Chase Posted June 1, 2017 Share Posted June 1, 2017 Recently, on another thread, another user charged that I wasn't my own person - and essentially equated me as another one of the ignorant cultists ascribing to the Christian Church and the Republican Party. I -am- a registered Republican, as well as a practicing and outward Christian - but the charge made me wonder... "Where on earth did this charge come from? I'm OBVIOUSLY my own person - or there would be a ton of other Hunters running around Reborn defending the Christian faith and owning up conservative values. The fact that it's literally just me most of the time arguing on behalf of Jesus when I am not the only Christian here is nothing BUT a testament to my originality! Right?" Then I started bashing myself. I began to wonder if I really was just running in the traditional right-wing circles and that I wasn't doing it to win people to a saving relationship with the Lord. I began to remember leaving topics hanging in suspense due to a moderator feeling the thread had begun to run too hot without much substance or running into an impasse with whoever I was talking to and just wanting to pull my hair out because they completely understood the angle I was getting at - but didn't care enough to engage with the angle. Then I started kicking myself for allowing my individual soul to lash out at being attacked as nonexistent. Was there anything wrong with belonging to the Lord? It convicted me enough to go to the bookstore and pick up Timothy Keller's The Reason For God. Mr. Keller is a pastor at the Redeemer Presbyterian Church in Manhattan. As a suburban kid who wants nothing more than to do ministry in the big city as a lifelong dream, this guy is my spirit animal - or at least a hero of mine. Fellow believers - if you're out there - I encourage you to find the book and read along. For you, as well as I, it should cause us to question WHY it is that we hold a Christian worldview and hopefully highlight a few issues the church has that we can strive to fix. The church today is indeed broken in many aspects, and as the person who confronted me in the other thread indicated, these problems going unchecked disenfranchise people and cause them to turn their back on God. Skeptics, if you want, go ahead and pick it up. Why is it you hold certain positions when it comes to a god existing or not? Keller will certainly open a healthy can of worms with regards to intellectual thought from an opposing viewpoint. It also will allow you to address points here with your own perspective. Getting the book isn't necessary, but it helps for reference. It is indeed perfectly fine to just question me if you like. --- Exclusivity of "The Truth" The first issue Keller brings up is the one where theists and nones alike have a sense of "superiority" when it comes to knowing what the truth of the world actually is. The popular opinion seems to be along the lines of a few treatises such as these. "One religion can't know the whole truth.", "It's incredibly arrogant of adherents of one religion to claim theirs is superior.", "The god of all religions is one and the same." I'll touch on why the skeptic that makes such claims is errant later (after some of you have given some input) - but these claims all add up to the claim that "The world will never know peace so long as people are claiming they are the only "truthful" religion and others must follow them!" Keller - and myself - AGREE with this claim. There is no denying the wars and conflicts that have taken place because of religious motives. --- Hunter, Texas, Conservatives, and Personal Doubt #1 There was a time in American History where Western Christendom was the rage. People who didn't even go to church or knew nothing of the gospel identified in surveys as Christians because the people of the Cross were the "in crowd." It was a great time for spiritual awakening, and yet one, like many Awakenings prior, that wouldn't last. Today, we see a weird trend in America specifically that indicates mega churches getting larger, but church giving and local church attendance across the board going down. The people of the Western Christendom? They are the older folks in the pews today. They reminisce about the good old days. They complain about the raging liberalism younger generations have prioritized and are the most likely folks to have a Jesus fish and a Trump bumper sticker on their vehicles where I'm from. As a youth growing up in this traditional American church setting - you ARE told to abandon your individual merits in favor of respecting your parents and elders. You are told that hymns are better than contemporary worship songs. You are told quite abrasively that you shouldn't bring your cup of coffee into the sanctuary because it distracts people from worshiping. You are told that birth control is worthless and that legal abortion is a genocide far greater than anything Adolf Hitler could have thought of and that there is a war on Christians being waged from Washington D.C. and Austin, Texas by soulless Democrats. It's not really a surprise why my home church is a horrible place when it comes to looking for friends, let alone women my age. Keller points out that he's noticed a disturbing trend. In his experience, the people that hold that truth is "relative" (I.e. what is true for Person A may not be true for Person X) are the people that fight the hardest for social justice, while the people that claim truth is objective (1+1=2 for everyone) are the ones who are least likely to be spotted fighting for social justice. Relativists shouldn't have a strong cause to fight for social justice if truth is relative. Is something being wrong only "relatively" wrong to that person in the first place? Maybe Hitler believes gassing whomever he pleases completely within the confines of righteousness, so why can't we respect Hitler's viewpoint and be done with it? Objectivists on the other hand should recognize real wrong in the world and be the one's fighting the hardest. Everyone has a right to enter our country, because this is America! How DARE President Trump impose a travel ban on people before finding their innocence or guilt!? Having been a member of Reborn for a while now. OH GOODNESS is Keller spot on. The ones who argue for moral relativity are the same ones who are quick to denounce President Trump as inherently evil and those who voted for him similarly because of his injustices against others. The ones who believe in objective truth, are the ones who are the most okay with Trump's follies and tend to be seen teetering on the brink of earning a few warning points by acting like alt-right trolls in defense of Trump. As a Christian, it should be pretty clear that our salvation doesn't make us BETTER than those around us for this very reason. If you were superior to everyone else, why is it you need a savior in the first place? And yet, my biggest pet peeve is a too common sight - Christians who operate as if they hold the truth and everyone else needs to drink the same Kool-Aid we are or they are utterly lost. