The paradox many of us are faced with

[OnceConvinced]

We have Christians telling us that for us to be able to understand the bible, we need the holy spirit to guide us.

The problem is, this puts us in a Catch 22 situation…

For us to be able to get the holy spirit, we first have to repent and accept Jesus Christ as our savior. Only then can we get the holy spirit.

The thing is to do that we first need to believe what the bible tells us about these things. If we don’t believe, then how can we genuinely repent?

However for us to believe what the bible tells us we need to be able to understand it and we need to be able to see it’s true. We need to be able to resolve the many varied issues we see when it comes to the bible. But how can we do that if we don’t have the Holy Spirit in us?

So we are left in a situation we just can’t possibly resolve.

How do we resolve this paradox?

And before someone suggests prayer, we have the same problem there. The bible seems to us to be full of nonsense, lies and fantasies. For many of us we just don't believe the God of this bible to be real, so why would we pray to something we don't believe in? We must first believe in God to pray to him and then we must first believe the bible about what it says about God. Same vicious circle yet again.

Also please don't try to say I can "Choose to believe", because I know I can't. My mind is not that fickle. I can't choose to believe in the bible God any more than I can choose to believe there are fairies in my garden or boogyman hiding in my closet.

[otseng]

yak yak yak immoral yak yak yak your stupid ben yak yak immoral.
yak
I hate metaphors.
bah humbug
I love you too and have a good night.

Moderator Comment

This is not contributing anything to a civil debate. If someone says you are stupid, simply report it and do not respond. In addition, argue about the topics, not about other posters.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[JonDarbyXIII]

When I first started reading the Bible (as someone with no religious background who was interested in finally seeing what it really says) I was told by numerous Christians that I needed to begin by praying to God to properly reveal himself through his word. I was told that so long as I asked this of him--whether I had any beliefs at the time or not--he would reveal to me his true meaning (presumably through the Holy Spirit) as it has been said throughout this thread).

Here's my counter challenge though:

Christians should read the Qur'an after praying the Shahadah--Islam's declaration of faith that there is no god but Allah and that Mohammed is is servant.

Or maybe Christians should read the Bhagavad-Gita after chanting the Triptaka--finding refuge in the Buddha, the dharma, and the sangha.

The point is that, while Christians feel that it is reasonable to ask someone to 'give Christianity a chance' by praying to God (either for salvation alone or for understanding in reading the Bible), most would probably be entirely unwilling to give the same chance to any other religion.

Furthermore, the problem is that, since I don't believe in God, the notion of praying to him is quite absurd. While I can go through the motions, it is not an honest request and I can't force it to be one. It would seem that an omniscient god would know this.

[dianaiad]

When I first started reading the Bible (as someone with no religious background who was interested in finally seeing what it really says) I was told by numerous Christians that I needed to begin by praying to God to properly reveal himself through his word. I was told that so long as I asked this of him--whether I had any beliefs at the time or not--he would reveal to me his true meaning (presumably through the Holy Spirit) as it has been said throughout this thread).

Here's my counter challenge though:

Christians should read the Qur'an after praying the Shahadah--Islam's declaration of faith that there is no god but Allah and that Mohammed is is servant.

Or maybe Christians should read the Bhagavad-Gita after chanting the Triptaka--finding refuge in the Buddha, the dharma, and the sangha.

The point is that, while Christians feel that it is reasonable to ask someone to 'give Christianity a chance' by praying to God (either for salvation alone or for understanding in reading the Bible), most would probably be entirely unwilling to give the same chance to any other religion.

Furthermore, the problem is that, since I don't believe in God, the notion of praying to him is quite absurd. While I can go through the motions, it is not an honest request and I can't force it to be one. It would seem that an omniscient god would know this.

I once was told that if I heated up some olive oil and slathered it all over my head, that it would make my hair soft, frizz free and easy to manage.

Now this sounded like a total piece of stupidity to me at the time. Olive oil was good on salads, but my hair was nothing at all like lettuce.

However, even though I was pretty darned certain that it would not help, and that I was doing a truly silly thing, I gave it a try.

Didn't work.

It kept not working, even though I tried it more than once on the urging of my sister, who swore by it. I finally asked the lady who cut my hair why did didn't work, and her answer was 'duh... you don't need the olive oil treatment. Your hair needs something else" and she handed me a recipe for a rinse using lemons and some other darned thing. I forget now.

Much better.

NOW, of course, my hair needs the olive oil, but that's not relevant.

The whole point of experiments, whether scientific or spiritual, is that you aren't supposed to know what the outcome is before there's an outcome, and you aren't supposed to be a perfect believer in said outcome before you start the process.

