[PERMANENTLY CLOSED] When should we change our reasoning / beliefs?

[Chriliman]

Out of all human history, he decides to make his first incarnate appearance 2000 years ago. Rather than appearing to all human cultures, he appears to one particular Middle Eastern culture, wherein he finds followers who are supposed to spread his glorious message to the world. The message is so important that they write it down decades after the actual events took place. Over the centuries, the message spreads across some parts of the world, but barely penetrates several cultures. The message even changes between churches, with each church claiming continuity with the original apostolic line. By this century, the message has spread the world over, but there are still billions who are not convinced of its authenticity. It seems like Jesus' (or Paul's) methods were indeed effective for a man who wanted to start a religion, but not effective for a god who wanted to form a relationship with every human being.

You seem to think that humans are perfect and that we should know exactly how a perfect God would do things. You either concede that humans are not perfect and that a perfect God would have a perfect plan, or you concede that humans are perfect thereby making all of us gods. Or you think humans are not perfect but somehow we have this unshakable idea of perfection, well where does that idea come from, other than something that actually is perfect?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

You seem to think that humans are perfect and that we should know exactly how a perfect God would do things. You either concede that humans are not perfect and that a perfect God would have a perfect plan, or you concede that humans are perfect thereby making all of us gods. Or you think humans are not perfect but somehow we have this unshakable idea of perfection, well where does that idea come from, other than something that actually is perfect?

I have no idea how this relates to the post you are responding to. "Perfection" is a nebulous concept, and I see no need to draw on it here.

 

[bhsmte]

Why not just answer the question?

Difficult for me to speculate on a being I don't believe exists.

 

[Chriliman]

I have no idea how this relates to the post you are responding to. "Perfection" is a nebulous concept, and I see no need to draw on it here.

I'm just getting to the point about what your claims about God's perfect plan for salvation inevitably allude to. Your trying to poke holes in a plan that we Christians are claiming is perfect because it was enacted by a perfect God. The fact that you're trying to poke holes in a perfect plan, informs me that you think we should actually know what a perfect God would do with imperfect humans, thereby you're indirectly suggesting that you know better than a perfect God, suggesting that you're better than or equal to a perfect God. And I just find this interesting because this is exactly what satan was banished from heaven for thinking. Let me be perfectly clear that in no way am I calling you satan, I'm just pointing out how your claims relate to what Christians believe to be the true cause of evil.

So in fact your claims only strengthen my faith and inform me that evil does in fact still have a strong grip on this world. As an imperfect sinner still stuck in this imperfect sinful world, all I can do is pray that Jesus will take action through my action and destroy all evil within those that He loves. Of course I have the upmost confidence that eventually He will, it just takes time.

 

[anonymous person]

What reason?

And not only do you have to worry about this all being in your head, you also have worry about the source of the message. How can you tell which messages are from your god instead of from the other competing supernatural beings in the Christian mythology? And that's even assuming your idea of which gods exist is correct. You can't be sure that there's not some evil god tricking you into doing their evil bidding by pretending to be the god you expect to hear from.



Maybe, maybe not. Who are you to put limits on what your god does? You'll see believers who say that a reliable means to know god removes the need for faith. But even if they didn't exist, pretending that you can guess at the motives of a supernatural omnipotent being is pretty risky.

I hunger and thirst after righteousness.

I desire to live a holy and pure life before God and man. I desire to love all men as God loves them.

This purity of heart guards me from error.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I'm just getting to the point about what your claims about God's perfect plan for salvation inevitably allude to. Your trying to poke holes in a plan that we Christians are claiming is perfect because it was enacted by a perfect God. The fact that you're trying to poke holes in a perfect plan, informs me that you think we should actually know what a perfect God would do with imperfect humans, thereby you're indirectly suggesting that you know better than a perfect God, suggesting that you're better than or equal to a perfect God. And I just find this interesting because this is exactly what satan was banished from heaven for thinking. Let me be perfectly clear that in no way am I calling you satan, I'm just pointing out how your claims relate to what Christians believe to be the true cause of evil.

