Is the Resurrurredction really a historical fact, or not?

[polonius]

In Paul’s oldest and first epistle, written in 51-52 AD, he states without qualification that:

“Indeed, we tell you this, on the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord,* will surely not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16For the Lord himself, with a word of command, with the voice of an archangel and with the trumpet of God, will come down from heaven, and the dead in Christ will rise first.g17 Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together* with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. Thus we shall always be with the Lord.� 1 Thes 4:15-17

But it didn’t happen. Thus we must conclude that either Paul or the Lord were incorrect.

How much else of what Paul told us is also incorrect?

Recall, it was Paul who reported the Resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15 written about 53-57 AD.

Was his story historically correct (did it actually happen) or is it just a story that was used by and embellished by the writers of the New Testament?

Since the basis of Christian belief is the historical fact of the Resurrection, let’s examine the evidence and see if the Resurrection really happened or can an analysis of the story show that it is improbable if not impossible.

Opinions?

[Zzyzx]

.

There are many unbelievers on this site who were at one time believers. Now many of these same folk, openly admit to not using their mind when they arrived to faith. At some point they claim to have began to use their minds, and it was at this point they lost their faith. My question is, if you are the type of person who could actually believe something without thinking about it, then what makes us now believe you are thinking?

RWJ, is this to say that "type of person" determines whether a person believes without thinking (or not as the case may be)?

1) Gullible is defined as: easily deceived or tricked, and too willing to believe everything that other people say – dictionary.cambridge.org

2) naïve is defined as: having or showing unaffected simplicity of nature or absence of artificiality; unsophisticated; ingenuous. 2. having or showing a lack of experience, judgment, or information; credulous dictionary.reference.com/browse/naive

3) A person can LEARN to use judgment, discernment, critical / analytical thinking. None of us is apparently born with those abilities but MAY acquire them with maturation (or not).


When I taught at the university I saw my primary role as helping / encouraging people to develop the ability to think effectively, to "love learning", and to make reasoned decisions based on verifiable information (rather than any particular subject matter) and to NOT simply believe what they are told (even / especially by me). Perhaps a bit of that attitude is evident in these debates.

I am sorry but it seems to me many of them are not. Many of them have rejected Christianity because certain things did not occur as they thought they should have, but what they expected to happen was never a promise from Scripture.

When a person develops capacities in learning, judgment, discernment, critical / analytical thinking they may review what they had accepted in the past and decide that they had been mistaken. This does not require becoming a different "type" of person.

Of course this can lead in either / any direction regarding theism or any particular belief or ideology. However, it appears to me as though the outflow far exceeds inflow with religions during adulthood – perhaps indicating increased application of judgment, discernment, etc.

If they were not thinking as a Christian, then they certainly cannot say they understood what it taught, but now that they have rejected it, all of a sudden they are experts, on what it teaches.

Many who reject Christianity were well educated, trained, indoctrinated in the teachings of the religion – often to seminary level and beyond – as evident in http://clergyproject.org/

Well guess what? I ain't buying it, and here is a good example.

It is not uncommon for Apologists to claim that those who become Ex-Christians "didn't understand the teachings of the religion or its scriptures" (and perhaps implying "but I do").

Is that a bit presumptuous or egocentric?

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to Realworldjack]

I understand the rules of the forum, but you certainly do not have to worry about me complaining. As far as I am concerned you are free to heap all the scorn on me you wish. I will not take offense because I would much rather people not hold back and say exactly what is on their mind, in this way we do not have to wonder exactly what the other is attempting to communicate. So remember there is always private messaging which you have used with me in the past, to send what I believe most people would have considered a rather threatening message, but I did not complain or report it to the moderators because as I said, I would rather people be frank.

I am with you on the not complaining. I have never once complained about another member. A good many have been tossed anyway.

I happen to hold a position at work where I have to negotiate with others at times. This puts us all in a situation where we may have to debate certain issues. I sort of enjoy this activity because there is all types of communication going on during these meetings, and some of this communication is silent. Therefore, when I am present in these meetings I am not only listening to the words, I am also watching for the body language, different looks from people, along with tone.

There are many advantages to this format. Being able to take one's time and attempt to impart the exact meaning one intends to impart are certainly among them. Being able to read the other person's reaction to one's words is not among them. Reading body language can be a huge help. For anyone who is well spoken a face to face debate, or discussion, is certainly useful.

The point I am attempting to make here is, I would rather people be in an environment in which they are free to express themselves however they wish with out restraint, because you can certainly learn a lot about someone in this way, which will also tell you what type of person you are dealing with.

I would too. But this is not that place. I have not been able to find a site online that allows anyone to say what they are really thinking. Unfortunately, given that sort of freedom many people choose to resort to the pointless use of obscenity and simply flaming those who disagree with them, which has led to the need for moderated forums. I understand that. I do wish that I was free to label something as b******t when b******t is what I really mean however.

The author of Gospel Luke never knew Jesus personally, nor was he present for ANY part of what he is reporting in his Gospel. The author of Gospel Luke was clearly an apostle of Paul. Paul also never knew Jesus personally, nor was he present for any of the events contained in the Gospels. We have no way of verifying that Jesus said ANYTHING that was attributed to him decades after his execution by individuals who never even knew Jesus, and were not even present for any of the events they depict. And meanwhile you're trying to determine where the punctuation for the words placed into Jesus' mouth by the author of Gospel Luke should go? Doesn't this smack you as the tiniest bit useless AT ALL?

You talk about becoming frustrated on this forum at times, and I certainly understand this, because the above is extremely frustrating. I used the passage simply to demonstrate that we can only understand things to an extent, which has nothing whatsoever to do with the truth of the passage. I could have used an example that has nothing to do with the Bible like as a young child your parents may tell you something that is absolutely true. Later on as you develop you discover that it is not true, and complain to your parents, only to discover you misunderstood what was communicated to begin with. So the point was, I could read the passage in question and be convinced we all go to Paradise the moment we die, only later to discover the punctuation should have been inserted differently.

I can see why you might consider it frustrating. It happens to be completely accurate however. It does serve to completely pull the rug out from under your claims and takes you back to zero though. That is the point of course. Your claims and your beliefs are entirely constructed on assertions and assumptions that are completely unfounded. You of course would vastly prefer to simply accept your assumptions as somehow self evident and proceed to build your case from there. A case built on nothing but assertions and assumptions is no case at all however, and we here are not likely to allow you to forget it. Any of a number of other non believers beside me will happily kick your network of insupportable assumptions out from under you. You can choose to assert them all over again of course, but until or unless you can tie them to valid physical facts your attempts are pointless.

My frustration has less to do with the unrealistic claims of my debate partners (I am use to that), and more to do with the constraints of the forum itself by the way. Which I do not feel are always applied evenhandedly. But that waxes and wanes. There have been plenty of times that I felt the rules of the forum were being applied unfairly to believers. We are all opinionated humans here, and fairness is an illusive concept which has always been subject to opinion.

So then the question was, do I believe what is recorded in the Bible, and I attempt to explain that I certainly do to the extent I understand it, with an example from Scripture, and you run off on a tangent, on whether the passage I use is actually communicating a truth, which causes discussions to go off track.

If the Earth actually stopped it's rotation for about 24 hours, then that's what occurred. It's a very silly and overwhelmingly unbelievable claim however, and when it's made based on nothing more than faith alone it makes the person asserting it appear to be weak minded and foolish. That's the price one pays for their allegiance to blind faith. Believers try to wear their faith as a badge of honor, but that only works among themselves. You try to hedge your bet by saying that you don't completely understand whether or not the story is communicating a truth. But the story asserts what it asserts. It's in the book that you are necessarily required to believe on faith is the Word of God. And you're stuck with it.

Once the ball of doubt is rolling, it's difficult to stop it.

"The ball of doubt" is always rolling in my case, and not simply with Christianity. I usually doubt all things, but I am the type of person who will not let doubt rest, and I certainly could never suppress my doubts, even if I wanted to. I am the type of person who will chase doubt down, until have those doubts are resolved one way or the other, and I am not afraid of where that road my lead.

If I were to come to the conclusion that Christianity was false, I would simply sit my family, friends, pastor, etc., down, and calmly explain to them how I have arrived to my conclusion, by explaining the evidence, and facts, no emotion necessary. As I have said, I have had to do this in the past with other issues I was certain about, only later to discover I was wrong. I have no problem admitting I am wrong, which really helps me to hear all arguments.

Fair enough.

Once you no longer believe, you question why you ever once even suspected it was true.

I do not believe I will have this problem, because I certainly at this point understand what it is I believe, and why I believe it. Therefore, if my beliefs were to change, I believe I would certainly remember why I use to believe. Now I can certainly understand this happening to someone who has not put much thought into what they believe, but for someone such as myself, this will not be a problem.

