BlackCrowes
Footballguy
This
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
A Prayer Of Salvation (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter Paddington
- Start date
The Longtime Lurker
Footballguy
Agree. And how I'd describe myself aswell. I know people that describe themselves as gnostic atheists so when i see atheist and left at that I'm equally as intrigued as I am with OPs belief system and how it's arrived at.
My assumption was most posting skepticism in religion were coming from what is described as agnostic atheism, but incase i was wrong and there were gnostic atheists i would be interested in how that's arrived.
I may have shared before, but I thought this column from NY Times Columnist David French was interesting.
www.nytimes.com
Opinion | I Believe in Miracles. Just Not All of Them.
Let’s not become the supernatural states of America.
I Believe in Miracles. Just Not All of Them.
I want to begin with a wonderful and mysterious story.
It begins badly. In September of 1995, when I was living in Nashville, I was diagnosed with chronic ulcerative colitis, an autoimmune disorder with no known cure. The disease attacks your colon and can produce painful, dysentery-like symptoms, and they emerged right away.
By October I was in crisis. I’d lost more than 40 pounds, I couldn’t eat any solid food; every medical treatment was failing. I was hospitalized and met with a surgeon. Unable to ameliorate the symptoms, we started to consider surgery to remove my colon.
I was miserable. I was literally wasting away, in terrible pain. I was also a little frightened by the prospect of major surgery in my weakened state. I prayed, and I reached out to my friends and asked them to pray for me as well.
As the surgery date approached, I got a call from a dear friend, Ruth Okediji. Ruth was the leader of my law school Christian fellowship, and she’s now a professor at Harvard Law School. I’ll never forget her first words. “It’s over,” she said. “The Lord has healed you.”
Advertisement
SKIP ADVERTISEMENT
My initial reaction was frustration. I was resigned to the surgery, and I wanted encouragement, not false hope. As a Christian, I believe that God is real and works miracles. But I didn’t consider that he would work a miracle on me. My prayers were of the conventional kind that I grew up with — prayers that doctors would have wisdom and that I’d have the courage to face the challenge of the surgery.
But Ruth’s prayer was different. She asked God for healing, and she said that God had granted her prayer.
I hung up the phone feeling no different at all. I was still in pain, except now I was also a little angry. In hindsight, I don’t even know why. Perhaps because I wanted to believe, but just couldn’t.
I woke up the next morning without any pain at all. I had no pain the entire day. The next day was pain-free as well, and so was the next. The doctors reintroduced bland, solid food to my diet, and I consumed it voraciously. By Thanksgiving, I’d gained most of my weight back, and a colonoscopy later showed no evidence of the disease at all.
My doctor was surprised. I was surprised (and overjoyed). I knew that ulcerative colitis could have remission periods, but this one stuck. And in the 29 years since, I’ve never had a recurrence.
I know that skeptical readers can offer alternative explanations for what happened. Perhaps I was misdiagnosed. Perhaps despite my initial frustrations with the call, there was some sort of powerful placebo effect. Perhaps there’s another explanation I haven’t considered.
And I’m cognizant as I tell this story of all the suffering people who haven’t experienced this kind of relief. I’m cognizant of my wife’s cancer battle. She’s now cancer-free, but not because she woke up one morning without symptoms because a friend prayed for her; it’s because she courageously endured every step of grueling treatment, from chemotherapy to surgery to radiation under the care of competent and compassionate medical professionals.
I’m sharing this story because America is at a counterintuitive spiritual crossroads. Organized religion is declining rapidly. The fastest-growing segment of American religious life is the nones, the people who don’t lay claim to any particular religious affiliation. At the same time, however, there remains an intense interest in all things supernatural, both inside and outside of organized religion.
Outside of organized religion, you’re seeing the explosive growth of psychedelics, including in parts of the American elite. Last year, Kirsten Grind and Katherine Bindley reported in The Wall Street Journal about the psychedelics that “power Silicon Valley.”
“Elon Musk takes ketamine,” they wrote. “Sergey Brin sometimes enjoys magic mushrooms. Executives at venture-capital firm Founders Fund, known for its investments in SpaceX and Facebook, have thrown parties that include psychedelics.”
