Part of the reason why I am having these discussions is because they
force me to evaluate where I stand and because I hope to find out what
makes people like you tick. Because you rigidly stick to using the
same sentences over and over again and refer to wikipedia articles,
without actually ever explaining anything, it has taken me a long time
to figure it out.
It is clear to me we're not having a discussion on epistemology. For
me epistimology is asking question about what we know and how we know
it. you just *know*. For you it doesn't matter how you know what you
know -or rather, what you think you know- you just do. I might ask you
how you know that your God isn't lying to you, but that isn't relevant
to you. You yourself believe that you aren't qualified to evaluate
evidence about whether or not God exists and the Bible is true. For
you they just are. It's the Bible and nothing else. Discussing it is
irrelevant. inconsistencies in the Bible (and there are many) aren't
relevant either, because its truth is untouchable. The Qu'ran isn't
relevant either, even if it does make many of the same claims as the
Bible. If any human where to think the bible is inconsistent, they'll
just have to accept it.
Not only are we not having a discussion about epistemology. We're not
even having what I understand to be a discussion. For me an open and
honest discussion means evaluating where I stand. You're not doing
that. You're just happily spreading the word. Probably from your
point of view, I'm just a stubborn listener who hasn't quite got it
yet. Nothing I say will cause you to doubt evaluate anything you say
in the least. What I interpret as insufferable smugness is just
conviction.
I don't know whether my evaluation is correct, but if it is, it seems
to me you've thrown free will out the window. I cannot be sure whether
free will exists or not, but the Bible seems quite clear about it. If
you haven't got the tools to evaluate the information, then how can
you ever be expected to make a decision on what to believe and what
not to and then be held accountable for it? I suppose that in your
world, that is just another of those inconsistencies or apparent
contradictions we'll just have to accept.
You've managed to put your beliefs on a little untouchable island.
From your point of view I can't touch it. Even you think you can't
touch it.
I asked you how you became a Christian. You wrote something along the
lines of 'the holy spirit must have given it to me'. Compare that to
the following story taken from 'the end of faith', by Sam Harris:
'I feel a certain rather thrilling "conviction" that Nicole Kidman is
in love with me. As we have never met, my feeling is my only evidence
of her infatuation. I reason thusly; my feelings suggest that Nicole
and I must have a special, even metaphysical connection -otherwise how
could I have this feeling in the first place? I decide to set up camp
outside her house to make the necessary introductions; clearly this
sort of faith is tricky business'.
Tricky business indeed. I can see how such a belief is powerful, even
though it strikes me as unfounded, unjustified and downright
dangerous. You worry me Brock, because you and other people who argue
along the same lines but happen to believe in different ''holy books''
will pigheadedly do what you think you know is right no matter what
the consequences are, even if it leads to pain and suffering for us
all.
Ralphie boy, your comment is exactly right, and though the Harris
quote is new to me and very powerful, this point has been hammered
home many times in the past couple of months. It's kinda like getting
hooked by the troll to continue arguing thus; I'd be a lot more
impressed if Brock would indicate why he's really posting here, since
his message goes right over the heads of most of his allies, and the
atheist side has already dissected his output, yet he had sidestepped
any and all attempts to argue his basic point; The Bible is divinely
inspired and unerring, and he believes every word is true. Everything
else is based on this premise. Since he knows we would never accept
this as true, I don't see why he continues here.
I'm not saying he should leave, or anything like that; I merely ask
what he gets from being here. And your response to him, once you
finally sit down and parse it, sounds just like the one I posted a
while ago; feels pretty good, at least it did for me. but I can't
argue as well as you and others here so I take what I can get. ;)
On Oct 21, 10:13 am, Ralph_S <ralph.savelsb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Part of the reason why I am having these discussions is because they
> force me to evaluate where I stand and because I hope to find out what
> makes people like you tick. Because you rigidly stick to using the
> same sentences over and over again and refer to wikipedia articles,
> without actually ever explaining anything, it has taken me a long time
> to figure it out.
> It is clear to me we're not having a discussion on epistemology. For
> me epistimology is asking question about what we know and how we know
> it. you just *know*. For you it doesn't matter how you know what you
> know -or rather, what you think you know- you just do. I might ask you
> how you know that your God isn't lying to you, but that isn't relevant
> to you. You yourself believe that you aren't qualified to evaluate
> evidence about whether or not God exists and the Bible is true. For
> you they just are. It's the Bible and nothing else. Discussing it is
> irrelevant. inconsistencies in the Bible (and there are many) aren't
> relevant either, because its truth is untouchable. The Qu'ran isn't
> relevant either, even if it does make many of the same claims as the
> Bible. If any human where to think the bible is inconsistent, they'll
> just have to accept it.
> Not only are we not having a discussion about epistemology. We're not
> even having what I understand to be a discussion. For me an open and
> honest discussion means evaluating where I stand. You're not doing
> that. You're just happily spreading the word. Probably from your
> point of view, I'm just a stubborn listener who hasn't quite got it
> yet. Nothing I say will cause you to doubt evaluate anything you say
> in the least. What I interpret as insufferable smugness is just
> conviction.
> I don't know whether my evaluation is correct, but if it is, it seems
> to me you've thrown free will out the window. I cannot be sure whether
> free will exists or not, but the Bible seems quite clear about it. If
> you haven't got the tools to evaluate the information, then how can
> you ever be expected to make a decision on what to believe and what
> not to and then be held accountable for it? I suppose that in your
> world, that is just another of those inconsistencies or apparent
> contradictions we'll just have to accept.
> You've managed to put your beliefs on a little untouchable island.
> From your point of view I can't touch it. Even you think you can't
> touch it.
> I asked you how you became a Christian. You wrote something along the
> lines of 'the holy spirit must have given it to me'. Compare that to
> the following story taken from 'the end of faith', by Sam Harris:
> 'I feel a certain rather thrilling "conviction" that Nicole Kidman is
> in love with me. As we have never met, my feeling is my only evidence
> of her infatuation. I reason thusly; my feelings suggest that Nicole
> and I must have a special, even metaphysical connection -otherwise how
> could I have this feeling in the first place? I decide to set up camp
> outside her house to make the necessary introductions; clearly this
> sort of faith is tricky business'.
> Tricky business indeed. I can see how such a belief is powerful, even
> though it strikes me as unfounded, unjustified and downright
> dangerous. You worry me Brock, because you and other people who argue
> along the same lines but happen to believe in different ''holy books''
> will pigheadedly do what you think you know is right no matter what
> the consequences are, even if it leads to pain and suffering for us
> all.
One feels a kindred sympathy with your exposition.
I have tried and constantly do ignore most of his posts,
but I truly have endeavoured to come to terms with
his position. I have put it to him a few times now that
he is here as a dispoiler only, but I conclude that there
is more to it than simply that. It is to promulgate the
everlasting lie, which as you say and I concur he has
become convinced of. I told him only this morning that
being convinced of belief does nothing to change belief
it will remain unless and or until it is proven to be other
than a belief. He will never see it any other way than
his conviction dictates.
But of one thing I am now certain and it makes me sad
to have to admit it, but witnessing his constant
repetition and same response answers to a variety of
different questions tells me he is now in the throws of
mania, an affliction I would not wish on my worst enemy.
Without treatment this can and does lead to a full blown
dementia and is awful to behold in any human being.
I have put this to him directly, with the response and
denial one has come to expect from such cases.
Perhaps we should bear in mind his predicament and
hope for the best. Religion says "the wages of sin is
death" far rather would I sin and die, than suffer
dementia brought on by religious mania and live.
On Oct 21, 6:13 pm, Ralph_S <ralph.savelsb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Part of the reason why I am having these discussions is because they
> force me to evaluate where I stand and because I hope to find out what
> makes people like you tick. Because you rigidly stick to using the
> same sentences over and over again and refer to wikipedia articles,
> without actually ever explaining anything, it has taken me a long time
> to figure it out.
> It is clear to me we're not having a discussion on epistemology. For
> me epistimology is asking question about what we know and how we know
> it. you just *know*. For you it doesn't matter how you know what you
> know -or rather, what you think you know- you just do. I might ask you
> how you know that your God isn't lying to you, but that isn't relevant
> to you. You yourself believe that you aren't qualified to evaluate
> evidence about whether or not God exists and the Bible is true. For
> you they just are. It's the Bible and nothing else. Discussing it is
> irrelevant. inconsistencies in the Bible (and there are many) aren't
> relevant either, because its truth is untouchable. The Qu'ran isn't
> relevant either, even if it does make many of the same claims as the
> Bible. If any human where to think the bible is inconsistent, they'll
> just have to accept it.
> Not only are we not having a discussion about epistemology. We're not
> even having what I understand to be a discussion. For me an open and
> honest discussion means evaluating where I stand. You're not doing
> that. You're just happily spreading the word. Probably from your
> point of view, I'm just a stubborn listener who hasn't quite got it
> yet. Nothing I say will cause you to doubt evaluate anything you say
> in the least. What I interpret as insufferable smugness is just
> conviction.
> I don't know whether my evaluation is correct, but if it is, it seems
> to me you've thrown free will out the window. I cannot be sure whether
> free will exists or not, but the Bible seems quite clear about it. If
> you haven't got the tools to evaluate the information, then how can
> you ever be expected to make a decision on what to believe and what
> not to and then be held accountable for it? I suppose that in your
> world, that is just another of those inconsistencies or apparent
> contradictions we'll just have to accept.
> You've managed to put your beliefs on a little untouchable island.
> From your point of view I can't touch it. Even you think you can't
> touch it.
