Christianity and Love, Part 2

Great Debates
141

David:
Once more regarding “circle” vs “sphere”.

I think you are incorrect in calling the earth a “sphere”. You admitted earlier that it was only “pretty close” to a sphere. Therefore, to be correct, you need to stop calling it a “sphere” and give me the exact dimensions and measurements, since it’s not precicely a sphere.

Obviously, the above paragraph is ridiculous. Just because you haven’t gotten more specific doesn’t make your statement that “the earth is a sphere” any less correct. It’s merely less specific. Calling the earth a circle is just one step less specific than that. It is NOT incorrect to call it a circle! A basketball is circular, although TECHNICALLY, and more specifically, it’s a sphere. We could get more specific and detailed than that as well. A CD Case is shaped like a Rectangle, although we COULD get more specific and say it had 3 dimensions, etc etc.

This ridiculous discussion over so small a point is actually causing me to realize something. David, I’m starting to realize why you and others on this board don’t believe the Bible. You and some others on the board tend to OVERCOMPLICATE very simple points. I mean, as I’ve said before, there’s nothing wrong with asking honest and interesting questions of God (as long as you don’t expect an instant answer), but you can go too far and overcomplicate statements that should be fairly easy to understand.

Let me give one more example. Suppose I say I’m running the DOS ver 6 operating system on my computer. You then type VER and press enter on my screen and see that I’m ACTUALLY running version 6.22! Would you call me a liar? 6.22 IS a subset of version 6! I could’ve been more specific and said 6.22, or I could’ve said “6.22 with such-and-so features enabled or disabled” and on and on. But it’s NOT inaccurate to say I’m running version 6, it’s just less precise. Same with Windows. I can tell you right now I’m running Windows, or I could say Windows 98, or I could say Windows 98 2nd Edition, and all 3 statement would be true. They just get more and more precise. Now if I said I was running Linux when I was running Windows, THEN it’d be untrue.

I’m sure you’ll find something to disagree with but there are my thoughts.

Holly:
Loved the cooking image with the devil. Now for your question: “Do you include your religion in your above statement, FoG? If not, why? Why is your religion “the truth” and every other is just lies with a dash of truth deliberately thrown in to enhance the deception?”

Great question! It’s one of the questions of the ages . . . how can Christians be so sure that “their religion” is the “right” one? Believe it or not, I think EVERY Christian has asked that question of themselves at one point or another. I know I have before.

Holly, I would encourage you to study world religions. I think you will find a common thread in each and every one … except Christianity. Every religion has SOME variation of the following: “I can be a good person, I AM a good person, I am God, I can become God, I can become like God, I can improve myself”. Again, multiple variations and ways to say it, but all essentially boiling down to the same point. Christianity, however, says the exact opposite: “There is no such thing as a good person. You have no power in and of yourself to improve yourself. You are not god.”

Christianity is RADICALLY different from every other religion on the planet. It’s almost like there are really only two religions on the earth: Christianity and everything else. Christianity is distinctive. For example, virtually every religion believes in God. Virtually every religion believes God is loving and God is just and fair. That just makes good sense that they believe that … if he weren’t both of those things, how could He be God?

But then, that presents a dilemma. Most religions also believe that man is imperfect (and, lets face it, those that don’t believe this are just kidding themselves. All you have to do is look around). So how can God satisfy His love for you AND His justice if you are truly guilty?

Christianity is the only religion with an actual SOLUTION to the problem that actually works! No other religion solves this problem. I told the story on one of the other posts about how I presented this concept to a roomful of Muslims while I was living in Atlanta back in 1994. They didn’t have an answer for my question, because their religion doesn’t have one! When I presented this before on the other post, someone sarcasically said “Yes Christianity solves this problem, and it’s the only religion that thinks the problem exists”. Not true. These Muslims saw the problem instantly … they just didn’t know how to solve it. Most religions agree that God is loving and just, and that man is imperfect. That presents a problem they can’t fix.

So Holly, I submit that Christianity is the only religion that logically makes sense. Now, to be honest, I could keep debating these points and that BY ITSELF would probably not convince you. But what I encourage you to do is truly check out Christianity. Go to a healthy, Bible-believing church for 2 - 3 months and examine the lives of the Godly Christians in that church. That will give you more evidence of God than ANY points of logic I can give you.

Finally, Monty:
You know, I just re-read your post and realized that you didn’t hardly say anything! You just used a few witty comebacks but had virtually had no substance. I will weed through and try to find a few actual points to respond to:

I said: “Before I came to Christ, my whole life was LEANING in the direction of sin. The DEFAULT of my life was sin. When you come to Christ, God gives you a NEW heart, and you suddenly find yourself LEANING toward righteousness and Godly living! He literally rewrites your heart!”

You responded: "Interesting. Now your theory is that you’re being punished because of the potential of doing something wrong. "

Huh?!? Where on earth did that come from? Please explain further. How did you get THAT from what I said?

I said: “A Christian has a heightened awareness of their sin that a nonChristian doesn’t.”

You said: "Oh, please. I’d have to say that a devout Buddhist has more awareness of that since said Buddhist is a follower of the Eightfold Path. Not even a nice try there. "

Would you (or anyone else) mind explaining this “Eightfold Path”? I’m not very familiar with it so I can’t very well respond. I’d be very interested in learning more about it.

I said: “Someone who doesn’t know Christ sins and just considers it part of their life – they don’t even see it as sinful necessarily. A Christian, however, becomes AWARE of their sins and their DESIRE turns toward getting AWAY from sin. They don’t WANT to sin like before.”

You said: "So you’re saying that until someone’s told how rotten he is, he doesn’t know that he’s rotten. Anyway, your book’s contention already is that sin is the normal state of mortality. So tell me again why someone wants to punish himself for normality. "

As for you’re first sentence … couldn’t have said it better myself! Here’s chapter and verse: “Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin.” (Rom 3:20) The “law” is one of the ways people realize their need for Christ. When you begin to realize just HOW MUCH you sin, you realize the enormity of your guilt and your need for a Savior. If you DON’T see this about yourself, what do you need a Savior for? What do you need to be saved FROM? As I’ve said before, THE reason people don’t come to Christ is they don’t see the depth of their own sinfulness.

