Facing the Morally Bad Future

[FallentoReason]

Okay, the first thing that needs to be understood is that, as I have repeatedly said, I don’t know your situation and can’t come to specific judgments about what is true for false within your life or the story you tell. I’ve communicated this a variety of times and do so again specifically for the purpose of avoiding the charges that you continue to level at me. I am not closing you off in any sense. I am closing off my ability to affirm your contention in the positive, but AGAIN, this has no bearing on the veracity of your claims, only my ability and willingness to affirm them.

Well I get the vibe that you do want to close me off. As soon as I mentioned 'Pentecostal' you think 'ahhh... there's your problem'. I'll discuss further down why you just can't do that without knowing me.

I understand the aspects of Pentecostalism that you find off-putting, but that’s another mysterious piece of this puzzle.

I found them off-putting because as I mentioned before, I was raised Catholic. I saw that that approach made sense as opposed to the physical gimmicks.

Your story simply doesn’t ring true. It doesn’t fit with the reality of my own experience in any significant sense, nor that of others with whom I’m acquainted. For example, “my belief was centered around the Word and a deep understanding of theology…”, yet you claim to have come out of Pentecostalism.

Because with a Catholic mindset I didn't see the point of all the physicality involved with Pentecostalism.

Anyone who’s conversant with protestant Christianity generally understands quite well that the denomination famous for being the most shallow and the most cavalier with their use and abuse of God’s word is the Pentecostal or what has been termed “the charismatic movement”. Their particular sect of Christianity has only been around about 100 years, and while there are many genuine believers within that denomination, it is also the case that the Pentecostal and Assemblies of God denominations are rife with error and heterodoxy. This is why some of your claims seem exceedingly odd.

Yes, odd because I was raised Catholic.

I find it unusual, if not unbelievable that someone whose faith was centered around the Word and a deep understanding of theology would even be located within the Pentecostal church, to say nothing of spending years there. Deep theological understanding and the Pentecostal church are akin to oil and water. They simply don’t mix well at all.

I started going to that church because I met a friend that went there and invited me to his youth group. What attracted me from then on was their desire to get into the Word as opposed to Catholic mass which is rather structured and everyone acts like robots.

Also, in another thread, I’ve mentioned names of some of the leading scholars in the area of biblical historicity and areas like lower criticism, one of which was a professor at Macquarie University in Sydney and was bishop of North Sydney, but you’re almost entirely unfamiliar with their work. I am no expert, but I am familiar with many of the broader debates inside and outside of the Church regarding the Bible’s veracity, the life of Jesus, etc… and I’m mystified as to how you can have come to genuine and legitimate conclusions regarding the Christian faith without any significant knowledge of the current scholarship. If you are reading people like Ehrman, Harris, and others; then you’re simply filling yourself up with bad information that has been openly and largely debunked. I can understand how their work can undermine one’s faith, if you have no access to the counter-arguments and the genuine exposés that have been done of their work, but as someone who was even modestly passionate about something like apologetics, I’m unable to comprehend or explain your total lack of knowledge of the resources out there that demonstrate the very things you say you need in order to have a solid foundation for faith.

The problem with scholars, I personally believe, is that they simply assume they're dealing with historical accounts. Imagine people in the very far future that might find Harry Potter 'manuscripts' everywhere. How do they determine their genre? If they simply assume it's history then they're going to get nowhere in terms of a useful interpretation. Well, I believe that to reconcile the Gospels with known, reliable history of the time one is forced to step back and analyse the Gospels differently, in an allegorical way in fact.

Also, I do not know your situation, beyond what you say, and the things I’ve said regarding Pentecostalism are examples drawn from my own experience and knowledge of what genuinely goes on within the Church, and not only within Pentecostalism. They are suggestions as to what “might” have happened with you. It is very possible that something else happened of which I am entirely unaware, and that’s perfectly fine with me.

In the simplest terms, what happened was that I was really interested in finding the evidence to back up my apologetic arguments and I simply flew too close to the sun and got burnt.

Those suggestions and stories are not meant to be necessarily predictive or descriptive of your particular circumstance. They are merely possibilities. I have nothing riding on their accuracy in any sense. You behave as if you think I’m somehow troubled by your story, perhaps as though I find it threatening in some sense. I have to say that I’m confused by this point of view. Why would that matter to me at all?

From your very first post on this thread you began assuming things about me and even expressing your certainty in these assumptions:

In that context, if you are determined not to believe in God, there is very little that anyone can do, no matter how well intentioned they might be. Richard Weaver wrote a book called Ideas Have Consequences, in which he said something like this...

“Nothing good can come if the will is wrong, and to give evidence to him who loves not the truth, is only to give him more plentiful material for misinterpretation.”

