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

[cvanwey]

"Every world view I have ever encountered seemed absurd to me, Christianity is the one that worked in application." My own post 14.

"As for all world views seem absurd, my point is, they all contain parts that seem absurd to someone, I therefore acknowledged that attempting to avoid apparent absurdity was futile." My own post 19.

There is what I said, because your questions do not appear to relate to it at all.

I read what you posted. You also posted other things. And in response, I posted the three follow up questions below:

1. Only the parts that you agree with or like, or all of it works in application? Because, as I'm sure you know, there looks to be some allowances and assertions in there, which I hardly doubt you might truly like or agree with....

2. And if you deem the parts you don't agree with absurd, then why use the Bible as your guide, why not just institute your own 'moral philosophy'?

3. And furthermore, I also asked... Even if the Bible provided sound advice, all across the board, how does the Bible verify 1 Corinthians 15:14?"

I'm going to be preemptive here... If I'm wrong, please correct me accordingly. I'm going to try and respond, in your 'shoes', to questions 1 and 2.

"I trust God, and if God commands some things I don't agree with, then even though I view them as 'absurd', I must be mistaken, because I'm a flawed human."

Am I close? Yes or no?

But I would still like an answer to question #3?

Thank you kindly!

 

[cvanwey]

The famous Chesterton quote is applicable here: "We do not really want a religion that is right where we are right. What we want is a religion that is right where we are wrong."

As I'm sure you are also aware --- "What we want, and what is, have no correlation, unless proven." - The unfamous 'Cvanwey'

 

[cvanwey]

Honestly, I think barring mental health concerns, direct revelation should trump all. The problem of other religions doesn't really bother me--if someone has a vision of Krishna or Mohammed and thinks it's real, they should probably take that seriously.

I have already tried to agree with you, on more than one occasion here. Once someone states they have been contacted, all other 'evidence' fades in the background, behind this piece of primary evidence. But like I've also said, how do they know they are receiving contact from the God they already perceive to believe in? It seems to be an unanswerable question. See below...

I'm not sure I understand the question. If an intelligent, well-educated Muslim came up to me and started describing a vision they had had, I would not assume that their claim was false. Similarly, if a Christian describes a miracle they witnessed to me, I don't automatically cite it as evidence. I would assume that both are telling the truth, but beyond that, I cannot really say anything.

The only personal experience that should really be conclusive to any individual is their own--that's the only one they have access to.

You understood correctly If person A claimed contact from god A, and person B claimed contact from god B, I would believe both of them. But one of them would HAVE to be wrong. Unless you admit there exists more than one god? So how might we go about finding out the following:

1. They are both right
2. One is right, the other is mistaken
3. They are both mistaken

"Prove that Christianity is coherent" is a pretty open-ended challenge. You would need to say what doctrine you think is incoherent and present some argument as to why it's incoherent.

Internal consistency doesn't have anything to do with the historicity of the New Testament. The entirety of Christian theology, Bible and all, could have been invented by St. Thomas Aquinas and still be internally coherent. Obviously, in that case, it would have been completely non-historical.

Maybe a 'better' question to address/ask might be... Even if the Bible was internally consistent, from beginning to end, does this, in ANY way, 'prove' it was God inspired? If not, then lets move it along I guess

That isn't what I meant, though that happens to be true also.

I believe in social justice. If I accept the possibility that reality is ultimately just and things will inevitably be set right, social justice makes sense as a concept. If I instead operate under the assumption that justice is a human fiction, then either I discard the notion of social justice, or I accept all of the problems inherent in believing in something that I know to be merely a subjective preference. Neither of these options is morally acceptable to me.

Which doesn't mean that I don't care about truth also, but I have an equally large moral problem with using evidentialism as a crutch to never actually have to make a decision about anything.

I had a feeling you might, that's why I stated as such, in that way, preemptively

It almost sounds to me, that without some 'ultimate purpose', you cannot bare to instead imagine the 'reality' of the possibility that when you die, 'that's all folks.' Am I close?

 

[MrsFoundit]

"I trust God, and if God commands some things I don't agree with, then even though I view them as 'absurd', I must be mistaken, because I'm a flawed human."

Am I close? Yes or no?

No, not close.

This "Every world view I have ever encountered seemed absurd to me, Christianity is the one that worked in application.",
and this
"As for all world views seem absurd, my point is, they all contain parts that seem absurd to someone, I therefore acknowledged that attempting to avoid apparent absurdity was futile."

Does not mean "I trust God, and if God commands some things I don't agree with, then even though I view them as 'absurd', I must be mistaken, because I'm a flawed human." at all.

My point is entirely about people and subjective perceptions of world views. All world view options contain elements that seem absurd to some people. It is not about me, God, trust, or commands.

The resurrection is certainly a point where I do not believe Christianity can be explored hypothetically or arguendo. You are pretty close to simply stating the obvious there. No a skeptic cannot be shown a reason why they should believe the resurrection occurred, while still entirely remaining a skeptic, and then in a separate step choose to become a believer as a result. The moment a skeptic sees a reason to believe the resurrection occurred, they are a believer by definition.