I did read the Quran, and I did pray. Whenever I read something that claimed to be 'scripture,' and it had a 'test' of sorts in it to 'prove' it, and it didn't involve spilling blood or baring body parts, I went with it.

.....and I ended up Mormon, because that's the one that worked for me.

You are right, y'know: those who investigate spiritual matters need to be willing to open their minds and, if prayer is required, then prayer should be done. After all, if there is a God, He won't mind, and if there isn't, He can't. You have nothing to lose.

[OnceConvinced]

There are two ways: You can assume Christianity is true, or not assume it's true.

I don't want to assume anything, because we know that when we assume we make an ass out of.... Do I need to go on?

Should I assume everything is true until it's proven to me? Should I assume Allah is the one true God? Should I assume that Hare Krishnas have it right? I can't assume everything to be true can I? How do I make sure I get it right? Assumption is a terrible way to go.

I don't want to assume anything and we should never just assume. I want to KNOW it's true or if it's not true. In fact I'm pretty convinced it's not true, so I'm a little past assuming anything now.

If you assume Christianity is true, then you get the Holy Spirit, which allows for you to understand the bible.

According to the bible, to have the holy spirit I need to repent and accept Jesus Christ as my lord and savior. Only then can I get the holy spirit. As I don't believe in Jesus (due in part to the bible) I can hardly assume him to be real.

If you don't assume Christianity is true, then there's no reason to believe the Christians who tell us we need the Holy Spirit to understand the bible; you can just interpret it as you would any other sequence of words on a page.

My disbelief is way more than just assumption. It's based on very solid reasons. There is no choice involved. I came to the heartbreaking conclusion that Jesus was not the son of God and that the bible was not the word of God. No amount of twisting my arm behind my back is going to help me believe. I need some real evidence now.

So resolving the paradox is pretty easy, but on the Christian side it's only the presuppositionalists who admit to exactly how they do it.

Nope. Not easy at all. In fact down right impossible, I feel. Sorry, but I just can't see how trying to kid yourself about something is going to resolve this paradox.

[FarWanderer]

There are two ways: You can assume Christianity is true, or not assume it's true.

I don't want to assume anything, because we know that when we assume we make an ass out of.... Do I need to go on?

Should I assume everything is true until it's proven to me? Should I assume Allah is the one true God? Should I assume that Hare Krishnas have it right? I can't assume everything to be true can I? How do I make sure I get it right? Assumption is a terrible way to go.

I agree. But, that doesn't mean it wouldn't resolve the paradox.

I don't want to assume anything and we should never just assume. I want to KNOW it's true or if it's not true. In fact I'm pretty convinced it's not true, so I'm a little past assuming anything now.

If you assume Christianity is true, then you get the Holy Spirit, which allows for you to understand the bible.

According to the bible, to have the holy spirit I need to repent and accept Jesus Christ as my lord and savior. Only then can I get the holy spirit. As I don't believe in Jesus (due in part to the bible) I can hardly assume him to be real.

Well, gosh darnit, you are using your brain to decide. You're not supposed to do that! You are supposed to just believe.

If you don't assume Christianity is true, then there's no reason to believe the Christians who tell us we need the Holy Spirit to understand the bible; you can just interpret it as you would any other sequence of words on a page.

My disbelief is way more than just assumption. It's based on very solid reasons. There is no choice involved. I came to the heartbreaking conclusion that Jesus was not the son of God and that the bible was not the word of God. No amount of twisting my arm behind my back is going to help me believe. I need some real evidence now.

I never said your disbelief was an assumption. By "not assume Christianity is true" I don't mean "assume Christianity is not true".

If you made no direct assumption, and instead reached a conclusion about the issue through reason, that would fall under the broad category of "not assuming it's true".

So resolving the paradox is pretty easy, but on the Christian side it's only the presuppositionalists who admit to exactly how they do it.

Nope. Not easy at all. In fact down right impossible, I feel. Sorry, but I just can't see how trying to kid yourself about something is going to resolve this paradox.

If you refuse to resolve the paradox by giving up your own independent thought, then all you need to do to resolve the paradox is simply to not accept the claim that the holy spirit is necessary in order to understand the bible.

That's what I do.

[JonDarbyXIII]

I once was told that if I heated up some olive oil and slathered it all over my head, that it would make my hair soft, frizz free and easy to manage.

Now this sounded like a total piece of stupidity to me at the time. Olive oil was good on salads, but my hair was nothing at all like lettuce.

However, even though I was pretty darned certain that it would not help, and that I was doing a truly silly thing, I gave it a try.

Didn't work.