> I asked you how you became a Christian. You wrote something along the
> lines of 'the holy spirit must have given it to me'. Compare that to
> the following story taken from 'the end of faith', by Sam Harris:
> 'I feel a certain rather thrilling "conviction" that Nicole Kidman is
> in love with me. As we have never met, my feeling is my only evidence
> of her infatuation. I reason thusly; my feelings suggest that Nicole
> and I must have a special, even metaphysical connection -otherwise how
> could I have this feeling in the first place? I decide to set up camp
> outside her house to make the necessary introductions; clearly this
> sort of faith is tricky business'.
> Tricky business indeed. I can see how such a belief is powerful, even
> though it strikes me as unfounded, unjustified and downright
> dangerous. You worry me Brock, because you and other people who argue
> along the same lines but happen to believe in different ''holy books''
> will pigheadedly do what you think you know is right no matter what
> the consequences are, even if it leads to pain and suffering for us
> all.
> Ralphie boy, your comment is exactly right, and though the Harris
> quote is new to me and very powerful, this point has been hammered
> home many times in the past couple of months. It's kinda like getting
> hooked by the troll to continue arguing thus; I'd be a lot more
> impressed if Brock would indicate why he's really posting here, since
> his message goes right over the heads of most of his allies, and the
> atheist side has already dissected his output, yet he had sidestepped
> any and all attempts to argue his basic point; The Bible is divinely
> inspired and unerring, and he believes every word is true. Everything
> else is based on this premise. Since he knows we would never accept
> this as true, I don't see why he continues here.
> I'm not saying he should leave, or anything like that; I merely ask
> what he gets from being here. And your response to him, once you
> finally sit down and parse it, sounds just like the one I posted a
> while ago; feels pretty good, at least it did for me. but I can't
> argue as well as you and others here so I take what I can get. ;)
I'm was sure I wasn't the first person to come to the realisation that
what he is doing is not what I would consider an honest discusssion.
What he is actually doing is 'witnessing' in the Christian sense. This
became clear when I wrote to him that I don't trust him or his
motives. He replied:
"Veritas Christo et Ecclesiae"
All of a sudden everything fell into place. I also suspect that what
he is doing somehow feeds a superiority complex. No matter what we
terrible evil atheists come up with, he's thinks he's got us nailed.
> One feels a kindred sympathy with your exposition.
> I have tried and constantly do ignore most of his posts,
> but I truly have endeavoured to come to terms with
> his position. I have put it to him a few times now that
> he is here as a dispoiler only, but I conclude that there
> is more to it than simply that. It is to promulgate the
> everlasting lie, which as you say and I concur he has
> become convinced of. I told him only this morning that
> being convinced of belief does nothing to change belief
> it will remain unless and or until it is proven to be other
> than a belief. He will never see it any other way than
> his conviction dictates.
> But of one thing I am now certain and it makes me sad
> to have to admit it, but witnessing his constant
> repetition and same response answers to a variety of
> different questions tells me he is now in the throws of
> mania, an affliction I would not wish on my worst enemy.
> Without treatment this can and does lead to a full blown
> dementia and is awful to behold in any human being.
> I have put this to him directly, with the response and
> denial one has come to expect from such cases.
> Perhaps we should bear in mind his predicament and
> hope for the best. Religion says "the wages of sin is
> death" far rather would I sin and die, than suffer
> dementia brought on by religious mania and live.
The 9-11 hijackers were reasonably intelligent and educated people
convinced that what they were doing was justified.
Brock isn't all that different. We probably ought to consider
ourselves fortunate that his religion happens to be one that isn't
openly militant.
On Oct 21, 1:13 pm, Ralph_S <ralph.savelsb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Part of the reason why I am having these discussions is because they
> force me to evaluate where I stand and because I hope to find out what
> makes people like you tick.
Probably the same things as people like you. :)
> Because you rigidly stick to using the
> same sentences over and over again and refer to wikipedia articles,
> without actually ever explaining anything, it has taken me a long time
> to figure it out.
Allowing for some difficulty through the medium, I think my positions
are a bit clearer than such a statement gives them credit for. :)
> It is clear to me we're not having a discussion on epistemology. For
> me epistimology is asking question about what we know and how we know
> it. you just *know*.
Rather, the objective basis for knowledge is God's Holy Spirit. When
He informs a person, such knowledge is reliable. Of course, I don't
claim that He informs people of all things, but certainly an
understanding of the fallen nature of humankind, and the saving grace
of Jesus Christ are explained in the Bible.
> For you it doesn't matter how you know what you
> know -or rather, what you think you know- you just do.
The how matters less than the "who". :)
God's Holy Spirit works in manifold ways, some peripatetic, some are
experiential, some are academic, others are not so easily classified.
But the truths of which He testifies are the same:
* Fallen humankind needs a savior
* God's grace provides mercy and pardon through the gospel of Jesus
Christ
> I might ask you
> how you know that your God isn't lying to you, but that isn't relevant
> to you.
> You yourself believe that you aren't qualified to evaluate
> evidence about whether or not God exists and the Bible is true.
More accurately:
2) The objective truth of the Bible is independent of my beliefs
> For
> you they just are. It's the Bible and nothing else.
Rather:
1) I believe that the Bible is objectively true
> Discussing it is irrelevant.
My thousands of posts to this forum indicate differently. :)
> inconsistencies in the Bible (and there are many) aren't
> relevant either, because its truth is untouchable.
Rather, I simply note that while it is very easy to claim such
inconsistencies exist, additional scrutiny shows that the indictment
does not bring the conviction.
> The Qu'ran isn't
> relevant either, even if it does make many of the same claims as the
> Bible.
A simple answer does not do justice to an entire field of inquiry:
> If any human where to think the bible is inconsistent, they'll
> just have to accept it.
Or rather, such claims of inconsistency don't bear scrutiny.
> Not only are we not having a discussion about epistemology. We're not
> even having what I understand to be a discussion. For me an open and
> honest discussion means evaluating where I stand. You're not doing
> that.
But I disagree with the "epistemological smorgasboard" humanistic
premise, as if objective truth was a buffet item you could shop for,
sample and choose, like a cheese or wine that is subject to a personal
or corporate preference.
I believe that the real truth, as testified in the Bible, is much
different. Humankind, because of sin, is in a terrible peril. Those
who remain in sin face a terrible and eternal and just punishment. But
God is gracious and offers mercy and pardon through Jesus Christ.
> You're just happily spreading the word. Probably from your
> point of view, I'm just a stubborn listener who hasn't quite got it
> yet.
I'm happy to participate in the exchanges, I appreciate the forum for
providing an opportunity to have such discussions.
> What I interpret as insufferable smugness is just
> conviction.
Yes.
> I don't know whether my evaluation is correct, but if it is, it seems
> to me you've thrown free will out the window.
Why?
> I cannot be sure whether
> free will exists or not, but the Bible seems quite clear about it. If
> you haven't got the tools to evaluate the information, then how can
> you ever be expected to make a decision on what to believe and what
> not to and then be held accountable for it?
God provides the means by which one can know the objective truth. Sin
is so rotten and bad and horrible that it deceives a person into
thinking "I'm OK" when in fact, the objective truth is that person is
separated from God by their sin, and without a gracious and merciful
pardon from God, faces a horrible fate:
> You've managed to put your beliefs on a little untouchable island.
> From your point of view I can't touch it. Even you think you can't
> touch it.
2) The objective truth of the Bible is independent of my beliefs
> I asked you how you became a Christian. You wrote something along the
> lines of 'the holy spirit must have given it to me'.
The very power of God, through the testimony of the truths of the
Bible, acts in the life of a believer and regenerates him/her. I like
how the Confession puts it:
"All those whom God hath predestinated unto life, and those only, he
is pleased, in his appointed and accepted time, effectually to call,
by his Word and Spirit, out of that state of sin and death in which
they are by nature, to grace and salvation by Jesus Christ:
enlightening their minds, spiritually and savingly, to understand the
things of God, taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them
an heart of flesh; renewing their wills, and by his almighty power
determining them to that which is good; and effectually drawing them
to Jesus Christ; yet so as they come most freely, being made willing
by his grace."[2]
> Compare that to
> the following story taken from 'the end of faith', by Sam Harris:
> 'I feel a certain rather thrilling "conviction" that Nicole Kidman is
> in love with me. As we have never met, my feeling is my only evidence
> of her infatuation. I reason thusly; my feelings suggest that Nicole
> and I must have a special, even metaphysical connection -otherwise how
> could I have this feeling in the first place? I decide to set up camp
> outside her house to make the necessary introductions; clearly this
> sort of faith is tricky business'.
Consider as an example a slight variation of such a story:
"I feel a certain rather thrilling conviction that my mother loves
me."
Then consider an argument with an infinite skeptic where you might try
to prove such love.
> You worry me Brock, because you and other people who argue
> along the same lines but happen to believe in different ''holy books''
> will pigheadedly do what you think you know is right no matter what
> the consequences are, even if it leads to pain and suffering for us
> all.
I'm sorry to hear that. The Bible teaches that God understands
humankind so very well because He made us, and made His own Son to be
a human. That Son died on the cross to provide a pardon we could not
otherwise have obtained. Such obedience and actions are worthy of
praise and worship, and I'm so thankful for His love.
On Oct 22, 5:06 pm, Ralph_S <ralph.savelsb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm was sure I wasn't the first person to come to the realisation that
> what he is doing is not what I would consider an honest discusssion.
> What he is actually doing is 'witnessing' in the Christian sense.