As for your second sentence … yes sin is the normal state of mortality. It is NATURAL for people to sin. That’s why coming to Christ SUPERnaturally turns you in a new direction … ahhh, that’s another story. Back to the point: you ask why people should be punished for “normality”? Well, just look at children. Children, as adorable as they are, are naturally selfish. It’s normal for them to be selfish. So, what, we say “Well, we can’t PUNISH them for being selfish, after all, it’s just who they are!” That doesn’t make sense.

Later you said: "So if you’re not a believer then it doesn’t matter if you don’t sin, you’re going to perdition; but, if you are a beliver, it’s okay because you’re heading in the right direction. Oh, please. "

sigh. I never said either statement. If you’re not a believer it DOES matter very much if you sin! There are earthly and eternal consequences. If you ARE a believer, it is NOT “okay” to sin just because you’re heading in the right direction. If a believer sins, IT has consequences too! The person who sins faces earthly consequences, and Jesus faces one more slice of agony on the cross.

Regarding my friend who was changed when she came to Christ: "If it’s instinctive, then it wouldn’t have been a problem to begin with. "

Missing the point. It’s NOT instinctive before coming to Christ … why would it be? A non Christian has no problem sinning and doesn’t even necessarily see it as sinful. When you come to Christ, your instincts change and suddenly you have a heightened awareness of what sin is.

As for the rest of your comments … as I said, they seem to be attempts at witty replies more than substantive statements. As for your not believing my story … well, I’m sorry that you don’t. For what it’s worth, I believe YOU are telling the truth since you’ve given me no reason not to believe it. I’d appreciate you extending the same courtesy to me.

That’s all for now.

142

FoG, just because I stopped arguing with you for a while doesn’t mean I’m going to let this slide. Your religion–at least the way you express it–has several logical flaws that you have been unable to answer, stating only that you can’t figure it out right now but you’ll try to later. I would warn you against asserting that your particular interpretation of the Christian religion is the most logical when you cannot logically explain several major points of it. Let’s see some of your responses:

“You said: ‘If Jesus is guilty, and God cannot abide sin, why isn’t Jesus suffering eternally in Hell? How can God Himself be guilty?’ Good question on the first one, I’ve wondered that myself! I don’t know.”

As to why, if God wants everyone to go to heaven, but He doesn’t tell everyone clearly and openly so that everyone gets a fair chance:
“Yes there’s a way of escape, but it’s not something we deserve. If we never hear of this way of escape and we get what we deserve, well, then we got what we deserved. […] Now are you ready for this? I’D like to say that I’m frustrated with God on one point in particular, myself. (Can I hear a gasp? ) I don’t at all understand why He chooses to use us human beings to spread the gospel. Sometimes I and other Christians wonder why He would do that. I’ve theorized that maybe it’s the human touch, that people won’t believe in a God they can’t see but they can believe in a changed life and in love being expressed through a person. Maybe that’s it. Who knows.”

As to how God can be wholly just and wholly merciful: (paraphrasing) God has to punish someone for our sins, but it doesn’t have to be us. He will punish the innocent instead. When I point out that this behavior is not considered “just” by the vast majority of people, you say you don’t understand it but are certain that it is not contradictory. As to why God would require the innocent to sufffer to spare the guilty, again you basically say “I don’t know”. You insist that eternal punishment for finite sin is fair, although you cannot explain why this is not illogical.

Do you see that your method of “solving” the “dilemna” of an imperfect man getting into heaven does not appear to be logical either? When you find what you see as a logical flaw in another religion, you think the religion is wrong. But when they are in your own, you ignore them. Don’t you think a Muslim has the right to say “Christianity does not explain how a perfectly just God will not punish the guilty justly. Their God punishes the innocent, not the guilty–this is not just. That presents a problem they can’t fix.”?

Eseentially, with your method of getting to heaven, a perfectly loving, perfectly just, perfectly merciful God exists. He cannot have sinful humans in heaven, but He wants them there. Therefore, He punishes Himself so He can allow Himself to be in their presence. He still knows they are guilty, and that they have not been punished fairly, but He thinks it’s OK becuase He punished Himself instead. He sees Himself as guilty instead of the truly guilty, yet somehow can still be in heaven even though He is now seen as sinful. Those who suffered at the guilty’s hand will never see justice for what the guilty did to them. Although God wants everyone to go to heaven, He does not tell everyone how to get there in letters of fire every day at noon, preferring to let people try to figure out which of the many religions is the true one, and if they are wrong they suffer eternally. This perfectly fair God will also punish people for eternity for a finite amount of sin, which is rather like fining someone an infinite amount of money if they stole a dollar.

And you say your interpretation of your religion is the only one that logically makes sense?

143

Well hello again Guadere! :slight_smile: Nice to see you again. I had this feeling that after I posted that you might respond.

ahem without trying to restart wwIII, I will try to respond in a balanced way.

You said: "Your religion–at least the way you express it–has several logical flaws that you have been unable to answer, stating only that you can’t figure it out right now but you’ll try to later. I would warn you against asserting that your particular interpretation of the Christian religion is the most logical when you cannot logically explain several major points of it. "

You then quoted me on several of the questions you had that I wasn’t able to answer, as well as one question of God that I have myself.

Two overall responses.

  1. Just because YOU think something’s illogical doesn’t mean
    it is, in fact, illogical. After sharing this exact same
    presentation with several people over the past 6 or so
    years, you (and others on this board) are the very first
    people I’ve met that didn’t eventually see the logic.
  2. I stated clearly that EVEN if you DID totally agree with
    everything I said and thought it was totally logical and
    made sense … that wouldn’t be enough. You’ve got to
    see it in action.

The truth is Guadere, I’ve never had ANYONE agree with each and every point initially. (Usually the biggest objections are that they don’t think they DESERVE hell, as well as questions about God’s justice in allowing certain people to heaven). It was always a combination of hearing the truth, watching it in action in the lives of Christians, and God working directly in the person’s heart.

I have never answered EVERY objection a skeptic had, although I have always answered some. Why, you might ask, would thinking people be able to accept Christ without having every question answered? Again, if you SEE Christ’s love in action and begin to get to KNOW God, a LOT of those objections go out the door automatically because you begin to SEE it in people.