Again, fair enough.

Being openly atheist in the Bible belt can be a problem.

I really do not know what you mean by being, "openly atheist?" I mean as a Christian, I am not walking around screaming to everyone, "I'M A CHRISTIAN!" I do not wear my beliefs on my sleeve, and will only speak to someone concerning my faith, if it happens to come up in conversation, and I never attempt to force it in, so I can't imagine that will change if I were to some day become atheist.

Have you ever or do you now choose to wear a crucifix? Non believers have no such symbol of their non belief because generally we are not attempting to rub our non belief in anyone else's face. Do or have you ever worn t-shits that proclaims you a Christian? Such shirts are common. Until recently I had never seen such a t-shirt proclaiming non belief. Perhaps they are becoming popular and I am unaware of it. I have never owned such a garment myself.

Minorities are commonly persecuted, and no minority in the country is more despised than atheists. Non belief is rapidly becoming mainstream however. In my state of California non belief currently stands at 28%. In the deep south however, it's below 20%. Nationwide it's at about 20% and has been climbing at a rate of 1% per year since the beginning of the century. I can testify to the relative accuracy of these figures myself. As a boy I was surrounded by deeply religious people. When I concluded that I was an atheist in about 1961, I had never met another atheist. fifty five years later, most of the people I know are ambivalent about religion at best, and I know relatively few deeply religious Christians any more. They say that what occurs in California will inevitably become true for the rest of the country. Prepare yourself for the wave.

A thinking mind can be a terrible burden to the process of blind faith.

Leaving Christianity, and atheism completely out of the equation here, a thinking mind can be a terrible burden in a world where many people do not think. There are times when I wish I could turn my mind off, and live like many others.

Amen.

At any rate, I do not believe a thinking mind could possibly have a, "blind faith." I know my mind would not allow it. So let's take the word "blind" out of the sentence to see how it reads

Like it or not, supporting the story of the Earth arresting it's rotation based on absolutely NO physical evidence requires blind faith in heaping portions.

Well, I could certainly understand how that could be true, but if you consider me to have a thinking mind then at least in my case it is not true. It seems to me, the more I think, the more convinced I become, and as I have said, being on this site has certainly challenged me to think even more deeply, and seems to have strengthened my belief.

Lets look at it this way. There are many unbelievers on this site who were at one time believers. Now many of these same folk, openly admit to not using their mind when they arrived to faith. At some point they claim to have began to use their minds, and it was at this point they lost their faith. My question is, if you are the type of person who could actually believe something without thinking about it, then what makes us now believe you are thinking?

Most of the individuals here who who once believed were like myself. It's what they were programmed to believe as children. Some took longer than others to reach the conclusion that Christian claims are bogus. Throwing off a lifetime of programming is no easy task.

I am sorry but it seems to me many of them are not. Many of them have rejected Christianity because certain things did not occur as they thought they should have, but what they expected to happen was never a promise from Scripture. If they were not thinking as a Christian, then they certainly cannot say they understood what it taught, but now that they have rejected it, all of a sudden they are experts, on what it teaches. Well guess what? I ain't buying it, and here is a good example.

There is a particular member here who dropped out of school, to go to the mission field in order to fulfill the "Great Commission," because he was convinced it was commanded in Scripture. He did this believing if he obeyed, God would supply all of his needs. Lets also remember he does all of this without using his mind, to his own admission. When things do not turn out the way in which he thought they should have, all of a sudden, he now claims he began to think. Oh really?

Yes really. That's very often the way it occurs.





These are really just to justify my claim and I don't expect you to watch them all. This is only a random sample of what's available. If you watch any of them watch the first link. Dan Barker does a remarkably good job of explaining his move from being a Christian preacher to a position of Atheism.

Well here is what he thought. Christianity is false because things did not go the way I thought they should have. It never once crossed his mind...... that just maybe I may have not read the Bible correctly.

Because you see, when Jesus gives the "Great Commission" he is speaking to the Apostles. And guess what? Later on Paul actually tells us, "the Gospel has been preached in all the world." On top of this, if we were all as Christians commanded to go to the mission fields, then why would Paul not be asking the Romans, Ephesians, etc., why they are still at home, and not on the mission fields? Why would Paul explain that we all have different talents and abilities, and that not all of us have the same gifts? You see, this is what a thinking person would begin to think about.

The point is, after thinking about it, you may come to the conclusion Christianity is false, but do not tell me you have thought about it, and have rejected it, based on something I can clearly demonstrate is not even taught.

So then, you may think it is impossible for a thinking Christian to remain on this site without having serious doubts concerning their beliefs, but behind the scenes, my mind is absorbing all of this information, and in fact strengthening what I believe.

All I know is that we have been communicating for about two years now and you have provided nothing during that time that I have not already been exposed to and already considered myself. Can you honestly say the same thing?

Oh by the way, Jesus gave no great commission at all because he wrote NOTHING at all. Frustrated? This happens to be the truth though. You have to make a whole series of assumptions to get to where you prefer to be.

[Realworldjack]

.

There are many unbelievers on this site who were at one time believers. Now many of these same folk, openly admit to not using their mind when they arrived to faith. At some point they claim to have began to use their minds, and it was at this point they lost their faith. My question is, if you are the type of person who could actually believe something without thinking about it, then what makes us now believe you are thinking?

RWJ, is this to say that "type of person" determines whether a person believes without thinking (or not as the case may be)?

1) Gullible is defined as: easily deceived or tricked, and too willing to believe everything that other people say – dictionary.cambridge.org

2) naïve is defined as: having or showing unaffected simplicity of nature or absence of artificiality; unsophisticated; ingenuous. 2. having or showing a lack of experience, judgment, or information; credulous dictionary.reference.com/browse/naive

3) A person can LEARN to use judgment, discernment, critical / analytical thinking. None of us is apparently born with those abilities but MAY acquire them with maturation (or not).


When I taught at the university I saw my primary role as helping / encouraging people to develop the ability to think effectively, to "love learning", and to make reasoned decisions based on verifiable information (rather than any particular subject matter) and to NOT simply believe what they are told (even / especially by me). Perhaps a bit of that attitude is evident in these debates.

I am sorry but it seems to me many of them are not. Many of them have rejected Christianity because certain things did not occur as they thought they should have, but what they expected to happen was never a promise from Scripture.

When a person develops capacities in learning, judgment, discernment, critical / analytical thinking they may review what they had accepted in the past and decide that they had been mistaken. This does not require becoming a different "type" of person.

Of course this can lead in either / any direction regarding theism or any particular belief or ideology. However, it appears to me as though the outflow far exceeds inflow with religions during adulthood – perhaps indicating increased application of judgment, discernment, etc.

If they were not thinking as a Christian, then they certainly cannot say they understood what it taught, but now that they have rejected it, all of a sudden they are experts, on what it teaches.

Many who reject Christianity were well educated, trained, indoctrinated in the teachings of the religion – often to seminary level and beyond – as evident in http://clergyproject.org/

Well guess what? I ain't buying it, and here is a good example.

It is not uncommon for Apologists to claim that those who become Ex-Christians "didn't understand the teachings of the religion or its scriptures" (and perhaps implying "but I do").

Is that a bit presumptuous or egocentric?

RWJ, is this to say that "type of person" determines whether a person believes without thinking (or not as the case may be)?

1) Gullible is defined as: easily deceived or tricked, and too willing to believe everything that other people say – dictionary.cambridge.org

2) naïve is defined as: having or showing unaffected simplicity of nature or absence of artificiality; unsophisticated; ingenuous. 2. having or showing a lack of experience, judgment, or information; credulous dictionary.reference.com/browse/naive

3) A person can LEARN to use judgment, discernment, critical / analytical thinking. None of us is apparently born with those abilities but MAY acquire them with maturation (or not).

Well if you will notice, I did not say, ALL rather I said MANY, and then went on to give an example. I could give numerous examples if you like, however to save space I simply gave one. At any rate, with the example I used, the person himself claimed not to have used their mind when arriving to faith. But now wants to tell us his mind is now engaged, and it is this engagement of the mind is what has allowed them to arrive at what they now believe to be the truth.

My question to you is, are you now willing to simply accept the fact their mind is now engaged? If so, is it simply because they have joined the side you prefer? You see, I went on to give reasons in detail, according to their own report why I am not so convinced the mind is still not engaged, and instead of thinking, this person is simply reacting.

Now you can call it, "gullible ,Naïve" or anything else you like, but I was simply calling it, what they themselves call it, (and I can give a number of examples) which was they themselves claim, "they were not thinking when they came to faith."