I think that such an exclusion is affected.
> This
> became clear when I wrote to him that I don't trust him or his
> motives. He replied:
> "Veritas Christo et Ecclesiae"
I thought it was well said, my motive was explicitly stated.
> On Oct 21, 1:13 pm, Ralph_S <ralph.savelsb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Part of the reason why I am having these discussions is because they
> > force me to evaluate where I stand and because I hope to find out what
> > makes people like you tick.
> Probably the same things as people like you. :)
> > Because you rigidly stick to using the
> > same sentences over and over again and refer to wikipedia articles,
> > without actually ever explaining anything, it has taken me a long time
> > to figure it out.
> Allowing for some difficulty through the medium, I think my positions
> are a bit clearer than such a statement gives them credit for. :)
> > It is clear to me we're not having a discussion on epistemology. For
> > me epistimology is asking question about what we know and how we know
> > it. you just *know*.
> Rather, the objective basis for knowledge is God's Holy Spirit. When
> He informs a person, such knowledge is reliable. Of course, I don't
> claim that He informs people of all things, but certainly an
> understanding of the fallen nature of humankind, and the saving grace
> of Jesus Christ are explained in the Bible.
> > For you it doesn't matter how you know what you
> > know -or rather, what you think you know- you just do.
> The how matters less than the "who". :)
> God's Holy Spirit works in manifold ways, some peripatetic, some are
> experiential, some are academic, others are not so easily classified.
> But the truths of which He testifies are the same:
> * Fallen humankind needs a savior
> * God's grace provides mercy and pardon through the gospel of Jesus
> Christ
> > I might ask you
> > how you know that your God isn't lying to you, but that isn't relevant
> > to you.
> > You yourself believe that you aren't qualified to evaluate
> > evidence about whether or not God exists and the Bible is true.
> More accurately:
> 2) The objective truth of the Bible is independent of my beliefs
> > For
> > you they just are. It's the Bible and nothing else.
> Rather:
> 1) I believe that the Bible is objectively true
> > Discussing it is irrelevant.
> My thousands of posts to this forum indicate differently. :)
> > inconsistencies in the Bible (and there are many) aren't
> > relevant either, because its truth is untouchable.
> Rather, I simply note that while it is very easy to claim such
> inconsistencies exist, additional scrutiny shows that the indictment
> does not bring the conviction.
> > The Qu'ran isn't
> > relevant either, even if it does make many of the same claims as the
> > Bible.
> A simple answer does not do justice to an entire field of inquiry:
> > If any human where to think the bible is inconsistent, they'll
> > just have to accept it.
> Or rather, such claims of inconsistency don't bear scrutiny.
> > Not only are we not having a discussion about epistemology. We're not
> > even having what I understand to be a discussion. For me an open and
> > honest discussion means evaluating where I stand. You're not doing
> > that.
> But I disagree with the "epistemological smorgasboard" humanistic
> premise, as if objective truth was a buffet item you could shop for,
> sample and choose, like a cheese or wine that is subject to a personal
> or corporate preference.
> I believe that the real truth, as testified in the Bible, is much
> different. Humankind, because of sin, is in a terrible peril. Those
> who remain in sin face a terrible and eternal and just punishment. But
> God is gracious and offers mercy and pardon through Jesus Christ.
> > You're just happily spreading the word. Probably from your
> > point of view, I'm just a stubborn listener who hasn't quite got it
> > yet.
> I'm happy to participate in the exchanges, I appreciate the forum for
> providing an opportunity to have such discussions.
> > What I interpret as insufferable smugness is just
> > conviction.
> Yes.
> > I don't know whether my evaluation is correct, but if it is, it seems
> > to me you've thrown free will out the window.
> Why?
> > I cannot be sure whether
> > free will exists or not, but the Bible seems quite clear about it. If
> > you haven't got the tools to evaluate the information, then how can
> > you ever be expected to make a decision on what to believe and what
> > not to and then be held accountable for it?
> God provides the means by which one can know the objective truth. Sin
> is so rotten and bad and horrible that it deceives a person into
> thinking "I'm OK" when in fact, the objective truth is that person is
> separated from God by their sin, and without a gracious and merciful
> pardon from God, faces a horrible fate:
> > You've managed to put your beliefs on a little untouchable island.
> > From your point of view I can't touch it. Even you think you can't
> > touch it.
> 2) The objective truth of the Bible is independent of my beliefs
> > I asked you how you became a Christian. You wrote something along the
> > lines of 'the holy spirit must have given it to me'.
> The very power of God, through the testimony of the truths of the
> Bible, acts in the life of a believer and regenerates him/her. I like
> how the Confession puts it:
> "All those whom God hath predestinated unto life, and those only, he
> is pleased, in his appointed and accepted time, effectually to call,
> by his Word and Spirit, out of that state of sin and death in which
> they are by nature, to grace and salvation by Jesus Christ:
> enlightening their minds, spiritually and savingly, to understand the
> things of God, taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them
> an heart of flesh; renewing their wills, and by his almighty power
> determining them to that which is good; and effectually drawing them
> to Jesus Christ; yet so as they come most freely, being made willing
> by his grace."[2]
> > Compare that to
> > the following story taken from 'the end of faith', by Sam Harris:
> > 'I feel a certain rather thrilling "conviction" that Nicole Kidman is
> > in love with me. As we have never met, my feeling is my only evidence
> > of her infatuation. I reason thusly; my feelings suggest that Nicole
> > and I must have a special, even metaphysical connection -otherwise how
> > could I have this feeling in the first place? I decide to set up camp
> > outside her house to make the necessary introductions; clearly this
> > sort of faith is tricky business'.
> Consider as an example a slight variation of such a story:
> "I feel a certain rather thrilling conviction that my mother loves
> me."
> Then consider an argument with an infinite skeptic where you might try
> to prove such love.
> > You worry me Brock, because you and other people who argue
> > along the same lines but happen to believe in different ''holy books''
> > will pigheadedly do what you think you know is right no matter what
> > the consequences are, even if it leads to pain and suffering for us
> > all.
> I'm sorry to hear that. The Bible teaches that God understands
> humankind so very well because He made us, and made His own Son to be
> a human. That Son died on the cross to provide a pardon we could not
> otherwise have obtained. Such obedience and actions are worthy of
> praise and worship, and I'm so thankful for His love.
On Oct 22, 5:11 pm, Ralph_S <ralph.savelsb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The 9-11 hijackers were reasonably intelligent and educated people
> convinced that what they were doing was justified.
> Brock isn't all that different.
Thats a lack of discernment to express such a comparison.
On 27 Oct, 17:03, Brock <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 22, 5:11 pm, Ralph_S <ralph.savelsb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > The 9-11 hijackers were reasonably intelligent and educated people
> > convinced that what they were doing was justified.
> > Brock isn't all that different.
> Thats a lack of discernment to express such a comparison.
> Regards,
> Brock
Hence the sentence that you conveniently snipped:
We probably ought to consider
ourselves fortunate that his religion happens to be one that isn't
openly militant.
On 27 Oct, 16:58, Brock <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 21, 1:13 pm, Ralph_S <ralph.savelsb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Part of the reason why I am having these discussions is because they
> > force me to evaluate where I stand and because I hope to find out what
> > makes people like you tick.
> Probably the same things as people like you. :)
In some respects, yes, probably. This forum of course tends to
emphasise the differences, though, and it's very clear that there are
many.
> > Because you rigidly stick to using the
> > same sentences over and over again and refer to wikipedia articles,
> > without actually ever explaining anything, it has taken me a long time
> > to figure it out.
> Allowing for some difficulty through the medium, I think my positions
> are a bit clearer than such a statement gives them credit for. :)
I've told you before that simply repeating a statement doesn't make it
any clearer. If I disagree or don't understand it the first time
around, I'm not likely to look at it differently a second time
around.
> > It is clear to me we're not having a discussion on epistemology. For
> > me epistimology is asking question about what we know and how we know
> > it. you just *know*.
> Rather, the objective basis for knowledge is God's Holy Spirit. When
> He informs a person, such knowledge is reliable. Of course, I don't
> claim that He informs people of all things, but certainly an
> understanding of the fallen nature of humankind, and the saving grace
> of Jesus Christ are explained in the Bible.
> > For you it doesn't matter how you know what you
> > know -or rather, what you think you know- you just do.
> The how matters less than the "who". :)
> God's Holy Spirit works in manifold ways, some peripatetic, some are
> experiential, some are academic, others are not so easily classified.
> But the truths of which He testifies are the same:
> * Fallen humankind needs a savior
> * God's grace provides mercy and pardon through the gospel of Jesus
> Christ
> > I might ask you
> > how you know that your God isn't lying to you, but that isn't relevant
> > to you.
> > You yourself believe that you aren't qualified to evaluate
> > evidence about whether or not God exists and the Bible is true.
> More accurately:
> 2) The objective truth of the Bible is independent of my beliefs
> > For
> > you they just are. It's the Bible and nothing else.
> Rather:
> 1) I believe that the Bible is objectively true
> > Discussing it is irrelevant.
> My thousands of posts to this forum indicate differently. :)
But you're not discussing it Brock, you're just witnessing.
> > inconsistencies in the Bible (and there are many) aren't
> > relevant either, because its truth is untouchable.
> Rather, I simply note that while it is very easy to claim such
> inconsistencies exist, additional scrutiny shows that the indictment
> does not bring the conviction.
In other words, if you ignore certain bits and pull a lot of other
bits out of thin air, to a believer at least they can be made to
disappear.