Here's the problem: whatever god ostensibly does, you will call it "perfect." If his divine message contained spelling and grammatical errors, which would be expected from a human author, but not from a god, you would still call it "perfect" and chastise me for ever raising the question of why a god would make such obvious mistakes. When Kirk asks, "What does god need with a starship?," you chastise him for questioning god's perfect plan. You don't pause to consider the question. "Hey! What does god need with a starship?"

 

[Chriliman]

Here's the problem: whatever god ostensibly does, you will call it "perfect." If his divine message contained spelling and grammatical errors, which would be expected from a human author, but not from a god, you would still call it "perfect" and chastise me for ever raising the question of why a god would make such obvious mistakes. When Kirk asks, "What does god need with a starship?," you chastise him for questioning god's perfect plan. You don't pause to consider the question. "Hey! What does god need with a starship?"

I've asked many questions. The important thing to remember when asking questions is to be honest with yourself first then ask the question. If you're not honest with yourself first you can't be honest with others when the tough questions come up. So far after asking as many questions as I can think of from an honest heart, I haven't received one answer that would even make any sense of how a universe would be possible without a God.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I've asked many questions. The important thing to remember when asking questions is to be honest with yourself first then ask the question. If you're not honest with yourself first you can't be honest with others when the tough questions come up. So far after asking as many questions as I can think of from an honest heart, I haven't received one answer that would even make any sense of how a universe would be possible without a God.

This is yet another reply that doesn't appear to address the content of the post you are responding to.

 

[anonymous person]

Here's the problem: whatever god ostensibly does, you will call it "perfect." If his divine message contained spelling and grammatical errors, which would be expected from a human author, but not from a god, you would still call it "perfect" and chastise me for ever raising the question of why a god would make such obvious mistakes. When Kirk asks, "What does god need with a starship?," you chastise him for questioning god's perfect plan. You don't pause to consider the question. "Hey! What does god need with a starship?"

Nobody is chastising anyone. We are just telling you that God is perfect and we are not.

At some point in your life you are going to have to make a decision to either continue to live in unbelief or to believe.

The choice is yours. Ask seek and knock and the door will be opened to you. Nothing we say is new to you. You have heard this before.

Think about living differently than you are now. Entertain the notion at least.

G.K. Chesterton once said that Christianity has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and not tried.

 

[Chriliman]

This is yet another reply that doesn't appear to address the content of the post you are responding to.

Again, I'm just getting to the real point. I already understand that you think I'm just claiming that God is perfect and that you think this claim is unreasonable.

What if the Bible is just one way that God can communicate. What if a perfect God would actually be able to communicate truth in a perfect way. So He actually wouldn't be restricted to written words by imperfect men (including my words). The restrictions of how He could communicate would be limitless. However, His communication would be limited by your willingness to accept what He's trying to teach you. Thus free will, meaning free from God's perfect will, is the only thing keeping us from comprehending the complete truth of God. Would you want continuous satisfaction of finding truth for eternity? God can give you this through the power of Jesus Christ. The truths of this world are just a dim mirror compared to the real truths of God which is infinite.

Again, I already understand that you think I'm just claiming that God is perfect and that you think this claim is unreasonable. What you think does not stop me from proclaiming what I believe to be true, especially when you can't even give me a sound reason to think that I might be wrong. I'm not even asking that you provide evidence that God isn't real, I'm just asking you to give me a sound reason to think He doesn't exist.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Nobody is chastising anyone. We are just telling you that God is perfect and we are not.

At some point in your life you are going to have to make a decision to either continue to live in unbelief or to believe.

The choice is yours. Ask seek and knock and the door will be opened to you. Nothing we say is new to you. You have heard this before.

Think about living differently than you are now. Entertain the notion at least.

G.K. Chesterton once said that Christianity has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and not tried.

Seems that Chesterton was wrong.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Again, I'm just getting to the real point. I already understand that you think I'm just claiming that God is perfect and that you think this claim is unreasonable.

What if the Bible is just one way that God can communicate. What if a perfect God would actually be able to communicate truth in a perfect way. So He actually wouldn't be restricted to written words by imperfect men (including my words). The restrictions of how He could communicate would be limitless. However, His communication would be limited by your willingness to accept what He's trying to teach you. Thus free will, meaning free from God's perfect will, is the only thing keeping us from comprehending the complete truth of God. Would you want continuous satisfaction of finding truth for eternity? God can give you this through the power of Jesus Christ. The truths of this world are just a dim mirror compared to the real truths of God which is infinite.