Advertisement
SKIP ADVERTISEMENT
And it’s not just the power elite. The value of the psychedelic drug market is skyrocketing. Grind and Bindley said it was quite likely to reach $11.8 billion by 2029, a startling increase from its $4.9 billion value in 2022.
Stories of paranormal encounters are popping up across pop culture. In October, Tucker Carlson claimed that he had been physically attacked by a demon in his sleep. Sohrab Ahmari, a former Op-Ed page editor of The New York Post and one of the founders of Compact magazine, wrote about his own psychedelic experience with the hallucinogenic drink ayahuasca.
“At its most intense,” he wrote, “the ayahuasca ‘trip’ felt like the closest I have ever come to waging a full-on spiritual battle, with the stakes being no lower than my life and fidelity to the one God.”
In my own life, I’ve encountered a number of people who’ve turned to psychedelics. Some have described microdosing as lifesaving and even beautiful. Others have described it as the most terrifying experience of their lives and talk about encountering presences or spirits that felt purely evil.
In the church world, the rise of Pentecostalism — and especially the rise of a Pentecostal movement called the New Apostolic Reformation — has led to intense interest in faith healing, prophecy and insights gained from dreams and visions.
Much of this spiritualism is taking place in independent charismatic churches, which are as far from organized religion as any church can be while still remaining a church. Independent charismatic churches aren’t accountable to any denominational superstructure. There’s no formal process for ordaining pastors. If a charismatic leader can gain a following, he can build a church, and many millions of people will follow self-described prophets and apostles when they claim to hear direct revelations from God.
Pentecostal Christians have also created an entire taxonomy of spiritual warfare. In the Book of Ephesians, the Apostle Paul wrote, “For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.”
Many Christians take this passage to an extreme. They’ll pray against the demonic influences at work. They’ll engage in Jericho marches during which they’ll walk around a school or government building, for example, to claim spiritual dominion over the place and to cast out demonic influences.
Why is this happening? Why would a less religious nation still be so spiritual?
Believing Christians have an answer to this question. God, Solomon wrote in the Book of Ecclesiastes, “has made everything beautiful in its time. He has also set eternity in the human heart; yet no one can fathom what God has done from beginning to end.”
In other words, humanity has always felt a pull toward the transcendent, a pull that persists even through the modern era of scientific inquiry.
It begins badly. In September of 1995, when I was living in Nashville, I was diagnosed with chronic ulcerative colitis, an autoimmune disorder with no known cure. The disease attacks your colon and can produce painful, dysentery-like symptoms, and they emerged right away.
By October I was in crisis. I’d lost more than 40 pounds, I couldn’t eat any solid food; every medical treatment was failing. I was hospitalized and met with a surgeon. Unable to ameliorate the symptoms, we started to consider surgery to remove my colon.
I was miserable. I was literally wasting away, in terrible pain. I was also a little frightened by the prospect of major surgery in my weakened state. I prayed, and I reached out to my friends and asked them to pray for me as well.
As the surgery date approached, I got a call from a dear friend, Ruth Okediji. Ruth was the leader of my law school Christian fellowship, and she’s now a professor at Harvard Law School. I’ll never forget her first words. “It’s over,” she said. “The Lord has healed you.”
Advertisement
SKIP ADVERTISEMENT
My initial reaction was frustration. I was resigned to the surgery, and I wanted encouragement, not false hope. As a Christian, I believe that God is real and works miracles. But I didn’t consider that he would work a miracle on me. My prayers were of the conventional kind that I grew up with — prayers that doctors would have wisdom and that I’d have the courage to face the challenge of the surgery.
But Ruth’s prayer was different. She asked God for healing, and she said that God had granted her prayer.
I hung up the phone feeling no different at all. I was still in pain, except now I was also a little angry. In hindsight, I don’t even know why. Perhaps because I wanted to believe, but just couldn’t.
I woke up the next morning without any pain at all. I had no pain the entire day. The next day was pain-free as well, and so was the next. The doctors reintroduced bland, solid food to my diet, and I consumed it voraciously. By Thanksgiving, I’d gained most of my weight back, and a colonoscopy later showed no evidence of the disease at all.
My doctor was surprised. I was surprised (and overjoyed). I knew that ulcerative colitis could have remission periods, but this one stuck. And in the 29 years since, I’ve never had a recurrence.