> > The Qu'ran isn't
> > relevant either, even if it does make many of the same claims as the
> > Bible.
> A simple answer does not do justice to an entire field of inquiry:
I can read that page a thousand times and still not know your views on
the Qu'Ran. I'll be more specific. How does that page relate to your
views on the Qu'Ran? Come on Brock. This is your chance. Explain it to
me.
> > If any human where to think the bible is inconsistent, they'll
> > just have to accept it.
> Or rather, such claims of inconsistency don't bear scrutiny.
> > Not only are we not having a discussion about epistemology. We're not
> > even having what I understand to be a discussion. For me an open and
> > honest discussion means evaluating where I stand. You're not doing
> > that.
> But I disagree with the "epistemological smorgasboard" humanistic
> premise, as if objective truth was a buffet item you could shop for,
> sample and choose, like a cheese or wine that is subject to a personal
> or corporate preference.
I don't expect you to agree Brock, but I do expect you to treat what I
write seriously. All I seem to get from you is contempt thinly veiled
by your soothing language. I'd say you're expressing your own
preference here. You'd like your truth straight and simple. Black and
white. For me objective truth is something that I have to look for. I
may stumble along a wrong path and may often actually be wrong.
Of course, your objective truth isn't straight or simple either. You
would perhaps have a point if all you happy Christians were to agree
on your interpretations of the Bible, but looking at Christians,
including you, I conclude the following: any denomination you might
belong to has a 'corporate preference' and you yourself pick and
choose.
Why the Westminster confession and not the Sacred Congregation for the
Doctrine of the Faith of the Catholic Church? Actually, why limit
myself to Christians? Why not the Qu'Ran?
> I believe that the real truth, as testified in the Bible, is much
> different. Humankind, because of sin, is in a terrible peril. Those
> who remain in sin face a terrible and eternal and just punishment. But
> God is gracious and offers mercy and pardon through Jesus Christ.
> > You're just happily spreading the word. Probably from your
> > point of view, I'm just a stubborn listener who hasn't quite got it
> > yet.
> I'm happy to participate in the exchanges, I appreciate the forum for
> providing an opportunity to have such discussions.
> > What I interpret as insufferable smugness is just
> > conviction.
> Yes.
> > I don't know whether my evaluation is correct, but if it is, it seems
> > to me you've thrown free will out the window.
> Why?
> > I cannot be sure whether
> > free will exists or not, but the Bible seems quite clear about it. If
> > you haven't got the tools to evaluate the information, then how can
> > you ever be expected to make a decision on what to believe and what
> > not to and then be held accountable for it?
> God provides the means by which one can know the objective truth. Sin
> is so rotten and bad and horrible that it deceives a person into
> thinking "I'm OK" when in fact, the objective truth is that person is
> separated from God by their sin, and without a gracious and merciful
> pardon from God, faces a horrible fate:
We are humans, making choices based on the information that we have.
If you claim that we are too limited to understand the matter at hand
properly, to evaluate the truth, then how can we be held accountable
for our decisions?
There's also another problem. You can say that God has provided the
means, but how am I to know that your holy book is objectively true
and not the Qu'Ran, for instance? Isn't that supposed to be the
inerrant word of God too?
> > You've managed to put your beliefs on a little untouchable island.
> > From your point of view I can't touch it. Even you think you can't
> > touch it.
> 2) The objective truth of the Bible is independent of my beliefs
> > I asked you how you became a Christian. You wrote something along the
> > lines of 'the holy spirit must have given it to me'.
> The very power of God, through the testimony of the truths of the
> Bible, acts in the life of a believer and regenerates him/her. I like
> how the Confession puts it:
> > Compare that to
> > the following story taken from 'the end of faith', by Sam Harris:
> > 'I feel a certain rather thrilling "conviction" that Nicole Kidman is
> > in love with me. As we have never met, my feeling is my only evidence
> > of her infatuation. I reason thusly; my feelings suggest that Nicole
> > and I must have a special, even metaphysical connection -otherwise how
> > could I have this feeling in the first place? I decide to set up camp
> > outside her house to make the necessary introductions; clearly this
> > sort of faith is tricky business'.
> Consider as an example a slight variation of such a story:
> "I feel a certain rather thrilling conviction that my mother loves
> me."
> Then consider an argument with an infinite skeptic where you might try
> to prove such love.
Sorry Brock: note the 'as we have never met' part of the quote. I will
freely admit that if I'd never met my mother, I wouldn't know whether
she loved me or not. BTW, I'm not an infinite skeptic :).
> > You worry me Brock, because you and other people who argue
> > along the same lines but happen to believe in different ''holy books''
> > will pigheadedly do what you think you know is right no matter what
> > the consequences are, even if it leads to pain and suffering for us
> > all.
> I'm sorry to hear that. The Bible teaches that God understands
> humankind so very well because He made us, and made His own Son to be
> a human. That Son died on the cross to provide a pardon we could not
> otherwise have obtained. Such obedience and actions are worthy of
> praise and worship, and I'm so thankful for His love.
The trouble is, Brock, that as far as I know, your Bible is just a
book. People may attribute a lot of meaning to it and it has had an
enormous impact on literature and history, but ultimately there is no
evidence to
...
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 1:03 PM, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> > I might ask you >> > how you know that your God isn't lying to you, but that isn't relevant >> > to you.
On Oct 27, 7:55 pm, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 1:03 PM, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> > I might ask you
> >> > how you know that your God isn't lying to you, but that isn't relevant
> >> > to you.
> > When God told Abraham to sacrifice his Issac, wasn't that a lie?
> How?
God deceived Abraham into thinking God wanted him to make a burnt
offering of his son Issac. So God does lie, according to the
objective truth of fhe Bible.
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 7:25 PM, Ralph_S <ralph.savelsb...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > I might ask you >> > how you know that your God isn't lying to you, but that isn't relevant >> > to you.
> The Bible could say that God doesn't lie, but if he is lying, that > could be a lie. > Try again.
Rather, it is the truth.
>> My thousands of posts to this forum indicate differently. :)
> But you're not discussing it Brock, you're just witnessing.
Of course I'm discussing the issues, the quotes and references to positions from Augustine, Kant, Fichte, Hume, Protagoras, Clark, Popper, Thomas Aquinas, Philip K Dick, Greg Bahnsen and Dr. Wells are all indications of an active participation and an intelligent witness.
>> Rather, I simply note that while it is very easy to claim such >> inconsistencies exist, additional scrutiny shows that the indictment >> does not bring the conviction.
> In other words, if you ignore certain bits and pull a lot of other > bits out of thin air, to a believer at least they can be made to > disappear.
No, rather, the claims of discrepancy have not withstood scrutiny.
>> > The Qu'ran isn't >> > relevant either, even if it does make many of the same claims as the >> > Bible.
>> A simple answer does not do justice to an entire field of inquiry:
> I can read that page a thousand times and still not know your views on > the Qu'Ran. I'll be more specific. How does that page relate to your > views on the Qu'Ran? Come on Brock. This is your chance. Explain it to > me.
You'll have to be happy with a reference to further information:
>> But I disagree with the "epistemological smorgasboard" humanistic >> premise, as if objective truth was a buffet item you could shop for, >> sample and choose, like a cheese or wine that is subject to a personal >> or corporate preference.
> I don't expect you to agree Brock, but I do expect you to treat what I > write seriously. All I seem to get from you is contempt thinly veiled > by your soothing language.
I'm sorry if you perceive it so. Frankly, I think you could allow some room for the nature of the medium, and still more for the intense and challenging nature of the issues. It is not easy talking about foundations for belief. If there are going to be presuppositions that you might require an OP to accept "in good faith" before continuing further, I can't necessarily accommodate you, if the premises are ones I don't accept, it is not a virtue to do so.
> Of course, your objective truth isn't straight or simple either.
Well, I like how the Confession puts it:
"All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all; yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them."[1]
> Actually, why limit myself to Christians?
As the Confession notes:
"It pleased God, in his eternal purpose, to choose and ordain the Lord Jesus, his only-begotten Son, to be the Mediator between God and men, the prophet, priest, and king; the head and Savior of the Church, the heir or all things, and judge of the world; unto whom he did, from all eternity, give a people to be his seed, and to be by him in time redeemed, called, justified, sanctified, and glorified."[3]
>> God provides the means by which one can know the objective truth. Sin >> is so rotten and bad and horrible that it deceives a person into >> thinking "I'm OK" when in fact, the objective truth is that person is >> separated from God by their sin, and without a gracious and merciful >> pardon from God, faces a horrible fate:
> I'd say that's just your take on objective truth.
If one notes that my testimony that "Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon river" is only established because I say so or by humanistic premises, I simply reply that it is objectively true that "Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon river" regardless of my testimony.
> We are humans, making choices based on the information that we have. > If you claim that we are too limited to understand the matter at hand > properly, to evaluate the truth, then how can we be held accountable > for our decisions?
With respect to sin, personal accountability precedes one's birth:
"Our first parents, begin seduced by the subtlety and temptations of Satan, sinned in eating the forbidden fruit. This their sin God was pleased, according to his wise and holy counsel, to permit, having purposed to order it to his own glory.
By this sin they fell from their original righteousness and communion with God, and so became dead in sin, and wholly defiled in all the faculties and parts of soul and body.
They being the root of mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed, and the same death in sin and corrupted nature conveyed to all their posterity, descending from them by original generation."[2]
> There's also another problem. You can say that God has provided the > means, but how am I to know that your holy book is objectively true > and not the Qu'Ran, for instance? Isn't that supposed to be the > inerrant word of God too?
