Customer Discussions > Christianity forum

Here's the reason why many cannot believe in Christianity

This discussion has reached the maximum length permitted, and cannot accept new replies. Start a new discussion


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 126-150 of 1000 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Jan 16, 2013 6:29:03 AM PST
Astrocat says:
BV, and that would be "God" as you define it, correct? Now, see, you can tell me you're a Christian and I'll accept that, but your definition of "God" is something I don't accept just because you say so.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 16, 2013 6:37:53 AM PST
That's one of my reasons for continuing to read the bible as an atheist. It's always fun to counter zealotry with their own holy texts. Of course, then they tell me I'm not interpreting it right.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 16, 2013 6:45:23 AM PST
Bubba says:
Does your tree house have running water?

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 16, 2013 6:48:18 AM PST
go blue:<<Is this true? You [Buck] said previosly - "I don't know exactly what the truth is".>>

Do you believe in God? Do you know "exactly" what God is?

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 16, 2013 6:52:17 AM PST
M. Galishoff says:
Jason

How Should I Live in This World? (Crucial Questions Series) (Crucial Questions (Reformation Trust))

This is a short simple book. there are other more complicated books on ethics and I would have to search around for one if you want - don't have time right now. This is inexpensive and takes about 30 minutes to 1 hr.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 16, 2013 7:19:49 AM PST
I had a similar experience only my experience was driven by neglect.....

..... and no singing around campfires.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 16, 2013 7:27:12 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 16, 2013 7:31:14 AM PST
goblue says:
>>Randall R Young: Do you believe in God? Do you know "exactly" what God is?>>

If you mean to I believe God exists - yes. I know who and what my faith says God is.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 16, 2013 8:00:45 AM PST
The point is, you, like Buck, believe in all kinds of things that you can't exactly define.

I'm sure Buck knows what many philosophical positions "say" truth is, too! That's a little different from knowing 'exactly', isn't it? In fact, in order for you to know what your faith says, 'exactly', wouldn't you have to know every last sentence ever uttered on the topic by every one of your faith's adherents?

Does your faith even *have* a unanimous position on what God is, what His plan is, what He wants, down to every last detail? (I would doubt that. If it did, there would never be any schisms.) If not, then in what sense has your faith "exactly" defined what you believe? How can you "exactly" believe in something which isn't exactly specified?

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 16, 2013 8:04:17 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 16, 2013 9:09:33 AM PST
Harry Marks says:
M. Galishoff -

"What works for me is of no significance. If it was about me it would be nothing."

Maybe, but many people see matters differently, including what the Bible is saying on the subject. So what "works for you" is partly what set of informing factors you find persuasive. You may be convinced that there is only one way of interpreting the scriptural passages, but that doesn't make it so - it only makes it what you are convinced of.

" As you know, many differ as to how this election happens. Some say it is a synergistic work (two people - God and the individual both elect each other or say yes to each other) and others say it is a monergistic work (one person - God doing the choosing and all the work). I believe Scripture supports the latter. "

But surely you see that it makes a huge difference to our approach to others. If the individual is not part of the process, then there is no point in engaging them in conversation about the soul. If the individual to be saved plays no part, then either God does it, or God doesn't do it, and if the person themselves is not part of it, then what hope has any outside person of making a difference?

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 16, 2013 8:08:19 AM PST
Craig says:
If this is true, can God hold disbelief against anyone?

Jesus said in John 3:36 "He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him."

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 16, 2013 8:12:57 AM PST
goblue says:
<<Randall R Young says: The point is, you, like Buck, believe in all kinds of things that you can't exactly define.>>

And your evidence is?

<< fact, in order for you to know what your faith says, 'exactly', wouldn't you have to know every last sentence ever uttered on the topic by every one of your faith's adherents?>>

No - just have to know the orthodox positions presented in the Bible.

<<Doess our faith even *have* a unanimous position on what God is, what His plan is, what He wants, down to every last detail?>>

Yes. Why is every last detail a requirement? The dictates are clear enough - you just have to read with a desire for truth.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 16, 2013 8:21:52 AM PST
What is this "faith" you foist on me?

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 16, 2013 8:31:46 AM PST
One of the things I believe your faith says is that God is "infinite". What does this word mean?

1. Having no boundaries or limits.
2. Immeasurably great or large; boundless: infinite patience; a discovery of infinite importance.
3. Mathematics
a. Existing beyond or being greater than any arbitrarily large value.
b. Unlimited in spatial extent: a line of infinite length.
c. Of or relating to a set capable of being put into one-to-one correspondence with a proper subset of itself.

In Greek, this word is "apeiron", the word-cloud of which includes such ideas as "amorphous", "chaos", "arbitrary", and various kinds of boundary-less, un-specifiable stuff. To be "infinite" is to be undefinable in a profound sense.

Don't you find it somewhat conflicting to suggest that one can believe "exactly" in something this un-specifiable, this undefinable? Many theists in my direct experience have objected to even the *attempt* to define God in any specific terms as being either a fool's errand, or patently non-pious, and possibly heretical. In some views, any possible definition some human might conceive of constitutes some sort of limitation on God's supposed abilities, which leaves a sour taste in these people's mouths.