I know that skeptical readers can offer alternative explanations for what happened. Perhaps I was misdiagnosed. Perhaps despite my initial frustrations with the call, there was some sort of powerful placebo effect. Perhaps there’s another explanation I haven’t considered.
And I’m cognizant as I tell this story of all the suffering people who haven’t experienced this kind of relief. I’m cognizant of my wife’s cancer battle. She’s now cancer-free, but not because she woke up one morning without symptoms because a friend prayed for her; it’s because she courageously endured every step of grueling treatment, from chemotherapy to surgery to radiation under the care of competent and compassionate medical professionals.
I’m sharing this story because America is at a counterintuitive spiritual crossroads. Organized religion is declining rapidly. The fastest-growing segment of American religious life is the nones, the people who don’t lay claim to any particular religious affiliation. At the same time, however, there remains an intense interest in all things supernatural, both inside and outside of organized religion.
Outside of organized religion, you’re seeing the explosive growth of psychedelics, including in parts of the American elite. Last year, Kirsten Grind and Katherine Bindley reported in The Wall Street Journal about the psychedelics that “power Silicon Valley.”
“Elon Musk takes ketamine,” they wrote. “Sergey Brin sometimes enjoys magic mushrooms. Executives at venture-capital firm Founders Fund, known for its investments in SpaceX and Facebook, have thrown parties that include psychedelics.”
Advertisement
SKIP ADVERTISEMENT
And it’s not just the power elite. The value of the psychedelic drug market is skyrocketing. Grind and Bindley said it was quite likely to reach $11.8 billion by 2029, a startling increase from its $4.9 billion value in 2022.
Stories of paranormal encounters are popping up across pop culture. In October, Tucker Carlson claimed that he had been physically attacked by a demon in his sleep. Sohrab Ahmari, a former Op-Ed page editor of The New York Post and one of the founders of Compact magazine, wrote about his own psychedelic experience with the hallucinogenic drink ayahuasca.
“At its most intense,” he wrote, “the ayahuasca ‘trip’ felt like the closest I have ever come to waging a full-on spiritual battle, with the stakes being no lower than my life and fidelity to the one God.”
In my own life, I’ve encountered a number of people who’ve turned to psychedelics. Some have described microdosing as lifesaving and even beautiful. Others have described it as the most terrifying experience of their lives and talk about encountering presences or spirits that felt purely evil.
In the church world, the rise of Pentecostalism — and especially the rise of a Pentecostal movement called the New Apostolic Reformation — has led to intense interest in faith healing, prophecy and insights gained from dreams and visions.
Much of this spiritualism is taking place in independent charismatic churches, which are as far from organized religion as any church can be while still remaining a church. Independent charismatic churches aren’t accountable to any denominational superstructure. There’s no formal process for ordaining pastors. If a charismatic leader can gain a following, he can build a church, and many millions of people will follow self-described prophets and apostles when they claim to hear direct revelations from God.
Pentecostal Christians have also created an entire taxonomy of spiritual warfare. In the Book of Ephesians, the Apostle Paul wrote, “For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.”
Many Christians take this passage to an extreme. They’ll pray against the demonic influences at work. They’ll engage in Jericho marches during which they’ll walk around a school or government building, for example, to claim spiritual dominion over the place and to cast out demonic influences.
Why is this happening? Why would a less religious nation still be so spiritual?
Believing Christians have an answer to this question. God, Solomon wrote in the Book of Ecclesiastes, “has made everything beautiful in its time. He has also set eternity in the human heart; yet no one can fathom what God has done from beginning to end.”
In other words, humanity has always felt a pull toward the transcendent, a pull that persists even through the modern era of scientific inquiry.
Since I’m a Christian who has had his own mysterious and life-changing encounter with the unexplained, you might think I’d be enthusiastic about this surge of supernatural interest. But my feelings are much more mixed.
When I first wrestled with the role of the supernatural in my life, I turned to the wisdom of C.S. Lewis. In “The Screwtape Letters,” he wrote: “There are two equal and opposite errors into which our race can fall about the devils. One is to disbelieve in their existence. The other is to believe, and to feel an excessive and unhealthy interest in them.”