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Candy Posted June 2, 2017 Share Posted June 2, 2017 4 hours ago, Chase said: Objectivists on the other hand should recognize real wrong in the world and be the one's fighting the hardest. Everyone has a right to enter our country, because this is America! How DARE President Trump impose a travel ban on people before finding their innocence or guilt!? The problem with objectivism is that we as humans cannot definitively say what is the truth. So probably there are two main types of objectivists in your examples: those saying "everyone has a right to enter our country, this is correct", and those saying "only those we deem worthy should be able to enter our country, that is how countries must operate". No one made definite rules about how a country must be governed, so how can anyone say whether one is true and the other is false? It is the same with Christianity, I suppose. It is hard to say whether Christians are drinking the kool-aid of their dogma passed down generations, or non-Christians are drinking the kool-aid of denouncing religion. If you were told you're not your own person because you follow Christianity, it must be because religion is more often than not passed from parents to offspring, and would be considered brainwashing by some. However, you as a Christian can also argue that atheists (I'm assuming it's the group you have trouble with) are not being their own person, since they were likely influenced by someone to leave religion, or were brought up by atheist parents, in which case would be identical to the situation they are against. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Odybld Posted June 2, 2017 Share Posted June 2, 2017 Wanna have some fun tbh? Read Mircea Eliade's The sacred and the profane Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peanuts Posted June 2, 2017 Share Posted June 2, 2017 (edited) 5 hours ago, Chase said: Having been a member of Reborn for a while now. OH GOODNESS is Keller spot on. The ones who argue for moral relativity are the same ones who are quick to denounce President Trump as inherently evil and those who voted for him similarly because of his injustices against others. The ones who believe in objective truth, are the ones who are the most okay with Trump's follies and tend to be seen teetering on the brink of earning a few warning points by acting like alt-right trolls in defense of Trump. Just wondering, at this point do you still support Trump? Based off the wording of your post, you seem to believe that he is an acceptable president, despite all of the 'follies' he has made. In addition, you seem to hold an objective truth in high regard - which I applaud you for. As a person that has been raised as a Christian, I can understand where you are coming from. My personal issue with the current Republican Party and Trump is that they both no longer follow the objective truth that you approve so highly of. The two are pronounced Christians in name only, and their actions only show that they have no idea what the Christian faith should be about. Their goal is no longer to help the poor, the weak, the wounded veterans that Republicans idolize. With a little money, everyone ignores the poor and disenfranchised. They very much are a party for the wealthy, and the wealthy only. How do you personally reconcile this issue? Or do you believe that your support of the Republican party and Trump are still justified even if they are just as bad as the soulless democrats? And if you haven't seen it yet, look up 'covfefe'. It's a minor folly to be sure, but it still makes me wonder if Trump even wants to be taken remotely seriously as a president. Edited June 2, 2017 by Peanuts Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alphagar Posted June 2, 2017 Share Posted June 2, 2017 7 minutes ago, Peanuts said: Just wondering, at this point do you still support Trump? Based off the wording of your post, you seem to believe that he is an acceptable president, despite all of the 'follies' he has made. In addition, you seem to hold an objective truth in high regard - which I applaud you for. As a person that has been raised as a Christian, I can understand where you are coming from. My personal issue with the current Republican Party and Trump is that they both no longer follow the objective truth that you approve so highly of. The two are pronounced Christians in name only, and their actions only show that they have no idea what the Christian faith should be about. Their goal is no longer to help the poor, the weak, the wounded veterans that Republicans idolize. With a little money, everyone ignores the poor and disenfranchised. They very much are a party for the wealthy, and the wealthy only. How do you personally reconcile this issue? Or do you believe that your support of the Republican party and Trump are still justified even if they are just as bad as the soulless democrats? And if you haven't seen it yet, look up 'covfefe'. It's a minor folly to be sure, but it still makes me wonder if Trump even wants to be taken remotely seriously as a president. Not to mention his "war" on women, minorities, and lgbt people to name just a few. He is a whiny child who can't keep off of twitter for 5 minutes. I consider myself spiritual and do believe in a higher being/God. However...many of the religions today are a jumbled and hate filled mess, with Christianity and Catholicism at the forefront. To many people in hitory and in the present have taken the word of God and changed it to suit their own needs and agendas. I know not all Republicans and people of faith are the same, but when the majority are ignorant people who follow other ignorant or evil people blindly...we have a problem. As for meeting someone...have you tried online? Message boards (like this) or video games are a great way to meet someone with similar interests and ideals. I met my partner in GW2 a few years ago. : 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chase Posted June 2, 2017 Author Share Posted June 2, 2017 @Alphagar I like to think that ANYONE being a follower and not using their brain to work through issues is a problem - Conservative straight republican white guy to Liberal genderfluid person of a non-white ethnicity. Regardless of if you are a disciple of a theistic teacher or an atheist one, ignorance leads to the very manipulation you allude to. If you don't challenge your beliefs - whatever they may be - your beliefs will be easily shaped by others. This isn't a Left or Right, Theistic problem. As for online dating - I have tried it. My experience was mostly positive, but it didn't work out - and I'm looking to avoid making the same mistakes as last time, meaning that it's not a totally attractive avenue at the moment. May give it a whirl again if/when the feeling returns. Guild Wars 2 sounds like a hot date. --- @Peanuts I actually voted for Gary Johnson in the election - knowing full well he wasn't going to win. I was as shocked as everyone else when Republicans stormed the night across the country, but was