Sounds like you lack the means to discern between them.
>> Consider as an example a slight variation of such a story:
>> "I feel a certain rather thrilling conviction that my mother loves >> me."
>> Then consider an argument with an infinite skeptic where you might try >> to prove such love.
> Sorry Brock: note the 'as we have never met' part of the quote. I will > freely admit that if I'd never met my mother, I wouldn't know whether > she loved me or not. BTW, I'm not an infinite skeptic :).
My considered speculation (after my experiences interacting with non-believers on this and other forums, and examples such as the Nagel quote, and Ivan's quote here) is to note that the Bible is correct when it teaches non-believers are not "neutral" on the topic of God, rather, because of sin, they explicitly know and reject Him.
But overt rejection of God is a most horrible thing to articulate, and so, a convenient lie is put into place instead. For a non-believer, rather than admit "Hey, I simply reject God", it is easy and convenient to simply choose the most ineffective epistemology of all, existentialism, and then ride its claims of "no evidence" and "no proof" into the ground. Of course, since the existential epistemology cannot establish the objective truth of *any* claims, the non-believer need not worry that "proof" will magically surface. "proof" is merely a convenient personal and subjective goal post that can always be moved "further out".
> The trouble is, Brock, that as far as I know, your Bible is just a > book.
If that is the case, then it sounds like you are lost.
> People may attribute a lot of meaning to it and it has had an > enormous impact on literature and history, but ultimately there is no > evidence to support the assertion that it is objectively true.
The Bible is the evidence for the truths its testifies to.
> I see the 'not believing is a sin' as one of many feedback mechanisms inherent > to religions. It helps perpetuate the myth,because it suppresses a > critical evaluation of what you stand for.
Rather, the standard that measures the standard is the standard. As Dr. Wells noted:
"Throughout the last two centuries there have always been Christians trying to get Jesus' authority onto firmer ground, looking for knockdown evidence, trying to show God's power by proving the miracles or trying to demonstrate Christianity's plausibility by grounding it on more fashionable forms of human knowledge. But these efforts will never come off. They rest on a mistaken notion of authority. Jesus comes to us as the truth. No more. And no less. We can't begin somewhere else, and somehow reason our way to Jesus. ... Whenever we ground the authority of Jesus on some other authority we make that other authority more fundamental than Jesus. There's nothing more fundamental than Jesus, and what God is doing in Jesus. That's what Jesus' authority means."[4]
> What I do care about is people who are so utterly convinced that they > are right that they loose the ability to critically reflect on what > the consequences are of what they're doing.
That sounds exactly like the errors of humanism:
"Humanism asserts that knowledge of right and wrong is based on the best understanding of one's individual and joint interests, rather than stemming from a transcendental truth"[5]
> I don't suspect that you yourself are capable > of terrorism. Your religion has been modernised and isn't openly > militant anymore and in most developed nations it has been effectively > neutered. You're no direct threat. However, the guys who flew jets > into buildings on 9-11 were absolutely convinced that they were doing > God's work and it lead them to that terrible act. From my point of > view, they were deluded, and while I don't expect you to explicitly > state where you stand, I'd be surprised to learn that you don't share > my point of view on this. Furthermore, it is almost inconceivable to > me that you can look at that event and other acts committed in God or > Allah's name and not wonder: "am I really right?"
I don't see a difference in kind (only in degree) between the wickedness I know is present in my original human nature, and the wickedness that all can see when they view the actions of some of the most evil people in history. That's a strong reason why I believe the Lord is right to judge sin. I don't say I have
...
On 29 Oct, 20:03, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 7:25 PM, Ralph_S <ralph.savelsb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > I might ask you
> >> > how you know that your God isn't lying to you, but that isn't relevant
> >> > to you.
> > The Bible could say that God doesn't lie, but if he is lying, that
> > could be a lie.
> > Try again.
> Rather, it is the truth.
assuming that God isn't lying to you.
> >> My thousands of posts to this forum indicate differently. :)
> > But you're not discussing it Brock, you're just witnessing.
> Of course I'm discussing the issues, the quotes and references to
> positions from Augustine, Kant, Fichte, Hume, Protagoras, Clark,
> Popper, Thomas Aquinas, Philip K Dick, Greg Bahnsen and Dr. Wells are
> all indications of an active participation and an intelligent witness.
Do I detect a hint of vanity?
> >> Rather, I simply note that while it is very easy to claim such
> >> inconsistencies exist, additional scrutiny shows that the indictment
> >> does not bring the conviction.
> > In other words, if you ignore certain bits and pull a lot of other
> > bits out of thin air, to a believer at least they can be made to
> > disappear.
> No, rather, the claims of discrepancy have not withstood scrutiny.
in the views of a believer. If you look at the Bible without assuming
that it is true, much of it doesn't make any sense whatsoever.
> > I can read that page a thousand times and still not know your views on
> > the Qu'Ran. I'll be more specific. How does that page relate to your
> > views on the Qu'Ran? Come on Brock. This is your chance. Explain it to
> > me.
> You'll have to be happy with a reference to further information:
I am not happy with than answer because it fails to address the
question.
That page is to my question what a textbook on quantum-mechanics is to
the Copenhagen interpretation.
Your refusal to give a clear answer to the question is noted.
You obviously don't care.
> >> But I disagree with the "epistemological smorgasboard" humanistic
> >> premise, as if objective truth was a buffet item you could shop for,
> >> sample and choose, like a cheese or wine that is subject to a personal
> >> or corporate preference.
> > I don't expect you to agree Brock, but I do expect you to treat what I
> > write seriously. All I seem to get from you is contempt thinly veiled
> > by your soothing language.
> I'm sorry if you perceive it so. Frankly, I think you could allow
> some room for the nature of the medium, and still more for the intense
> and challenging nature of the issues. It is not easy talking about
> foundations for belief. If there are going to be presuppositions that
> you might require an OP to accept "in good faith" before continuing
> further, I can't necessarily accommodate you, if the premises are
> ones I don't accept, it is not a virtue to do so.
Brock, I don't think you are sorry at all. If you were, you'd do
something about it. I don't expect you to accept my propositions, but
if we are to continue this discussion, I expect to be treated
seriously.
> > Of course, your objective truth isn't straight or simple either.
> Well, I like how the Confession puts it:
> "All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike
> clear unto all; yet those things which are necessary to be known,
> believed, and observed, for salvation, are so clearly propounded and
> opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned,
> but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto
> a sufficient understanding of them."[1]
> > Actually, why limit myself to Christians?
> As the Confession notes:
> "It pleased God, in his eternal purpose, to choose and ordain the Lord
> Jesus, his only-begotten Son, to be the Mediator between God and men,
> the prophet, priest, and king; the head and Savior of the Church, the
> heir or all things, and judge of the world; unto whom he did, from all
> eternity, give a people to be his seed, and to be by him in time
> redeemed, called, justified, sanctified, and glorified."[3]
You snipped:
"You would perhaps have a point if all you happy Christians were to
agree on your interpretations of the Bible, but looking at Christians,
including you, I conclude the following: any denomination you might
belong to has a 'corporate preference' and you yourself pick and
choose. Why the Westminster confession and not the Sacred Congregation
for the Doctrine of the Faith of the Catholic Church? "
Don't you want to address the issue? Is the difference of views on
what the supposed objective truths of the Bible actually are among
Christians uncomfortable for you? Or is it your favourite cop-out: you
reject the premises of the question because it is 'existential' and
'humanistic'?
> >> God provides the means by which one can know the objective truth. Sin
> >> is so rotten and bad and horrible that it deceives a person into
> >> thinking "I'm OK" when in fact, the objective truth is that person is
> >> separated from God by their sin, and without a gracious and merciful
> >> pardon from God, faces a horrible fate:
> > I'd say that's just your take on objective truth.
> If one notes that my testimony that "Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon
> river" is only established because I say so or by humanistic premises,
> I simply reply that it is objectively true that "Julius Caesar crossed
> the Rubicon river" regardless of my testimony.
Already answered.
Round and round we go.
I'll humour you and give it all the due care and attention that the
statement deserves.
The analogy is only valid if by some means the objective truth of the
statement
"God provides the means by which one can know the objective truth
(...) faces a horrible fate"
would have been established. You can claim that as much as you like
and be 100% convinced of it, but it's still a claim.
> > We are humans, making choices based on the information that we have.
> > If you claim that we are too limited to understand the matter at hand
> > properly, to evaluate the truth, then how can we be held accountable
> > for our decisions?
> With respect to sin, personal accountability precedes one's birth:
> "Our first parents, begin seduced by the subtlety and temptations of
> Satan, sinned in eating the forbidden fruit. This their sin God was
> pleased, according to his wise and holy counsel, to permit, having
> purposed to order it to his own glory.
> By this sin they fell from their original righteousness and communion
> with God, and so became dead in sin, and wholly defiled in all the
> faculties and parts of soul and body.
> They being the root of mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed, and
> the same death in sin and corrupted nature conveyed to all their
> posterity, descending from them by original generation."[2]
I ask you again, where does that leave free will? If it's already
decided, what does it matter what we do or don't do? What does it
matter whether we 'commit the sin of rejecting God'?
> > There's also another problem. You can say that God has provided the
> > means, but how am I to know that your holy book is objectively true
> > and not the Qu'Ran, for instance? Isn't that supposed to be the
> > inerrant word of God too?
> Sounds like you lack the means to discern between them.
I question whether you have the means to discern between them.
Suppose there were an Muslim poster here who would state:
Allah has provided the means to know objective truth.
