can simply make a singular statement about some prophecy in the Bible and then sit back and assume there's some "weight" to that statement that will be readily obvious and instantly make a believer out of any interlocutor who poses an inquiry.

And you and I have already gone into all of that in the past as well.

All you are giving me is mumbo-jumbo. Why are you so afraid? Give me a prophecy. We can then explore this prophecy.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

So basically, you are giving me a tautology, and nothing more. All physical claims....

"Christians believe that Jesus is the Christ, whose coming as the Messiah was prophesied in the Hebrew Bible, called the Old Testament in Christianity, and chronicled in the New Testament."

I already know you all believe He is the one. Give me a little more please.

What does [He] teach about the way to salvation, for example? Wouldn't this ALSO be classified as a 'core belief'? No, you say? He cannot even relay something this important clearly?

I think we'll stop there since you apparently need to revisit what a tautology is and what an application of it would actually look like in reference to what I graciously gave as answer.

Have a great day!

 

[cvanwey]

I think we'll stop there since you apparently need to revisit what a tautology is and what an application of it would actually look like in reference to what I graciously gave as answer.

Have a great day!

I don't think this is why you are stopping You cannot call yourself a Christian logically, without adhering to what you 'graciously gave', which was basically nothing. It would be like asking what are the core beliefs of a Muslim, and you leave out what they actually believe to be the way to salvation. Isn't the way to salvation a 'core belief'? No? why not? What does Jesus say about the way to salvation??? The reason I press here, is because of what you stated before, in post #60.

 

[Rachel20]

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).

In case A, there's evidence of acceptance of Christ. But in case B there's no evidence of rejection (John 9:41). So B is an unkown. Good deeds aren't the plummet unless you're talking about Maat and the underworld weighing of the heart. If you want to argue the Philanthropist has both known and rejected Christ, then Ezekiel 18:24-29 and NT passages apply and B dies in his sin. While the idea of Stalin going to Heaven seems morally repugnant, that emotional appeal may stem from our failure to value the life of one to the same degree we value millions. But there's no evidence God does this.

 

[Tone]

What does [He] teach about the way to salvation, for example?

If I may interject:

John 14
" 6 Jesus answered, 'I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.'"

John 8
"58 “Truly, truly, I tell you, Jesus declared, “before Abraham was born, I am!"


John 15
"1 I am the TRUE vine, and My Father is the keeper of the vineyard. 2He cuts off every branch in Me that bears no fruit, and every branch that does bear fruit, He prunes to make it even more fruitful. 3You are already clean because of the word I have spoken to you. 4Remain in Me, and I will remain in you. Just as no branch can bear fruit by itself unless it remains in the vine, neither can you bear fruit unless you remain in Me. 5I am the vine and you are the branches. The one who remains in Me, and I in him, will bear much fruit. For apart from Me you can do nothing."


Like I said early on, it's like a Great Tree weathering a cosmic storm.

The old testament are its roots and the new testament are its shoots.

Messiah said this:

Revelation 22
" 'I, Jesus, have sent My angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the
Offspring of David, the bright Morning Star.'"

And

Revelation 22:13
"'I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last."

John 15
"…'9As the Father has loved Me, so have I loved you. Remain in My love. 10If you keep My commandments, you will remain in My love, just as I have kept My Father’s commandments and remain in His love. 11I have told you these things so that My joy may be in you and your joy may be complete."

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I don't think this is why you are stopping You cannot call yourself a Christian logically, without adhering to what you 'graciously gave', which was basically nothing. It would be like asking what are the core beliefs of a Muslim, and you leave out what they actually believe to be the way to salvation. Isn't the way to salvation a 'core belief'? No? why not? What does Jesus say about the way to salvation??? The reason I press here, is because of what you stated before, in post #60.

Oh, but it is the reason. Until you become more even handed with your inquiry and stop smoke-screening and passing it off as "authentic inquiry," I'll just desist from engaging you, especially since you don't seem know the difference between a tautology and a straight-forward answer.

Best Wishes! You're on your own! (Which is what your form of "pushing" leads to.)

 

[Tone]

From an interesting article:

"Now the fact is, there are lots of prisms for viewing the storyline of the Bible, many built from big theological concepts like covenant and kingdom. But it’s also possible to over-theorize the Bible, turning it into a collection of abstractions. But the Bible itself doesn’t do this. The Bible keeps its story close to the ground, making sure we remember it’s fundamentally a down-to-earth saga."
The Story of the Bible, Told by Trees | Institute For Bible Reading

 

[Andrewn]

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?

Because we're talking about the OT, which deals with Israel: a group of people in the Middle East.

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".

No, it doesn't. Even though the OT doesn't say, "do not own slaves," it has several books that approve the story of a group of slaves escaping from their masters. There are also commandments about marrying a widow, so that she would not end up penniless, about releasing slaves after a certain period of time, and about treating aliens well. In the NT, we have St Paul advising Philemon to treat his run-away slave well and in a different place he writes:

Gal 3:26-28 In fact, you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. Indeed, as many of you as were baptized into Christ have been clothed with Christ. There is not Jew or Greek, slave or free, male or female, for you are all one and the same in Christ Jesus.

This may be bad news for Jews, slave owners, and men. It is certainly very good news for Greeks, for slaves, and for women.