happier for maintaining the congressional majorities than bringing Trump to 1600 Pennsylvania. There was enough about both major party candidates that made them both not fit for office in my opinion. I believe Trump is deserving for criticism in the same fairness that Obama was. It's truly a taller ask to be President than it is to be a member of the Senate or House of Representatives - and the Executive will always have his hands in SOMEONE's cookie jar. As for his performance, while many of his decisions were some I can appreciate, his manner of day-to-day operations is chaotic and seems to favor himself and his band of insiders than it does the national media and the viewers that depend on it to hear about what the president is doing. If there is something noteworthy regarding Russia - he should be held responsible for it and a move to impeach him wouldn't be unreasonable in the slightest - especially if he were to lie under oath. After all, a man having a affair can cost you the job if you lie about it. I do understand why he resorts to Twitter (as the national media writ large have been WILLING to play oppositional to the White House and his Twitter feed is about the only way he can share his side of the story to his followers without getting criticized for it.) - but like Alphagar, I do believe his social media usage is too often and too unrestricted. The Republican Party dig themselves potholes to trip themselves in often - and just as often are unfairly criticized for being a unanimous cult-like party that bands together under a banner of hatred. I reconcile my being a Republican by being unafraid to break with the party and own my personal convictions where I truly don't agree with the majority. There are Republicans (myself not an example even) that LIKE the Affordable Care Act. There are also Democrats who don't play by the liberal rules either - especially in states where being a true liberal is a liability in winning office. Things like gun restrictions are thrown out the window in order to appeal to the generally more conservative voter bloc. The GOP makes mistakes. Often. That doesn't mean I have to be one where I don't agree with them - and it doesn't mean they are the only political party in America to do so. --- @Candy On the topic of objective truth - saying that there is no ability for a human to make an objective truth claim is in it of itself - an objective truth claim! 1. I assume that you are a human yourself. 2. You speak of inability, yet you make your statement as if it's a definitive rebuttal of a falsehood (in this case, the falsehood of objectivism or absolutism.) On top of that, I presented you with a simple mathematics equation as an example in my first post to help describe the concept of absolutism. Does 1+1 NOT equal 2? And if it's only a relative truth, how is it not so for other people without being a falsehood? This is where it's very interesting. Even relativists have to make a hidden leap of faith with their claims. If it's not empirical, a claim is based on faith. In order for a claim to be based on data, the claim must be testable. My friend, is it possible to test which of us has it right? Can humanity determine absolute truth? If neither of us can prove our claims - both of us are making faith claims. If one of us can actually test what we are making a claim about - THEN it's an empirical claim. As a Christian, making faith claims doesn't bother me. --- Tomorrow, I plan on talking about the Problem of Suffering, because it's the area of doubt I struggled with very often when I was younger - on a philosophical AND a personal level. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheep Posted June 2, 2017 Share Posted June 2, 2017 12 hours ago, Chase said: Recently, on another thread, another user charged that I wasn't my own person - and essentially equated me as another one of the ignorant cultists ascribing to the Christian Church and the Republican Party. I've gotta admit I grinned when I read that. They really don't know you very well. The idea that right wing or religious people (heaven forbid both in one) cannot possibly be autonomous critical thinking individuals with rational and defensible reasons for what they think is right is a sad one. I suppose it stems from absolute confidence that the progressive athiest/agnostic mindset is the correct one, and thus anyone who thinks differently must have simply not considered the problem well enough to find the right answer. This has been an interesting read thus far, and while I don't agree with a lot of your political standpoints, we share very similar core philosophies. Anyone who believes what they believe, with respect to theism or politics, without having thought about the issue critically and come to an informed, justified position is treading dangerous water, especially if they're vocal about it. As I'm sure you well know I'm not a creationist (though for the benefit of anyone else reading I am Christian), and the notion that many believers hold, that the bible is the only source of factual information that can explain creation, and that something is to be interpreted factually purely because it was written in the book is an attitude that I think needs to go. I'm happy for people to believe in creationism if that's what they want to believe, but don't try to maintain that you know the truth of this world based on the writing in a book, because at that point you're lying even if you don't realise it. I suppose my beef is with people who substitute belief for knowledge, and the primary cause for this (the way I see it anyway) is a lack of critical thinking. On the topic of truth, before this year I probably would have argued in favour of truth being something that's subjective, but I've been converted. Murder wouldn't be so universally seen as wrong throughout different cultures and a long period of human history if it wasn't something that is morally wrong. The fact that so many different civilisations have laws against it is a clear demonstration that time and again in complete isolation we come to the same conclusion, murder is wrong. That's not to say that killing cannot be justified, but I think there is a clear difference between killing and murder. The way I see it governments are erected by civilisation at least in part so that they may help to uncover what these objective truths are, such that we might better align our societies alongside them. Unfortunately the nature of many truths is not quite so obvious as "should it be okay to commit murder" hence why there are very differing positions on contentious issues. I'd say it's very likely though, that someone in that great roiling debate has got the right idea, and only by considering each viewpoint carefully and critically can we come to a conclusion about which one is the one we want to go with. Trying to claim that people who hold different opinions to your own are already wrong, and simply haven't thought hard enough, doesn't help the issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eviora Posted June 2, 2017 Share Posted June 2, 2017 (edited) Oh, we are going to have so much fun. So, for starters, I have a few questions~ 1. What do you think it takes to differentiate a god from another supernatural entity? 