You have questions about God’s character, fine. What I’m saying is, as you get to KNOW God, the actual, real, living, breathing God … you find out that your misconceptions are false. Maybe you still don’t understand the answers to every issue … but you see that God IS in fact as loving and gentle as everyone says. Slowly but surely, you begin to trust in Him. It’s like any other relationship … it starts slow, but trust eventually begins to build. Finally it gets to the point that those questions become curiosities, but not necessities. And, interestingly enough, THAT’S when God starts to answer some of them for you!
Gaudere, I GUARANTEE that if I answered EACH and every one of your “objections” to your satisfaction, you would have more questions that I couldn’t answer. And if I answered them, there would be more. It would never end. As you quoted, I myself have questions I’d like to ask God right now, and I don’t have an answer for them.

Your philosophy seems to be … if I can’t have all of my questions answered about something, I won’t accept it as true. Fine. I think most people are more reasonable than that.
As for your warped version of my gospel presentation … I am so very tempted to take it apart and expose the flaws.

Here’s what I will do. Gaudere, I don’t want to begin another 12 page debate with you (and I’ll bet you don’t either). I’m going to rebut your twisted version of my gospel presentation for anyone who sincerely might be reading and might be misled by what you said. It’s NOT another “opening salvo” in a debate with you, it’s not even directed at you. It’s directed at sincere seekers who want to understand.

Here we go:

First: “Eseentially, with your method of getting to heaven, a perfectly loving, perfectly just, perfectly merciful God exists. He cannot have sinful humans in heaven, but He wants them there.”

Response: it’s not “my method of getting to heaven”. In fact, “getting to heaven” is not the primary goal - it’s having an intimate relationship with God that naturally leads to heaven. Also, this is what the Bible says, not just “my opinion” or “my religion” or “my method”.
Then: “Therefore, He punishes Himself so He can allow Himself to be in their presence.”

Response: False. He sends His own Son, Jesus, the second person in the Trinity, to receive the punishment of God the Father, the first person in the Trinity. And He does it so WE can come into HIS presence, not the other way around.
Then: “He still knows they are guilty, and that they have not been punished fairly, but He thinks it’s OK becuase He punished Himself instead.”

Response: False, and a little bit sicko I might add. God does not think it’s “OK” that we are guilty. God the Father, the first person of the Trinity, directed His wrath at Jesus, the second person of the Trinity, who voluntarily laid down His life so that we could have our relationship with God restored. God’s WRATH (not mere ‘punishment’) was poured out on Jesus instead of on us. It is not “OK” for us to be guilty … we have to be covered by Jesus’ blood to even be able to come into God’s presence.
Then: "He sees Himself as guilty instead of the truly guilty, yet somehow can still be in heaven even though He is now seen as sinful. "

Response: this should be obviously false. He SAW, past tense, Jesus as guilty on the cross when all the sins of mankind were placed on Him. God’s wrath was poured out on Jesus and He said, “My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?” Jesus literally went through hell on the cross so I wouldn’t have to. He is not “NOW” seen as sinful. When God looks at me, He sees the filter of the blood of Jesus that was shed at the cross. That’s how I can enter His presence.
Then: "Those who suffered at the guilty’s hand will never see justice for what the guilty did to them. "

Response: also false. God is always just. See my very last response comment for a fuller explanation . . .
Then: "Although God wants everyone to go to heaven, He does not tell everyone how to get there in letters of fire every day at noon, preferring to let people try to figure out which of the many religions is the true one, and if they are wrong they suffer eternally. "

Response: Here, we see an aspect of God’s GOODNESS, not evil as some would like to twist it into. God is a gentleman. He does not force Himself on anyone. As an illustration … have any of you ever been pestered by a geeky person of the opposite sex, who constantly tried to let you know they liked you and asked you out, when you were clearly NOT interested? God isn’t like that. He will not get in your face and jump up and down yelling, “Look at Me! Here I am!! I love you, really I do!!!”

However … He will do subtle things to get your attention. He is the expert romantic. He will woo you in much more creative ways than lights in the sky. He will nudge you toward Him, but YOU have to respond. If you don’t respond, He won’t push you.

The bottom line is, come judgment day, it will be painfully obvious to everyone that anyone who did NOT accept Christ has absolutely NO excuse not to. EVERYONE will get their fair chance … the sad thing is, not all will respond.
Finally: "This perfectly fair God will also punish people for eternity for a finite amount of sin, which is rather like fining someone an infinite amount of money if they stole a dollar. "

Response: also false. The sin of rejecting Christ is not “finite”. Earlier you said that "Those who suffered at the guilty’s hand will never see justice for what the guilty did to them. " That is also not true. Christians have to suffer the consequences of their sins IN THIS LIFETIME. God’s justice always works. “You reap what you sow” is a principle in life as real as the law of gravity. It ALWAYS works, even if we don’t always see it.

Again, Christians (and, in fact, non-Christian too) will suffer IN THIS LIFETIME for the sins they commit, because they are, indeed ‘finite’. But the sin of rejecting Christ is NOT a ‘finite’ sin … it is an eternal sin. It is an eternal choice to look God in the face and say with finality “I will NOT follow you”. God is merciful … He gives us a lifetime to take it back and change our minds, which is WAY more than what any of us would give someone. Again, EVEN after you’ve made the choice to reject Christ, God will woo you anyway. But the choice you’ve made at the end of your life is an eternal choice with eternal consequences.

In conclusion … despite what the skeptics on this board would like for you to believe, God LOVES you, whoever you are reading this. He sees everything dark in your life, and loves you anyway. He wants you to have a loving relationship with Him that starts here on earth and lasts for all eternity. He wants you to have peace, joy, and fulfillment in your heart.

Jesus is literally standing with outstretched arms, offering Himself to you to love you. All He asks is that you accept what He did in love for you . . . that He died on the cross to take the punishment you deserved. I hope and pray you will consider coming to Him today. I hope and pray that you don’t put it off. He is waiting.

144

You seem to think the innocent cannot suffer from the consequences of evil. You are mistaken. Infants suffer from evil done before they are conceived. The real world is filled with the evil done to innocents. Sinlessness (which doesn’t exist much past infancy, but is theoretically possible) is not a shield from suffering in the world.

I think you want logic to define your faith. You sell your faith cheaply indeed, if it will not encompass more than the universe itself. Take the leap. God is beyond the limits of reason, science, and logic. Those tools are for the universe we perceive with our senses. And to limit your faith to what you can describe in logic and science makes you poor indeed.