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

If the Bible says to treat slaves like brothers, this is revolutionary. Slaves treated like brothers are no longer a slave. Indeed, they're better off than many employees in this day and age. Still, the Bible doesn't say, "Do not own slaves." That would be like telling you, "Do not use gasoline, it damages the environment." Slaves were the engine for the economy, you need a source of energy to drive the economy. We need a different source of energy to be able to not use gasoline. And God ultimately gave the world the technology to wean us off the unjust source of energy.

I read that the ratio of free people to slaves in ancient Greece was 1:5 or something like that. You can't change that kind of system overnight. It takes time and wisdom / technology.

 

[cvanwey]

Oh, but it is the reason.

I've been engaging your responses for three years now. They often times end up the same. When pressed for your core principles, you duck out. Either by way of stop responding, an insult, you change the subject, or you hide behind your 'advanced education' - as if I'm not well versed enough to understand.

I asked you for agreed upon 'core beliefs'. Your given response would be really no different than asking an ovo vegetarian what are their agreed upon core beliefs, and the interlocutor merely states, 'oh, we eat vegetables and eggs.' It's redundant. The title 'double-speaks' the given definition. "kapeesh'? What are the agreed upon core beliefs?

I asked you this of Christianity, and you deliberately exclude salvation. Salvation cuts to the core of Christian beliefs. You want no part in this topic, because you are abundantly aware this is NOT agreed upon. And yet, Jesus speaks about it in several spots. I ask you follow up questions, and once again, you retort.

So no, you are not ducking out for this 'reason'. You are attempting to find any excuse imaginable, to not answer the real question(s).

Until you become more even handed with your inquiry and stop smoke-screening and passing it off as "authentic inquiry," I'll just desist from engaging you, especially since you don't seem know the difference between a tautology and a straight-forward answer.

Best Wishes! You're on your own! (Which is what your form of "pushing" leads to.)

As soon as I start to get into a topic, for which you bring up, you run. Case/point:

- Are you even aware of the many presented pitfalls, when admitting to both covenant based theology and dispensationalism? If so, how do you resolve these pitfalls?

- Why Jesus?

- As stated above, you guys can't even agree at the 'core level'. And yet, you eluded to the fact that you do not quibble over certain topics, and only focus on the fact that Christians agree, at the core level.

- Name a prophecy?

When pressed for any of these, you run away.

Well, I can tell you, this becomes quite frustrating. But, do what you gotta do, I guess

 

[cvanwey]

Thank you for your response!

In case A, there's evidence of acceptance of Christ. But in case B there's no evidence of rejection (John 9:41). So B is an unkown.

B is only an unknown if one is to assume that B was never presented with the assertion of Christianity. Meaning, no one has ever asked if they wish to accept Jesus as their Lord, Or, this person never heard of Christianity. This would be to assume something rather far fetched, especially in the civilized world. Just like you have heard of other religions, but reject them to instead accept yours.

Like I stated in my prior response, B could also believe in opposing god(s), which is a complete no-no, according to the first Commandment.

So yes, you basically just acknowledged A is more likely to enter heaven, verses B. This completely excludes moral predicates; unless you wish to argue faith/belief is a moral/immoral concept, verses an amoral one? And also wish to argue that belief is a choice?

Good deeds aren't the plummet unless you're talking about Maat and the underworld weighing of the heart. If you want to argue the Philanthropist has both known and rejected Christ, then Ezekiel 18:24-29 and NT passages apply and B dies in his sin. While the idea of Stalin going to Heaven seems morally repugnant, that emotional appeal may stem from our failure to value the life of one to the same degree we value millions. But there's no evidence God does this.

There's really no evidence for any of it; let alone whom He chooses, does not choose. We can quibble over what criteria He uses to choose whom gets into heaven, or not. But again, if you are to argue that faith is what saves, you then must argue that faith/belief is a moral construct. And also, that what you believe and do not believe is a also moral concept. Otherwise, morals look and appear to be irrelevant.

 

[cvanwey]

If I may interject:

John 14
" 6 Jesus answered, 'I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.'"

John 8
"58 “Truly, truly, I tell you, Jesus declared, “before Abraham was born, I am!"


John 15
"1 I am the TRUE vine, and My Father is the keeper of the vineyard. 2He cuts off every branch in Me that bears no fruit, and every branch that does bear fruit, He prunes to make it even more fruitful. 3You are already clean because of the word I have spoken to you. 4Remain in Me, and I will remain in you. Just as no branch can bear fruit by itself unless it remains in the vine, neither can you bear fruit unless you remain in Me. 5I am the vine and you are the branches. The one who remains in Me, and I in him, will bear much fruit. For apart from Me you can do nothing."


Like I said early on, it's like a Great Tree weathering a cosmic storm.

The old testament are its roots and the new testament are its shoots.

Messiah said this:

Revelation 22
" 'I, Jesus, have sent My angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the
Offspring of David, the bright Morning Star.'"

And

Revelation 22:13
"'I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last."

John 15
"…'9As the Father has loved Me, so have I loved you. Remain in My love. 10If you keep My commandments, you will remain in My love, just as I have kept My Father’s commandments and remain in His love. 11I have told you these things so that My joy may be in you and your joy may be complete."

You answered a question, yea!

 

[Tone]

You answered a question, yea!

I answered the A B question as well..."ABBA".

Did you see my quote on the article about the tree prism?