"Okay, I believe in a higher power(s) now...."

[cvanwey]

Me: The historicity of the New Testament is important.

You: Why? It doesn't get us closer to the Resurrection.

Me: What I'm interested in is Lewis's trilemma and the question of whether Jesus actually claimed to be God. That requires addressing the issue of whether anything that is actually attributed to him can be considered historical.

You: False dilemma! It could be a legend instead.

Me: aeifr;aoggklmsdfea;o!!!!!

Seriously, why do you think I am saying that the historicity of the New Testament is important? Did you read my last post? My whole point is that you need to analyze the New Testament to figure out how deep the claim to divinity goes and whether there's reason to think it's authentic.

If I was to get frustrated like you, as soon as I was to get a response I did not expect, or like, I probably would have got kicked off of this thread by the third page

Please re-read my response, from post #318. I was hoping you were clever enough to see why I responded the way in which I did.

My point here was that I do not agree that Lewis's rendition for evaluation, is deemed a useful tool, especially for 'historicity'. If the authors instead wrote from a legendary standpoint, (where it counts anyways), then what you stated prior would be of little use to evaluate His 'historicity'.

We clearly have differing starting points, when evaluating the Bible and it's claims. Meaning, I sense you might actually think the claims for Jesus are legit, (where they count that is). Where-as I do not.

I've already specified to you, more than once here, that many true things about a person(s), places, and events, gets us no closer to a claim of Jesus's claimed 'rise from the dead', 'born of a virgin', 'walked on water' - (i.e. where they count)...

The authors clearly implicate Jesus as stating He thinks He is the Messiah. This is ALL we have for evaluation.

Jesus apparently never wrote anything Himself. Thus, we must evaluate what the authors wrote of Him. From where I'm proverbially standing, it looks as the authors assert that He rose from the dead, and that He claimed to be God. See below...

I don't think your rigid cardboard interpretation of Paul is correct, since even Paul would surely have believed that if his theological understanding was completely false, preaching would be in vain regardless of whether or not the Resurrection were true.

Either there are implicit elements in his argument, or his argument is invalid. An invalid argument doesn't magically become valid just because it's in the Bible.

Let's get something straight here... I already am aware that you are not a fundi. I'm already aware that your position may be, not of a hard-line approach. However, again, all we have is what the authors wrote.

The canon was developed by the 'church', or whom/whoever deemed such verse important enough to be part of the canon. If it's in the Bible, then sorry, it's <deemed> to reflect God's direct nature.

Now, do you have to agree? No. However, again, the authors implicate that if 'He did not rise, your faith is in vain.'

I'm already aware that you, as well as many others, would not deem a resurrection (enough) to certify 'Messiah status'. However, if the resurrection did not happen, according to the author(s), then I guess none of it would matter anyways, now would it?

You have stated that there really exists no way to prove a resurrection. I kind of agree. Hence, the word 'faith' I guess.

I am not saying that atheists reject things in the Bible. I am saying that at least in this instance, atheists generally exhibit sound logic.

You, on the other and, are basically presenting this monstrosity of a circular argument: "If the Resurrection is true, Christianity is true, because I have decided that Paul said so."

You are missing my point. I hope it is a little clearer now. We can only infer what the author intends. My points is to what 'Paul' asserts. And getting back to historicity, if legend is the prevailing component, than claims of the divine, the 'supernatural', etc, then become a little more explanatory.

 

[cvanwey]

Claim?

Again with the stalling tactics.... I already conceded, from you long ago, to use the Cambridge dictionary for all words, which require/necessitate definition. Can you please address the question, or please stop wasting even more time?

"You have yet to divulge, by what means, you have concluded that your claimed God is the one true God? ."

 

[cvanwey]

This fear is in your imagination.

Yes I am asking you to state your own criteria. My own first post in this debate says "Support for the Bible becomes clearer in practice than in theory, I do not believe one can hypothetically experience it."