 

[cvanwey]

No, not close.

This "Every world view I have ever encountered seemed absurd to me, Christianity is the one that worked in application.",
and this
"As for all world views seem absurd, my point is, they all contain parts that seem absurd to someone, I therefore acknowledged that attempting to avoid apparent absurdity was futile."

Does not mean "I trust God, and if God commands some things I don't agree with, then even though I view them as 'absurd', I must be mistaken, because I'm a flawed human." at all.

My point is entirely about people and subjective perceptions of world views. All world view options contain elements that seem absurd to some people. It is not about me, God, trust, or commands.

The resurrection is certainly a point where I do not believe Christianity can be explored hypothetically or arguendo. You are pretty close to simply stating the obvious there. No a skeptic cannot be shown a reason why they should believe the resurrection occurred, while still entirely remaining a skeptic, and then in a separate step choose to become a believer as a result. The moment a skeptic sees a reason to believe the resurrection occurred, they are a believer by definition.

Okay, let's try and start from scratch then... Thus far, we've already conceded many God arguments as fact. We've seemed to determine, from others maybe, that even if the Bible is consistent from A to Z, this gets us no closer to proving it was God inspired. You stated, yourself, that there really exists no way to prove to a skeptic that a resurrection took place.

So I guess we are back to square one...? How does a deist/theist jump from merely believing in [a] god, to your specific God, the God of Christianity?

 

[NBB]

How would you know? If you were contacted by a spirit, whom claimed to be your God, how would you distinguish the difference between the true God, verses not?

Because christians have the spirit of God, and that helps them to know if a spirit is from God or not.

 

[cvanwey]

Because christians have the spirit of God, and that helps them to know if a spirit is from God or not.

From post #43:

If person A claimed contact from god A, and person B claimed contact from god B, I would believe both of them. But one of them would HAVE to be wrong. Unless you admit there exists more than one god? So how might we go about finding out the following:

1. They are both right
2. One is right, the other is mistaken
3. They are both mistaken

 

[NBB]

From post #43:

If person A claimed contact from god A, and person B claimed contact from god B, I would believe both of them. But one of them would HAVE to be wrong. Unless you admit there exists more than one god? So how might we go about finding out the following:

1. They are both right
2. One is right, the other is mistaken
3. They are both mistaken

You would have to know for sure what kind of 'contact' they experienced. And that is hard.

 

[cvanwey]

You would have to know for sure what kind of 'contact' they experienced. And that is hard.

Let's explore... You stated "Because christians have the spirit of God, and that helps them to know if a spirit is from God or not."

But other religions claim the exact same thing - (provided in another thread, but seems quite applicable here):

Again, If I believe both [you], as well as the people in this video, because I'm not going to accuse either of you being a liar, at least one of you HAS to be wrong, or maybe both are mistaken???

 

[NBB]

Let's explore... You stated "Because christians have the spirit of God, and that helps them to know if a spirit is from God or not."

But other religions claim the exact same thing - (provided in another thread, but seems quite applicable here):

Again, If I believe both [you], as well as the people in this video, because I'm not going to accuse either of you being a liar, at least one of you HAS to be wrong, or maybe both are mistaken???

You would have to know in another way, and one must be wrong.
I know what kind of experiences i had with God, i don't know what muslims experienced. And i can't prove scientifically, but sometimes people find the truth when they get desperate for help.

 

[cvanwey]

You would have to know for sure what kind of 'contact' they experienced. And that is hard.

Second response...

What is the 'right' kind of contact, as opposed to the 'wrong' kind'?

 

[cvanwey]

You would have to know in another way, and one must be wrong.
I know what kind of experiences i had with God, i don't know what muslims experienced. And i can't prove scientifically, but sometimes people find the truth when they get desperate for help.

What kind of direct contact did you have? And further, what if someone, from an opposing believe system, experienced very similar contact? How would you know you're still right, and they are still mistaken?

 

[NBB]

Second response...

What is the 'right' kind of contact, as opposed to the 'wrong' kind'?

After you are presented with the true gospel, you receive the spirit of God in you, that makes you God child, and as such, 'my sheep hear my voice, and they don't follow strangers', you start to distinguish between false and true sprits, and wrong and right. And when God does something you can tell its him.

 

[NBB]

What kind of direct contact did you have? And further, what if someone, from an opposing believe system, experienced very similar contact? How would you know you're still right, and they are still mistaken?

Is what millions of people experienced, the Holy spirit.

 

[cvanwey]

Is what millions of people experienced, the Holy spirit.

This does not answer my question.

We have ~2 billion Christians, of varying varieties.
We have ~1.8 billion Muslims, of varying varieties.

Countless anecdotal claims of contact and experiences come from both Christians and Muslims alone; not to account for any other sects, religions, beliefs, faiths, other.

You stated, in post #50 "one must be wrong"

Well, it's safe to say the Muslim is going to assume [you] are wrong. It's also safe to say, that you would beg to differ, and assume the Muslim is the one who's wrong...