When someone reads the words of the bible, and gains faith in God, it isn’t because he is smart enough to understand some ancient mystery hidden in the verses of scripture. It is because he listens to hear the truth, and know the Lord. That happens, and it is a miracle. If only philosophers could hear the message of Christ, he would be the savior of Philosophers. The love of God is for every soul, and Christ is the embodiment of that love.

The words are not the Word. The Lord is the Word.

Tris

145

FoG said:

Ah, but you’re right. It isn’t a sphere. It’s only close to a sphere. I should have noted that in my response, as I did earlier.

Yes, it is. A circle is 2-dimensional. This indicates that the object in question is flat. A sphere is the proper terminology. Even though it isn’t 100% correct, as noted above, if the Bible had said “sphere,” I wouldn’t have taken issue with it. But “circle” is simply wrong. As I said in my message, you can’t claim the Bible is literally true and then say, “Well, except when it isn’t.” This example shows clearly that the Bible cannot be literally true. You just don’t want to admit that.

Wrong. A basketball is a sphere. It is not a circle. Period.

It’s only “ridiculous” and a “small point” to you because you don’t want to acknowledge that the Bible does in fact say what I said. Indeed, I see you’ve entirely ignored the other examples that I gave in that post. It is not ridiculous, and it is not a small point. It shows that the Bible cannot be taken as literally true.

Wrong again. I don’t believe the Bible because it lacks evidence for its veracity. Things like this show that it cannot be literally true. I am not overcomplicating anything. In fact, I am taking the simplest view – reading it literally. In this case, you are overcomplicating the issue because you know that it cannot be literally true and therefore you must rationalize it away somehow. As we’ve seen before, your view is 180 degrees from reality.

Yes, and “circle” is very easy to understand. So why are you having so much difficulty?

No, but if you claimed that everything you said is literally true, I would point out to you that this statement was not literally true. And, indeed, in your case, there could be quite a difference between version 6 and version 6.22, as people familiar with bugs in programs could attest to.

Which has nothing to do with what we’re talking about. A circle is not a subset of a sphere. They are completely different geometric objects. You do understand the difference between 2 dimensions and 3 dimensions, don’t you?

To Gaudere, you said:

True, but maybe you should consider that it’s not just her who has made these points. A number of people here have pointed out your incredible illogic. You have refused to acknowledge it. So, because your world is 180 degrees from the rest of ours, let me say to you that just because YOU think something’s logical doesn’t mean it is, in fact, logical. I would then add that experience has shown that it is far more likely that if you think it’s logical, it probably isn’t…

I’d say “bullshit,” but I don’t know what kind of people you’ve discussed this with. If they’re all like the folks on the LBMB, then, sure, I can see how they’d all accept it. But you obviously don’t deal with more skeptical folks on a regular basis.

146

Now, David… This shows that THIS PART of the Bible cannot be taken as literally true. It says nothing about the rest of it.

Now, I also think there is ample evidence which shows other parts to not be literal, but they were not discussed above.

147

I think it was pretty clear that I was saying it shows that the Bible, as a whole, cannot be taken as literally true. And this is indeed the case. If one part cannot be taken as literally true, that means the whole cannot be taken as such.

Unless he wants to use the old “parable” rationalization when he realizes that his bad geometry rationalization isn’t working.

148

sigh Yes David, I understand that a circle is 2 dimensional and a sphere is 3 dimensional. I made that clear before. I honestly think you are reading into it what you want to – you are trying to “force” the author into a box – “Well, you said circle, therefore you HAD to have meant a FLAT circle since a circle is 2-dimensional,” to try to back up your theory that the Bible isn’t all it’s cracked up to be. When I say “circle”, I COULD be talking about a 2-dimensional circle or I could be talking about a 3-dimensional sphere that looks like a circle.

If my niece is looking at a red ball in a coloring book and I ask what shape it is, I guarantee she’ll say “Circle!”. While not technically correct to the nth amount of precision, it’s not incorrect that when you look at a ball from a distance it appears as a circle.

If it makes you feel any better David, I looked up other words that the word translated “circle” has been translated into in the O.T. One of the other words was “horizon”. So if you allow that that could have been a more accurate translation, maybe that solves your dilemma. Personally, I have no problem with it either way.

This is one of those points we can go round and round on for days and get nowhere. But let me address the larger issue that you and so many others keep bringing up:

Why do people such as myself insist on the Bible being the truth to the exclusion of all others? Why do we believe that if something seems to contradict it’s just something we don’t understand and that we’ll understand it someday?

The ROOT reason is this, moreso than all the external and logical proofs: God lives in me. When God comes into your life, all I can say is you are changed. As I mentioned earlier, your instincts change and you just instinctively KNOW that the Bible is God’s Holy, unchangeable Word. I’ve seen people realize this that have never even OPENED a Bible in their entire life! (And yes, even in America, there ARE people who have never cracked a Bible, believe it or not). It’s a part of who I am because God Himself, the actual Author of the Bible, lives in me.

Now, lotta good THAT does you guys, I realize! That’s why, again, the only way I’ve known people to truly come to Christ is when they SEE Christ’s love in action through the lives of believers who DO believe the Bible is God’s inerrant Word. That’s one of the inherent problems with “Internet witnessing” – you’re getting the content only but not seeing it in action.

This is NOT to say that there aren’t logical, historical proofs (For example, some of the stuff in the “Jesus A Factual Debate” post that shows that Jesus was a real person). But they alone won’t convince you … you’ve got to see it in action.
Later you said: “No, but if you claimed that everything you said is literally true, I would point out to you that this statement was not literally true. And, indeed, in your case, there could be quite a difference between version 6 and version 6.22, as people familiar with bugs in programs could attest to.”

Yes there was a difference in 6 and 6.22 and there were bug fixes, for sure. But the point is … I am making a broad statement that is, in fact, literally true - I am running Dos version 6. It’s not as PRECISE as it could be. To get more precise I could say 6.22. To get more precise I could say 6.22 with SmartDrive disabled and Lastdrive=Z. It’s like a reporter saying something happened in “the 80s”, vs saying “1984”, vs saying “March 24, 1984”, etc etc. ALL THREE are literally true, but each one gets more precise. Again, we could go round and round so I’ll stop.
Regarding what I said to Guadere (about not assuming she is being logical), you said "True, but maybe you should consider that it’s not just her who has made these points. "

Okay, if we’re going by that – you need to realize that this message board is like a little cocoon. This is NOT how the world at large thinks, I’m sorry. I’m not saying that Christians are a majority, but Christians are definately on this board in out of proportion percentages compared to real society!