Anyone able to read that can see I make no claim to be able to convince any poster in this thread.

I'm simply asking [you] why you believe what you believe. What is your reason(s)?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'm simply asking [you] why you believe what you believe. What is your reason(s)?

I could be wrong, but if it were me, I'd think you'd need to spell out, however imperfectly, what it is that you think is a sufficient level of evidence before asking someone to engage your inquiry for evidence and/or proof. Otherwise, this whole apologetics project ends up being a CHARADE on the part of skeptics to 'find out' why Christians 'believe' as they do, an exchange that I in turn subject to my own question: to what "end" do they ask?

For the life of me, when skeptics and atheists show up here, then more often than not, I feel like I'm reprising the role of Little Red Riding Hood as she's just entered .... Grandmother's House.

 

[dlamberth]

Phenomenology is a subject I haven't gotten into much, but I can hazard that there is necessarily a sense of relativity with it, that each individual has their experiences and that can provide us with some interesting aspects, but not to the point of concluding things about the world that apply to everyone when our experiences don't match up the same on such things

The conclusions I have come to: I'm pretty sure that Love, Compassion, Empathy and Service are pretty universally known and experienced. I'd even go so far to say that they are the kinds of things that help make us Human Beings more human.

Your experiences in themselves are not what is being brought into question: it's your conclusions about what those experiences entail about reality, it's fairly simple in distinction. You thinking some mystical experience that you cannot explain means that there must be some higher power is not anything demonstrable in that causative connection, because we cannot conclude your experience was anything outside of your brain functions, and that's just one general example, to say nothing of correlations of miracles to some particular god and belief in it based on "consistency", which is little different than rationalizing a superstition about black cats because of confirmation bias in interacting with them

I agree in some of this and disagree in others. What I see most though is that your projecting your own stuff into me that do not match up with my spiritual life. For instance, I'd never use the term "higher power". Mainly because that's a duality way of experiencing/looking at things. When you start from that position, everything that comes after that does not fit the spiritual trajectory that I'm on. Love has a way of uniting and bringing things together as One.

So, my inner spiritual experiences are mine and mine alone. They are up to me to question and understand. A true spiritual life is about personal inner growth. I give you permission to challenge and doubt anything about me. That's not going to change a thing. But I also give you permission to do your own spiritual inner inquiry. Because your conclusions are yours and yours alone, I'm not going to challenge or doubt your own conclusions that you come up with.

The evidence you claim changed you is putting the cart before the horse: you decided to interpret the evidence in a certain fashion, the evidence itself is not so self evident as something we can demonstrate scientifically, because the "evidence" is necessarily limited to the individual and their testimony can not only be questionable, but fallible in what they even recall from memory

What I'm taking from this is that because you have zero clue of my spiritual path, you have projected onto me some wrong conclusions.

The evidence I have, what I look at as Truth is that I'm becoming a better Human Being. That's all that matters. That's where Truth becomes real. And it's all centered around something called Love.

 

[MrsFoundit]

I'm simply asking [you] why you believe what you believe.

If this is true, why after having already been told, are you still asking?

 

[MrsFoundit]

Again with the stalling tactics....

I want to know what you identify as a claim. No dictionary can cover your personal criteria, since the CF Statement of Faith is called a Statement of Faith not a "Declaration of Claims".

I am not stalling on answering a question I have already answered, see page one of this thread.

 

[MrsFoundit]

We clearly have differing starting points, when evaluating the Bible and it's claims. Meaning, I sense you might actually think the claims for Jesus are legit, (where they count that is). Where-as I do not.

I ask again, explain your criteria for applying the word "claim"?

The canon was developed by the 'church', or whom/whoever deemed such verse important enough to be part of the canon. If it's in the Bible, then sorry, it's <deemed> to reflect God's direct nature.

It is not deemed to be comprehensible as a reflection of God's nature regardless of the perspective of the reader.