2. Why do you, personally, believe in god? In one of our previous discussions, your were offering me a lot of canned arguments I often see from theists, and said that your reason for belief was not one of those arguments, but something else. I'm a lot more interested in that "something else" than in some silly argument I can effortlessly destroy. 3. In Cool Girl's recent thread, I offered you a hypothetical situation where god appeared, performed miracles, then told you to kill a bunch of people, and asked whether you would. You said 'No', and ended up adding this little quote: " I wouldn't want to follow Jesus if Jesus was a tyrannical figure. " How do you reconcile that with your alleged objectivism? I was under the impression that you believe that your god's orders were automatically righteous. 4. Suppose there is a unique god who created the universe. Why would that god's stance on matters count as "objectively correct" rather than just one opinion out of many? Edited June 2, 2017 by Eviora Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chase Posted June 2, 2017 Author Share Posted June 2, 2017 @Eviora 1. Is there a particular supernatural entity you have in mind? I ask only because several such entities are worshiped as higher beings and I would like to have an easier comparison/contrast session. I -CAN- tell you what I feel makes God, God however. I believe God is an interpersonal being who isn't constrained by concepts such as time, space, and logic, and also is all-knowing, all-present, and all-good. Lacking interpersonal will or benevolence in totality renders the supernatural being as one who is MOST definitely not an ally of mine seeking me out to abide with it. Humans are constrained by such concepts and if God isn't then there is a problem with arguing we have a "need" of him. There isn't an established rule that God need to be boxed into a perfectly shaped logic sphere crafted by humans - and if he were to fit in that sphere cleanly then it's easy to dismiss him as a product of human creation. Entities that require a human to follow a rule set or climb a latter are not interpersonal. Entities that are not all-benevolent are likely worse to believe in than not believing in such an entity at all. Entities that are merely conjured by the human mind and don't have reasonable arguments in abundance to support (which, when dealing with a God larger than human logic CERTAINLY doesn't mean validate!) their existence are standing on shakier sand than a God would - because we're merely looking into a myth at that point. --- 2. I personally believe in God because I believe I have experienced Him. My buying in happened after hearing what I truly believe was his voice and seeing the dividends of it make my life better. To not believe in God at this point is to reject experiences in my life as falsehoods - and I would be risking quality of life in turning my back on him. --- 3. I reconcile the Wrath of God by looking to Jesus. Yes, I'm aware it's a Sunday School answer - but Jesus - as God "with" Us - took on the justice for Humanity's err himself - as a human. Dying in what was essentially the worst possible way during the time period is an indication that God isn't above his own wrath. Finally, He made that sacrifice so that we as humans can freely choose him, as he intended from the beginning, despite transgressing against him before. It's this action that highlights his selling points as something to believe in for me, while also being an answer to the problem of suffering (meaning, God wasn't above truly being with us in that he suffered as well.) Jesus does an ample job of explaining the law's importance, but also bucks laws that were crafted only because Humanity needed such structures BECAUSE they were depraved as it were. He was a revolutionary figure despite not being so for a human cause (such as driving the Romans out of Israel as the Hebrews of the time hoped would happen.) - and without Jesus, the whole wrath of God thing would leave him as this terrifying figure - and would certainly make it harder for me to get behind him. I don't intend to knock Judaism here, but without a Messiah, the Law is all they have - and if you had asked me that question if I were a Jew, it would have shaken me to my core. With Christ - I can own God's commandments and point out why Jesus (God in the flesh) challenged them - making it safe to challenge them today. Without Christ I would be forced to wear such laws as an albatross. --- 4. I'm not sure I follow this one well enough - but if I am tracking with you - the reason the creator's views are objective is that no other being knows the thing it created better than it. It's the same as if I were to make meatballs for everyone in Reborn in secret. People may guess as to what ingredients I used, but I am the only know who objectively knows because I made the meatballs. Saying something is what it isn't is just outright wrong. --- @Sheep I will gladly accept that not everyone is wearing the same pair of Nike tennis shoes I am. The reason relativism is so easily acceptable in my eyes is because people are not all in the same situation. Everyone being different in one way or another is what makes them unique. It gives people an identity, and then people take it a step further and likely use a relativistic viewpoint to defend said uniqueness and identity. I just see too many "Murder is wrong" scenarios in the world to say that it's the correct way to go about morality - and that's my hang-up. It troubles me that other objective truth holders aren't as passionate about social justice as those who would be more inclined to argue for murder being acceptable. Even though that seems to be an objective truth those people do accept (Justice is important) - it's a reflective inconsistency that is more dangerous for objectivists because it lends the notion that they are uncaring about people - whereas being inconsistent on behalf of the relativist actually is a boon for them in this scenario. You're a real pal, friend. I appreciate you taking the time to know who I am prior to this topic. --- So - the problem of Suffering. If God is good, why is there evil and suffering the world? What kind of good god would allow for that? Prayer is Everything Keller brings up two main arguments that bolster God in this area. The first I mentioned in my response to Evi - that God is no stranger to the kind of suffering we endure through Jesus' duration on the Earth - as well as that suffering is actually in many cases a harbinger of stronger faith. At my home church however, I didn't have the Timothy Kellers of the world to invest into me until I was in High School and was getting poured into by a mentor who wasn't associated with it alongside a new youth minister. The folks in church like to throw around the word "Prayer" as if it's like putting a coin into a slot machine (Blue Like