Scripture is replete with both stories of divine intervention in human affairs and with warnings against witchcraft and divination. One even wonders whether experimentation with hallucinogenic trips that can lead to encounters with an evil presence is permissible for Christians.
But I’m less concerned with outright demonic possession (though the demand for exorcisms continues to rise) than I am with a more prosaic effect of the unhealthy interest in the supernatural — a kind of arrogant departure from the world of reason.
You see this in some of the ambitions of the Silicon Valley elite. In their Wall Street Journal report, Grind and Bindley spoke to Spencer Shulem, a chief executive who uses LSD, and said founders turn to psychedelics because “they don’t want a normal person, a normal company,” before adding that “they want something extraordinary. You’re not born extraordinary.”
It’s seductive to believe that you can hear from God. It provides a clarity that your reason might deny you. It provides purpose in the face of confusion. I’m reminded — in a very different context — of a conversation I had with a Pentecostal law school classmate. “I was with you about Donald Trump,” she told me, “until the Lord told me that he had chosen Trump to lead.” And just like that, the argument was over. I was skeptical, but she knew where she stood.
Second sight. Prophetic visions. Dreams. Mind expansion. The idea that one can gain supernatural insight as a means not just of achieving happiness, but also as a means of obtaining knowledge, wealth and power, is causing many Americans to create their own bespoke religions. It’s feeding the will to power of parts of the American elite and is spreading throughout our society. They’re trying to leverage the supernatural to become Nietzschean supermen.
What is the right balance between a cold scientific materialism that believes only what it can see, touch and discern through pure human reason and unstable supernaturalism, where a person dances at the edge of delusion?
You can see the answer hidden in the verse in Ecclesiastes I highlighted. Yes, God set eternity in our hearts, but also “no one can fathom what God has done from beginning to end.” Our response to the supernatural should be humility and awe, not an arrogant grasp for God’s knowledge and God’s power.
In fact, that’s the biblical pattern. Time and again, when the people of God encounter the presence of God, they’re immediately humbled. They fall on their faces. They become acutely aware of their own sin. They do not rise and believe “I am extraordinary.”
I’ve shared my personal stories because I don’t want readers to dismiss the idea that God is real, that he loves his creation, and that he still moves in our lives. Yet an unhealthy pull toward the supernatural doesn’t just potentially expose us to dangerous darkness, it also tempts all of us toward far more common sins — including instability and arrogance.
I’ve reconciled myself to the supernatural by seeking God’s grace, not God’s power. I’m content with the idea that there are mysteries beyond human explanation, but if we separate ourselves from reason, our delusions will lead us astray.
When I first wrestled with the role of the supernatural in my life, I turned to the wisdom of C.S. Lewis. In “The Screwtape Letters,” he wrote: “There are two equal and opposite errors into which our race can fall about the devils. One is to disbelieve in their existence. The other is to believe, and to feel an excessive and unhealthy interest in them.”
Scripture is replete with both stories of divine intervention in human affairs and with warnings against witchcraft and divination. One even wonders whether experimentation with hallucinogenic trips that can lead to encounters with an evil presence is permissible for Christians.
But I’m less concerned with outright demonic possession (though the demand for exorcisms continues to rise) than I am with a more prosaic effect of the unhealthy interest in the supernatural — a kind of arrogant departure from the world of reason.
You see this in some of the ambitions of the Silicon Valley elite. In their Wall Street Journal report, Grind and Bindley spoke to Spencer Shulem, a chief executive who uses LSD, and said founders turn to psychedelics because “they don’t want a normal person, a normal company,” before adding that “they want something extraordinary. You’re not born extraordinary.”
It’s seductive to believe that you can hear from God. It provides a clarity that your reason might deny you. It provides purpose in the face of confusion. I’m reminded — in a very different context — of a conversation I had with a Pentecostal law school classmate. “I was with you about Donald Trump,” she told me, “until the Lord told me that he had chosen Trump to lead.” And just like that, the argument was over. I was skeptical, but she knew where she stood.
Second sight. Prophetic visions. Dreams. Mind expansion. The idea that one can gain supernatural insight as a means not just of achieving happiness, but also as a means of obtaining knowledge, wealth and power, is causing many Americans to create their own bespoke religions. It’s feeding the will to power of parts of the American elite and is spreading throughout our society. They’re trying to leverage the supernatural to become Nietzschean supermen.