I suspect that this is as true now as it was then, ad I'm certain that it is true in your case as well.

---

My faith is in no way based upon whether you or anyone else happens to believe the same things that I do. Admittedly, I find your story sad, but that’s the extent of my feeling. I’m somewhat perplexed by this implicit notion that I’m finding you somehow threatening.

My suspicions that you feel threatened came from your first post as well. You saw me as a fake Christian with the intent to find an excuse to not believe anymore. So that picture you painted to me sounds like someone that couldn't be further from what a Christian is, which I feel has been your intent this whole talk, to execute the No True Scotsman fallacy.

Quite the contrary actually. The longer we talk, the more I’m aware of how loosely your knowledge (i.e. justified true belief) was being held. That is not meant to be an insult in any sense. I honestly feel for you. However, it’s becoming more and more clear that you have been lacking large amounts of information, which is likely what has at least contributed to your overall problem.

I don't find that insulting at all, but rather a relief. I'm here on this forum to seek knowledge that has solid reasons as to why it is true. With that in mind, if you feel like I'm lacking scholars' p.o.v.s then by all means, please share what they have to say and we can discuss that.

Now beyond what I’ve said, I notice that you seem determined for others to affirm your genuine regenerate Christian state. I’ve told you that you’ve given me no reason to do this, but you persist in this direction. You indicate that I find you some sort of threat, that I’m putting you into a box, or that I’m disallowing your point of view as being truthful in some sense. These things are not true. Again, what is true about your situation has nothing to do with whether I can affirm it. Those are separate questions. But let me ask you some questions for clarification’s sake.

Of course I want to affirm my True Believer status that I held before. I don't find it fair that you can discredit me of that on a whim simply because I chose to walk away. Christianity as a whole is still a huge part of my life. 80% of my friends are Christian with the ones that I see on a weekly basis being 100% Christian. Do you think I walked away and threw away what my life is made of simply because deep down inside I never had an intention to know God??? I have Fallen To Reason. As a rational being I cannot simply be oblivious to reasons why Christianity isn't the absolute truth. That would be like knowing your e.g. boat has a hole in it but just having faith you can use it. That's irrational.

Is it true that a Christian is one who has placed their trust in the sacrifice of Jesus Christ for the payment of their sin debt to God and that on the basis of this trust or faith, their ultimate end is an eternity spent with God in Heaven?

According to Paul, yes.

Is it true that Christians are those who persevere in the faith and finish the race of life?

According to you, yes.

Is it true that people who go to church and have been enlightened by the truth, tasted of the heavenly gift, shared in the Holy spirit, and tasted of the goodness of the word of God can and do fall away?

Yes.

Is it true, from the Christian perspective, that God is all knowing?

Yes.

---

@ FallentoReason I've been reading the conversation between yourself and gomtuu77. If you don't mind I have a question for you, do you still believe in the God of scriptures? The reason I ask is this, I do not believe I've ever seen you write that you do or do not believe in Him. I am one who believes that a man can choose to walk away from God after he experiences Him, gomtuu77 gave the very reason from Hebrews, the passage says one falls away, it doesn't say one chooses to quite believing. I see it like this, one starts drinking and finds out that it makes them feel good, so they keep it up for the high. Then the hangovers start and every time after drinking one has to deal with the hangover, drink, hangover, drink, hangover, then one says if I stop so do the hangovers. When the one does stop, they no longer have to deal with those hangovers, they know that if they drink again it will feel good, they do not deny the fact they have learned, drinking feels good, they just do not like the hangovers, so drinking is out of their life.
God can be the same way sometimes, when one loses sight of who He really is, one becomes weary and after awhile will either leave the faith or reconnect with who God is.

That's actually a really good analogy. I have no problems in talking theology and discussing the God of the Bible, but I do not currently believe in said God.

With respect to the analogy, I see it as this: people insist that this drink exists and you will get these effects. I have found out for myself that the drink isn't actually a literal thing. They have been misled to believe this drink is a) a real thing and b) that it functions as they say.

Another thing I do not know many Christians who claim the Bible to be a history book, I know plenty that know it as the greatest love story ever told, that includes me. Many places that use to be thought of as only existing in the scripture have been found in archaeological digs, and because of things like this some talk about scriptures like a history book. Certainly the scriptures give a time line down through history, however this time line was counting down to the arrival of Jesus and the wonderful gift of salvation through Him for all of mankind.

I agree. It is just assumed that these pieces of paper were recounting historical events. From the research I've done, not only do I believe Jesus wasn't a real person, but I've actually gone one further and found what they are trying to tell us and what the Gospels really are. This is what I mean by my explanation of the analogy. People keep telling me the Gospels are something but I know for myself now that they have been mislead. The Gospels aren't meant to be taken literally, they do not function that way.