Jazz is where that reference comes from, another good book.) The elders were quick to emphasize that prayer was the solvent for all of the world's problem. They pointed to the minister praying over people who were in the hospital every Sunday as how I should go about daily life. What they didn't tell me is that God has a will separate from mine. I'd pray to see a loved one who had long since left this earth. I'd pray to cure a cancer that had long since won it's battle over the host. I'd pray for answers as to why my friends were hurting when they wouldn't talk to me. I'd pray for my mother and father to renew a marriage that had long since died. I was often just praying under the assumption that prayer was the cure-all. And I was disappointed. Often. Eventually, my life became the hardest it had ever been to that point in middle school (Yes, this is the middle-school-is-the-worst-cliche) and I had fallen out of faith. I was tired of the same old platitudes and being on the other line to static. I didn't have time to trust in a God that had motives apart from my own. I returned before my mental health spiraled beyond salvaging - but prayer remains one of the hardest concepts to embrace for me today. I often find myself arguing that the Lord bestowed us with hearts of our own to go and fix issues. I talk about how Doctors often believe in God and that God uses whatever He wants to heal people. I argue that people have money in their wallets. - and I have a bad tendency to say that praying is only justifiable in times where you truly are incapable of satisfying the need yourself. This makes reliance on God seem situated without explaining that all good comes from God - and talking to skeptics about the problem is suffering isn't nearly as fun as talking about Morality or Intelligent Design because we're not just dealing with intellectual discourse. We're talking about hearts that have dealt with much strife and are chafed by the idea of a God in a world that has a tendency to utterly suck. I find myself at a crossroads. I find that prayer is important to communicate with God and invite Him into your daily life - but I am a much weaker prayer warrior because I too often see where humans could act on the problem at hand instead of sitting on the sideline. I struggle with accepting that some things are God's intent at times. If it weren't for Jesus, this would be one of the strongest evidences Athiest Hunter would point to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Support Squad Felicity Posted June 2, 2017 Support Squad Share Posted June 2, 2017 Which is a priority to cultivate, faith in the big G or faith in yourself, just for you? I grew up in catholic school so, following the odd trend, i came out with a class of agnostics and atheists, several of which seemed to hold religious beliefs in general in a small little cell of disdain with that superiority you mentioned at the start there. I never really minded and came out on the benign agnostic side of the spectrum there because I figure faith and worship helped to cultivate civilisation as much as alcohol did. It was something that got people through the day, ya know? So now that secularism is on the rise along with suicide and depression I gotta wonder if there's a link. I reckon we all need to something to believe in and in this age of individualism where we're all cast out to seek our own shit and find our own place in the world as we cultivate our personas in place like the internet, either it's gonna be faith in religion, political parties (look at how heated and fanatical people can get over politics, fanatical is a keyword here) or ourselves. There's plenty of obstacles to having that faith but once you get it, you seem to get the confidence to act and follow through on what you deem to be important. Faith is enabling. I think. I dunno, not my realm of expertise, normally i'm just sat flapping and wailing like a damaged child. oh, i should clarify that I don't give a flying fuck about if biG is real or not, what matters is the f word. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chase Posted June 2, 2017 Author Share Posted June 2, 2017 Both are very important if God is something you put your faith in - and I don't want to say having faith in ourselves is unimportant, so I'll start by expounding on it. Big G God seems to place a ton of importance and faith on us. His reasoning for creating us was to have companions to abide with, and for relationships to be built - and he trusted us - humanity - to make the decision to enter into a relationship with him ourselves. So much so that several skeptics have pointed out that humans having the ability to choose alternatives to him looks quite erroneous on his part. "Fear not, for I am with you; be not dismayed, for I am your God; I will strengthen you, I will help you, I will uphold you with my righteous right hand." - Isaiah 41:10 (ESV) To me, it's important for the believer to understand that God holds us in high regard personally, so that lends to the notion even though we have faith in the Lord - it's also important to have faith in ourselves. God invested himself for our sake, after all. On top of that, not having faith in yourself is destructive and leads to defeatism and general disappointment. ESPECIALLY for the nonbeliever, who can't place their faith in the Lord in their stead. --- That being said, I would argue that having faith in the Lord - particularly in Jesus and the Resurrection - is the most important faith a believer can have. Without Jesus, humanity does wield a rap sheet of transgressions of which they themselves would have to pay the price for. The lack of salvation turns humanity from favored sons and daughters to men and women who are lacking an adequate atonement for their crimes. If you don't believe in Jesus, believing in yourself isn't going to get you to the promised land and will be a limited, blinding run of life that is finite at best. At worst, you struggle with your faith in yourself the whole time meeting with an unsatisfactory end. Luckily for us, that is a choice we are in control of - just like choosing to be faithful in our own abilities. It's also a choice you can review arguments and evidences for, and it's also one that you can make on your own time. I truly believe that God works in this life too - so while one trusts him, there will be moments where his trust in you is visible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eviora Posted June 2, 2017 Share Posted June 2, 2017 @Chase 1. Well, what I was trying to figure out was how you would decide whether a theoretical supernatural being who approached you claiming godhood was, in fact, god or not. Alternatively, I was looking for a definition of god that could act as the starting point of discussion about whether such a being exists. Instead, I got this: " I believe God is an interpersonal being who isn't constrained by concepts such as time, space, and logic, and also is all-knowing, all-present, and all-good. " That's a lot of special properties we haven't accounted for, and one of them - not being bound by logic - is particularly problematic and quite possibly the sort of property you might get called a cultist for mentioning. Surely you realize that I can claim <Insert any being here> exists and is not constrained by logic, and that literally nothing could ever dissuade me if I sincerely believed that premise. In fact, in offering that property, you make me wonder what you think logic is. In my mind, logic is just about consistency. Are you saying your god is inconsistent? If you want to convince others - and, perhaps, yourself - that you truly seek the truth, you're going to have to come to some conclusion regarding what truth is. Without logic, each statement can be simultaneously true and false. 