So then, the question again is, "are you attempting to defend them simply because they have now chosen the side you prefer?" Would you give the same defense to those who may have been unbelievers, who claimed to not have used the mind, but have now came to faith?

You see, I am not that naïve or gullible myself. In other words, simply because someone may claim they were not using the mind as an unbeliever, does not necessarily mean their mind is now engaged, simply because they have chosen the side I prefer.

Many who reject Christianity were well educated, trained, indoctrinated in the teachings of the religion – often to seminary level and beyond

This is certainly true. My sister has a degree in theology, among several other degrees, which means she went through extensive training to obtain this degree in theology. I simply have a high school education, and it was not until I began to read, and study Christianity, and share with her what I was learning, that she began to reject much of what she had learned in the university. Therefore, your point is well taken, I understand there are many who are well trained, but this does not necessarily indicate their mind is engaged.

It is not uncommon for Apologists to claim that those who become Ex-Christians "didn't understand the teachings of the religion or its scriptures" (and perhaps implying "but I do").

Is that a bit presumptuous or egocentric?

Again, you are correct, but I went on to give specifics. In other words, I explained exactly what the thinking was, and then went on to expound upon the clear meaning of the text of Scripture they were using. Would you like to refute that?

[Zzyzx]

.
Thanks RWJ for your reasoned reply.

RWJ, is this to say that "type of person" determines whether a person believes without thinking (or not as the case may be)?

1) Gullible is defined as: easily deceived or tricked, and too willing to believe everything that other people say – dictionary.cambridge.org

2) naïve is defined as: having or showing unaffected simplicity of nature or absence of artificiality; unsophisticated; ingenuous. 2. having or showing a lack of experience, judgment, or information; credulous dictionary.reference.com/browse/naive

3) A person can LEARN to use judgment, discernment, critical / analytical thinking. None of us is apparently born with those abilities but MAY acquire them with maturation (or not).

Well if you will notice, I did not say, ALL rather I said MANY, and then went on to give an example.

I do not question "all" or "many" but instead question reference to "type of people". That sounds like a blanket statement.

I could give numerous examples if you like, however to save space I simply gave one. At any rate, with the example I used, the person himself claimed not to have used their mind when arriving to faith. But now wants to tell us his mind is now engaged, and it is this engagement of the mind is what has allowed them to arrive at what they now believe to be the truth.

There are many examples of clergy moving away from religion at www.clergyproject.org. Whether those multiple people have their mind engaged at any point in life I do not pretend to know.

My question to you is, are you now willing to simply accept the fact their mind is now engaged?

I take no position on whether a person's mind is engaged or not.

If so, is it simply because they have joined the side you prefer?

What side do you propose that I prefer?

I prefer reasoned decisions based upon verifiable information – for myself – and suggest that as a rational approach to ANY matter. What others choose to do in that regard is none of my business.

You see, I went on to give reasons in detail, according to their own report why I am not so convinced the mind is still not engaged, and instead of thinking, this person is simply reacting.

Now you can call it, "gullible ,Naïve" or anything else you like, but I was simply calling it, what they themselves call it, (and I can give a number of examples) which was they themselves claim, "they were not thinking when they came to faith."

Notice that I did not label anything as gullible or naïve – but simply provided definitions. Anyone is free to decide for themselves when and where those definitions may apply.

So then, the question again is, "are you attempting to defend them simply because they have now chosen the side you prefer?"

I do not defend anyone. That is not my "job" or intent. If someone happens to agree with a position I have stated, fine. If not, fine. I do, however, defend everyone's right to make decisions uncoerced (meaning NOT to compelled by force, intimidation, or authority, especially without regard for individual desire or volition: AND not brought about through the use of force or other forms of compulsion).

Would you give the same defense to those who may have been unbelievers, who claimed to not have used the mind, but have now came to faith?

All people have the right to defend their own decisions (without my assistance). Whether or not I agree with their position is immaterial.

You see, I am not that naïve or gullible myself. In other words, simply because someone may claim they were not using the mind as an unbeliever, does not necessarily mean their mind is now engaged, simply because they have chosen the side I prefer.

We are in agreement – as applied in either / any direction.

Many who reject Christianity were well educated, trained, indoctrinated in the teachings of the religion – often to seminary level and beyond

This is certainly true. My sister has a degree in theology, among several other degrees, which means she went through extensive training to obtain this degree in theology. I simply have a high school education, and it was not until I began to read, and study Christianity, and share with her what I was learning, that she began to reject much of what she had learned in the university. Therefore, your point is well taken, I understand there are many who are well trained, but this does not necessarily indicate their mind is engaged.

Since (only since) you mention your sister, has her theological position changed – and from what to what if you don't mind saying?

It is not uncommon for Apologists to claim that those who become Ex-Christians "didn't understand the teachings of the religion or its scriptures" (and perhaps implying "but I do").

Is that a bit presumptuous or egocentric?

Again, you are correct, but I went on to give specifics. In other words, I explained exactly what the thinking was, and then went on to expound upon the clear meaning of the text of Scripture they were using. Would you like to refute that?

Anyone is free to give their OPINION about the meaning of the text of scripture (and opinions seem to be at least as common as belly buttons). The existence of tens of thousands of differing Christian denominations is strong evidence that scriptures can be "interpreted" however suits one's purposes or preferences.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 139 by Realworldjack]

In these meetings there is all sorts of tactics going on. In other words, there are those such as myself who simply deal with the facts, and allow the facts to determine the outcome. However, there are those who have an agenda, and will resort to tactics in order to get their way.

Ahhh facts. When it comes to your god beliefs, exactly what are your facts?

The author of Gospel Luke never knew Jesus personally, nor was he present for ANY part of what he is reporting in his Gospel.

I used the passage simply to demonstrate that we can only understand things to an extent, which has nothing whatsoever to do with the truth of the passage.

Ahhh the truth of the god beliefs.. what is the truth here? Do we know that your god beliefs are TRUE or merely wished for?

If the god beliefs aren't TRUE to an extent... then.. why hold the beliefs to that extent?

I could have used an example that has nothing to do with the Bible like as a young child your parents may tell you something that is absolutely true. Later on as you develop you discover that it is not true, and complain to your parents, only to discover you misunderstood what was communicated to begin with.

In this example you imply that what his parents told the child WAS true initially. However, by what method did he establish later that what the parents said was true.. by faith or by reason?

If he used faith, he still doesn't know if what they said was true. He only HOPED that what they said was true. If he used GOOD reasoning, he might know if what they said was really true or not. Faith is not a method to know if something is actually true or not.

So, how did you arrive at your god beliefs, using REASON and evidence or faith?

So the point was, I could read the passage in question and be convinced we all go to Paradise the moment we die, only later to discover the punctuation should have been inserted differently.

You admit to being imperfect, and that's great.

Yes, your Bible interpretations might be wrong. Now what? Why would you BELIEVE that your interpretations are correct, if you don't have a mechanism to know if they are correct or not?

Where is the final arbiter? Is there one, UBER authority, or is this a case of everyone is his own arbiter?

So then the question was, do I believe what is recorded in the Bible, and I attempt to explain that I certainly do to the extent I understand it, with an example from Scripture, and you run off on a tangent, on whether the passage I use is actually communicating a truth, which causes discussions to go off track.

But who CARES if you are discussing something you can't prove is true? You have admitted that your interpretations might not be correct? So, at best, it's 50/50 .. might as well toss a coin that listen to your ... "thinking".

I want to have a good reason to think that your beliefs are true, otherwise, I just won't believe along with you.

Can you supply one?

Once the ball of doubt is rolling, it's difficult to stop it.

"The ball of doubt" is always rolling in my case, and not simply with Christianity.

Good for you!

It's always good to doubt, otherwise we fall into confirmation bias, and that's a terrible epistemology. So, keep doubting, as that's a very healthy way to be. Certainty leads us to the kind of thinking that ISIS is famous for. Total conviction is dangerous. Religious conviction... even more dangerous. We have plenty of proof of that.

Let's DOUBT, please.

Let us know what you doubt about your Christianity. What are the aspects that you don't find convincing?

What makes you better than .. an ISIS follower ( with plenty of thinking and plenty of fervor )?

I usually doubt all things, but I am the type of person who will not let doubt rest, and I certainly could never suppress my doubts, even if I wanted to.

If you keep that up.. de-conversion might happen. Beware.

I know by way of my own personal experience and the experience of others, that doubting if done well ( critical thinking ) destroys for us what we mistook as the reliability of the faith method.

Having faith in something says noting about it's TRUTH. Nothing. So, if you apply doubt and critical thinking methods more and more, and get better at these methods, you might end up concluding that not having evidence for a god isn't a good reason to believe in one.

So, let's put faith aside, and if you will, only talk to us about your reasons for believing in a god.