Now, do you have to agree? No. However, again, the authors implicate that if 'He did not rise, your faith is in vain.'

"The authors" did not agree to your personal and unspecified ideas as to what constitutes "proof".

You have stated that there really exists no way to prove a resurrection. I kind of agree. Hence, the word 'faith' I guess.

No, but then at least you admit you are only guessing.

 

[cvanwey]

Of course I am. Angel and demons are fully apart of the Bible. God strictly forbids all ways of contacting spirits or the dead because he knows that demons will answer. Why do you think ancient civilisations sacrificed young women to their 'gods' in the hope bad things wouldn't befall them? Because the demons showed them lying signs and wonders and made them believe they were gods. Of course those civilisations assumed these 'god's had way more power than they actually did.
You can see them at work in Genesis when Pharaoh calls his magicians and they turn water into blood. Exodus 7. They did this by the power of demons. We are told Satan and by extension, all demons masquerade as gods or angels of light and that they have powers to deceive.
2 Corinthians 11:14And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light.

You seem to be under the impression that I take assertions from the Bible any more seriously than assertions from some opposing and asserting claimed holy text(s)? We are not there yet. Your argument is viciously circular. If I already believed the Bible was the Word of God, than of course regurgitating Scriptural verse would possibly seem to answer my questions.

I only conceded the existence of 'demons', for sake in brevity. Just like I have conceded all arguments for God's necessary existence.

The entire point of this thread is to determine which God is THE God. And in your case, I did you a huge solid. (i.e.) - I have also conceded that demons exist But now, this seems to only convolute the process even further...?

Again, if demons are deceptive, how do you know they are not showing up, while in earnest prayer?

A demon isn't going to contact you if you are reading your Bible and praying to God, but if you decide to go to some occult experience or read occult books or pray to angels you are open and ripe for the picking. This is why God forbids it. People who want to see 'proof' are especially open for it.

Deuteronomy 18:9-14
“When you come into the land that the Lord your God is giving you, you shall not learn to follow the abominable practices of those nations. There shall not be found among you anyone who burns his son or his daughter as an offering, anyone who practices divination or tells fortunes or interprets omens, or a sorcerer or a charmer or a medium or a necromancer or one who inquires of the dead, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord. And because of these abominations the Lord your God is driving them out before you. You shall be blameless before the Lord your God, ...

1 Timothy 4:1
Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons,

And if you should somehow innocently encounter demonic activity you test it.
1 John 4:1
Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world.
You do this by knowing the Word, knowing God and discernment in the spirit.

You have again placed the cart before the horse. --- Circular reasoning.... Again, I have concluded that God exists. But your every reply is assuming that I have already acknowledged that the Bible is God inspired or God given. We are NOT there yet

If demons exist, I'm sure they might be deceptive, crafty, tricky, etc... And if they are, why could they not show up, and state they are from a divine presence, when they are not? How could you tell?

Actually they don't. Buddhism doesn't even have a god. Other religions will tell you to do things in your own strength and give you a list of rules. Only Christianity has a saviour who died for you who you put your faith in. Only Christianity will have you repent of your sins and only Christianity says that God puts his laws on your heart. Only Christianity is a relationship. So you might want to check out the 'all the same business' because they are not.

Who said anything about any particular religion? Nice straw man.

Again, you stated in your prior post "'your own relationship with God, the knowing in your spirit, seeing prayer answered. These things are intangible'."

The above quote was your claims. Opposing beliefs claim a relationship. Opposing beliefs also claim answered prayer, (see the video provided in my prior response, for which you did not address). Please stay on track.

I will ask again:

But this still gets us absolutely no closer. Opposing and mutually exclusive 'faiths' claim the exact same things. How does this get us any closer to YHWH specifically?