I'm almost rolling on the floor - I just had a flashback to being 13-years old and using Clorox in my hair because a friend was sure that was a suitable method of bleaching my hair blonde. Anyway... onto something relevant

Whenever I read something that claimed to be 'scripture,' and it had a 'test' of sorts in it to 'prove' it, and it didn't involve spilling blood or baring body parts, I went with it.

Why stop there? Mind you, I'm not saying you should have, but if you're going to give the whole book a fair assessment, shouldn't you be willing to try everything. The point at which you start equivocating on which tests are valid and which aren't (no matter the justification) you are essentially acknowledging that you disregard part of the religion. You can pick and choose, but you end up with something that you have very much created yourself. At that point the claims end up being so utterly subjective that I'm not sure there is room left for discussion.

[YahDough]

I can tell you now, discussing each of the many many flaws I see will take many many weeks. That is all I am doing on this site is discussing the flaws. I have been here since 2007 and I am still discussing the flaws, still unable to resolve them. In fact now I see hundreds more flaws as a result.

Do you really want to go through each one here on this thread? Is that what I need to do to be able to overcome the paradox I am faced with? Resolve every single issue? If it is, then I think it will be a fruitless exercise.

I have no desire to go any further with you regarding this OP. It appears you have decided you want to stay an apostate to the faith. According to Bible doctrine found in Hebrews 6, a second repentance is not even possible for apostates, so it appears my answers to your "paradox" questions are moot anyway. I guess I was hoping you might realize you never were a "believer". Thanks for the dialogue.

[Zzyzx]

.

I can tell you now, discussing each of the many many flaws I see will take many many weeks. That is all I am doing on this site is discussing the flaws. I have been here since 2007 and I am still discussing the flaws, still unable to resolve them. In fact now I see hundreds more flaws as a result.

Do you really want to go through each one here on this thread? Is that what I need to do to be able to overcome the paradox I am faced with? Resolve every single issue? If it is, then I think it will be a fruitless exercise.

I have no desire to go any further with you regarding this OP. It appears you have decided you want to stay an apostate to the faith.

Is your intent here to proselytize – convert people to "the faith?"

According to Bible doctrine found in Hebrews 6, a second repentance is not even possible for apostates, so it appears my answers to your "paradox" questions are moot anyway.

That sounds like propaganda from writers with fear that "apostates" (those who reject their "teachings") might lead "the faithful" away from "the faith." Perhaps that fear (or whatever it is) is justified because former believers are a strong voice against what they once accepted as "gospel truth."

I guess I was hoping you might realize you never were a "believer".

Have you concluded that OC was "never a believer?" If so, who the heck are you to make that judgment and on what basis do you arrive at that conclusion? That you still believe and he does not is no justification for assumptions. You may be the one who is wrong.

Thanks for the dialogue.

It is not uncommon for proselytizers to exit debate when they realize that their pronouncements are not accepted and/or their professionalization attempts have failed.

Those who actually value exchange of ideas and honorable debate do not exit for such reasons.

[YahDough]

.

YahDough wrote:

According to Bible doctrine found in Hebrews 6, a second repentance is not even possible for apostates, so it appears my answers to your "paradox" questions are moot anyway.

That sounds like propaganda from writers with fear that "apostates" (those who reject their "teachings") might lead "the faithful" away from "the faith." Perhaps that fear (or whatever it is) is justified because former believers are a strong voice against what they once accepted as "gospel truth."

That's true. But the real fear for "believers" should be falling back into the subtleties of sin against their declared faith. I think most people reject the "gospel truth" because it requires more dedication than they want, or are able, to handle.

YahDough wrote:

I guess I was hoping you might realize you never were a "believer".

Have you concluded that OC was "never a believer?"

No. But I would have liked to have been able to conclude that.
_________________

[Zzyzx]

.

That sounds like propaganda from writers with fear that "apostates" (those who reject their "teachings") might lead "the faithful" away from "the faith." Perhaps that fear (or whatever it is) is justified because former believers are a strong voice against what they once accepted as "gospel truth."

That's true. But the real fear for "believers" should be falling back into the subtleties of sin against their declared faith.

Perhaps. It appears to me, however, from Christians who post here and those I know in real life as though their greatest fear is to fail in their attempts to "make it to heaven."

I think most people reject the "gospel truth" because it requires more dedication than they want, or are able, to handle.

Those who claim to follow the bible need not be dedicated to obeying its commandments and instructions. All they seem to think necessary is to ask forgiveness and repent (even on their deathbed) to "make it to heaven."

By contrast, many who do not accept Christianity or its bible take full responsibility for their own actions – which can be quite difficult.

Have you concluded that OC was "never a believer?"

No. But I would have liked to have been able to conclude that.

Have you concluded that OC WAS a believer? Either way, on what do you base a conclusion about OC's past?