I have the opinion that ALL religious belief has at it's core the faith method. So, it might not be possible for you to "put faith aside", as I ask.

Is faith at the core of your religious beliefs?

If so,

1. Why do you think that faith is a good epistemological method?

If no,

2. What are your reasons for your belief in ( the particular ) god?

I am the type of person who will chase doubt down, until have those doubts are resolved one way or the other, and I am not afraid of where that road my lead.

You will resolve all doubts..

If you use faith to resolve a doubt, then you are still just taking a blind leap. What is the METHOD ( if not faith , as I imagine ) that you propose that we should use to resolve the doubt that your god beliefs are true? ....

If I were to come to the conclusion that Christianity was false, I would simply sit my family, friends, pastor, etc., down, and calmly explain to them how I have arrived to my conclusion, by explaining the evidence, and facts, no emotion necessary. As I have said, I have had to do this in the past with other issues I was certain about, only later to discover I was wrong. I have no problem admitting I am wrong, which really helps me to hear all arguments.

But you seem to have very little doubt about your Christianity. On what evidence and facts do you form your conclusions about it's truth?

What crucial fact or reason would make you tell your pastor that you have concluded Christianity was false? What would it take to falsify your beliefs?

Once you no longer believe, you question why you ever once even suspected it was true.

Therefore, if my beliefs were to change, I believe I would certainly remember why I use to believe.

Maybe.

Some atheists I know only shake their heads as to why they every fell for that stuff. We humans are prey to religious indoctrination and bad thinking. It sometimes takes a long time for a person to learn better thinking methods and admit that there is no evidence for any of the religious beliefs he or she once held so firmly.

It's hard to get out of a religion once you are IN. That's a well known fact. The deeper you get, the harder it is to get OUT.

It seems to me that you are deep in. Is that correct? ... if so, it will be very difficult for you to get out. But step by step may still get you there... One step at a time.

Good luck with your education !

Now I can certainly understand this happening to someone who has not put much thought into what they believe, but for someone such as myself, this will not be a problem.

That's great.!

Thinking about why you believe in what you do is a very good method to learn how to get from under that indoctrination. That's pretty much how all atheists I know got out of religions.

Good thinking methods really doesn't help to keep irrational beliefs.

Being openly atheist in the Bible belt can be a problem.

I really do not know what you mean by being, "openly atheist?" I mean as a Christian, I am not walking around screaming to everyone, "I'M A CHRISTIAN!" I do not wear my beliefs on my sleeve, and will only speak to someone concerning my faith, if it happens to come up in conversation, and I never attempt to force it in, so I can't imagine that will change if I were to some day become atheist.

Just because we can't imagine something doesn't mean it's not going to happen. Just because we can imagine something doesn't mean it WILL, either. Imagination is a wonderful thing.. it's just not a very reliable way to know the truth of any proposition.

( and I dont think it can really lead us to know the future, either )

Coming out as an atheist might not be as easy as you might imagine. Atheists have COUNTLESS stories about coming out. There are many books on the subject. Some are gut wrenching. You might have heard of the phenomenon called "shunning". It happens. A LOT. ( I hope that if you do de-convert, that you do surrounded by more liberal Christians )

A thinking mind can be a terrible burden to the process of blind faith

Leaving Christianity, and atheism completely out of the equation here, a thinking mind can be a terrible burden in a world where many people do not think. There are times when I wish I could turn my mind off, and live like many others.

I would say that to the extent that you believe in something for which you have no evidence, you have turned your mind off, and are blind to that extent. Don't worry, most humans don't always think perfectly, so you are in good company. ( you're in mine, so that's great !)

Oh... if you can't turn your mind off and pretend to know like the others, it's going to be more and more difficult to keep pretending that your god exists. For an honest thinking person, pretending isn't good enough. Then what?

Why believe in something when you can't pretend that it's not real or true?

At any rate, I do not believe a thinking mind could possibly have a, "blind faith." I know my mind would not allow it. So let's take the word "blind" out of the sentence to see how it reads,

Well, I think that faith itself HAS to be blind.

We never need to just hope and pray for something that we can be certain is real. To me, faith is believing in something for which I don't have any evidence. If I HAVE evidence, then I don't need faith to know that it's true, I just go with the evidence, and leave it at that.

I do HOPE for things.. but I don't go around BELIEVING that what is hoped for is "true". It's maybe POSSIBLY true.. but that's it. Everything is at least in some small way, possibly true.

You may be binding yourself blindly to your "faith" by using your blinding "faith" in order to prove to yourself that what you have "faith" in is also true.

If you can understand the above twisted sentence, you may be on your way to de-conversion, so beware!

Pretending that you can't possibly be blinding yourself is one of the best ways to keep your faith. And faith doesn't lead to the truth.

If pretend is enough for you... ok. But it looks like pretending isn't going to work for very long if you keep thinking as well as you can about what is real and what is true.

Pretend isn't real or true, is it?

A thinking mind can be a terrible burden to the process of faith

Well, I could certainly understand how that could be true, but if you consider me to have a thinking mind then at least in my case it is not true.

You have a very good thinking mind. If your faith method isn't burdening your thinking, then perhaps you might consider that you haven't thought this out far enough.

Could you give us your best reason why you think that your god beliefs are true?

It seems to me, the more I think, the more convinced I become, and as I have said, being on this site has certainly challenged me to think even more deeply, and seems to have strengthened my belief.

Ouch. If you are using confirmation bias, then you should expect MORE of the same bias, not less. IF the more you think about something that you can't prove becomes MORE true to you, then you aren't thinking as well as you could.

How did you establish the truth of your beliefs?

Lets look at it this way. There are many unbelievers on this site who were at one time believers.

Yes, most atheists I know were at one time believers. That's how religious indoctrination works. With the kiddies. Then we grow up and learned how to think for ourselves and discovered that what we were TOLD was true... wasn't really.

Don't lie to kids ... not a good strategy for when they GROW UP to have them trust you. ISIS young people still believe in what their elders tell them on faith. Look at the disgusting results.

I hope the young ISIS thugs one day wake up from the dream that indoctrination induces. I don't think that THEY use their thinking.. and yet, I would imagine that many of them truly believe in their gods. ( sorry for the rant, but many people are dying due to faith as we speak )

I can imagine that one or two ISIS kids are thinking theists, too. It's just that they don't think about the same god you do. Good thinking?... well, if you aren't killing anyone, I would say that you think better than they do.

But all of their killing.. does that mean that their beliefs are false, that their god does not exist, and that yours does?... or does it mean that we still don't know if their god is real, and that we still don't know if yours is?

How are we to decide if:

1. Allah does not exist, as many ISIS thugs believe?
2. Yahweh or Jesus ( hard to figure out what Christians believe in, sorry, one two or three or three in one... ) does not exist... as many theists believe?

Allah MIGHT be the one true god, or not. And maybe, just maybe, some Muslims think a lot about their religious beliefs.

Alas, thinking about one's faith does not make it TRUE.

Now many of these same folk, openly admit to not using their mind when they arrived to faith.

Most atheists I know were indoctrinated very young indeed, and could NOT use reason. Most atheists I know who once believed were TOLD to obey, and believe, like good little boys and girls.

Most atheists I know who were once believers arrived at their faith by way of indoctrination. Of course, that was NOT thinking.. that was obeying and being fooled. That's the root of religion.

The veneer of apologetics that passes as "thinking" about religion is a smoke screen at best. At the core, is an irrationally held belief with no evidence OR reason.

Most apologists I know start off with the belief in some god and then go ahead making up clever rationalizations in order for the belief to appear to make sense ad hoc. However, they don't have a shred of evidence that their beliefs are based in REALITY. In fact, most of them go out of their way to invent a SUPER reality that nobody can go check.

In other words, all we have from the "thinking" apologists is... salesmanship, rhetoric, but not a shred of real proof or real evidence.

Some of the "best" evidence I have heard for Christianity being true is the EMPTY TOMB.. as if that was any kind of evidence at all.. what tomb?.... LOL. Amazing.

A skeptic first hears about the "Empty tomb" apologetic:

Apologist: Do you see this tomb?
Skeptic : ... No. What tomb?
Apologist : Well.. in the story about the tomb, it's said to be have been empty.
Skeptic : ... So?
Apologist: Well.. the story about what we don't see in a tomb that we don't know exists is the best evidence that something we read about Jesus is real.

Skeptic : ...... huhhh ???... The BEST evidence?.....

At some point they claim to have began to use their minds, and it was at this point they lost their faith.

IN oh so many cases, this is a long and difficult process.. there are a lot of pressures to STAY in the faith. but if someone reports to me that he once used to believe X without questioning it's reality, then one day decided to TEST that hypothesis and stopped believing due to a LACK of evidence for it's existence, then I would say that the person has DEMONSTRATED good thinking, and not just claimed to be thinking well.

