The believer's paradox

[McCulloch]

Conscience, will, mind, logic, purity, righteousness, motives, presuppositions, sanity, intellectual ability, moral faculty, and senses are all being subsumed under the heading "Reason." Reason--by which I mean logic and intellectual ability, and to a certain extent, the senses--is useful and kinda works, but it's corrupted by sin.

This type of argument has been made often by Christian apologists. You cannot trust your own thinking. You a cannot trust your own intellectual ability. You cannot trust human morality. It has all been corrupted by sin. You must abandon your self-centered life and embrace God's will only.

But here is the hitch. In order to come to the conclusion that there even is a God, I must resort to using my own tainted reasoning processes. Then, once convinced in my corrupted mind that God exists, I have to again use my own blighted cogitation to determine which alleged revelations are really from God and which ones are not (Torah, New Testament, Qur'an, Mormon, Urantia ...). Having reached some conclusions on that issue, I must again rely on my own depraved dialectics to choose among competing interpretations.

Pray to God for a sign, they sometimes answer, pray to God for wisdom. Yet, even there, I must interpret the signs and test the spirits, according to my own perverted human wisdom.

Question for debate, If not our own intellectual abilities, what could we possibly turn to, to assess TRUTH?

[NEVIIM]

"Do unto others" deal is not practiced enough. That's why Jesus has got to come AGAIN!!!

LOL

Ya'd think after all this time, and previous failed efforts, God'd learn a better tactic.

This "It'll eventually happen, I swear" is among the least compelling arguments I've ever heard.

I never said it will eventually happen. Where did that come from? Jesus will come again because the majority of man is never gonna get it. A few will. Most will not. That is why you see what you see. People starving when there are means on the earth. Few saints, lot's of sinners.

He has already tried to save us with written law, law of the heart. He will do something new...lots of fire and stuff. If you research you will find that the earth will not sustain life forever.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 31:

Ya'd think after all this time, and previous failed efforts, God'd learn a better tactic.

This "It'll eventually happen, I swear" is among the least compelling arguments I've ever heard.

I never said it will eventually happen. Where did that come from?

Jesus will come again...

Right there.

Please offer some means to verify you know the future.

He has already tried to save us with written law, law of the heart.

I don't doubt Jesus existed, as a human, and thought he was trying to save us ostensibly from himself. It's the tying this all back to a god that gets so tricky.

He will do something new...lots of fire and stuff.

Please show some means to verify you know the future.

If you research you will find that the earth will not sustain life forever.

What's that got to do with anything?

[NEVIIM]

These are the words of Jesus. God can not be explained with kindergarten knowledge, science, research. That is all I can offer you today. I wish I had a God accelerator, but all I can do is sub-atomic particles. The tools to give you the evidence you seek just do not exist today. Maybe in another two thousand years the tools will be more advanced. I said 'maybe'!!!

[McCulloch]

I don't think--and I don't believe it's a Biblical proposition--that a person comes to faith in Christ by exercising his supposedly-autonomous intellectual abilities to assess the evidence for God from his fallen state and fallen presuppositions about himself and God, and then deciding to have faith in God.

Thereby you admit that faith in God is irrational.

Once again, I state: God chose me; I did not choose Him.

Why does god not choose some folks? Really many folks. Does he not love them too?

I was attempting to argue against unduly exalting one's own reason or intellectual abilities, which even a humanist must acknowledge is limited and not exhaustive and not perfect. One's presuppositional belief that his reason is all he has to assess truth does not prove that his reason is reliable in that assessment.

OK, then what else do we have? Faith is not reliable. So many faiths that contradict each other. How do you know that you have the right one and that guy over there who worships something else has the wrong one?

On to what else we have besides reason.

Faith in Christ is a matter of the heart, which definitely includes the mind, fallen though it be in my worldview. However, the "heart" in Christianity does not mean only the mind. It also means the will, the spirit, the emotions, and all the immaterial being of the person (who is also, of course, material or body).

How does one assess truth with the will?
How does one assess truth with emotions?
I don't know what you mean by spirit or by immaterial being.

To answer the thread question for debate to the best of my ability (though that ability falls far, far short of perfection), I would have to say something you will not like: Jesus Christ is Truth and His Spirit, which is also Truth, testifies with the believer's spirit (Jn. 15:26; Rom. 8:16; 1 John 5:6) that Jesus is the Son of God, the Savior of the world, and of the believer personally, by the shedding of His blood. Suddenly, he has a different presupposition about Truth. It is not mystical (for the Bible is public and not gnostic or esoteric); he simply believes the Bible now, and he sees it as the very words of God.

OK, it is mystical. I don't get it because I am spiritually dead. But if God so chooses, then he will mystically reveal himself to me, and then I will know truth, but I, like you, will be at a complete loss to rationally explain it to a non-believer. And if your God does not grant me that mystical experience, maybe Krishna will.

IOW, read the Bible and assess the truth of yourself and God in light of it. And yes, use what you have--your fallen reason. That fallen reason will not be what saves you, and it will not stop you from being saved, if that's God's goal with you.

That is what I mean when I say one's reason is useful, but not reliable. I am not saying and will never say, "Your reason is corrupted, therefore abandon it and believe in God instead."

I have read the Bible. I have applied reason to it. I have concluded that it cannot be from God.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 33:

These are the words of Jesus.

The claimed to be words of Jesus.

God can not be explained with kindergarten knowledge, science, research.