1) I believe the Qu'Ran is objectively true
2) The objective truth of the Qu'Ran is independent of my belief
and then there's you:
1) I believe the Bible is objectively true
2) The objective truth of the Bible is independent of my belief
You're convinced that you're right. He's convinced that he's right.
There are quite a few similarities between the events described on the
book, but quite a few of the 'truths' in both books are mutually
exclusive. Your constant refusal to reply to my questions regarding
the Qu'ran with anything other than a wikipedia page leave this
hanging in mid air.
Of course, I don't particularly need to discern between them, although
I do note that the Qu'Ran is about as repetitive as you are, which if
I were a book reviewer wouldn't earn it many points. As far as I know,
both are wrong. Whether one is more ridiculous than the other isn't
particularly relevant.
> >> Consider as an example a slight variation of such a story:
> >> "I feel a certain rather thrilling conviction that my mother loves
> >> me."
> >> Then consider an argument with an infinite skeptic where you might try
> >> to prove such love.
> > Sorry Brock: note the 'as we have never met' part of the quote. I will
> > freely admit that if I'd never met my mother, I wouldn't know whether
> > she loved me or not. BTW, I'm not an infinite skeptic :).
> My considered speculation (after my experiences interacting with
> non-believers on this and other forums, and examples such as the Nagel
> quote, and Ivan's quote here) is to note that the Bible is correct
> when it
On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 8:53 AM, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Oct 27, 7:55 pm, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 1:03 PM, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> > I might ask you >> >> > how you know that your God isn't lying to you, but that isn't relevant >> >> > to you.
>> > When God told Abraham to sacrifice his Issac, wasn't that a lie?
>> How?
> God deceived Abraham into thinking God wanted him to make a burnt > offering of his son Issac. So God does lie, according to the > objective truth of fhe Bible.
Is it so simple? I don't agree:
"He said, "Take now your son, your only son, whom you love, Isaac, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I will tell you.""[1]
and:
"Abraham stretched out his hand and took the knife to slay his son. 11 But the angel of the LORD called to him from heaven and said, "Abraham, Abraham!" And he said, "Here I am." He said, "Do not stretch out your hand against the lad, and do nothing to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me.""[1]
God commanded Abraham. Abraham was obedient. And so against your charge:
> When God told Abraham to sacrifice his Issac, wasn't that a lie?
I ask again: How was "God telling Abraham to sacrifice Isaac" a lie?
I believe the story to be most meaningful. What a wonderful display of God's love for humankind. Through the obedience of Abraham, humankind has a picture of God's love for His very own Son, the Lord Jesus Christ. Of course, unlike Abraham, God did offer up Christ for the benefit of His elect. Because of that sacrifice, God's justice could be satisfied yet also could God's mercy and pardon be completed.
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 6:59 PM, Ralph_S <ralph.savelsb...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 29 Oct, 20:03, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 7:25 PM, Ralph_S <ralph.savelsb...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > I might ask you >> >> > how you know that your God isn't lying to you, but that isn't relevant >> >> > to you.
>> > The Bible could say that God doesn't lie, but if he is lying, that >> > could be a lie. >> > Try again.
>> Rather, it is the truth.
> assuming that God isn't lying to you.
That is certainly the testimony of the Bible. :)
>> >> My thousands of posts to this forum indicate differently. :)
>> > But you're not discussing it Brock, you're just witnessing.
>> Of course I'm discussing the issues, the quotes and references to >> positions from Augustine, Kant, Fichte, Hume, Protagoras, Clark, >> Popper, Thomas Aquinas, Philip K Dick, Greg Bahnsen and Dr. Wells are >> all indications of an active participation and an intelligent witness.
> Do I detect a hint of vanity?
Simply an indication of my commitment to participate in civil, honest and open dialogue on this forum, and to reach out through classically articulated positions and compare, contrast and discuss my understanding of the Bible in relation to such positions. If that is "witnessing" then I note such witnessing is not worthy of such a pejorative connotation as you might imply.
>> No, rather, the claims of discrepancy have not withstood scrutiny.
> in the views of a believer. If you look at the Bible without assuming > that it is true, much of it doesn't make any sense whatsoever.
I felt the same way with many texts I have since come to admire and respect.
>> You'll have to be happy with a reference to further information:
> I am not happy with than answer because it fails to address the > question. > That page is to my question what a textbook on quantum-mechanics is to > the Copenhagen interpretation. > Your refusal to give a clear answer to the question is noted. > You obviously don't care.
lol. My link is a great answer. The field of inquiry is broad, deep and often profound, I'm going to do my best to not oversimplify around issues in it.
>> I'm sorry if you perceive it so. Frankly, I think you could allow >> some room for the nature of the medium, and still more for the intense >> and challenging nature of the issues. It is not easy talking about >> foundations for belief. If there are going to be presuppositions that >> you might require an OP to accept "in good faith" before continuing >> further, I can't necessarily accommodate you, if the premises are >> ones I don't accept, it is not a virtue to do so.
> Brock, I don't think you are sorry at all.
If you would note that when I say A I mean B, I simply respond by saying that when I say A I mean A.
> If you were, you'd do > something about it. I don't expect you to accept my propositions, but > if we are to continue this discussion, I expect to be treated > seriously.
I am going to continue the discussions to the best of my ability. :)
> You snipped: > "You would perhaps have a point if all you happy Christians were to > agree on your interpretations of the Bible, but looking at Christians, > including you, I conclude the following: any denomination you might > belong to has a 'corporate preference' and you yourself pick and > choose. Why the Westminster confession and not the Sacred Congregation > for the Doctrine of the Faith of the Catholic Church? "
> Don't you want to address the issue?
Well the differences between the two positions are the differences between the two positions. If you ask for a method or algorithm or process for discerning truth, like a magic 8-ball[1] or oracle, I simply note that God's Holy Spirit is a person, not a method or algorithm.
> Is the difference of views on > what the supposed objective truths of the Bible actually are among > Christians uncomfortable for you? Or is it your favourite cop-out: you > reject the premises of the question because it is 'existential' and > 'humanistic'?
Its an argument with a sock puppet.
>> If one notes that my testimony that "Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon >> river" is only established because I say so or by humanistic premises, >> I simply reply that it is objectively true that "Julius Caesar crossed >> the Rubicon river" regardless of my testimony.
> Already answered. > Round and round we go. > I'll humour you and give it all the due care and attention that the > statement deserves. > The analogy is only valid if by some means the objective truth of the > statement > "God provides the means by which one can know the objective truth > (...) faces a horrible fate" > would have been established. You can claim that as much as you like > and be 100% convinced of it, but it's still a claim.
The standard that measures the standard is the standard. If you're hot and bothered to have "independent" verification, then I suspect you're going to fall into an existential or humanistic trap; its the nature of first principles:
"In philosophy, a first principle is a basic, foundational proposition or assumption that cannot be deduced from any other proposition or assumption."
>> They being the root of mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed, and >> the same death in sin and corrupted nature conveyed to all their >> posterity, descending from them by original generation."[2]
> I ask you again, where does that leave free will?
Free will, as generally articulated, is not tenable. Of course, the Bible indicates that God has granted humankind a natural liberty, a bounded ability to make decisions, but such decisions are bounded by God's decrees and His will, and not the other way.
> If it's already > decided, what does it matter what we do or don't do? What does it > matter whether we 'commit the sin of rejecting God'?
One can consider an example: Is it already decided that you will pay your rent on Nov 1? In some ways, yes, you may be subject to a lease or other legal agreement that has such a payment term specified. On the other hand, maybe you don't pay it. With respect to such a legal agreement, you do not have the freedom of arbitrary choice. Your choices are bounded and limited, and, if so specified by the terms of the contract, you simply have the "choice" to make your rent payment on November 1.
So I find issues of "free will" to be generally poorly thought out, and not tenable even in simple cases like this, let alone in theological contexts.
> I question whether you have the means to discern between them. > Suppose there were an Muslim poster here who would state:
But you are not a muslim poster, and I am not interested in debating your sock puppet. :)
> Your constant refusal to reply to my questions regarding > the Qu'ran with anything other than a wikipedia page leave this > hanging in mid air.
Rather, they indicate a healthy respect for the simple truth that even simple comparative religion questions can have a surprisingly robust depth to them that a naive answer wouldn't do justice to.
>> That sounds exactly like the errors of humanism:
>> "Humanism asserts that knowledge of right and wrong is based on the >> best understanding of one's individual and joint interests, rather >> than stemming from a transcendental truth"[5]
> It's only an 'error' if you assume that there is such a thing as > 'transcendental truth'.
Rather, its only an error if its wrong.
> Just to name a few: New Orleans was > hit by Katrina because of the sinful nature of its inhabitants, the > face of Jesus is visible in my pretzel, it is justified to kill 3000 > people by flying planes into the buildings in which they work because > they are unbelievers.
See my earlier "fallacy via pointy stick".
>> What frequently emerges as supposedly scientific conclusions are not, >> in fact, scientifically rigorous results, but a veneer of >> "science-ish" results plastered upon a set of humanistic >> pre-conceptions or assumptions. Basically, to co-opt the credibility >> of scientific inquiry by its misapplication represents a gross abuse >> of the method, and is simply an untenable scientism[9].
> That is not an answer to the question.
Its a great answer. If you equate "how old is the earth" with "the lift generated by a wing", I simply note you do so at great risk of oversimplification.