So earnest you now say he doesn't exist? Did you have a relationship with him where you woke up and said "Good morning Lord"

and prayed conversationally as you went about your daily life? Or did you try and follow some set of rules?
For example, when we needed to move house I told God that we needed a house with at least 3 large bedrooms with built-ins and a decent sized backyard with plenty of privacy that we could afford. We got exactly that. I can see God's hand in my life so many times.

When did I state He doesn't exist? I could not say that. I've acknowledged one cannot prove a negative. Do I have doubt? Yes. But this is because I sensed, after decades, that there exists no God listening, to me at least. You can question my earnestness. In fact, I would go on a limb to state this might be your only or strongest 'defense'?

Again you claim He responds to you. So I again ask you:

How do (you) know your contact was from [the] God, and not some opposing God, some demon, your own imagination, feelings and/or 'goose bumps', other, other, other? Again, please look to post #43?

Why should God meet your expectations? Do you find people in general always meet your expectations? The same way people do what they want to do, so does God, but God can't sin. God most times uses other people. He prompts and he expects action.

Look around you at the details of creation, God said that is enough physical proof.

You are not meeting my expectations. And yet, I do not question your mere existence The given joke is not falsifiable. Humans exist, boats exist, floods exist, etc... All such events could happen, with or without a God present. Nothing in the Joke distinguishes mundane events, verses divine intervention, or something to distinguish a specific God's presence.

Again, I have already conceded each and every argument for God's necessary existence. I'm trying to figure out if the God of Christianity is the true one?

Do you have anything besides quoting the Bible to prove the Bible (i.e.) circular reasoning?

I didn't say you would 'receive a sign' only this is how you meet God. You believe that he is and diligently seek him. You are not seeking a sign, you can't grasp hold of God like that. God is spirit you know him in spirit. There is no other way that I can explain it, which is why I said its like love.

If I was to feel I already 'met God', than this entire thread would never have happened

Further, how do YOU know what God wants? News flash, you likely don't. Again, you can quote the Bible. But until you establish that the Bible IS the Word of God, you are being circular. So again, are you going to address the video I provided? Or, are you going to ignore it again?

The point of the video is to demonstrate that other mutually exclusive faiths assert the same stuff you are citing here. Why do I 'know' theirs is wrong, and yours is correct?

 

[cvanwey]

The question raised is: Are they truly preaching Love?

They talk about Love, but most preach everything else but Love. It's not Love from their God's that I'm pointing towards. Anyone can make God claims. But what I'm pointing towards is something deeper where each person is within themselves. Watch Love within ones self. Watch the change in perspective when seeing through the eye of Love. Love has Soul and Life which is why the Poets find so much to work with when working with Love. With Love comes Compassion, Empathy and the desire to help those in need. Love causes a different way of seeing other Human Beings, the Earth and even the Divine itSelf... And than there's Oneness in God that the Mystics point towards.

Nice distraction, with the provided deepity. Are you going to address post #43 or not?

 

[cvanwey]

The way I think about your question is that you would have to be inside of and riding in my consciousness awareness for you to personally "experience" what I experience to understanding for why I believe the way I do. And because you would be unable to do that I would be unable to give you the evidence that has affected and changed me.

It depends... If her sole reason for belief, is feeling she received personal contact, for which others could not objectively verify, then maybe....?

But she refuses, thus far, to provide anything forthcoming

 

[cvanwey]

I could be wrong, but if it were me, I'd think you'd need to spell out, however imperfectly, what it is that you think is a sufficient level of evidence before asking someone to engage your inquiry for evidence and/or proof. Otherwise, this whole apologetics project ends up being a CHARADE on the part of skeptics to 'find out' why Christians 'believe' as they do, an exchange that I in turn subject to my own question: to what "end" do they ask?

For the life of me, when skeptics and atheists show up here, then more often than not, I feel like I'm reprising the role of Little Red Riding Hood as she's just entered .... Grandmother's House.

Not sure why I have to keep posting the obvious:

"Christian Apologetics
A forum for non-Christians to challenge the Christian faith, and for Christians to defend their faith."