Again, I already understand that you think I'm just claiming that God is perfect and that you think this claim is unreasonable. What you think does not stop me from proclaiming what I believe to be true, especially when you can't even give me a sound reason to think that I might be wrong. I'm not even asking that you provide evidence that God isn't real, I'm just asking you to give me a sound reason to think He doesn't exist.

Now you've descended into preaching. I'm sorry to be blunt, but preaching really has no purchase on me.

 

[Chriliman]

Now you've descended into preaching. I'm sorry to be blunt, but preaching really has no purchase on me.

I understand that you think I've descended into preaching, but the fact that you think this has no effect on truth. I'm sure you can agree with that statement, unless of course you think you define truth.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I understand that you think I've descended into preaching, but the fact that you think this has no effect on truth. I'm sure you can agree with that statement, unless of course you think you define truth.

No, I didn't say that I defined truth. You are asking leading questions; a tactic I've seen employed by numerous street preachers. The point was rather simple: either you have a good argument or don't. Preaching suggests to me that you don't. Otherwise you would present the argument instead of preaching.

 

[Chriliman]

No, I didn't say that I defined truth. You are asking leading questions; a tactic I've seen employed by numerous street preachers. The point was rather simple: either you have a good argument or don't. Preaching suggests to me that you don't. Otherwise you would present the argument instead of preaching.

I presented my reasoning for my beliefs in the OP. Now I'm asking you to give me your reasonings as to why my reasoning is wrong so that I may determine if I'm wrong or so that you may determine if you are wrong. Eventually, if both of us are honestly seeking truth then one of us is going to have to change our beliefs to be inline with what is true.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I presented my reasoning for my beliefs in the OP. Now I'm asking you to give me your reasonings as to why my reasoning is wrong so that I may determine if I'm wrong or so that you may determine if you are wrong. Eventually, if both of us are honestly seeking truth then one of us is going to have to change our beliefs to be inline with what is true.

Am I to expect that you are open to be convinced, or this is a one-sided conversation wherein this expectation only applies to other participants in the discourse?

 

[Chriliman]

Am I to expect that you are open to be convinced, or this is a one-sided conversation wherein this expectation only applies to other participants in the discourse?

Well I'd be more inclined to believe someone who is actually making a truth claim that makes sense, rather than someone who isn't even making a truth claim and can't seem to find a reason why they can't make a truth claim.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Well I'd be more inclined to believe someone who is actually making a truth claim that makes sense, rather than someone who isn't even making a truth claim and can't seem to find a reason why they can't make a truth claim.

That doesn't really answer my question. This is precisely my problem with apologetics: as a rule, everyone in the discourse is expected to be open to be convinced, except the apologist. He has already convinced himself that he has the Truth with a capital T and so cannot be wrong.

 

[Chriliman]

That doesn't really answer my question. This is precisely my problem with apologetics: as a rule, everyone in the discourse is expected to be open to be convinced, except the apologist. He has already convinced himself that he has the Truth with a capital T and so cannot be wrong.

I understand this what you think, but lets be reasonable here. Isn't it more reasonable to believe a truth claim that someone finds to make sense, rather than to believe someone who isn't even making a truth claim and can't seem to give a reason as to why they aren't making a truth claim?

If you don't agree with the above, then I'm left thinking that you are being unreasonable on purpose.

 

[anonymous person]

Seems that Chesterton was wrong.

Now you've descended into preaching. I'm sorry to be blunt, but preaching really has no purchase on me.

That doesn't really answer my question. This is precisely my problem with apologetics: as a rule, everyone in the discourse is expected to be open to be convinced, except the apologist. He has already convinced himself that he has the Truth with a capital T and so cannot be wrong.

We are open to be convinced.

Convince us.

Go.

Shoot.

Have at it.

Why is Jesus not God incarnate?

Why are we wrong about the universe being created by God?

Why should we adopt your beliefs and abandon ours.

We are all ears.