Suppose you are looking to buy a car. I say "give me $1000, them come
to my house at 3PM to pick up the car". You give me the $1000, then
come to my house at 3PM, and there is no car. Under your definition,
I have not lied to you, because I simply asked you to do certain
things, I asserted no facts. Any arguments you make as to how the
ends justified it does not alter the fact that God deceived Abraham.
Do you think that Bill Clinton, before deciding to testify as he did
about his relationship with Monica Lewsinski, asked himself what would
Jesus do? Clinton gave the false impression that he never had sexual
contact with Moncia Lewinski. But he also had logical reasons why
nothing he said was, strickly speaking, a lie.
On Oct 30, 11:54 am, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 8:53 AM, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Oct 27, 7:55 pm, "BrockOrgan" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 1:03 PM, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >> > I might ask you
> >> >> > how you know that your God isn't lying to you, but that isn't relevant
> >> >> > to you.
> >> > When God toldAbrahamto sacrifice his Issac, wasn't that a lie?
> >> How?
> > God deceivedAbrahaminto thinking God wanted him to make aburnt
> >offeringof his son Issac. So God does lie, according to the
> > objective truth of fhe Bible.
> Is it so simple? I don't agree:
> "He said, "Take now your son, your only son, whom you love, Isaac, and
> go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as aburntofferingon
> one of the mountains of which I will tell you.""[1]
> and:
> "Abrahamstretched out his hand and took the knife to slay his son. 11
> But the angel of the LORD called to him from heaven and said,
> "Abraham,Abraham!" And he said, "Here I am." He said, "Do not stretch
> out your hand against the lad, and do nothing to him; for now I know
> that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only
> son, from Me.""[1]
> God commandedAbraham. Abrahamwas obedient. And so against your charge:
> > When God toldAbrahamto sacrifice his Issac, wasn't that a lie?
> I ask again: How was "God tellingAbrahamto sacrifice Isaac" a lie?
> I believe the story to be most meaningful. What a wonderful display
> of God's love for humankind. Through the obedience ofAbraham,
> humankind has a picture of God's love for His very own Son, the Lord
> Jesus Christ. Of course, unlikeAbraham, God did offer up Christ for
> the benefit of His elect. Because of that sacrifice, God's justice
> could be satisfied yet also could God's mercy and pardon be completed.
On Oct 27, 8:58 am, Brock <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Rather, the objective basis for knowledge is God's Holy Spirit.
Was that the source of Galileo's knowledge that the sun doesn't orbit
the earth? If so, what was the source of the Church's knowledge?
> When He informs a person, such knowledge is reliable.
When human authors inform a person, is such knowledge reliable? For
example, when the human Paul wrote epistles to the Romans, was his
knowledge reliable?
> God's Holy Spirit works in manifold ways, some peripatetic, some are
> experiential, some are academic, others are not so easily classified.
> But the truths of which He testifies are the same:
> * Fallen humankind needs a savior
> * God's grace provides mercy and pardon through the gospel of Jesus
> Christ
Since Jesus didn't preach this in most of his sermons, may it be
presumed that he didn't possess God's holy spirit most of the time?
> Suppose you are looking to buy a car. I say "give me $1000, them come
> to my house at 3PM to pick up the car". You give me the $1000, then
> come to my house at 3PM, and there is no car. Under your definition,
> I have not lied to you, because I simply asked you to do certain
> things, I asserted no facts. Any arguments you make as to how the
> ends justified it does not alter the fact that God deceived Abraham.
> Do you think that Bill Clinton, before deciding to testify as he did
> about his relationship with Monica Lewsinski, asked himself what would
> Jesus do? Clinton gave the false impression that he never had sexual
> contact with Moncia Lewinski. But he also had logical reasons why
> nothing he said was, strickly speaking, a lie.
> On Oct 30, 11:54 am, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 8:53 AM, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Oct 27, 7:55 pm, "BrockOrgan" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 1:03 PM, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >> >> > I might ask you
> > >> >> > how you know that your God isn't lying to you, but that isn't relevant
> > >> >> > to you.
> > >> > When God toldAbrahamto sacrifice his Issac, wasn't that a lie?
> > >> How?
> > > God deceivedAbrahaminto thinking God wanted him to make aburnt
> > >offeringof his son Issac. So God does lie, according to the
> > > objective truth of fhe Bible.
> > Is it so simple? I don't agree:
> > "He said, "Take now your son, your only son, whom you love, Isaac, and
> > go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as aburntofferingon
> > one of the mountains of which I will tell you.""[1]
> > and:
> > "Abrahamstretched out his hand and took the knife to slay his son. 11
> > But the angel of the LORD called to him from heaven and said,
> > "Abraham,Abraham!" And he said, "Here I am." He said, "Do not stretch
> > out your hand against the lad, and do nothing to him; for now I know
> > that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only
> > son, from Me.""[1]
> > God commandedAbraham. Abrahamwas obedient. And so against your charge:
> > > When God toldAbrahamto sacrifice his Issac, wasn't that a lie?
> > I ask again: How was "God tellingAbrahamto sacrifice Isaac" a lie?
> > I believe the story to be most meaningful. What a wonderful display
> > of God's love for humankind. Through the obedience ofAbraham,
> > humankind has a picture of God's love for His very own Son, the Lord
> > Jesus Christ. Of course, unlikeAbraham, God did offer up Christ for
> > the benefit of His elect. Because of that sacrifice, God's justice
> > could be satisfied yet also could God's mercy and pardon be completed.
Ralph, I read over your post, and though I can't say I'm privy to the
conversation/s that started it, I have to take a couple of issues from
the getgo. First is why would God lie? Considering a being of such
vast power, anything even close to some notion of omnipotence even
(whatever that exactly entails - I certainly do believe that God is
"all powerful", but people play games w/words sometimes, to theirs and
the discussion's hurt), why would he feel constrained to?
The second point is you taking issue w/subjective experiences (i.e
feelings). Sam Harris and all the rest of the bungling idiots, pardon
but to me that's exactly what they are, little boys tossing around
sand in a box thinking they're somehow purveyors of vast amounts of
knowledge and wisdom, often resort to this type of tactics. I have
never ever felt some starlet was in love with me, so I can hardly see
how a ruse like that can be used as a comparison to what a person can
tap into if you will regarding things eternal. We see how some
ignorant people poke fun at scientific endeavor, and w/o question you
find that offensive. So why hold up these attempts at rank mockery as
anything other but a bunch of little bitch-boys trying to get their
way (that is make fun of beliefs, because they boo hoo don't like
them. In a Wired article a few years ago Dawkins stated that it was
his goal to make religion so embarrassing no one would want anything
to do w/it. He have a ways to go. Indeed a long way).
But as to "feeling God", I'll ask why not? What's to say a person
isn't experiencing God in the Inner Man? There's no way that I can
personally, adequately describe such subjective experiences, and
undoubtedly you'd be inclined to say they're just like any other
emotion. But I'm afraid you'd be wrong. I have experienced probably
the whole gamut of human emotions, and I'll tell you this is very very
different. In the NT it's described as the "peace that surpasses
understanding" Phillipians 4:7.
It's right there Ralph! You can experience it just like any number of
other people have. There's absolutely nothing standing between you and
eternal life. Why not tap in yourself???
> One feels a kindred sympathy with your exposition.
> I have tried and constantly do ignore most of his posts,
> but I truly have endeavoured to come to terms with
> his position. I have put it to him a few times now that
> he is here as a dispoiler only, but I conclude that there
> is more to it than simply that. It is to promulgate the
> everlasting lie, which as you say and I concur he has
> become convinced of. I told him only this morning that
> being convinced of belief does nothing to change belief
> it will remain unless and or until it is proven to be other
> than a belief. He will never see it any other way than
> his conviction dictates.
> But of one thing I am now certain and it makes me sad
> to have to admit it, but witnessing his constant
> repetition and same response answers to a variety of
> different questions tells me he is now in the throws of
> mania, an affliction I would not wish on my worst enemy.
> Without treatment this can and does lead to a full blown
> dementia and is awful to behold in any human being.
> I have put this to him directly, with the response and
> denial one has come to expect from such cases.
> Perhaps we should bear in mind his predicament and
> hope for the best. Religion says "the wages of sin is
> death" far rather would I sin and die, than suffer
> dementia brought on by religious mania and live.
> On Oct 21, 6:13 pm, Ralph_S <ralph.savelsb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Brock,
> > I've just come to a number of realisations.
> > Part of the reason why I am having these discussions is because they
> > force me to evaluate where I stand and because I hope to find out what
> > makes people like you tick. Because you rigidly stick to using the
> > same sentences over and over again and refer to wikipedia articles,
> > without actually ever explaining anything, it has taken me a long time
> > to figure it out.
> > It is clear to me we're not having a discussion on epistemology. For
> > me epistimology is asking question about what we know and how we know
> > it. you just *know*. For you it doesn't matter how you know what you
> > know -or rather, what you think you know- you just do. I might ask you
> > how you know that your God isn't lying to you, but that isn't relevant
> > to you. You yourself believe that you aren't qualified to evaluate
> > evidence about whether or not God exists and the Bible is true. For
> > you they just are. It's the Bible and nothing else. Discussing it is
> > irrelevant. inconsistencies in the Bible (and there are many) aren't
> > relevant either, because its truth is untouchable. The Qu'ran isn't
> > relevant either, even if it does make many of the same claims as the
> > Bible. If any human where to think the bible is inconsistent, they'll
> > just have to accept it.