Your continual use of "kindergarten knowledge" is getting me to thinking it is you that has the "kindergarten knowledge". I'm not gonna allow you to continually rip on science for its failure to support your claims.

That is all I can offer you today.

I'm here a lot, come back when you can offer verification for your claims.

I wish I had a God accelerator, but all I can do is sub-atomic particles.

I notice there's a lotta wishing involved in religion.

The tools to give you the evidence you seek just do not exist today.

Then how in heck can you make claims in the absence of the ability to confirm those claims are truth?

Maybe in another two thousand years the tools will be more advanced. I said 'maybe'

Wishful thinking is fine in moderation. When it makes up the core of one's "evidence", I question whether it's useful.

[Goat]

Matthew 18:25 is a parable where the king is God and the slaves are us. Does this teach about slavery or forgiveness. I think the parable teaches forgiveness. Jesus said it all with "do unto others as you do..." blah, blah, blah.



Ephesians 6:5-9 is not the Gospel.

Mark 14:66: It says servant girl.

Strange things happen when we get away from the Gospel. The apostle's were not perfect. Only Jesus.

Uh .. no. You are translating it to your own bias. The term in Greek refers to slaves

Jesus spoke Aramaic I think. So what is your point. So much is lost in translations. Remember most early Christians could not read or write anyway. Here we come thousands of years later looking for evidence of something spoken in one language and translated in another. So much is lost ...

Jesus might have spoken Aramaic, but the Gospel of Mark was not written in Aramaic. It was written in Greek. The writer of the Gospel of Mark never met Jesus. So much is lost in translations.. and for Mark 14:66 you have to look at the original Greek.

Translation is interpretation , yes.. and you are using your bias to sweep away the implications.

[mich]

Conscience, will, mind, logic, purity, righteousness, motives, presuppositions, sanity, intellectual ability, moral faculty, and senses are all being subsumed under the heading "Reason." Reason--by which I mean logic and intellectual ability, and to a certain extent, the senses--is useful and kinda works, but it's corrupted by sin.

This type of argument has been made often by Christian apologists. You cannot trust your own thinking. You a cannot trust your own intellectual ability. You cannot trust human morality. It has all been corrupted by sin. You must abandon your self-centered life and embrace God's will only.

If we use Gentle Dove's example and just replace the statement "but it's corrupted by sin" with " but it (reason) is greatly limited on account of our imperfect capacity as observers", then, TRUTH as a whole can never be achieved. However, an imperfect subset, which we call knowledge, can be obtained. Since such a subset is a mix of truth and error, or at least imprecisions, what we call truth is used in a very limited way.

But here is the hitch. In order to come to the conclusion that there even is a God, I must resort to using my own tainted reasoning processes.

I agree; however, such a tainited form of reasoning exists for everyhting we identify as truths.

Then, once convinced in my corrupted mind that God exists, I have to again use my own blighted cogitation to determine which alleged revelations are really from God and which ones are not (Torah, New Testament, Qur'an, Mormon, Urantia ...). Having reached some conclusions on that issue, I must again rely on my own depraved dialectics to choose among competing interpretations.

Such divisions exists due to our imperfection in distinguishing TRUTH. If one is attracted to a certain particular set of theology, I believe such a person ought to follow it...the same can be said for atheism. If Jesus died for the sin of humanity then, atheists are also saved; if the existance of heaven and hell is real, then, both atheists and believers will be judged to go either way. It is clear that scriptures lets such judgement rest on God and no other. "If" God, heaven and hell is real, then it' s fair to claim that God's judgment will be perfect. "If" the path to perfection is through reincarnations, then both we christians and atheists will follow such paths regardless of our present belief. If anhiliation is what awaits us after death, then it doesn't matter how much "hail Marys" I might pray, my lot remains to be totally anihiated after death....One TRUTH can be said....we don't know. My personal hope is in the christian teaching.

Question for debate, If not our own intellectual abilities, what could we possibly turn to, to assess TRUTH?

TRUTH can only be acheived through God...."if" HE/SHE/IT exists. Our reasoning alone cannot attain it.

Andre

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 37:

>snipping perhaps the best part out of agreement<

If one is attracted to a certain particular set of theology, I believe such a person ought to follow it...the same can be said for atheism.

I'm not so sure about that. There's a "certain particular set of theology" that has folks flying planes full of civilians into buildings. I agree atheists are just as capable of violence.

"If" God, heaven and hell is real, then it' s fair to claim that God's judgment will be perfect.

Here's where my boots come untied.

I think this presupposes an "omni-perfect" god, and I don't think that's been established. If we worship this god as "omni-perfect" from the get-go, then of course any of its actions should be considered perfect. This is among the most frightening of religious ideas, where so many claim to know this god's wants or wishes and will follow them to the detriment of any who get in the way.

I gotta go with the Jews on this'n, and say we should judge ourselves, and any god, on our best understanding. We shouldn't bind ourselves to thinking a god knows or acts better than us.

[NEVIIM]

Your continual use of "kindergarten knowledge" is getting me to thinking
it is you that has the "kindergarten knowledge".
I'm not gonna allow you to continually rip on science for its
failure to support your claims

I challenge you to research the limitaions of science for youself.

[JoeyKnothead]

Your continual use of "kindergarten knowledge" is getting me to thinking
it is you that has the "kindergarten knowledge".
I'm not gonna allow you to continually rip on science for its
failure to support your claims

I challenge you to research the limitaions of science for youself.

I challenge you to quit blaming science for your inability to support your claims.