Why does God choose to remain invisible and undetectable?

[bhsmte]

lol....I wouldn't realistically expect you to give him credence, bhmste. That's what makes it so slick.

By the way, read the article I mentioned. (It is a Skeptic's article, after all.)

Ok, cool.

 

[bhsmte]

Nope, LOL

Why not?

 

[ChristCameBackFromTheDead]

Why not?

Because to me it's like asking me to consider the sky isn't blue.

 

[ananda]

Maybe because they don't understand that "belief" is the beginning point, not the end point. But since Christianity is often treated as a 'consumable product,' it is no wonder that a number of people who attempt to appropriate Christianity think that believing settles the game. Sad, but true.

Ah ... so, you're not a Christian who believes that salvation is all about grace and faith, and nothing else?

 

[bhsmte]

Because to me it's like asking me to consider the sky isn't blue.

Ok, so it is impossible for you to consider even the most remote possibility you could be wrong.

Do you think this outlook has any impact on how you objectively view reality?

 

[bhsmte]

Maybe because they don't understand that "belief" is the beginning point, not the end point. But since Christianity is often treated as a 'consumable product,' it is no wonder that a number of people who attempt to appropriate Christianity think that believing settles the game. Sad, but true.

In your opinion, what is required for one to get to the starting point of; belief?

 

[ChristCameBackFromTheDead]

Ok, so it is impossible for you to consider even the most remote possibility you could be wrong.

Do you think this outlook has any impact on how you objectively view reality?

I can view it as a hypothetical situation.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Ah ... so, you're not a Christian who believes that salvation is all about grace and faith, and nothing else?

Close. Although I could be wrong, I assert that salvation is about a bit more than ONLY grace and faith. There is faithfulness, growth, holiness, applied love, wisdom and knowledge of truth in Christ, among other aspects, that are also a part of the relational 'package' of being saved in Christ. The idea of "come as you are" that is touted in so many churches really short-circuits the beginning point of faith espoused in the New Testament. When we see the beginning of the ministries of John the Baptist and of Jesus, among the first concepts to be asserted is that of 'repentance,' a concept that is a far-cry from "come as you are."

So, yes. It's a bit more than just grace and faith.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

How would you explain a scientist coming to Christ after decades of atheistic research?

What is atheistic research? Research is research, regardless of whether it is conducted by an atheist or a theist.

Many Christians fall from Christianity, the bible speaks of it, and it's dangerous. Someone else said that this is the most common type of rebuttal Christians use when told this, but some of us are truly God fearing people and will be until the day we die.

That's what I once thought.

We get our understanding of the world from scripture. In that same scripture describes a darker force that brings people away from God. So if this is what our doctrine says, why is it so hard to accept that we say it?

I know that what's you must say to ease the discomfort. That doesn't mean I'm not going to challenge it.

Many Christians fall away because they read and live in the secular world, when in reality nothing has disproved God and science is making it harder and harder to just say he doesn't exist. But the secular world is there by a power to bring people away from God. That's how we understand it. It says in the bible for us to join together as Christians to strengthen each other, to keep each other on the right road. The desire to live in sin without consequence is pretty high, sometimes people just give up the spiritual battle and fully succumb to that desire.

Leaving religion behind is not the same as abandoning the "high road." My deconversion was not based on a "desire to live in sin."

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Well, if you think that everything you've imbibed on the path of knowledge was brought to you by your own power, it's no wonder that you might be tempted to see nothing in the way of any spiritual subterfuge as having been perpetrated upon your own person.

Satan wouldn't be slick if everyone was wise to his game plan.

Oh, but you're wise to it, right?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

In your opinion, what is required for one to get to the starting point of; belief?

lol...IMO, the beginning point of belief is in the willingness of the agent of inquiry to give W.K. Clifford a black-eye.

Or, you can start HERE.

[Edit: Additional thought>>>My 'starting point' is not Ken Ham's starting point; nor is my philosophy and theological framework Ken Ham's philosophy and theological framework. Just so we're clear on this.]

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Oh, but you're wise to it, right?

Could be. We'll find out if I was really 'wise' enough in due time...

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Umm....actually, it's not 'beyond' me; I have a degree in secular philosophy which is anything BUT a lack of honest investigation into someone's beliefs, particularly when those 'someones' are Descartes, David Hume, Immanuel Kant, Bertrand Russell, Spinoza, Karl Marx, Nietzche, Dewey, Hegel, Wittengenstein, Derrida, Rorty, etc., etc., etc.

So, let's not play the "you don't get me" card....

I highly doubt that you have a degree in secular philosophy. That you have a degree in philosophy, however, is believable. I don't know why you feel the need to make a distinction.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Nope, LOL

Are you saying that you cannot possibly be wrong about your beliefs?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I highly doubt that you have a degree in secular philosophy. That you have a degree in philosophy, however, is believable. I don't know why you feel the need to make a distinction.

I make the distinction so that people will not make the mistake that I studied philosophy at some five-and-dime christian college; I earned my degrees from a secular, state institution, wherein a good portion of my instructors (about half) were agnostics or atheists.