> > Not only are we not having a discussion about epistemology. We're not
> > even having what I understand to be a discussion. For me an open and
> > honest discussion means evaluating where I stand. You're not doing
> > that. You're just happily spreading the word. Probably from your
> > point of view, I'm just a stubborn listener who hasn't quite got it
> > yet. Nothing I say will cause you to doubt evaluate anything you say
> > in the least. What I interpret as insufferable smugness is just
> > conviction.
> > I don't know whether my evaluation is correct, but if it is, it seems
> > to me you've thrown free will out the window. I cannot be sure whether
> > free will exists or not, but the Bible seems quite clear about it. If
> > you haven't got the tools to evaluate the information, then how can
> > you ever be expected to make a decision on what to believe and what
> > not to and then be held accountable for it? I suppose that in your
> > world, that is just another of those inconsistencies or apparent
> > contradictions we'll just have to accept.
> > You've managed to put your beliefs on a little untouchable island.
> > From your point of view I can't touch it. Even you think you can't
> > touch it.
> > I asked you how you became a Christian. You wrote something along the
> > lines of 'the holy spirit must have given it to me'. Compare that to
> > the following story taken from 'the end of faith', by Sam Harris:
> > 'I feel a certain rather thrilling "conviction" that Nicole Kidman is
> > in love with me. As we have never met, my feeling is my only evidence
> > of her infatuation. I reason thusly; my feelings suggest that Nicole
> > and I must have a special, even metaphysical connection -otherwise how
> > could I have this feeling in the first place? I decide to set up camp
> > outside her house to make the necessary introductions; clearly this
> > sort of faith is tricky business'.
> > Tricky business indeed. I can see how such a belief is powerful, even
> > though it strikes me as unfounded, unjustified and downright
> > dangerous. You worry me Brock, because you and other people who argue
> > along the same lines but happen to believe in different ''holy books''
> > will pigheadedly do what you think you know is right no matter what
> > the consequences are, even if it leads to pain and suffering for us
> > all.
You know what man, I think my mommy wuvs me too. Or at least used to.
I don't know. You guys are awful hard on ol' Brock. I don't hold to
the confession, or any series of them, and I may not agree w/
everything he says (truth is I rarely have time to read much of his
material). But I certainly think he puts up a good fight. Besides, who
would the freaking HELL would you guys get to rag on if it weren't for
people like him, me, and a handful of others. GIVE SOME CREDIT WHERE
IT'S DUE! EVIL ATHEIST WOLVES! LOL LOL LOL LOL
Keep fighting the good fight dude!
On Oct 27, 8:58 am, Brock <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 21, 1:13 pm, Ralph_S <ralph.savelsb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Part of the reason why I am having these discussions is because they
> > force me to evaluate where I stand and because I hope to find out what
> > makes people like you tick.
> Probably the same things as people like you. :)
> > Because you rigidly stick to using the
> > same sentences over and over again and refer to wikipedia articles,
> > without actually ever explaining anything, it has taken me a long time
> > to figure it out.
> Allowing for some difficulty through the medium, I think my positions
> are a bit clearer than such a statement gives them credit for. :)
> > It is clear to me we're not having a discussion on epistemology. For
> > me epistimology is asking question about what we know and how we know
> > it. you just *know*.
> Rather, the objective basis for knowledge is God's Holy Spirit. When
> He informs a person, such knowledge is reliable. Of course, I don't
> claim that He informs people of all things, but certainly an
> understanding of the fallen nature of humankind, and the saving grace
> of Jesus Christ are explained in the Bible.
> > For you it doesn't matter how you know what you
> > know -or rather, what you think you know- you just do.
> The how matters less than the "who". :)
> God's Holy Spirit works in manifold ways, some peripatetic, some are
> experiential, some are academic, others are not so easily classified.
> But the truths of which He testifies are the same:
> * Fallen humankind needs a savior
> * God's grace provides mercy and pardon through the gospel of Jesus
> Christ
> > I might ask you
> > how you know that your God isn't lying to you, but that isn't relevant
> > to you.
> > You yourself believe that you aren't qualified to evaluate
> > evidence about whether or not God exists and the Bible is true.
> More accurately:
> 2) The objective truth of the Bible is independent of my beliefs
> > For
> > you they just are. It's the Bible and nothing else.
> Rather:
> 1) I believe that the Bible is objectively true
> > Discussing it is irrelevant.
> My thousands of posts to this forum indicate differently. :)
> > inconsistencies in the Bible (and there are many) aren't
> > relevant either, because its truth is untouchable.
> Rather, I simply note that while it is very easy to claim such
> inconsistencies exist, additional scrutiny shows that the indictment
> does not bring the conviction.
> > The Qu'ran isn't
> > relevant either, even if it does make many of the same claims as the
> > Bible.
> A simple answer does not do justice to an entire field of inquiry:
> > If any human where to think the bible is inconsistent, they'll
> > just have to accept it.
> Or rather, such claims of inconsistency don't bear scrutiny.
> > Not only are we not having a discussion about epistemology. We're not
> > even having what I understand to be a discussion. For me an open and
> > honest discussion means evaluating where I stand. You're not doing
> > that.
> But I disagree with the "epistemological smorgasboard" humanistic
> premise, as if objective truth was a buffet item you could shop for,
> sample and choose, like a cheese or wine that is subject to a personal
> or corporate preference.
> I believe that the real truth, as testified in the Bible, is much
> different. Humankind, because of sin, is in a terrible peril. Those
> who remain in sin face a terrible and eternal and just punishment. But
> God is gracious and offers mercy and pardon through Jesus Christ.
> > You're just happily spreading the word. Probably from your
> > point of view, I'm just a stubborn listener who hasn't quite got it
> > yet.
> I'm happy to participate in the exchanges, I appreciate the forum for
> providing an opportunity to have such discussions.
> > What I interpret as insufferable smugness is just
> > conviction.
> Yes.
> > I don't know whether my evaluation is correct, but if it is, it seems
> > to me you've thrown free will out the window.
> Why?
> > I cannot be sure whether
> > free will exists or not, but the Bible seems quite clear about it. If
> > you haven't got the tools to evaluate the information, then how can
> > you ever be expected to make a decision on what to believe and what
> > not to and then be held accountable for it?
> God provides the means by which one can know the objective truth. Sin
> is so rotten and bad and horrible that it deceives a person into
> thinking "I'm OK" when in fact, the objective truth is that person is
> separated from God by their sin, and without a gracious and merciful
> pardon from God, faces a horrible fate:
> > You've managed to put your beliefs on a little untouchable island.
> > From your point of view I can't touch it. Even you think you can't
> > touch it.
> 2) The objective truth of the Bible is independent of my beliefs
> > I asked you how you became a Christian. You wrote something along the
> > lines of 'the holy spirit must have given it to me'.
> The very power of God, through the testimony of the truths of the
> Bible, acts in the life of a believer and regenerates him/her. I like
> how the Confession puts it:
> "All those whom God hath predestinated unto life, and those only, he
> is pleased, in his appointed and accepted time, effectually to call,
> by his Word and Spirit, out of that state of sin and death in which
> they are by nature, to grace and salvation by Jesus Christ:
> enlightening their minds, spiritually and savingly, to understand the
> things of God, taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them
> an heart of flesh; renewing their wills, and by his almighty power
> determining them to that which is good; and effectually drawing them
> to Jesus Christ; yet so as they come most freely, being made willing
> by his grace."[2]
> > Compare that to
> > the following story taken from 'the end of faith', by Sam Harris:
> > 'I feel a certain rather thrilling "conviction" that Nicole Kidman is
> > in love with me. As we have never met, my feeling is my only evidence
> > of her infatuation. I reason thusly; my feelings suggest that Nicole
> > and I must have a special, even metaphysical connection -otherwise how
> > could I have this feeling in the first place? I decide to set up camp
> > outside her house to make the necessary introductions; clearly this
> > sort of faith is tricky business'.
> Consider as an example a slight variation of such a story:
> "I feel a certain rather thrilling conviction that my mother loves
> me."
> Then consider an argument with an infinite skeptic where you might try
> to prove such love.
> > You worry me Brock, because you and other people who argue
> > along the same lines but happen to believe in different ''holy books''
> > will pigheadedly do what you think you know is right no matter what
> > the consequences are, even if it leads to pain and suffering for us
> > all.
> I'm sorry to hear that. The Bible teaches that God understands
> humankind so very well because He made us, and made His own Son to be
> a human. That Son died on the cross to provide a pardon we could not
> otherwise have obtained. Such obedience and actions are worthy of
> praise and worship, and I'm so thankful for His love.
On Oct 29, 12:03 pm, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 7:25 PM, Ralph_S <ralph.savelsb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2561 > > The Bible could say that God doesn't lie, but if he is lying, that
> > could be a lie.
> Rather, it is the truth.
Whether it is the truth is verifiable, isn't it? For example:
Has it been verified that Israelites have never got ill since this was
promised?
the LORD will take away from thee all sickness - Deuteronomy 7:15
Has it been verified that a man and/or his brother's wife become(s)
infertile when committing adultery with each other?
And if a man shall take his brother's wife, it is an unclean thing: he
hath uncovered his brother's nakedness; they shall be childless. -
Leviticus 20:21
On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 2:44 PM, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote: > Suppose you are looking to buy a car. I say "give me $1000, them come > to my house at 3PM to pick up the car". You give me the $1000, then > come to my house at 3PM, and there is no car.
I see no reason to make such a supposition, in particular, that the two situations are comparable.
> Under your definition, > I have not lied to you, because I simply asked you to do certain > things, I asserted no facts. Any arguments you make as to how the > ends justified it does not alter the fact that God deceived Abraham.
|