And since the faith method has been promoted so highly, first off, the devout believer has to LEARN how to think better. It's all very difficult to get out.

My question is, if you are the type of person who could actually believe something without thinking about it, then what makes us now believe you are thinking?

Good question.

Children are the type of people who believe things without thinking about them. Most people start off being children, and most children start off in religious families.

But yeah, most children believe what they are told to believe. Until the children learn to think for themselves, and using better methods.

Unfortunately, thinking about something does not mean thinking well. ALL people are prone to bad thinking. Most people are born into some kind of religion that uses BAD thinking and promotes faith as an epistemological method.

Some atheists might just stop believing FOR BAD REASONS... so, your question is great. We should NEVER believe something for bad reasons. So, yes, you are quite right.

Let's examine our thinking methods and our evidence. Atheists are NOT immune to poor thinking. Put us to the test.

I have spotted many thinking errors on your part. I hope that you take note.

I am sorry but it seems to me many of them are not.

Alas!, atheists are human.

Many of them are not good thinkers, and that's why you should put them to the test. It's better for everyone if we get to think better about EVERYTHING.

In here, I challenge theists' thinking over and over again. Sometimes, I learn that I was wrong about something, due to poor thinking. I strive to think as well as I can.. but that's limited.

So, challenge away !

Let's learn what the best thinking method is, how to use it, how to apply it as to religious matters. That's why I'm in a debate forum.

I want to learn.

Many of them have rejected Christianity because certain things did not occur as they thought they should have, but what they expected to happen was never a promise from Scripture.

Like prayer making wishes come true? Ok.. wishes don't come true.. by praying. I'm fine with that. So, I wonder what you imagine those atheist expected to happen that didn't happen?

I for one gave up praying for things when I was very young. We were poor. God was not going to change that for me. I had to grow up, get a job and then stop being poor. I wonder what these atheists told you?

But how about we only talk about what we KNOW is true?.. speculation about how some ex believers believed and what they believed is all nice.. but... we should drop the pretend and go to the real.

How did YOU arrive at your god beliefs?

If they were not thinking as a Christian, then they certainly cannot say they understood what it taught, but now that they have rejected it, all of a sudden they are experts, on what it teaches. Well guess what? I ain't buying it, and here is a good example.

Not thinking as a Christian. So, only THINKING Christians are true Christians.. or... Christian children were not true Christians.. but... FAKE Christians from the start?

What do you mean by "not thinking as a Christian"? .. do you mean that there is only one way to think as a Christian, and that your way is the only correct way?

So, only perfect Christians ( are you perfect? ) can be Christians? ...

A lot of imperfect Christians have a lot of faith that their kind of Christianity is the true Christianity and might not agree with YOUR kind of thinking Christianity.

A lot of THINKING Christians might not agree with your kind of thinking about Christianity, as they might be wrong as you might be wrong, even THOUGH both of you think about comas in passages and so forth. In fact, two thinking Christians, unless they are PERFECT thinkers might be thinking WRONG. .. so how do we know if someone is thinking right or thinking wrong?

How should we come to the conclusion that your thinking is correct when it comes to anything.. ? By what method would we know that you are correct about anything?

By way of faith, or by way of evidence?

A lot of non-thinking Christians have a whole lot of faith and not much more. Even some Christians who can't read or don't read have a lot of conviction that their beliefs are true.

But "believed in" does not imply "true".

There is a particular member here who dropped out of school, to go to the mission field in order to fulfill the "Great Commission," because he was convinced it was commanded in Scripture. He did this believing if he obeyed, God would supply all of his needs. Lets also remember he does all of this without using his mind, to his own admission. When things do not turn out the way in which he thought they should have, all of a sudden, he now claims he began to think. Oh really?

Maybe that's what caused him to pick up a book on epistemology. Who knows? But you can be skeptical. It's really good to doubt. We should always demand evidence for any claim.

Well here is what he thought. Christianity is false because things did not go the way I thought they should have. It never once crossed his mind...... that just maybe I may have not read the Bible correctly.

Oh... that's just an error on your part, he MAY not have read the Bible correctly. This above is an example of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. You seem to be implying that NO true Scotsman can interpret the Bible in a way that leads to a conclusion that it's not true.

You also MAY not have read the Bible correctly.
And the Bible may not be correct, itself.

So, in this story, your friend wasn't reading the bible the CORRECT way, but you know the CORRECT way. .. well, now you have a problem here.

You now have to demonstrate that YOUR way is correct, and that HIS was wrong. I don't think you can demonstrate that, and so, you have wasted your time imagining he might have interpreted something wrongly.

YOU might be interpreting things very wrongly, and HE was better at it, so THAT'S why he stopped believing. Have you considered the possibility that YOU aren't the perfect interpreter of the Bible?

You are a good thinker in general, but in this case, your thinking is not so good.

Because you see, when Jesus gives the "Great Commission" he is speaking to the Apostles. ...You see, this is what a thinking person would begin to think about.

Your interpretation is nice.

Your missionaries friend, the one who was ACTUALLY being a missionary also probably had a nice interpretation. Maybe one day, we will hear from your missionary friend and ask him all about his interpretations, and then we will be able to COMPARE the two of them.

As it stands, we don't have a good reason to think that your interpretation is correct, or that HIS was wrong. So... I call that a very bad example for your position.

And this is a classic straw man argument, too. Talk about the poor missionary who didn't think as well as you do. Wow. Well, you didn't prove that you think better than the guy in your story. You just made a claim that you do.

Nobody right now takes you as their "go to " Biblical scholar. Claiming to have correct interpretation compared to the thinking of a guy in a story isn't as impressive as you might imagine it is.

The point is, after thinking about it, you may come to the conclusion Christianity is false, but do not tell me you have thought about it, and have rejected it, based on something I can clearly demonstrate is not even taught.

I don't think you have clearly demonstrated much yet. But, we can all of us hope that you may in the future. But again, just because something is TAUGHT, even IF everyone agreed with your interpretation about that.. doesn't mean that it's also TRUE in any way. Who wants to be taught something wrong?

Yes, you can imagine such a scenario. Such a scenario is possible. However, the opposite is ALSO possible, so ... I have to ask what your scenario PROVES?

I say it proves absolutely nothing about your conclusion about Christianity. It does prove that you haven't used the best kind of reasoning in this example.

I can elaborate if needed, as this seems to be a very convincing example to you. You are just wrong. Yes, your friend might be interpreting the Bible wrong. .. But so might you be, and you BOTH might be.

These facts still do not prove that the Bible is TRUE in any way, so who CARES who is "right or wrong" in this scenario ?

Prove that the Bible beliefs are true and THEN we should care. And then, we STILL have to surmount the task of finding out what personal, subjective interpretation is more VALID and sound than any other.

You want us to take you as the Biblical authority above all others. I don't know why we should. I dont think you have given us a good reason to do so.

Let's say you have your opinions about the bible you call facts.

Do you BELIEVE that there is a god like in the Bible, yes or no, and on what facts do you base this belief on?

So then, you may think it is impossible for a thinking Christian to remain on this site without having serious doubts concerning their beliefs, but behind the scenes, my mind is absorbing all of this information, and in fact strengthening what I believe.

We are well aware that many people are very closed minded when it comes to their religious convictions. Confirmation bias is astoundingly common.

We have to go beyond merely confirming our biases.

There are a few biases that I really can't get rid of, however, and I will state one to see if you also have it.

I have the bias that the universe is real.
I would further add that I have the bias that other people exist.
And, might as well throw in the bias that I exist, too.

I wonder if you can agree with those three biases?

[Realworldjack]

Thanks RWJ for your reasoned reply.

RWJ, is this to say that "type of person" determines whether a person believes without thinking (or not as the case may be)?

1) Gullible is defined as: easily deceived or tricked, and too willing to believe everything that other people say – dictionary.cambridge.org

2) naïve is defined as: having or showing unaffected simplicity of nature or absence of artificiality; unsophisticated; ingenuous. 2. having or showing a lack of experience, judgment, or information; credulous dictionary.reference.com/browse/naive

3) A person can LEARN to use judgment, discernment, critical / analytical thinking. None of us is apparently born with those abilities but MAY acquire them with maturation (or not).

Well if you will notice, I did not say, ALL rather I said MANY, and then went on to give an example.

I do not question "all" or "many" but instead question reference to "type of people". That sounds like a blanket statement.

I could give numerous examples if you like, however to save space I simply gave one. At any rate, with the example I used, the person himself claimed not to have used their mind when arriving to faith. But now wants to tell us his mind is now engaged, and it is this engagement of the mind is what has allowed them to arrive at what they now believe to be the truth.