And yes, it was 'secular' philosophy that I studied. We did not study, or count as philosophers such figures as Augustine, or Aquinas, or modern Christian philosophers like Kierkegaard, or even contemporary apologists. These guys were typically scoffed at in my classes. However, we did cover Descartes, Locke, Berkeley, and Leibniz, IF you want to count them as "Christians."

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I make the distinction so that people will not make the mistake that I studied philosophy at some five-and-dime christian college; I earned my degrees from a secular, state institution, wherein a good portion of my instructors (about half) were agnostics or atheists.

And yes, it was 'secular' philosophy that I studied. We did not study, or count as philosophers such figures as Augustine, or Aquinas, or modern Christian philosophers like Kierkegaard, or even contemporary apologists. These guys were typically scoffed at in my classes.

Philosophy is philosophy, whether it is studied at a religiously affiliated institution or a secular one. I have a degree in philosophy from a secular institution as well. As part of the degree I studied Aquinas and Kierkegaard, among others. Their inclusion would not lead me to distinguish a secular philosophy from philosophy in general. Philosophy that is religiously motivated still raises important ontological, epistemological and ethical questions, which "secular" philosophy has an intrinsic interest in.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Philosophy is philosophy, whether it is studied at a religiously affiliated institution or a secular one. I have a degree in philosophy from a secular institution as well. As part of the degree I studied Aquinas and Kierkegaard, among others. Their inclusion would not lead me to distinguish a secular philosophy from philosophy in general. Philosophy that is religiously motivated still raises important ontological, epistemological and ethical questions, which "secular" philosophy has an intrinsic interest in.

Of course, I agree with that, but my instructors thought they 'knew' better than you and I.

So, when I say 'secular philosophy,' don't read more into than needed. Again, I make the distinction so that some people who are not overly familiar with philosophy will understand what I'm talking about. If I'm talking with you from this point on, I'll just say 'philosophy' and leave it at that. (This is a minor point you are picking on with me, really Arch. And besides, my original comment was directed at another person, not you.)

[And I would beg to differ that the treatment of philosophy would necessarily be given a 'fair shake' at all Christian academic institutions--I'm not sure it would.]

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Of course, I agree with that, but my instructors thought they 'knew' better than you and I.

So, when I say 'secular philosophy,' don't read more into than needed. Again, I make the distinction so that some people who are not overly familiar with philosophy will understand what I'm talking about. If I'm talking with you from this point on, I'll just say 'philosophy' and leave it at that. (This is a minor point you are picking on with me, really Arch. And besides, my original comment was directed at another person, not you.)

It is a minor point, but I was just curious as to why you felt the need to make the distinction. It seemed suspicious to me, but my suspicions have been allayed.

[And I would beg to differ that the treatment of philosophy would necessarily be given a 'fair shake' at all Christian academic institutions--I'm not sure it would.]

That probably depends on the institution. My partner graduated from a Catholic university where philosophy was a prerequisite for completing her course. From what I could tell, the subject was treated mostly the same as what I was familiar with, albeit with a slighter stronger emphasis on Natural Law.

I do understand your reservations though. "Philosophy" doesn't necessarily mean philosophy in some universities, but then again neither does "biology" or "geology".

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It is a minor point, but I was just curious as to why you felt the need to make the distinction. It seemed suspicious to me, but my suspicions have been allayed.

That probably depends on the institution. My partner graduated from a Catholic university where philosophy was a prerequisite for completing her course. From what I could tell, the subject was treated mostly the same as what I was familiar with, albeit with a slighter stronger emphasis on Natural Law.

I do understand your reservations though. "Philosophy" doesn't necessarily mean philosophy in some universities, but then again neither does "biology" or "geology".

I appreciate your response here, Arch.

 

[FreeinChrist]

MOD HAT

This thread is being closed.

Please read Philosophy of Religion vs. General Apologetics, which includes:

Philosophy of Religion vs. General Apologetics

Philosophy: Critical examination of the rational grounds of our most fundamental beliefs and logical analysis of the basic concepts employed in the expression of such beliefs. Philosophy may also be defined as reflection on the varieties of human experience, or as the rational, methodical, and systematic consideration of the topics that are of greatest concern to humanity. -- Concise Encyclopedia

Philosophy of religion is a philosophical study of religion which seeks to discuss questions regarding the nature of religion as a whole, including the nature and existence of God, rather than examining or arguing against the theology of a particular belief system. The philosophy of religion is rational, critical thought and exploration of general religious themes and concepts. Philosophy of religion is focused on investigating religion itself, rather than the truth of any particular religion. The CF Philosophy forum is not intended for general apologetics of Christianity, i.e., the defense of the Christian faith against arguments, objections or attacks from non-Christians. Nor is this forum intended as a means for Christian evangelism (persuasion) of unbelievers. We ask that you would show respect for the Christian faith and not make posts which insult or mock Christianity or any part of the Trinity-Father (God), Son (Jesus) and the Holy Spirit. Threads which staff determines are intended for the sole purpose of attacking or arguing against Christianity will be closed.
​

This is not the place for General Apologetics