Do you propose that these people are incorrect? Do you propose that God is, in fact, "exactly" definable by your faith, such that you might be able to provide such a definition, and that this definition would be totally inarguable, and totally exact?

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 16, 2013 8:44:21 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 16, 2013 8:44:38 AM PST
goblue says:
<<Randall R Young:In Greek, this word is "apeiron", the word-cloud of which includes such ideas as "amorphous", "chaos", "arbitrary", and various kinds of boundary-less, un-specifiable stuff. To be "infinite" is to be undefinable in a profound sense">>

The problem with this is a category mistake fallacy. There is no word infinite used in the NT so using Greek to define that word is an error.

However in Psa 147:5 thw word infinite is used to describe God: Great is our Lord, and of great power his understanding is infinite.
That word in Hebrew is:
micpar:in this context defined as:innumerable.
So your assumptions about God being undefined are false.

<<Do you propose that God is, in fact, "exactly" definable by your faith...>>

Perhaps not "exactly" because its impossible for the finite to "exactly" define the infinite - we cannot fully comprehend this but that does not mean God is not knowable and at least comprehensible enough for us to know Him enough to accept His existence and who he is at least in part.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 16, 2013 8:44:47 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 16, 2013 8:48:42 AM PST
<<Why is every last detail a requirement? The dictates are clear enough ...>>

"Clear enough" isn't exactly "exact", is it? Isn't this what you were requiring of Buck? That he required exactitude, in order to know what truth is?

Anyway, that's how I read it.

Also, I'd point out that "clear enough" is itself a matter of opinion. What is "clear enough" from history is that religious schisms often hinge upon differing beliefs about the details of what God is, and what He intends. Frequently, the particular texts to use have been in question. (e.g., the apocrypha; Book of Mormon) And even if you get some sort of agreement about that, each believer, each tradition, has his/its own take on what is most important. Heck, there is even some question as to which of the Ten Commandments is which! See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_commandments
..and scroll down to the table.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 16, 2013 8:47:47 AM PST
BV says:
Nancy - "In their minds that's how they identify themselves, and that's good enough for me."

The problem with that is, say someone says "I'm a Muslim" and then they blow up a building in God's name. You may then say, "Well, I guess that's what their religion is all about."

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 16, 2013 8:47:57 AM PST
I don't mean to be presumptuous, but my sense is that everyone has beliefs in something they can't exactly pin down. Perhaps you are an exception to this rule, but I still think the rule is a good 1st approximation. Who has time to examine each of his paradigms and tenets in complete detail?

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 16, 2013 8:50:51 AM PST
BV says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 16, 2013 8:52:03 AM PST
BV says:
Bubba - "Does your tree house have running water?"

Very clever!

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 16, 2013 8:53:08 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 16, 2013 8:53:34 AM PST
goblue says:
<<Randall R Young says: I don't mean to be presumptuous, but my sense is that everyone has beliefs in something they can't exactly pin down.>>

I can except this as a reasonble statement with a high probability of being true - but the question is "so what"? What effect does this have on the truthfulness of that belief or worldview?

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 16, 2013 8:53:17 AM PST
Astrocat says:
No, that's not what I would say. Knowing a little about Islam I would say that the people who blow up a building were using Islam to justify their actions, but that they were, in fact, going against the five pillars of their faith. Just as Christians who kill abortion doctors are going against the teachings of Christ.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 16, 2013 8:54:38 AM PST
<<So your assumptions about God being undefined are false. >>

???

Doesn't "innumerable" mean that the number is undefinable? Arbitrarily large? Something along those lines? Or do you think it means that the number is zero, or the null set, or something like that?

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 16, 2013 8:55:18 AM PST
Astrocat says:
BV, now you're being ridiculous. Of course my parents were careful not to let me harm myself physically, though they didn't say anything when I climbed tall trees and went tramping in the woods, but I was encouraged to think things through, and to research, to ask questions. They were not dogmatic or authoritarian, and that was exactly what I needed.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 16, 2013 8:58:18 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 16, 2013 9:04:05 AM PST
I've been through this before Randall.

I have a portion of the brain that takes care of all the standard day to day things I need to do to survive optimally.

My mind however can entertain all kinds of notions, but I have yet to adopt a notion as a truth that I can live by, unless it contributes to my survival.

Everything I "believe", is apt to change when circumstances require or demand.

I have found it is not to my benefit to tie my self down to dogmatic beliefs.

In the end, my beliefs are my opinion and they are subject to change given the right stimuli.

I hope that answers your concerns regarding my "faith".

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 16, 2013 8:59:13 AM PST
If you don't mind, I'll let Buck decide to say "so what?"

However, it seems to me that "truthfulness" is a description of one's attitude towards a proposition. That is, a person can be both truthful and factually incorrect, simultaneously. The question is, does the person believe what he is claiming, regardless of the accuracy of that claim?
Discussion locked

 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Christianity forum
Participants:  139
Total posts:  10000
Initial post:  Jan 14, 2013
Latest post:  May 10, 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 7 customers

Search Customer Discussions