There are many examples of clergy moving away from religion at www.clergyproject.org. Whether those multiple people have their mind engaged at any point in life I do not pretend to know.

My question to you is, are you now willing to simply accept the fact their mind is now engaged?

I take no position on whether a person's mind is engaged or not.

If so, is it simply because they have joined the side you prefer?

What side do you propose that I prefer?

I prefer reasoned decisions based upon verifiable information – for myself – and suggest that as a rational approach to ANY matter. What others choose to do in that regard is none of my business.

You see, I went on to give reasons in detail, according to their own report why I am not so convinced the mind is still not engaged, and instead of thinking, this person is simply reacting.

Now you can call it, "gullible ,Naïve" or anything else you like, but I was simply calling it, what they themselves call it, (and I can give a number of examples) which was they themselves claim, "they were not thinking when they came to faith."

Notice that I did not label anything as gullible or naïve – but simply provided definitions. Anyone is free to decide for themselves when and where those definitions may apply.

So then, the question again is, "are you attempting to defend them simply because they have now chosen the side you prefer?"

I do not defend anyone. That is not my "job" or intent. If someone happens to agree with a position I have stated, fine. If not, fine. I do, however, defend everyone's right to make decisions uncoerced (meaning NOT to compelled by force, intimidation, or authority, especially without regard for individual desire or volition: AND not brought about through the use of force or other forms of compulsion).

Would you give the same defense to those who may have been unbelievers, who claimed to not have used the mind, but have now came to faith?

All people have the right to defend their own decisions (without my assistance). Whether or not I agree with their position is immaterial.

You see, I am not that naïve or gullible myself. In other words, simply because someone may claim they were not using the mind as an unbeliever, does not necessarily mean their mind is now engaged, simply because they have chosen the side I prefer.

We are in agreement – as applied in either / any direction.

Many who reject Christianity were well educated, trained, indoctrinated in the teachings of the religion – often to seminary level and beyond

This is certainly true. My sister has a degree in theology, among several other degrees, which means she went through extensive training to obtain this degree in theology. I simply have a high school education, and it was not until I began to read, and study Christianity, and share with her what I was learning, that she began to reject much of what she had learned in the university. Therefore, your point is well taken, I understand there are many who are well trained, but this does not necessarily indicate their mind is engaged.

Since (only since) you mention your sister, has her theological position changed – and from what to what if you don't mind saying?

It is not uncommon for Apologists to claim that those who become Ex-Christians "didn't understand the teachings of the religion or its scriptures" (and perhaps implying "but I do").

Is that a bit presumptuous or egocentric?

Again, you are correct, but I went on to give specifics. In other words, I explained exactly what the thinking was, and then went on to expound upon the clear meaning of the text of Scripture they were using. Would you like to refute that?

Anyone is free to give their OPINION about the meaning of the text of scripture (and opinions seem to be at least as common as belly buttons). The existence of tens of thousands of differing Christian denominations is strong evidence that scriptures can be "interpreted" however suits one's purposes or preferences.

I do not question "all" or "many" but instead question reference to "type of people". That sounds like a blanket statement.
.

The "type" of people I am referring to is the people who have openly admitted to making a decision to become a Christian, which I think we can agree is a major life decision, without really thinking about it. Again, allow me to stress these people are the ones who claim they made this sort of decision without thinking. This is the "type" of people I am referring to. Now the word, "type" may not have been the best choice of words, but it was not meant to be a blanket statement, on top of the fact, I consciously inserted the word, "many" to ensure this could not be said.

There are many examples of clergy moving away from religion at www.clergyproject.org. Whether those multiple people have their mind engaged at any point in life I do not pretend to know.

I do not, and have not pretended to know who has their mind engaged. Rather what I have done is use their own description, which was they openly admitted to not using their mind, when arriving to faith. Am I wrong for taking their word for it?

I take no position on whether a person's mind is engaged or not.

Again, I am not the one accusing them of not engaging the mind. They themselves admit to it, and their argument now is "since my mind is now engaged, I have rejected what I once believed." So are you suggesting I am wrong for questioning someone who claims to make such an important life decision without thinking, as to whether they are really thinking now, especially after I demonstrate that the reasons they claim to have rejected it was never taught in Scripture to begin with? If I have not absolutely demonstrated it, I have at the very least given solid reasons why this teaching should be questioned.

The point is, are you suggesting we should simply take their word that they were not thinking to come to faith, and when they begin to think, this thinking is the reason for their rejection, and point to this as evidence? Well again, I'm sorry, but I ain't buying it.

Since (only since) you mention your sister, has her theological position changed – and from what to what if you don't mind saying?

Yes, my sister's theological position has changed big time. As far as "from what to what" it would take up far too much space. However, just to give you an example, she has gone from a decision based theology, to more of a covenant based. She has also changed from a relational view to again, a covenant view. I will also say, it is her understanding at this point that her salvation does not depend on her, or her performance, by rather on what God has done. I guess the best way to describe her theology at this point would be, reformed, but reformed carries with it some baggage that would not fit into her theology.

Anyone is free to give their OPINION about the meaning of the text of scripture (and opinions seem to be at least as common as belly buttons). The existence of tens of thousands of differing Christian denominations is strong evidence that scriptures can be "interpreted" however suits one's purposes or preferences.

Right! But if I remember correctly, you have stated that you have been involved in real estate transactions, which means there are contracts, and other legalities involved. Now I would be willing to wager that you would not allow someone to interpret these contracts, and other legalities with simply their opinions, and if the way in which they were interpreting this language were to cost you more than you bargained on, you would object, and insist they stick to the intent, and meaning of the language. Why? Because you are perfectly able to read, and understand language, and intent, and you would not allow someone to twist this meaning in order to take advantage of you.

With this being the case, it seems sort of strange, and also convenient, that you seem to think the language in the Bible is obscure, and allow anyone to suggest any meaning they like. While there may be somethings in the Bible that is more difficult to understand than others, the overwhelming majority of it is plain language, and should be read as any other form of written communication. Lets look at an example.

There are Christians who claim we are commanded, "to go in all the would, and preach the Gospel" because Jesus gave this command to the Apostles. But would they read any other conversation in this way? In one of the letters attributed to Paul, that is addressed to Timothy, Paul says,

9 Do your best to come to me quickly, 10 for Demas, because he loved this world, has deserted me and has gone to Thessalonica. Crescens has gone to Galatia, and Titus to Dalmatia. 11 Only Luke is with me. Get Mark and bring him with you, because he is helpful to me in my ministry. 12 I sent Tychicus to Ephesus. 13 When you come, bring the cloak that I left with Carpus at Troas, and my scrolls, especially the parchments.

Now do you see any Christians attempting to "get Mark" and bring him to Paul? Do you see any of them retrieving Paul's cloak from Carpus, along with the scrolls, and taking them to Paul? You do not, and why? Because they clearly understand this letter was addressed to Timothy, and these things to do not apply to them, but when Jesus is speaking directly to the Apostles, somehow we have trouble understanding who He was speaking to, on top of the fact Paul later says, "the Gospel has been preached in all the world" which would clearly seem to mean, this mission was accomplished, and add to this the fact that Paul never in any of his letters questions his readers, why they are not out in all the world preaching the Gospel, and also the fact that Paul clearly tells us, we do not all have the same gifts or talents.

So you are right, anyone can read anything they like into the Scripture, but it is not difficult at all to see they are simply reading into it what they wish, and also that their interpretation goes against the clear meaning of the language, and good old common sense.

[Zzyzx]

.

The "type" of people I am referring to is the people who have openly admitted to making a decision to become a Christian, which I think we can agree is a major life decision, without really thinking about it. Again, allow me to stress these people are the ones who claim they made this sort of decision without thinking.

Realistically, RWJ, don't most (or "many" to be safe) people become Christian (or adherents of other religion) when they are children – before they are capable of really thinking through the decision?

Don't people tend to LACK well developed judgment, discernment, thinking ability during their childhood and teen years? Don't most people become Christians during those times of their lives?

This is the "type" of people I am referring to. Now the word, "type" may not have been the best choice of words, but it was not meant to be a blanket statement, on top of the fact, I consciously inserted the word, "many" to ensure this could not be said.

Thus, that "type" of person includes those who chose their religion (or had it chosen for them) during childhood or teen years.

There are many examples of clergy moving away from religion at www.clergyproject.org. Whether those multiple people have their mind engaged at any point in life I do not pretend to know.

I do not, and have not pretended to know who has their mind engaged. Rather what I have done is use their own description, which was they openly admitted to not using their mind, when arriving to faith. Am I wrong for taking their word for it?

