Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
(April 1, 2014 at 5:26 am)max-greece Wrote: If they do have that knowledge or certainty doesn't that make God a liar?
Ah but knowledge gained through faith isn't the same as regular knowledge, the latter being the kind that the Lord despises so much. It's kind of like two competing brands of a product at a store.
Some people go to the story and pick up brand Jesus Knowledge, the kind gained through The Holy Spirit. You see, the Holy Spirit is the part of Jesus that comes into us once we accept Christ and believe with all our hearts. Once we believe, then the Holy Spirit comes into us and we know. So with brand Jesus knowledge, belief comes first and then the knowledge comes afterwards and belief is never changed regardless of any other facts that are introduced.
With brand Reason, knowledge is acquired first and then beliefs come afterwards, formed on that basis and revised as new knowledge is acquired. You can see this is a completely different kind of knowledge, right?
Then of course there are all the knock off alternate religion brands but they don't count because those beliefs are just silly.
"You don't need facts when you got Jesus." -Pastor Deacon Fred, Landover Baptist Church
™: True Christian is a Trademark of the Landover Baptist Church. I have no affiliation with this fine group of True Christians ™ because I can't afford their tithing requirements but would like to be. Maybe someday the Lord will bless me with enough riches that I am able to.
And for the lovers of Poe, here's your winking smiley:
(April 1, 2014 at 12:52 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Same goes for gnostic atheists.
How many of those have you seen frods? Genuine question, because I can't think of anyone here who would describe themselves as such nor have I ever seen someone on the internet or IRL that does so either.
I'm sure I've seen a few on here. I think it's a more tenable position than gnostic theist... plenty people claim that science is the only way we can know anything, for example.
(April 1, 2014 at 5:26 am)max-greece Wrote: My understanding is that God is supposed to withhold that knowledge - which is the point of his demanding faith.
So as to not presume the foundation for your understanding, why do you claim that God withhold's this knowledge and that He demands faith?
If it could be proven beyond doubt that God exists... and that He is the one spoken of in the Bible... would you repent of your sins and place your faith in Jesus Christ?
Thank you all for your responses. It was a genuine question. I am not emphasizing the "claim" element too much here - as in claim knowledge - I am more interested in the justifications for the knowledge as it appears to fly in the face of faith.
Right now I am working on the assumption that people that claim such knowledge genuinely believe it to be true - regardless of any real explanation there might be.
(April 1, 2014 at 1:20 pm)orangebox21 Wrote:
(April 1, 2014 at 5:26 am)max-greece Wrote: My understanding is that God is supposed to withhold that knowledge - which is the point of his demanding faith.
So as to not presume the foundation for your understanding, why do you claim that God withhold's this knowledge and that He demands faith?
Now that's a good question - I thought it was the whole basis of Christianity - that faith is required. I might have gotten that wrong but wasn't it the whole point of the Doubting Thomas story - that he believed with evidence (and therefore knowledge) and what Jesus wanted was belief (or faith) without that evidence.
Also interesting are the claims that once belief has been established the knowledge comes next. I find this interesting as it doesn't happen for everyone. One of the more famous Christians who never got that knowledge confirmation was, apparently, Mother Theresa.
This raises the question - for those on the forum who reckon that they do have personal proof/knowledge/evidence what have you - why you and not her?
Further, if you genuinely believe and never get that confirmation is it not then safe to assume God doesn't want you?
Kuusi palaa, ja on viimeinen kerta kun annan vaimoni laittaa jouluvalot!
(April 1, 2014 at 1:46 pm)max-greece Wrote: Right now I am working on the assumption that people that claim such knowledge genuinely believe it to be true - regardless of any real explanation there might be.
Someone who genuinely believes something to be true when it stands in direct opposition to knowledge and facts can still be delusional in regards to what they believe is real.
"Never trust a fox. Looks like a dog, behaves like a cat."
~ Erin Hunter
(April 1, 2014 at 1:46 pm)max-greece Wrote: Right now I am working on the assumption that people that claim such knowledge genuinely believe it to be true - regardless of any real explanation there might be.
Someone who genuinely believes something to be true when it stands in direct opposition to knowledge and facts can still be delusional in regards to what they believe is real.
I am not disputing that for a moment - I am trying to understand the logic they are using and to investigate how it fits into the logic of the religion itself.
Craig Lane is famous for insisting he has personal proof. The point I am making is that if there is no God he is obviously mistaken - but if there is a God then he is also obviously mistaken as God don't do that shit.
See what I am aiming at?
Unless one of the believers can explain to me how I have it wrong of course......
Kuusi palaa, ja on viimeinen kerta kun annan vaimoni laittaa jouluvalot!
(April 1, 2014 at 1:54 pm)max-greece Wrote: I am trying to understand the logic they are using and to investigate how it fits into the logic of the religion itself.
There is no such thing as logic in relation to religion, faith, and their apologists arguments. Religion and faith can only stand on its own merit when logic is left out of the equation.
"Never trust a fox. Looks like a dog, behaves like a cat."
~ Erin Hunter
April 1, 2014 at 2:00 pm (This post was last modified: April 1, 2014 at 2:02 pm by ShaMan.)