What is the right balance between a cold scientific materialism that believes only what it can see, touch and discern through pure human reason and unstable supernaturalism, where a person dances at the edge of delusion?
You can see the answer hidden in the verse in Ecclesiastes I highlighted. Yes, God set eternity in our hearts, but also “no one can fathom what God has done from beginning to end.” Our response to the supernatural should be humility and awe, not an arrogant grasp for God’s knowledge and God’s power.
In fact, that’s the biblical pattern. Time and again, when the people of God encounter the presence of God, they’re immediately humbled. They fall on their faces. They become acutely aware of their own sin. They do not rise and believe “I am extraordinary.”
I’ve shared my personal stories because I don’t want readers to dismiss the idea that God is real, that he loves his creation, and that he still moves in our lives. Yet an unhealthy pull toward the supernatural doesn’t just potentially expose us to dangerous darkness, it also tempts all of us toward far more common sins — including instability and arrogance.
I’ve reconciled myself to the supernatural by seeking God’s grace, not God’s power. I’m content with the idea that there are mysteries beyond human explanation, but if we separate ourselves from reason, our delusions will lead us astray.
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
Paraphrasing a piece of today's sermon.
I wonder if we even need to do that? But at the same time, I am pretty confident on how God hopes we express gratitude - by paying it forward.
Paddington
Footballguy
Not sure why anything I said was arrogant, demeaning, condescending. Could you please give some specific examples? Why dies it seem that others are allowed to express their true opinions without being these things, but when I do, some here percieve it that way? What Jesus and the Apostles preached offended people because it was a light in a dark world. They were hated for it and all but 1 was murdered for it. I am trying to.dp tge same thing that they did. Nothing is more living to people than to tell people the truth, even when they disagree. Love does not mean affirming bevavior that the Bible calls sinful, but I haven't even condemned any specific behavior here. I am here telling people what the Bible says they must do to.be saved and I am defending the Bible as the Word of God. I don't see that as arrogant or demeaning, condescending. Sorry, but I don’t .This post is exactly why so many are hostile when they see yet another thread from you. I'm not one of those people. But this post gets to the heart of pretty much every criticism. And to be blunt the word that I would use to best characterize the above would be greatly frowned upon. So, I looked it up and it has 126 synonyms which would either be also frowned upon or too obscure to matter. So, let me try "to be excellent" and still communicate the point that your post to me is arrogant, demeaning, condescending but most of all.
A page or two ago @Joe Bryant highlighted one of your posts and stated that post like that one is how we better understand each other which furthers better discussion. I think that most everyone in this thread gets you. Some might argue but we get that you are spreading your good news out of love. You are trying to save me and anyone and everyone else. And so "thanks".
But shouldn't this be a two-way street? In all of these years I have seen zero evidence that you at any time have made any effort to get to understand me or anyone else in these threads. You want to convince me, but absolutely refused to meet me where I am, or even halfway. In the past you have stated that you would not dilute your beliefs, or something similar. No one is asking that. The theme of every one of these threads has ultimately been that your delivery is counterproductive. This post would never lead me to click on your link (though I am pretty sure I have in the past). It causes me to instinctively recoil. Not going there. Am I alone?
I get that in your mid-acts bubble your way of thinking is shared. My way is foreign. I used to think that I lived in a bubble of one, but through the 24 1/2 years of this forum's existence I've learned otherwise. Sometimes surprisingly. Your way is foreign to my faith bubble, but not so much in my world. Your specifics (mid-acts) are both foreign and familiar at the same time. Funny that at a very high-level "age of grace" is more familiar sounding with my liberal* Christian friends. In any case I will never be a Christian that interprets the bible literally. I know too much, both about the Bible, both contents and history, and about the universe. You're banging your head against the wall here. Am I alone?
I'm not going to challenge the intelligence or the education level of any modern individual that reads the bible literally. I would guess though that many are weary of "worldly knowledge". Something that is a common thread right from the beginning of scripture. In some other thread I pointed out that while watching Ancient Apocalypse (or something along those lines) that there seemed to be a common theme in creation myths of some outsider bringing the earliest people some kind of knowledge. And most of the time that outsider was accompanied by some form or representation of a snake or serpent. Sounds very familiar. Except for every other culture this event was celebrated. In the Judeo-Christian world this the great "fall". I will also never be the kind of Christian that sees knowing things through this lens of it being "anti-God" or "anti-faith". That knowing things is participating in a great lie against the Truth. I cannot be that person. Am I alone?