2. So you feel that your god spoke to you? That leaves me curious about the details surrounding that situation, but obviously, those are yours to disclose or otherwise as you wish. 3. I'm not sure the answer you gave me here was a response to the question I intended to ask. You're simultaneously telling me that your god, as creator of the universe, is essentially right about everything, but also that if he asked you to kill people you wouldn't. Why not? If your god commands you to kill, by your own logic that makes it righteous. I'm not asking you to reconcile the harmful things that occur in the Bible and Jesus as you conceptualize him. I'm asking why you, Hunter, would, in that hypothetical scenario, defy a god who you define as perfect. 4. In my understanding of reality, there are some things that are just opinions, neither inherently true nor false. Take the sentence "pizza is yummy" as an example. In other words, subjective things. If God said "XBox One is the best current-gen system, PS4 is trash", but you liked the PS4 more than the XBox One, would that make you somehow "wrong"? After all, God (indirectly) created both systems. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chase Posted June 2, 2017 Author Share Posted June 2, 2017 @Eviora 1. In my mind, something being called logical is about being reasonable. I don't think that - for example - people who are moral relativists are being unreasonable by fighting for social justice. It's absolutely something that appears to be inconsistent with the notion of being moral relativists, but as someone who believes fighting for social justice an objectionably reasonable pursuit I don't have the grounds to say they are being unreasonable. This is where I have to say that my believing God exists is a faith claim based on personal experience (which I will share a bit of!) and the fact that Jesus was indeed killed on a cross around year 33 in the first century and the body disappeared. When I defend the existence of God, I don't want to do it in a way people assume I am telling the end-all, be-all truth. That is for the individual to determine for themselves. I want to do it in a sense that God existing is merely reasonable. I cannot force people into an auditorium and beat an atheist in a debate to win people to Jesus. The Lord and the recipient are the ones dealing with any potential actual conversion. As for the objectional truth regarding God's existence, I don't think public opinion of the matter has given any indication of truth and false. I don't think either side has produced evidence that was as clear as Nixon being involved with Watergate was. When I mentioned God being beyond logic - I was aiming specifically to ensure scientific constructs didn't hold God in a box. He isn't a testable being for our convenience one way or the other. --- 2. As for me though - I wasn't an "edgelord" - but my mood was always sour during the duration of skepticism. I walked around and threw insults and picked fights with people whom I felt were uneducated and generally was a pain in the neck to anyone who tried to get close to me. Family life was defined by trying to do the best I could in school - and that being the only thing we ever talked about at the dinner table, usually in questions and taciturn, one-word answers and grunts in response. I was a nerdy kid and girls didn't go for the smart kids in middle school - unless they were trying to say mean things about you. Church life was a joke. There was this new chick who had just graduated out of college and had been hired to be our first "youth minister" in years. She seemed at the time to be really nosey and she's one of those athlete types who - while not an extrovert - was much more of one than I was. She noticed that I was exceptionally witty, yet that I was hard to reach because I preferred to be alone. She asked me what I felt about the Lord and - because I was a captive audience member - I was blunt. I felt he was some kind of story that made the older church congregation feel better about being left behind by a world they used to run. I told her the science courses I took in school seemed to offer various alternative theories to the Christian worldview and that they were certainly less pie in the sky. I told her I had issues with the way Christians act (AND I STILL DO - BUT HEY - CAN'T FIX EVERYTHING IN A DAY.) and that pain and suffering in a world with an all benevolent God seemed too good to be true. In short, I was a cynical smartass that was either talking shit, or not talking at all. Taylor believed she had someone she could reach with me though. She told me about a volunteering opportunity for a summer camp she worked out her whole life that she felt would be great for me. As a skeptic, this seemed like a miserable idea - although I do have a weakness for enjoying camp life from previous church camp experiences along with previously being a Boy Scout - so I let her pay my way in. The night before I left however, I was wrecked. As I was packing for the trip, I started mumbling to myself about how much this week was going to be awful. I was the only one going from my church - meaning I was going to be stuck in the woods with a bunch of Kum-bah-yah people I didn't know. I then began talking at a normal voice level to myself. Then I was shouting and making animal noises - and then... Someone started responding. It wasn't my family, or someone physically in my house - but some invisible being was holding me accountable for how I was carrying myself. I thought I was losing my mind - before the voice encouraged me that the trip I was going on was going to be life changing. A couple years later, I worked most of a summer there as a Camp Counselor and was more of the Hunter you are talking to now. That voice was right. I met some of my closest friends that week and by the end of it all - after sharing my pain with total strangers - God began to be totally reasonable. And active in my life. --- 3. Knowing me - I'd severely question rather a God that was telling me to kill was a perfect God. It's not just about killing though. A perfect God doesn't ask for rituals in my eyes. He asks for a relationship. If it were not for Christianity, I wouldn't be a believer in a deity at all - even if they called to me and showed me their splendor - because I take exception to a