There are multiplied millions around the globe of different races, cultures and backgrounds, varied educational backgrounds, varied levels of intelligence (from brilliant to simple-minded), and various careers — who have all given their lives to Jesus Christ and believe that the Bible is 100% God’s Word. There are people in China (and Russia up until the last decade) who literally have been willing to die rather than give up their faith in God.

You would do well to consider this. Many people who have come to Christ have a sharp intellect. What would compel such a person to come to Christ? If they’re so smart, couldn’t they see through all this so-called deception you guys are so sure is there?
Regarding those I’ve shared the gospel with you said "I don’t know what kind of people you’ve discussed this with. If they’re all like the folks on the LBMB, then, sure, I can see how they’d all accept it. But you obviously don’t deal with more skeptical folks on a regular basis. "

LOL Hello! Why would I need to share this on the LBMB? They already get this stuff. No, I’m speaking of skeptical nonbelievers over the past 5 - 6 years I’ve had the opportunity to share with. Actually it’s over 10 years but I wasn’t nearly as skilled at explaining the faith until about 5 - 6 years ago (I know I’m setting myself up, but it’s true! Believe me, if you think I’m having a tough time with you guys now, I’d have REALLY never gotten anywhere back in the early 90’s!)
The woman on the bus in Atlanta I’ve talked about before, who was the first person I led to Christ, had strenuous objections, in fact, some of the same ones I’ve seen on this board. She didn’t think it fair that God would allow an ax murderer to get to heaven on his deathbed. She didn’t buy that there weren’t such things as “good people”. We discussed these issued over the course of 9 months on various bus rides, and became terrific friends in the process.

Finally she came to church with me on Easter Sunday 1996. She gave her life to Christ at the end of the service. It had been obvious for the months leading up to it that she was “close”. She said that she saw how God operated in my life, and was blown away to see it in so many people at church! That, more than any argument, was the thing that convinced her. But she came to understand the logic of the gospel along the way as well.

Ironically, the next person I was priviliged to lead to Christ came as a direct result of the first. As this woman and I talked about her conversion on the bus, it drew the attention of another dear lady. She basically eavesdropped and wanted what we had. She was hungry for God and knew she needed it. Two months later, I was able to lead her in a prayer of submission to Christ.

Another bus lady who DIDN’T give her life to Christ also was intrigued by all of this. She actually came to pretty much understand what I was saying, but wasn’t ready to come to Christ yet. She had a lot of wounds in her life and it was difficult for her to trust. I pray for her every so often. I hope she finds Christ if she hasn’t already.

Now there are some who aren’t skeptics who just “get it” because, to be honest, it’s a very simple message to someone who doesn’t overcomplicate it in their minds. To others, there are a zillion questions. But again, finding a healthy, Bible believing church and attending for 2 - 3 months is one of the best ways to truly examine Christianity. You can see for yourself if it works.

Long answer as usual. I’m crashing. Happy 4th of July everyone!!! (Or to be precise to keep David happy :wink: - happy ALMOST-4th-of-July).

149

FriendofGod:

Two points: first, as others have already pointed out, Christianity isn’t perfectly logical. I would argue that belief in any supernatural, invisible divine being is inherently illogical.

Secondly, even if Christianity is perfectly, absolutely logical, this would not make it true. Who says God is logical, that he obeys earthly ‘rules’? If he exists, clearly he is not bound by earthly rules, including those of logic.

The idea of concentric spheres was a good, logical explanation for astronomical phenomena. Turns out it was completely wrong.

Simple answer: faith. Smart people have believed all sorts of things that were patently absurd, stupid people have believed things that turned out to be true, and vice versa. Furthermore, many smart people follow other religions than Christianity. You could conduct a survey to determine which religion has the highest concentration of smart people, but I doubt it would bring you closer to the truth.

Is it God that changes you, or is it your belief in God that changes you? And how could you possibly tell the difference?

I spent two-thirds of my life as a Christian, thank you very much. Yes, I was a “real” Christian.

150

Let’s see how much I can respond to before it’s time to go to work. FriendofGod said:

Wrong and, as usual, 180 degrees from reality. You and others who want to read the Bible as literally true are the ones trying to force the author into a box. I’m just pointing out that he doesn’t belong in that box.

No, you couldn’t – at least not if you understand the slightest bit of geometry. Circle means circle. Sphere means sphere. What part of this are you having trouble understanding, given that you claim to understand the difference between 2 and 3 dimensions?

How old is your niece? How old are you? Are you saying you base your understanding on your niece’s coloring books?

Yes – because your God shield is up again and you will accept no answer that contradicts your beliefs. If I were talking to a rational person, however, it wouldn’t be going round and round and getting nowhere…

Yes, yes, I know. You believe it because you believe it. We’ve been over that already – in great detail and for a number of days.

Indeed. Apparently you become unable to understand simple geometry…

Oh, I think we’ve seen the action. Your action is to deny reality whenever it conflicts with your interpretation of the Bible. You go so far as to deny that a circle is a circle! So don’t sell yourself short – your actions do speak plenty loud.

You’re right. And, thankfully, most of the Christians who are here know how to think and not just believe blindly. That’s because the whole point of The Straight Dope is to fight ignorance. Too many blind believers don’t like that because the “ignorance” in question is often promoted by said people.

Yes, and? That doesn’t mean they agree with your concept of logic. Again, there are a number of Christians here who have given their lives to Jesus Christ, etc., but they don’t accept your “logic” any more than Gaudere and I do.

Why do you need to share it here?

Well, then I guess I’ll have to give the answer I was thinking earlier: Baloney (OK, that’s the nice version of that answer). I’m sorry, but I see no reason to believe you. The way you’ve acted here makes me conclude that you are exaggerating those past experiences, or seeing them through your God shield. You’ve shown that your world is 180 degrees from reality in so many ways that I have no reason to suspect otherwise this time.

Read: Your belief is for the simpleminded. OK, no argument from me.

151

Hey, let’s play duelling quotes:

FoG: “Most religions agree that God is loving and just, and that man is imperfect. That presents a problem they can’t fix.”

FoG: “Just because YOU think something’s illogical doesn’t mean it is, in fact, illogical.”