Moving forward, how might we go about settling my same presented question, from post #43?:

If person A claimed contact from god A, and person B claimed contact from god B, I would believe both of them. But one of them would HAVE to be wrong. Unless you admit there exists more than one god? So how might we go about finding out the following:

1. They are both right
2. One is right, the other is mistaken
3. They are both mistaken

 

[cvanwey]

Is what millions of people experienced, the Holy spirit.

Second response...

How might one know they've been contacted by the Holy Spirit?

 

[NBB]

Second response...

How might one know they've been contacted by the Holy Spirit?

After you are presented the gospel and believe it, and out of the blue you experience something you didn't ever imagined in your whole life, that kind of experiences has characteristics that you can conclude it was the Holy spirit, its not easy to explain anyway. But you don't know what is it like so you discard it as any other experience that some other may have.

About the other post, yes one must be wrong like i said.

 

[cvanwey]

After you are presented the Qur'an and believe it, and out of the blue you experience something you didn't ever imagined in your whole life, that kind of experiences has characteristics that you can conclude it was the <fill-in-the-blank>, its not easy to explain anyway. But you don't know what is it like so you discard it as any other experience that some other may have.

Please re-read your own response again, but simply replace the word gospel with Qur'an. You see how the opposing belief system can say the exact same thing as you. And if they can both do this, while at the same time claiming mutual exclusivity, it's likely not viable as a response

About the other post, yes one must be wrong like i said.

In post #50, you stated you cannot prove it, but then also state "sometimes people find the truth when they get desperate for help."

Does this mean that desperation sometimes yields the truth?

 

[NBB]

Please re-read your own response again, but simply replace the word gospel with Qur'an. You see how the opposing belief system can say the exact same thing as you. And if they can both do this, while at the same time claiming mutual exclusivity, it's likely not viable as a response



In post #50, you stated you cannot prove it, but then also state "sometimes people find the truth when they get desperate for help."

Does this mean that desperation sometimes yields the truth?

I mean that a lot of people when they get desperate they forget about trying to make reasons to desbelief God and their pride etc. This happens a lot.

But i don't know what muslims experienced... if i needed to guess, i say it was not God for sure.

Even if my testimony may seem weak, the truth about God existing and the gospel working on the lives of people is something strong and real. I could 'bet' everything or die, that i will not doubt what i have experienced, because it was really convincing you know in all these years. So trying to renounce God would be like trying to deny reality.

 

[cvanwey]

I mean that a lot of people when they get desperate they forget about trying to make reasons to desbelief God and their pride etc. This happens a lot.

"Reasons to disbelieve"? "pride"?

The old adage goes... "The Christian is an atheist to many gods. The atheist goes just one god further." Now to address your response above...

Let's use the 'death bed conversion', as an example... This scenario seems to account for 'desperation', also, coming to grips with perceived reality, and maybe some other notable topics...?

Yes, some will profess to a 'god' before they die. BUT, often times, it was the god(s) they were already exposed to by their parents, friends, family, or other. Or, the God for which they were indoctrinated within growing up. Further, if one (finally) professes to any particular flavor of a god prior to death, it was highly likely they already [kind of believed subconsciously?], and was merely suppressing it for 'pride', or other...

So yes, some may do this. They may have merely suppressed their true feelings. Or even further, maybe they now want it to be true, as a survival mechanism. Meaning, adhering to a form of 'Pascal's wager.' Maybe there exists other notable reasons as well.....

HOWEVER, HOW does a 'death bed conversion' reveal truth?

And before you answer, many profess to opposing and mutually exclusive concept of god(s), for which you and I both currently reject.

But i don't know what muslims experienced... if i needed to guess, i say it was not God for sure.

And though you don't know what they experience, you boldly and arrogantly assert they must be wrong. Again, please revisit your prior response, (where I merely replaced the gospel with Qur'an), and tell me why this response gets us absolutely NO closer to truth:

"After you are presented the Qur'an and believe it, and out of the blue you experience something you didn't ever imagined in your whole life, that kind of experiences has characteristics that you can conclude it was the <fill-in-the-blank>, its not easy to explain anyway. But you don't know what is it like so you discard it as any other experience that some other may have."

Even if my testimony may seem weak,

I believe you felt something. I don't think you are a liar. But please read below...

the truth about God existing and the gospel working on the lives of people is something strong and real.

So far, you have given me absolutely nothing, above and beyond what someone from an opposing believe could furnish to me. Again, what distinguishes your experience as valid, but you somehow know the others are not? Again, look at your prior response above, where I replaced only one concept.

I could 'bet' everything or die, that i will not doubt what i have experienced, because it was really convincing you know in all these years. So trying to renounce God would be like trying to deny reality.

Again, I don't doubt your conviction, or beliefs. Just like I do not doubt the billions of Muslim's beliefs, convictions, and their willingness to die for it. But here's the fundamental dealio.... How do we verify which one is false. Or maybe, they are both false?