God that wants to use me as a tool and not as an associate. I also have a personal inability to actually want to kill other people. I say as such if you get me angry enough, but unless it's a matter of self defense - I'm a patsy there. --- 4. Unlike his followers (who have TOO MANY opinions) - I don't see God as an entity that operates by sharing his feelings on things. I see God disapprove of things that are functionally incorrect and act accordingly - but I don't see "whimsical" behavior from him outside of creating things - and even then there's still a purpose behind his creations. To use your XBox/PS4 console war model, I think God would dislike a console that doesn't work, and wouldn't have a preference about if he thought Microsoft or Sony had the better console. That's something I'm going to ask him when I get there though. I kinda want to know which console holds favor with the divine. I just haven't seen him act in a manner that suggest he's into ranking things by personal preference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shamitako Posted June 2, 2017 Share Posted June 2, 2017 Hey, listen! (Get it because I'm a fairy lol.) I figured I should quit lurking on this one what with how much it's like, something I actually sort of know about. But I only have ten minutes so I'm just gonna comment on a couple things 23 hours ago, Chase said: Recently, on another thread, another user charged that I wasn't my own person - and essentially equated me as another one of the ignorant cultists ascribing to the Christian Church and the Republican Party. Don't pay this any mind. People who refuse to recognize the existence of individualism in groups are the ones who actually exhibit cult-like behaviors. It's most likely just projection Also, do pay this every mind, because it's a bad idea to write off things like this as nothing. You may very well not be thinking for yourself and it never hurts to soul-search a bit 23 hours ago, Chase said: They are the older folks in the pews today. They reminisce about the good old days. They complain about the raging liberalism younger generations have prioritized and are the most likely folks to have a Jesus fish and a Trump bumper sticker on their vehicles where I'm from. "Our country has gone crazy." - TL;DR Baptists 23 hours ago, Chase said: As a youth growing up in this traditional American church setting - you ARE told to abandon your individual merits in favor of respecting your parents and elders. You are told that hymns are better than contemporary worship songs. You are told quite abrasively that you shouldn't bring your cup of coffee into the sanctuary because it distracts people from worshiping. Respect is earned. Music is opinion. And you don't bring your coffee so you don't stain the carpet 4 hours ago, Chase said: I personally believe in God because I believe I have experienced Him. My buying in happened after hearing what I truly believe was his voice and seeing the dividends of it make my life better. To not believe in God at this point is to reject experiences in my life as falsehoods - and I would be risking quality of life in turning my back on him. Ditto. except not ditto. Because I still don't really know what I believe on the matter. But there's a-somethin' that's done enough to convince me that some variation of supreme being exists On another note that I couldn't find a good quote for, I believe that an objective truth exists, but it's so impossible to find that it's simply best to look at the world as relative Also at some point remind me to make a fuss about the alt-right since I'm not sure anyone here really understands what they are Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chase Posted June 2, 2017 Author Share Posted June 2, 2017 Everyone -ought- to be fussing about the Alt-Right. These are the same people that cry foul when they see Kathy Griffin holding up a bloodied Trump head, but were guilty of hanging an effigy of Obama to a tree. The only thing Alt-Right people want is blood - not to be represented at the intellectual table. They want to spend every hour of their day making the left's lives worse - and aren't afraid of shaming more sensible conservatives in their crusade against contemporary political discourse. They are actually stupid enough to alienate vast swathes of voters because the only "targeted group" is the straight white male. It's these kind of people that make being a conservative harder than it should be. --- I wouldn't say it's just Baptists - although all "older" denominational churches have their blue-hairs who hold on to their manners and etiquette above all else - even spreading the gospel. --- I mean - self reflection is the name of the game. Thanks for tuning in, Miss. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eviora Posted June 2, 2017 Share Posted June 2, 2017 @Chase 1. Sorry, but saying logic is about being reasonable is a total cop out. xD Logic and reason are synonyms! You just beg the question: What does it mean to be reasonable? In my view, it is, again, about consistency. About using what you know to figure out more. That doesn't work when things can be simultaneously true and false. 2. Well, I try to pick apart or discredit an experience you value so much - I'm not quite that mean - but, of course, your personal experiences cannot constitute proof for me. And I will note that the you described in the beginning of the account sounds like he lacked a certain something I believe your present self has - direction. It's no surprise that we find our lives more meaningful and therefore more worthwhile when we feel what we're doing has value. It's entirely possible that, voice or not, simply feeling like you belonged was helpful to you. Of course, I'm just some crazy girl. All of that is just hypothesis! In any case, I appreciate your candor. 3. What is the difference between a ritual and a relationship made with someone who is effectively holding a gun to your head? If God is looking for a relationship, he's going about it like a sociopath. Talk to me or else. You can try to rephrase the situation however you like, but if we're talking about an omnipotent, all that boils down to semantic nonsense. If we are broken creatures, then we are only so because he made us that way. When one party has all power, they also accrue all responsibility. 