Ok, I think I get it now. When something appears illogical in any religion besides Christianity, it shows that that religion must be wrong. When something appears illogical in Christianity, it means that it’s not really illogical even if you can’t think of any logical way for it to work. Gotcha.

[Edited by Gaudere on 07-03-2000 at 12:45 PM]

152

Oy veh! Virtually every fundamentalist has at least some familiarity with the idea of metaphor, and all but the most benighted of them would concede that the human writers of the books of the Bible might well have used the same. Although FoG got defensive about what “circle” may or may not have meant, I think it’s pretty clear that what he was trying to say was that it was used in the sort of more general sense that means “round” not “a plane figure bound by a line such that every point on the line is equidistant from a point not on the line and referred to as the center.” I suspect strongly that both you moderators use the terms “sunrise” and “sunset” in everyday conversation, or even online with reference to time of day, without seriously contemplating the geocentric cosmos that they evoke.

Now, we have absolutely no disagreement, FoG, on the two cardinal priciples that I’ve been stressing: allegiance to God, out of love, and the nature of God as loving Father. Where we have had a problem is in my observing your attempt at evangelism as being in the direction of “convict them of sin; offer God’s forgiveness; explain Jesus’ Atonement; lead them to Him” – a system that presupposes guilt for sin being present, acceptance of a worldview that incorporates God, etc. And for a lot of our coposters, the view is, “Heard it all before; didn’t convince me then; won’t convince me now.”

Okay, here are a few propositions:

  1. There is effectively no significant difference between a world with a Deist god, one which “turned on the world and walked away,” and one operating by natural law with no god. (The philosophical distinction, while interesting and worth investigating, makes no difference to one’s everyday life.)
  2. A world invested by a Theist god, on the other hand, has some significant differences from the world outlined in (1). By the distinction between Deism and Theism, we assume that the Theist god has some interest in humanity, be it to love them or torture them. Accordingly, it becomes worthwhile for the prudent man to find out what the working rules of the universe as conceived by the Theist god might be.
  3. There is no clearcut objective proof acceptable to all that (2) is the case, that a Theist god does exist. There is, IMHO, plenty of evidence in the world for one who does believe, but to adduce it in support of a nonbeliever changing his mind and believing becomes circular reasoning. This is another barrier facing would-be evangelists: they attempt to posit what they hope to prove.
  4. There is subjective proof available to some. But for anyone who has not encountered such subjective proof, their only option is to rely on the word of someone else. And, while FoG, RT, Tris., Lib., and I have had such subjective proof, we can adduce two cases – Glitch and Gaudere – where a person open to receiving such proof did not get it. In the case of Glitch, the first request was at a time of strong spiritual crisis and was met by total absence of any sense of God’s presence in any way, shape, or form. So the facile “Ask, and you shall receive” as pertains to proof of God’s existence is not a good thing to bring forward. And I for one, caring for my fellow posters here, will scream and holler at any would-be evangelist who suggests it, because I will not willingly permit another person to meet that crushing sense of absence that helped shape Glitch’s personality. I see strongly the sense of what God did in that case, but (though human and fallible) I feel it was not right to do to him. (Note to FoG: This is the former poster I mentioned earlier in this thread, and the account of his experiences is very much worth reviewing, and far too long to summarize. Use the search engine and find it, if someone does not post a link.)
  5. I shy away from all implications of this selectivity of revelation. Clearly God is up to something, but what it might be escapes me. I flat out refuse to go Calvinistic and suggest that some of us are “elect” and others not – especially when some truly obnoxious people have been “saved” (and will rub it in your face) and some truly wonderful people have not. A part of me buys the potential of reincarnation – “keep doing it until you get it right” – in a spiritual sense. And that is one concept where both the atheist/rationalist contingent and the fundamentalists will gang up on me and throw random citations from both Bible and snopes. Nor will I accept that those of us who have had this experience are just deluded (or self-deluded) on the question. I can adduce a lot of evidence that God is far more capable of taking events in the world at large and in the future into account than my subconscious is, if anyone cares to pursue it.
    So 6. I affirm that I have had encounters with a being who claimed to be the Christian God, and whose personality matches the Jesus of Luke and John and the characteristics of the God posited in John’s First Epistle. I suggest that misunderstanding of the nature of this God on the part of religionists does not require rejection of his existence. I honor the honest doubt of those who find no ground to believe, while always being willing to discuss the topic with reference to my own experiences. And I reject the version of God that depends on the insecurity of people’s belief structures requiring an inerrant book to prop them up. (This is not a slam of you, FoG; but how many people have you known who use the Bible to prove God, when the only rational way to approach it is that God proves the Bible. If there is no God, then the Bible is a collection of myths and folklore, as David B. suggests; if there is, then it bears witness to Him – including, in my considered opinion as a student both of Biblical scholarship and of history of literature and anthropology, some myth and legend giving early understandings of Him.)
153

Poly said:

And I have no problem with that – if the FoGgy one would admit it. But instead he’s arguing geometry, and he’s arguing it poorly, to boot. The problem, of course, is that if one argues that it’s metaphor for a case like this, the question becomes one of why the six days of creation (for example) must be taken literally. That is an area that you don’t have a problem with, but he does. That, I think, is why he is responding in this way. He doesn’t want to admit the metaphor here because then the other things that he claims are literal fall apart.

Indeed, this is similar to the reason that some Christians hold on to creationism, even in the face of evidence to the contrary. They believe that if they give up on creationism, all of Christianity will follow. Now, you know that isn’t true, but others don’t.

But we don’t claim that everything we say is literally 100% true without the use of metaphor. Well, OK, everything I say is, because I’m God, but you know what I mean. :wink:

154

Regarding this discussion about whether the Bible says the Earth is a “circle” or a sphere: IS there a word in ancient Hebrew that means “sphere”?

155

You “realized” in error, then.

There was plenty of substance there, friend, especially if you were honest enough to realize my assertion about your lack of critical review is true.

Why, if I had said nothing?

Why, from a literal reading, of course. Isn’t that what you’re into?

This actually surprises me. First of all, if you don’t know the very first fundamental thing about a particular faith, you can’t honestly state that another particular faith is the “only logical faith.” You don’t know abut Buddhism, therefore you don’t know if it’s a logical one or not. Yet, your assertion remains “Christianity is the only logical faith.”