I also cannot be the person that believes bronze age intellects, or their first century counterparts could possibly know more about the functioning of the universe than I do. Sorry, that is just
I have no problem understanding the Bible. The bible from beginning to end teaches one thing "Love thy neighbor". To quote Hillel, who is traditionally supposed to have trained Saul at Shabbat 31a
Or more commonly interpreted "All the rest is commentary". Jesus says the same thing with the greatest commandment (there is just one), various parables but especially the Good Samaritan and the Goats and the Sheep. Paul says the same in the undisputed letters Galatian 5:14 and Romans 13:10. And James 2:8. For this I have no doubts. But what about Jesus? If you believe that Jesus wasn't just a confused, hapless guy that was executed as a troublemaker but someone that went to the cross to save humanity from sin** then isn't Jesus an ultimate example of such love. Is this what Les Feldick taught? If not, I'll arrogantly and condescendingly and probably demeaning state he didn't have a clue. Am I alone?
But he probably did teach some variant of this. I'd hope so. Can you "love thy neighbor" without meeting them where they are when you are trying to sell them on an idea? By demanding that they come to you? I believe that we agree on far more things than we disagree on. Both in faith and the world around us. I am not trying to get you to believe as I do on those last few things. I don't express them to convince anyone, but to share what I think, who I am. I don't think you intend to be arrogant and condescending but instead loving. But until you at least come halfway your message is going to at best fall on deaf ears and more likely be received with hostility. I stand by that I find your post to me as mostly
*Neither of us are using liberal (individual interpretation of scripture, focusing on the ethical teachings of Jesus and promoting social justice, inclusivity, and the evolving understanding of faith) and conservative (traditional interpretations of the Bible, emphasizing doctrinal orthodoxy, literal truth of scripture, and the importance of evangelism and moral absolutes) in this thread in a political manner. Might be arguably "putting people in a box", but I am simply using it as a common shorthand not a straitjacket defining characteristic. Or suggesting that the "good" characteristics only belong to one side or another.)
**I think non-believers can accept that Jesus went to the cross to save humanity from sin. They'd argue that he did so because he was delusional or something like that, but that he still believed that was what he was doing. Obviously, believers don't think he was delusional.
Biblical Salvation is by Grace through Faith in Christ alone, believing that Jesus died and rose again, shedding His blood as the sacrifice for our sins.
Faith is believing God to the point of submission of your will to His.
I cannot apologize for saying that, I am not the one who said it, the Bible did. I have studied Theology 2 hours a day for years. I do not know all of the answers, but I do know what the Bible says about Salvation in proper context.
Paddington
Footballguy
You have a right to your opinion, however false I believe it is. Do I agree with it? No way. Is it arrogant? I don’t think so IF it is your honest opinion. I hang out with a lot of Engineers who disagree with me on Religion and we debate thos way for hours. We are good friends and shake hands as we agree to disagree. But what I respect about them is thatvthey tell me the truth about what they honestly believe. Otherwise it is a complete waste of time to even talk about it."I hate to break it to you but it is precisely the educated people who do not take the Bible literally or even seriously. Despite that, atheists are the most learned and educated Bible (or theology) students. I have now located the reason why you struggle believing in fictional nonsense. It is because you do take the Bible literally. If you studied under an objective historian who considers comparative religion and basic scientific principles the fact that the Bible is not the actual word of an omniscient deity will make sense to you for the first time."Page 1 - plants, animals and then man
Page 2 - man, plants and then animals
Is there a common theme or two, certainly. But the different perspectives of the differing authors contradict each other within two pages. Except, I assume you'll assert that Genesis has only one author. While, I say this is only a contradiction if you think the authors are telling you what literally happened. And when you tell me page 1 is about days 1 through 6 and page 2 is only about day 6, you're not really being literal in the interpretation. Maybe you would be correct, but that is based on tradition and not just what is in the text.