4. Functionally incorrect? That's also a circular way of phrasing things. Functions are subjective. A broken console can make a good paperweight. In the end, it would just boil down to his insistence that the thing in question be used to play games instead of for some other purpose. I see nothing about the scenario to suggest there is some objective "correct" way to use that device. In reality, while you're correct that the Bible says nothing like "Thou mayest enjoy your XBox One, but any man who touches a PS4 shall be stoned to death", it does take some positions on several topics that seem oddly trivial. The "no wearing clothes containing both wool and linen" (or whatever it was) is an example of that. Other preferences seem less arbitrary only because we live in a culture that has been largely shaped by Abrahamic religions. For instance, the ban on polygamy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chase Posted June 3, 2017 Author Share Posted June 3, 2017 1. I guess if I were to specify, the goal I have as an apologist is to make the belief in a higher power - a being that as of right now in it of itself is difficult to predict, measure up, and decipher - into something that people reading along can view as sensible and not something a lunatic would espouse. In my opinion - a "reasonable" faith is one that is backed by logical conclusions about the potential existence of God rather than blindly regurgitating what a pastor said or what they read in a Christian Living book. I said previously that my experience is the "Why" I believe in God - but - as I hope you come to see - my doubts would be much stronger if there were not logical conclusions that could be made about having such a faith. And YES - I do have doubts. I don't wake up every morning hoping to be the greatest member of the faith - and many mornings I hardly come close. I also don't engage in discourse with skeptics hoping to get them to drop their unbelief in the trash can on their way out. Maybe I did in the past - and that I ...am sorry for. Strongarming or guilting anyone for exploring the faith of others and doing so with a closed mind isn't better either. It's not my place to make you believe. So - Since I got off on a tangent there - I deem logical thinking to simply applying all arguments that can be testable to decipher if something makes sense. I respectfully don't think consistency is the end-all be-all criterion as you do - but I will give you that it's a significant boon in many areas, and I do find it of value. --- 2. I'm really glad you said you were interested in hearing me out here. It would be remiss of me to withhold my testimony when it's asked for - especially because it's so personal. I don't employ my testimony to prove anything anyway. (I can IMAGINE the arrogance I'd have to fight off if telling someone MY testimony about meeting Christ was alone enough to bring someone else to Christ!) I do it because it's a part of who I am. It wouldn't be fun if I wasn't trying to be as honest as possible yeah? As for the sense of direction - you're probably absolutely right. I especially wondered if my new "purpose" was just the effects of experiencing a spiritual "high" and was nothing more than that. I didn't become who I am today overnight. Since then I've seen God move people who seemed unlikely candidates for Christ to tears. I seen the moment of salvation of others with my own eyes. I've gotten many experiences to minister personally and every single time, succeed or fail, I have been within the walls of belonging. Am I doubtless here? Moreso than most other areas at the very least. Stop calling yourself names though, yeah? Here I thought you were here to put me through the grinder, and you're here being self-deprecating. For what it's worth, Evi, I like to think of you as a friend and an interesting person. I don't think faith has much to do with that - personally anyway. --- 3. From what I remember - and I may be remiss here - but in Cool Girl's thread you addressed this "deity" as hypothetical in nature - yet in your last response you seem to be targeting a specific deity here. From my understanding - God hasn't commanded Hunter in 2017 to kill anyone, and he certainly didn't do so in 1994 when I was born either. You may be referring to the stoning passages in the Old Testament, but if my refusal to pick up a stone is something that would anger God - I guess that makes me just as bad as Christ was when he refused to stone the adulteress. I don't mean to bring up shifting covenants with God as an excuse to explain away the more controversial laws in the Torah in present-day. However, it does matter because the way Christians have operated and have differentiated from the Pharisees of the Jewish faith at the time is influenced by the Lord's new agreement with Jesus, who himself was sinless - even though he the Pharisees witnessed him not being the greatest observer of these laws. It also explains the church's purpose today. I assure you - I wouldn't be able to kill another human being, especially if a deity asked me to. Even if it were Christ himself, he would cease to be the Messiah at that point. --- 4. AHH, the Wool and Linen verse. We actually talked about that one in Biblical Backgrounds last semester. A lot of laws that are like that - are hardly a preference issue - even if they look like it at first glance. The first type of understanding that is to be drawn by an ancient Hebrew (and it goes unsaid often due to what ancient Hebrews are expected to know - making it VERY hard for a guy in 2017 to say something previously without the help of his college professor.) is that a law could have two types of meanings. 1. It could have a FUNCTIONAL meaning - essentially that there is a common sense element to the law in that time period. 2. It could have a THEOLOGICAL meaning, regarding the divine and knowledge of the divine by the Hebrew people, which also tends to go unsaid. Wool and Linen being mixed together was traditionally donned by high priests. Because of this, normal Hebrews were not permitted to wear both fabrics together because only men with holistic functions were to do so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eviora Posted June 3, 2017 Share Posted June 3, 2017 1. I'm just going to ignore the part where, after telling me logic was about being reasonable, you proceeded to tell me reasonableness was about being logical. We spin around and around and around... Te stability is all well and good, but how are you going to do that without consistency? If the tests are just random, what happened last time has no bearing on what will occur next time. it is because of consistency that we are able to test. 2. I think the probability of Jesus and C'thulhu simultaneously manifesting in front of me is higher than that of me no longer calling myself names, and I say that as a believer of neither. Especially if the name in question is "crazy" - that one is not-so-secretly a self compliment. Of course, many of the other names I use really are malicious toward myself. But Evi cannot help those. They are part of what make her Evi. 3. In Cool Girl's thread I was offering a hypothetical where your deity of choice appears before you, but yes, my last response was aimed at the Christian god, as our previous conversations have led me to believe you view him. Basically, my point was that if God wants a relationship with me, he should stop trolling me already and get to the point. I'm glad to hear you'd sooner renounce your god than kill for him. 4. I'm sure there are cultural reasons for the examples I brought up, but the existence of a subjective context in which they can be understood in no way diminishes their arbitrariness as rules of choice for a so-called perfect deity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.