Let’s revisit your earlier comment about reading other faiths’ scriptures to see how wrong they were. That’s not an enlightened outlook there, friend; yet, it is a pretty blatant preconception about another faith. (I’m being nice and not using the word “bigot” here because I honestly don’t think you know any better – I really believe you don’t have the capacity to realize your error.) As it is, why should any of us accept your admittedly preconceived notions about either Christianity or every other faith under the sun?

156

Just wanted to add to my last message with a quote from Satan (our Satan, that is).

He wrote a few days ago, in the thread on Fundamentalists:

This is precisely the attitude I was trying to get past in discussing the whole flat Earth thing.

157

A few quick responses.

Triskadecamus said:
“You seem to think the innocent cannot suffer from the consequences of evil.”
No, I am certain that innocent people suffer for the consequences of evil, many times.

Also: “I think you want logic to define your faith. You sell your faith cheaply indeed, if it will not encompass more than the universe itself. Take the leap. God is beyond the limits of reason, science, and logic. Those tools are for the universe we perceive with our senses. And to limit your faith to what you can describe in logic and science makes you poor indeed.”
I actually agree pretty much. You’re basically saying what I’ve been trying to say but in a different way. This is what I mean when I say there are some things that WE don’t see as logical, but God does. I actually don’t limit my faith to what I can describe in logic and science - in fact my whole point IS that you have to go beyond that to have an EXPERIENCE with the actual, living, breathing, one true God to fully grasp what it’s all about.

Holly you said:
"Is it God that changes you, or is it your belief in God that changes you? And how could you possibly tell the difference? "
It is God that changes me. BELIEVE me, my faith by itself isn’t strong enough for some of the changes God has brought about in my life.
Another way I know it’s God is that many times I don’t WANT to change in an area at all, but God keeps nudging me! Sometimes it’s irritating and I fight him, but eventually give up cuz I know He’s doing it in love and it’s for my best anyway. But the point is … if it was only me, I guarantee there would be some issues that would never be brought up. God brings them up whether I like it or not.
You also said: “I spent two-thirds of my life as a Christian, thank you very much. Yes, I was a “real” Christian.”
How interesting! I did not know that. Obviously you don’t have to answer, but I’d be curious to know what let you to a decision to walk away from Christ (which I’m assuming from your past-tense statement is what you’ve done).

Two brief comments to David:
"How old is your niece? How old are you? Are you saying you base your understanding on your niece’s coloring books? "

Actually, my using my niece as example was INTENDED to make a point. Jesus Himself said we must come into the kingdom of God like little children. In fact you later said . . .

“Your belief is for the simpleminded.”

EXACTLY!!! You win the prize David. You nailed it.

Christianity IS INDEED for the simpleminded, something I will shout from the rooftops with great and tremendous pride. It is NOT INTENDED to be complicated and difficult to understand! It’s VERY SIMPLE!

Remember earlier what I said? You DON’T have to be good looking, talented, extroverted, OR particularly intelligent! All you have to be is an open, willing person, willing for God to invade your life with love and joy and fulfillment. It’s INTENDED to be an easy, simple message.

The very fact that you look at the simplicity of the gospel with disdain says a lot. This is what I meant earlier by my feeling that you were (perhaps unintentionally) complicating very simple and easy-to-grasp points.
You also said: “Yes, yes, I know. You believe it because you believe it.”

As long as you misquote me David, I will keep correcting you. I do not, nor will I ever, ‘believe it because I believe it.’ I believe it because the one, true, living, breathing God that you are so sure doesn’t exist actually lives inside me – so He’s kind of hard to miss if you know what I mean. It’d be kinda hard NOT to believe in Him.
You later said: "most of the Christians who are here know how to think and not just believe blindly. "

Again, you make dramatic statement and large assumptions. I’ll repeat myself again: Nearly every belief I have has come after years of prayer, thought, study, and research.

I don’t know a single Christian who TRULY believes blindly. What you see as “blind belief” isn’t that at all. Let me try to explain:

Have you ever wondered why on earth a Christian would ever NEED to go to a Sunday School class titled “Why We Believe What We Believe”? I mean, if you believe it, there should be a REASON behind your belief, right? You should KNOW what that reason is.

I wondered this for years. It was one of those questions I asked God for years and never knew the answer. Finally over time I believe I figured it out, and it isn’t difficult to understand at all.

When Christ comes into your life, just like the verses I quoted earlier, He literally writes His law on your heart and mind. In other words, your beliefs and mindset about life change in a flash to the same mindset that Christ has!

So suddenly you have new beliefs because the God of the universe is in you . . . but if someone asks you to explain why you believe it, you can’t explain it! This is what frustrates skeptics so much.

David, I know as an intellectual the following statement may shock you but it’s the truth. Sometimes your mind can get IN THE WAY of what is true! I’ve known some Christians who were shaken by questions they couldn’t answer (some of which are similar to yours) and they forgot the God that was living inside them and slipped away from Him.

But most believers aren’t like that. Most believers will stay solid in their faith no matter WHAT you throw at them! That’s what I think frustrates people like you, David, as well as Gaudere and all the others on this board. You can’t figure out how a thinking person can “just believe” something even if they don’t have every single solitary piece of evidence lined up neatly in a row.

Now again . . . there ARE logical reasons for belief. SOME believers learn these points before coming to Christ, but MANY learn them AFTER coming to Christ! Understanding and learning the heart of God is a lifelong journey that starts on this earth and lasts for eternity. I will be learning for thousands of years to come.

So in summary – David, when you see a Christian that you judgmentally accuse of having “blind belief” … that’s not what they have. They have a solid belief based on the living, breathing God that is living inside them. They might not be able to explain it … but it isn’t just “based on faith” or “based on nothing”. It’s based on God Himself living in them. And again, the UNDERSTANDING behind the belief comes with time. I have learned much of it myself through prayer, study, and thought. And I have much, much more to learn as well.