Now, to address your 'concerns'...

1. I'm baffled as to why you are still here? Please admit, once and for all, that CF has clinged upon you, and there exist no escape from it's grasp
2. I'm simply asking why she believes? What reason/reasons compels her? Are they worth investigation for anyone whom does not believe????
3. As I stated in post #161, I do not know what my own standard for becoming a believer might be. Maybe if she provides something worth exploring, we can do that together. But she is avoiding the question, thus far, at all costs --- and it's getting old.

 

[cvanwey]

If this is true, why after having already been told, are you still asking?

You stated 'it works in practice'. Otherwise, no clarification. Is this IT?

Can you please, once and for all, provide reason(s), which clarification to address? If not, just say you are not going to. For which I would then ask, why are you in this thread?

 

[cvanwey]

I want to know what you identify as a claim. No dictionary can cover your personal criteria, since the CF Statement of Faith is called a Statement of Faith not a "Declaration of Claims".

I am not stalling on answering a question I have already answered, see page one of this thread.

Nevermind. You clearly don't get it, or, are 'acting' confused. Good bye.

 

[MrsFoundit]

I could be wrong, but if it were me, I'd think you'd need to spell out, however imperfectly, what it is that you think is a sufficient level of evidence before asking someone to engage your inquiry for evidence and/or proof. Otherwise, this whole apologetics project ends up being a CHARADE on the part of skeptics to 'find out' why Christians 'believe' as they do, an exchange that I in turn subject to my own question: to what "end" do they ask?

In my opinion this thread has been an excellent opportunity to show how the standards work better among people of faith. Simply by not restricting our whole world view to a subjective, unspecified and unproven principle revolving around "claims" and "evidence" we are free to ask more questions, explore more possibilities, demonstrate some comprehension of the principles philosophy, and honestly admit to our subjectivity. Back on the first page there is an unreserved admission by both @Silmarien and myself as to apparent absurdity and seeming insanity in Christianity, no requirement for people to be perfect in that. I am fairly sure if anyone reads through the thread, it is easy to see Christians are answering questions when asked, often very thoroughly, the self contained logic we profess can be seen, as can our ability to defend our faith.

The only viable critique is we did not convince some individuals, which does not constitute a very strong point as it is, and is even weaker when the bare faced fact no Christian claimed we could is noted.

1 John 4:12-13 And God has given us his Spirit as proof that we live in him and he in us.

 

[MrsFoundit]

You stated 'it works in practice'.

Support for the Bible becomes clearer in practice than in theory, I do not believe one can hypothetically experience it. Every world view I have ever encountered seemed absurd to me, Christianity is the one that worked in application." That is what I said.

After thirty years exposed to Christianity, I do not suppose you need me to explain the basic framework. Your more specific questions answered in my next post.

 

[MrsFoundit]

Are they worth investigation for anyone whom does not believe?

No, not anyone whom does not believe, some people, but not anyone.

As I stated in post #161, I do not know what my own standard for becoming a believer might be.

You need to know, as people have pointed out.

Maybe if she provides something worth exploring, we can do that together. .

Your reasons for your actions and your contemplation of life the universe and everything cannot be provided to you by someone else.

But she is avoiding the question, thus far, at all costs --- and it's getting old.

Did not see it until now.

 

[MrsFoundit]

Nevermind. You clearly don't get it, or, are 'acting' confused.

Statement of Faith
Declaration of Claims

Two different phrases.

 

[cvanwey]

Statement of Faith
Declaration of Claims

Two different phrases.

Already addressed at the bottom of post #183. As I stated prior. Good bye.

 

[MrsFoundit]

It depends... If her sole reason for belief, is feeling she received personal contact, for which others could not objectively verify, then maybe....?

1 Personal contact is not my sole reason for belief.
2 Feelings are irrelevant.
3 Ability to verify depends on the other person.
4 Objective verification of a world view is not possible.

So your maybe amounts to nothing.