(April 1, 2014 at 5:26 am)max-greece Wrote: At the same time how can they demand or even request others to follow their path on the basis of faith if they have the luxury of knowledge and are not reliant on belief alone?
Anyone?
Each one is on their own path. It is those who walk accordingly that find the truth. Any path that demands exclusive adherence has already revealed itself as a fraud.
(April 1, 2014 at 1:57 pm)Kitanetos Wrote:
(April 1, 2014 at 1:54 pm)max-greece Wrote: I am trying to understand the logic they are using and to investigate how it fits into the logic of the religion itself.
There is no such thing as logic in relation to religion, faith, and their apologists arguments. Religion and faith can only stand on its own merit when logic is left out of the equation.
Logic does not exist in the realm of faith and vice-versa. They're simply opposing paradigms.
(April 1, 2014 at 1:20 pm)orangebox21 Wrote: So as to not presume the foundation for your understanding, why do you claim that God withhold's this knowledge and that He demands faith?
Now that's a good question - I thought it was the whole basis of Christianity - that faith is required. I might have gotten that wrong but wasn't it the whole point of the Doubting Thomas story - that he believed with evidence (and therefore knowledge) and what Jesus wanted was belief (or faith) without that evidence.Yes it is true that "without faith it is impossible to please God." But what kind of faith does God require? It's seems, at least in this forum, that most people define faith something like: a belief in something with no evidence nor reason, and something that cannot be proved. I'll define this as blind faith for the purpose of this discussion. Does God require blind faith? While the account of Thomas does show us that Thomas wouldn't believe unless he saw there is more to learn. Consider that if in fact God did demand blind faith showing Himself to Thomas would have disqualified Thomas. Yet the scriptures do not teach that Thomas was disqualified. (John 20:19-25) The end of the verse, "Blessed are they who have not seen and yet believe" is an encouragement to those who at the time believed but did not physically see Jesus resurrected as well as all subsequent generations of believers. Secondly consider Abraham. It is written that "Abraham believed God and his faith was credited as righteousness." Here is a man where the 'knowledge' came first, God spoke to him personally, therefore Abraham knew He existed. Yet this knowledge was not what was considered faith but rather it was when Abraham put his trust in God, in His words, and put them into action, that Abraham had faith. God does not demand blind faith.
(April 1, 2014 at 1:46 pm)max-greece Wrote: Also interesting are the claims that once belief has been established the knowledge comes next. I find this interesting as it doesn't happen for everyone. One of the more famous Christians who never got that knowledge confirmation was, apparently, Mother Theresa.
This raises the question - for those on the forum who reckon that they do have personal proof/knowledge/evidence what have you - why you and not her?
I don't know a lot about Mother Theresa. Are you saying that she was never confident that God exists even though she believed in Him? If so, that sheds a bit of light on previous 'Christians are schizophrenics' comments.
(April 1, 2014 at 1:46 pm)max-greece Wrote: Further, if you genuinely believe and never get that confirmation is it not then safe to assume God doesn't want you?
While I'm open to a counter example, there is not a way in which a person can have genuine belief (i.e. faith) while not having a confidence in the existence of God. It's not an issue of 'God not wanting you' but rather an issue of whether or not a person has faith or is merely professing it. It is cause for self reflection.
(April 1, 2014 at 12:26 pm)Tonus Wrote: It may just be a case of "any port in a storm." When your god doesn't bother to ever show up, you have to come up with some excuse. On the other hand, do they really feel that "he won't show himself because otherwise you'd believe in him" is a good argument?
According to the scriptures the reason God does not show Himself (in the manner being defined here) is not because then people would believe in Him.
19 There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day:
20 And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores,
21 And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores.
22 And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;
23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.
25 But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.
26 And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.
27 Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house:
28 For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.
29 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.
30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.
31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.
And also in Matthew 28 where the context is Jesus after the resurrection.
16 Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them.
17 And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted.
18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
Here we see that physically seeing, specifically someone raised from the dead, will not necessarily produce belief/faith.
(April 1, 2014 at 7:35 pm)truthBtold Wrote: Proverbs 3:5 (AMP)
5 Lean on, trust in, and be confident in the Lord with all your heart and mind and do not rely on your own insight or understanding.
see... be dumb and trust the bible. Ha..
Kudos on the amplified version. I recently watched an introduction to a debate on "The Case for Naturalism" In it Sean Carroll says that science has developed techniques for gaining reliable knowledge about the world. He says that one of the ways science came to the conclusion of Naturalism is by realizing that basically human beings are not that smart. That we're full of all kinds of biases, shortcomings, and illogical thought. So the solution was to develop said techniques as a systems of checks and balances because we know that at times our instincts are wrong or misinformed. Sound familiar? People, religious and secular, acknowledge that we cannot ultimately 'rely on our own insight or understanding'. Where we differ is the authority we use to check ourselves. The secular world appeals to other men, the Christian to the Bible.
If it could be proven beyond doubt that God exists... and that He is the one spoken of in the Bible... would you repent of your sins and place your faith in Jesus Christ?