Last you said: "Well, then I guess I’ll have to give the answer I was thinking earlier: Baloney (OK, that’s the nice version of that answer). I’m sorry, but I see no reason to believe you. The way you’ve acted here makes me conclude that you are exaggerating those past experiences, or seeing them through your God shield. "

LOL! Ok David, whatever. It’s not a deep concept I’m talking about here … I’m just telling a story about encounters I’ve had with specific people over the years. I’m kind of surprised you’re blatantly accusing me of making these stories up. What reason would I have for doing that? I think you can’t allow yourself to believe them, because (as I’ve said before) it’s real-life experiences that expose the lies of athiesm more than anything else.
David, I’m going to skip ahead to your next post and then return to the rest. In your next post you said:
"The problem, of course, is that if one argues that it’s metaphor for a case like this, the question becomes one of why the six days of creation (for example) must be taken literally. That is an area that you don’t have a problem with, but he does. "

Hee hee. I think I’m gonna tell you this one Dave just to watch your eyes bug out for the fun of it (and I don’t mean that derisively). I actually personally believe that the six days of Creation were six literal days, but I’ve heard a good, Biblically based case made that it could’ve been 6000 years instead, each day repesenting 1000 years. It’s based partly on the verse that says “To the Lord, a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years are like a day.” So don’t assume I believe something without asking ;).
Later you said: "Indeed, this is similar to the reason that some Christians hold on to creationism, even in the face of evidence to the contrary. They believe that if they give up on creationism, all of Christianity will follow. Now, you know that isn’t true, but others don’t. "

LOL! Again, we don’t “hold onto creationism” like we’re slipping off some slippery slope and can barely hang on! It’s just the Bible itself, Dave, just the Bible. If it says it, I believe it (and yes I kno-o-w that statement drives some of you guys crazy, but there it is anyway! :)).

And pardon me but evidence to the contrary!!! THAT is laughable. Are you talking about evolution? Unreal to me that that ridiculous theory is still taught as fact. WITHOUT trying to start a huge creation/evolution thing, my brief comment is – evolution is about as likely as throwing up into the air all the components of a computer, and having them magically fall to the earth over millions of years, interconnecting perfectly to create a fully functional computer at the end. end of comment
You also said: "But we don’t claim that everything we say is literally 100% true without the use of metaphor. "

Are you assuming that true-blue Bible believers don’t think any parts of the Bible are metaphor? Of course parts of the Bible are metaphor! Jesus told stories that He LABELED as parables. Parts of the book of Revelation are clearly LABELED as metaphors for something specific (ie, Lampstands are a metaphor for churches in the book of Revelation for example). How does that make the Bible any less 100% true? It’s true that Jesus told the parables He told. It’s true that John saw what he saw in Revelation, and it’s true that the angel told him what some of the things meant!

Okay, back to Polycarp’s post. In your first paragraph you said better than I did what I was trying to say in the whole “circle” debate, and you’ve just read what I think about metaphors in the Bible.

Regarding the direction I’m taking in “evengelism”, you said "Where we have had a problem is in my observing your attempt at evangelism as being in the direction of “convict them of sin; offer God’s forgiveness; explain Jesus’ Atonement; lead them to Him” – a system that presupposes guilt for sin being present, acceptance of a worldview that incorporates God, etc. "

Actually I don’t totally disagree, especially the line “a system that presupposes guilt for sin being present”. When I USUALLY begin a discussion with someone who doesn’t know Christ, I always realize that my first and biggest task is going to be, over the course of many months, partnering with the Holy Spirit to convince them what sin is. Only then do they realize their OWN sin, then realize their NEED for salvation, and to be honest, the rest is easy. THEY ask for the rest at that point!

So I somewhat agree … I’ve kinda jumped into it all in the middle and end, not at the beginning. I got so engrossed in the details of the debate that it was hard to step back and get the big picture. This is why I’ve been waiting for this post to die down, and then I think I will start a new post on the sinfulness of man. That’s where it’s got to start.
Now to be totally honest Polycarp … I read your 6 points and didn’t 100% follow everything you were saying. I will respond to what I understood.

You said: “And, while FoG, RT, Tris., Lib., and I have had such subjective proof, we can adduce two cases – Glitch and Gaudere – where a person open to receiving such proof did not get it.”

I didn’t know that about Guadere! I remember you mentioning the other person, and I WOULD like to read more about what happened. I can’t really comment without knowing more specifically what happened.
Lastly you said: “And I reject the version of God that depends on the insecurity of people’s belief structures requiring an inerrant book to prop them up. (This is not a slam of you, FoG; but how many people have you known who use the Bible to prove God, when the only rational way to approach it is that God proves the Bible. If there is no God, then the Bible is a collection of myths and folklore, as David B. suggests; if there is, then it bears witness to Him – including, in my considered opinion as a student both of Biblical scholarship and of history of literature and anthropology, some myth and legend giving early understandings of Him.)”

Interesting quote. I agree with the statement “God proves the Bible”, which is kinda what I’ve been trying to say lately . . . that outside archeological and historical proofs might be impressive, but it takes an encounter with the actual, living, breathing God Himself to totally convince you of it.

Your last statement puzzles me … are you saying parts of the Bible are myth and legend, or are you saying myth and legend help give us early understanding of Christ?

As for Monty’s comment about my not knowing much about Buddhism … all I can say is I don’t claim to be a scholar on all the details of each and every world religion. I’m not. All I can comment on is what I do know based on what I have studied. Again, I’m curious to always learn more about what other religions believe. I notice you didn’t answer the question Monty. Do YOU know what the so-called “Eightfold Path” is?
You later said: “That’s not an enlightened outlook there, friend; yet, it is a pretty blatant preconception about another faith. (I’m being nice and not using the word “bigot” here because I honestly don’t think you know any better – I really believe you don’t have the capacity to realize your error.)”

Well, I’ve got news for you Monty . . . I DO know any better. I am very aware of what I am saying and how it will probably offend people. I couldn’t be any more politically incorrect than to say there’s only one way to God. I am fully aware of the ramifications. Yet to “hint” that if I really knew what I was talking about then I’m a bigot is pretty sick. What makes you so certain? I have been friends with various New Age and Hindu people before, and I don’t know a one of them that would call me a bigot.

That’s it for now. Have a good night all.

158

{BANG BANG BANG!}

Does it feel good when you stop, David et al?

Sheesh. Give it up.

Esprix

159

I beseech all of you for the 4th time to please, stop beating this horse!
We’ll call this horse, Charlie. Before Charlie died he was a beautiful black stallion. After he died (About 3 pages into the first Christianity and Love thread) I wanted to try to perserve his beauty. But then you guys all marched in with your baseball bats, lead pipes, and woods with nails in them. And you started beating my beautiful horse. Now nobody can even tell it’s a horse anymore! Now it’s like a bloody disgusting pulp full of flies and maggots, crawling with disease. Can you give it a rest now?

160

How do you know the earth is not a hypersphere?