I would not fault taking someone's word for whether they were "thinking" or not when adopting a religion (particularly with consideration of the childhood issue above). Likewise, it seems reasonable to accept someone's word about their state of "thinking" when rejecting the religion – or vice versa on the whole matter.

I take no position on whether a person's mind is engaged or not.

Again, I am not the one accusing them of not engaging the mind. They themselves admit to it, and their argument now is "since my mind is now engaged, I have rejected what I once believed."

Are you speaking about all, most, many or some of the people who post in The Clergy Project when commenting on when or whether one is "thinking"?

So are you suggesting I am wrong for questioning someone who claims to make such an important life decision without thinking, as to whether they are really thinking now,

Is this representative of those whose experiences are relayed in the Project – or select examples?

especially after I demonstrate that the reasons they claim to have rejected it was never taught in Scripture to begin with? If I have not absolutely demonstrated it, I have at the very least given solid reasons why this teaching should be questioned.

Whose opinion about what is taught in scripture is authoritative – the RCC, Eastern Orthodox, Episcopal, Calvinist, Presbyterian, JW, LDS (or FLDS), Baptist, etc?

The point is, are you suggesting we should simply take their word that they were not thinking to come to faith, and when they begin to think, this thinking is the reason for their rejection, and point to this as evidence? Well again, I'm sorry, but I ain't buying it.

What alternative is suggested regarding a person's own description of their entry and exit from religion? Who knows better than, or more than, or more accurately than the person involved?

Is their some great conspiracy among preachers who have left the priesthood and/or the religion to misinform people about the life decisions they have made? Is this part of the fabled "persecution of Christianity / Christians"?

Anyone is free to give their OPINION about the meaning of the text of scripture (and opinions seem to be at least as common as belly buttons). The existence of tens of thousands of differing Christian denominations is strong evidence that scriptures can be "interpreted" however suits one's purposes or preferences.

Right! But if I remember correctly, you have stated that you have been involved in real estate transactions, which means there are contracts, and other legalities involved. Now I would be willing to wager that you would not allow someone to interpret these contracts, and other legalities with simply their opinions, and if the way in which they were interpreting this language were to cost you more than you bargained on, you would object, and insist they stick to the intent, and meaning of the language. Why? Because you are perfectly able to read, and understand language, and intent, and you would not allow someone to twist this meaning in order to take advantage of you.

When involved in real estate transactions I am always represented by an attorney (or attorneys) expert in real estate law and contracts – people I have worked with for years and whose abilities and judgment I have learned to trust. Additionally, if they make mistakes their "errors and omissions insurance" covers financial losses.

How does that relate to internecine warfare in Christendom concerning the meaning of scriptures?

With this being the case, it seems sort of strange, and also convenient, that you seem to think the language in the Bible is obscure, and allow anyone to suggest any meaning they like.

I have no control over anyone else's "interpretation" of documents, including those related to real estate as well as those related to religion.

While there may be somethings in the Bible that is more difficult to understand than others, the overwhelming majority of it is plain language, and should be read as any other form of written communication.

I read written communication as though it says what it means and means what it says – in plain English. That does not indicate that I accept what it says as truthful and accurate – and does not mean that the written communication is (or is not) easy to understand.

If the Bible communication actually was "overwhelming majority of it is plain language", WHY are there tens of thousands of different Christian denominations, sects, groups that disagree (often greatly and adamantly) about the "meaning of scripture?"

Lets look at an example.

Let's look at a different example that is being discussed in current threads, is more familiar to me, and seems more clear-cut.

Matthew 17:20 He replied, "Because you have so little faith. Truly I tell you, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you."

Matthew 21:21 Jesus replied, "Truly I tell you, if you have faith and do not doubt, not only can you do what was done to the fig tree, but also you can say to this mountain, 'Go, throw yourself into the sea,' and it will be done.

Notice "it will move", "throw yourself". Neither of those imply that "you" (generic) do anything. The mountain will "move" and "throw itself". Does either occur in the real world?

Also notice "nothing will be impossible for you" – and reflect upon what is not possible for a person to do.

A Christian argues that "faith can move mountains". Is that an example of the Bible being clear in its meaning? Is it hyperbole? Is it some other literary device?

Shall we accept the scripture claim that faith can cause mountains to hurl themselves into the sea?

So you are right, anyone can read anything they like into the Scripture, but it is not difficult at all to see they are simply reading into it what they wish,

Exactly. It is not difficult to see that everyone is reading what they like into scripture. The exception would be an exact literal reading using common / standard use definitions of English words (and not reverting to "translation errors" or "the original language means . . . ", etc – and certainly not "a day can mean a thousand years" or "this generation can mean a hundred generations later". Right?

and also that their interpretation goes against the clear meaning of the language, and good old common sense.

A good deal of debate here involves Bible Apologists changing the meaning of words in scripture – and saying "This is what it REALLY means" (often quite different from what is actually written). Can faith cause mountains to hurl themselves into the sea?


If two, three or a thousand Christians disagree about the "clear meaning of the language, and good old common sense", which one is right? Who is given authority to decide? Doesn't the disagreement indicate that the meaning of scripture is NOT clear and a matter of common sense?

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 146 by Zzyzx]

Realistically, RWJ, don't most (or "many" to be safe) people become Christian (or adherents of other religion) when they are children – before they are capable of really thinking through the decision?

You are correct, which was true of me as well, however when I became of age, around the age of 19 I simply drifted away from Church because I realized at the time I had not really given it that much thought, and at the time did not really care to do so. With this being the case, I did not want to continue to act as though I believed something I was not totally convinced of.

It was not until I began to have children that I really began to think about it again, and the only reason I did at this point is because I knew my children would be exposed to Christianity, and I wanted to give them an answer one way or the other. This is when I dove in and began to study it in depth.

From the start I knew I would give my children one of three answers.

1. I have studied the Christian faith, and I cannot determine if it is true or not, but here is what I have learned thus far.

2. I have studied the Christian faith, and I am convinced it is false, and here are the reasons why.

3. I have studied the Christian faith, and I am convinced of it's truthfulness and here are the reasons why.

The point is, carrying beliefs into adulthood, without really thinking about them, or being absolutely convinced, is not an excuse. As I said, when I became of age, it did not take a whole lot of thinking to understand, I had no idea if what I was taught as a child was in fact true. Moreover, it did not take a whole lot of thinking to determine that I did not want to live as if I was convinced of something I was not sure of. So again, if there are people who can, I really do not see how they can be excused.

Are you speaking about all, most, many or some of the people who post in The Clergy Project when commenting on when or whether one is "thinking"?

I was not speaking at all about those from "The Clergy Project" because I have just received the link and have only read one example thus far, and we will get to that in a moment, rather I was speaking of the several, I have read right here on this site, and everyone of them admit, "to not engaging the mind."

Now, as I said I have only had time to read one of the stories concerning, "The Clergy Project" and I am certainly glad to hear there is a place these people can go to receive support.

The story I have read is certainly a sad story, but I will have to say it is comical as well. Without going into the story in detail, the writer talks of how beliefs should be built on the facts, and not the subjective. After he explains his story, one of the final things he says is, "I am now at peace." As if this has anything whatsoever to do with determining truth. So much for the objective, over the subjective! If I said I was at peace as a Christian, how far would that go here in this forum. Not very far at all, and it shouldn't! On top of this, there is a passage in the Bible that describes the struggle that Jacob had with God. After hearing this passage expounded at one time, I determined that I would struggle for the rest of my life. Without going into detail, if Christianity is true, then looking for peace here in this life, may not be a good thing. At any rate the point again is, our emotional feelings, (including peace) should not enter the equation.

Whose opinion about what is taught in scripture is authoritative – the RCC, Eastern Orthodox, Episcopal, Calvinist, Presbyterian, JW, LDS (or FLDS), Baptist, etc?

We have had this very same discussion in detail on more than one occasion, and I believe I demonstrated how skewed the numbers were, and as far as I can remember you have failed to respond to it, which makes it frustrating for you continue to bring it up without responding to the points I have brought up in the past. In fact your list above demonstrates my point some what in that a Calvinist, and a Presbyterian would be the exact same thing! Therefore, I am unwilling to continue to say the same things over, and over.

What alternative is suggested regarding a person's own description of their entry and exit from religion? Who knows better than, or more than, or more accurately than the person involved?

Well how bout we examine their stories to see if there are any inconsistency in what they have to say, or if there may be some things they claim that Christianity teaches that it does not teach as I have done on more than one occasion. If they are claiming that Christianity teaches something that I can either clearly refute, or at the very least cast serious doubt upon, (which I have and will do again in just a moment addressing your comment below) or if they claim something like, "the facts are all that matter" and then end as our friend in "The Clergy Project" by saying "they are now at peace" then I believe it is legitimate to question if they are in fact now using their mind. It is one thing to claim they are not, it is another to question if they are not, and go on to give reasons, why it seems they are thinking no better than in the past. This is what I thought a debate forum was all about.

A Christian argues that "faith can move mountains". Is that an example of the Bible being clear in its meaning? Is it hyperbole? Is it some other literary device?

This is quite comical because I guarantee you, that you have no problem understanding when to take something literally or not, in any other written communication, but somehow, because it is the Bible, we have difficulty. Even in the Bible you do not always have this trouble, and an example would be when Jesus says, "I am the door." Certainly you do not take Jesus to mean He is a literal door, right? So let us look more closely at this passage to see if we can determine it's actual meaning.

It seems certainly convenient that you decide to begin in verse 20, because this leaves the context of this passage completely out. If you were to go all the way back to verse 14, and begin there, you would see that a man had come up to Jesus, and asked that Jesus, "heal his son." This man goes on to tell Jesus, "His disciples could not heal his son," and it is at this point Jesus is said to have healed the son.

Immediately after this the text tells us plainly, and clearly,

Then the disciples came to Jesus in PRIVATE

This is an extremely important part of the text, because it plainly tells us we are now overhearing a conversation between two parties. Therefore, what is said in this conversation does not apply to all people throughout all times. You would not do this with any other written material, when reading a conversation between two parties, so why would you do it simply because it is the Bible? As we move on in the text, it goes on to tell us the Apostles ask Jesus,

“Why couldn’t we drive it out?�

Well guess what, I did not witness Jesus, heal this boy, and I never attempted to heal this boy myself, so I am not part of the party who asked, "why we could not heal the boy." This means, the answer does not apply to me, rather it applies only to those who asked the question.

This is the point in which Jesus begins to tell the Apostles, they could not heal the boy, “Because you have so little faith." He then goes on to tell them,

Truly I tell you, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you.�

So then, when Jesus says, "I tell you" who is the "YOU" he is referring too? It is clearly the ones he is speaking to in, "PRIVATE." This means that Jesus is in no way saying, "everyone, everywhere with faith can move mountains." He is also not telling the Apostles, that they will, or should use their faith to move mountains. Rather, let's remember He is explaining to them why they could not, "heal the boy." Let's also remember He has told them, "it is because you have so little faith." This is when he explains to them that it would not take very much faith at all, to move a mountain, which if true, would go on to demonstrate how weak their faith was, in not being able to heal the boy.

So, as you can plainly see, Jesus is in no way telling the Apostles, "they should, or would move mountains with their faith." Since this is a private conversation between Jesus, and his future Apostles, this means what is said applies only to the Apostles. The plain meaning from Jesus here is, "it does not take much faith to move a mountain, which demonstrates the reason "you" (Apostles) could not heal the boy, is because, "your" (Apostles) faith is weak.

The Apostles, are the ones Jesus left in His stead, with His authority after His Assent into Heaven. We have record of these Apostles, doing mighty works after the departure of Jesus. In fact, the author of Acts seems to be extremely careful to distinguish between what the Apostles were doing, as opposed to the everyday ordinary believer.

Acts 2:42-43
They, (ORDINARY BELIEVER) devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. 43 Everyone was filled with awe at the many wonders and signs performed by the apostles.

Over the next few chapters, the author says this very same thing, clearly making a distinction between what the ordinary believer was doing, as opposed to the Apostles, and the main distinction was the Apostles were the only ones performing the mighty works. Again allow me to stress, the author of Acts is careful to stress on more than one occasion, what the ordinary believer was doing, as opposed to the Apostles, and the only ones recorded to have performed miraculous works, (healings, raising the dead, etc.) were the Apostles, or someone the Apostles commissioned by the laying on of hands. Even the author of Acts himself claims to have witness some of these miraculous events, but never records that he participated in performing any of them himself.

So then, as we examine the passage you cite, and compare it to what is recorded else where in the Bible, we can clearly see, the Apostles, and, or someone the Apostles laid hands on, were the only ones that performed mighty works, while the ordinary believer was simply following the Apostles teaching. If the ordinary believer during the Apostolic age were not performing miraculous works, then what would make us think we as Christians today would be performing miraculous works? With this being the case, we should be able to easily determine in the passage you cite, that the conversation was between, Jesus and His future Apostles, and it does not apply to us today.

Now, are you still willing to allow anyone to interpret the Bible in any way they wish? Sure you are, because it allows you to continue to say, the Bible is difficult to understand, therefore any ones interpretation is as good as the next. However, as we have seen above, when the contents of the Bible is read taking into consideration the whole of the context, and comparing what is said to other portions in the Bible, it is not difficult to understand, and the only way to misinterpret it, is to be lazy, and willfully ignore, sound exegesis.

A good deal of debate here involves Bible Apologists changing the meaning of words in scripture – and saying "This is what it REALLY means" (often quite different from what is actually written). Can faith cause mountains to hurl themselves into the sea?


If two, three or a thousand Christians disagree about the "clear meaning of the language, and good old common sense", which one is right? Who is given authority to decide? Doesn't the disagreement indicate that the meaning of scripture is NOT clear and a matter of common sense?

Well, allow me to ask you, in my explanation of the text above, did I change the meaning of the words? And does the above not clearly demonstrate their is a sound way to interpret what is said, and most of it involves the use of, "good old common sense?" The same common sense we use to interpret any other form of communication?

In the end, this whole thing is a major cop out. We all here on this site believe it is possible to read, and interpret written communication, otherwise we are all wasting our time. If we believe we can communicate in this way, then there is no reason we cannot understand the contents of the Bible, unless we are lazy readers, and simply do not wish to understand.

[KenRU]

In the end, this whole thing is a major cop out. We all here on this site believe it is possible to read, and interpret written communication, otherwise we are all wasting our time. If we believe we can communicate in this way, then there is no reason we cannot understand the contents of the Bible, unless we are lazy readers, and simply do not wish to understand.

It is a cop out to say the bible can have varying and often contradictory interpretations?

How do you account for the hundreds if not thousands of different sects of Christianity?

Some believe the flood to be a literal event, to others it is a parable. Which interpretation is lazy?

Jesus was said to return within a lifetime. But who's? His contemporaries or is this a figurative timeframe? Which interpretation is lazy?

And that is just for starters. Once we get into interpreting which translation is more accurate (or less) it gets even more complicated.

Heck, one can get many different interpretations when reading Hamlet and Shakespeare was trying to write for the masses to understand. You'd think a omniscient and omnipotent deity might have done a better job and foreseen this problem, making the book a little more clear.

I don't wish to speak for Z, but it baffles me how anyone could say the bible can be commonly understood unless we are lazy.

-all the best

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 147 by Realworldjack]

I'm going to give my view on this part of the exchange between Z and RWJ

Zzyzx wrote:
A Christian argues that "faith can move mountains". Is that an example of the Bible being clear in its meaning? Is it hyperbole? Is it some other literary device?

to which RWJ responds

This is quite comical because I guarantee you, that you have no problem understanding when to take something literally or not, in any other written communication, but somehow, because it is the Bible, we have difficulty.

Well...yes it is because it is the Bible. The Bible which tells a story of a man who has superpowers. Jesus supposedly walks on water, cures the sick, raises the dead, rises from the dead himself, casts demons out of people with a word. So if the story had continued on and showed a Jesus pointing at a mountain, telling it to move and the mountain tap-danced on its way to the nearest large body of water, it's thus understandable that I and others might think that Jesus here was being literal about actually commanding mountains to in the literal sense move.

So then, when Jesus says, "I tell you" who is the "YOU" he is referring too? It is clearly the ones he is speaking to in, "PRIVATE." This means that Jesus is in no way saying, "everyone, everywhere with faith can move mountains."

Okay...so (supposing this exchange to be a real event for the sake of argument) why is this exchange in the Bible? Why was it written down? Why should anyone, Christian or not, even bother reading this story if the entire intent and purpose behind it was purely a conversation between two parties? If this lesson about faith was only meant for the people Jesus was directly talking to, and not for anyone else, such as you or I, what's the point of it even being there to be read? So this lesson about faith doesn't apply to everyone?
To give an analogy - I sit down with my friend and I give him a lesson on what I think the nature of love is. I teach that it's about being kind to other people, being willing to give of yourself so that they may have more. This conversation is written down and later published in a biography of me.
So you come along RWJ and say that this was purely a conversation between me and my friend. The lesson I gave on love doesn't apply to anyone else, especially not the third party reader. They are not to try and apply my lesson on love to themselves.
Why wouldn't Christians want to try and apply Jesus's lesson on faith to themselves?