This is clearly a convincing argument for some, not so much for others. I think from a "know your audience" perspective that this thread has many more "not so much" posters than "convincing" posters. So not really a good argument here. I also think most, even Christians that otherwise believe this could rather easily and convincingly explain all this evidence away if they had to without much of a stretch or even knowledge of the bible, even if those explanations were all wrong.
But more importantly, this is "evidence" that is not even relevant for me. I'm not looking for signs that "prove" who Jesus is. Fulfilling prophecy, miracles past and present, etc.. I already accept that Jesus is the path for me to best understand God in my part of the world. So, I'm trying to understand who he was and what he taught. This stuff offers little in that regard. Even if I accept that Jesus fits the mold of these prophesies, I only really learn peripheral stuff.
Contra Celsus by Origen "as an adequate rebuttal to all criticisms the church would ever face" addresses this directly in the late second, early third century. As do others. Yes, the uneducated masses took it literally and thankfully it offered them a little something. And that continued right up until the masses were educated. At which point in the 18 century the modern literalist movement emerged. A movement which asserts things that the earlier masses would never even have considered because they would never been in a position to ask such questions. So, I think this "ancients took scripture literally" is one of those assertions that is factually true, but somewhat misleading.
And am I really supposed to be impressed by what those that weren't afforded an opportunity to develop whatever intelligence they had understood?
I hate to break it to you but it is precisely the educated believers who do take the Bible literally. Dispensationalists are the most literal and educated Bible students. I have now located the reason why you struggle. It is because you do not take the Bible literally. If you study under a good mid-acts dispensational teacher the Bible will make sense to you for the first time.
Respectfully, do you see how off-putting the above sounds likely sounds to you? This is how you sound to everybody else. You're doing a disservice to your message.
You have a right to your opinion, however false I believe it is. Do I agree with it? No way. Is it arrogant? I don’t think so IF it is your honest opinion. I hang out with a lot of Engineers who disagree with me on Religion and we debate thos way for hours. We are good friends and shake hands as we agree to disagree. But what I respect about them is thatvthey tell me the truth about what they honestly believe. Otherwise it is a complete waste of time to even talk about it."I hate to break it to you but it is precisely the educated people who do not take the Bible literally or even seriously. Despite that, atheists are the most learned and educated Bible (or theology) students. I have now located the reason why you struggle believing in fictional nonsense. It is because you do take the Bible literally. If you studied under an objective historian who considers comparative religion and basic scientific principles the fact that the Bible is not the actual word of an omniscient deity will make sense to you for the first time."Page 1 - plants, animals and then man
Page 2 - man, plants and then animals
Is there a common theme or two, certainly. But the different perspectives of the differing authors contradict each other within two pages. Except, I assume you'll assert that Genesis has only one author. While, I say this is only a contradiction if you think the authors are telling you what literally happened. And when you tell me page 1 is about days 1 through 6 and page 2 is only about day 6, you're not really being literal in the interpretation. Maybe you would be correct, but that is based on tradition and not just what is in the text.
This is clearly a convincing argument for some, not so much for others. I think from a "know your audience" perspective that this thread has many more "not so much" posters than "convincing" posters. So not really a good argument here. I also think most, even Christians that otherwise believe this could rather easily and convincingly explain all this evidence away if they had to without much of a stretch or even knowledge of the bible, even if those explanations were all wrong.
But more importantly, this is "evidence" that is not even relevant for me. I'm not looking for signs that "prove" who Jesus is. Fulfilling prophecy, miracles past and present, etc.
Contra Celsus by Origen "as an adequate rebuttal to all criticisms the church would ever face" addresses this directly in the late second, early third century. As do others. Yes, the uneducated masses took it literally and thankfully it offered them a little something. And that continued right up until the masses were educated. At which point in the 18 century the modern literalist movement emerged. A movement which asserts things that the earlier masses would never even have considered because they would never been in a position to ask such questions. So, I think this "ancients took scripture literally" is one of those assertions that is factually true, but somewhat misleading.
And am I really supposed to be impressed by what those that weren't afforded an opportunity to develop whatever intelligence they had understood?
I hate to break it to you but it is precisely the educated believers who do take the Bible literally. Dispensationalists are the most literal and educated Bible students. I have now located the reason why you struggle. It is because you do not take the Bible literally. If you study under a good mid-acts dispensational teacher the Bible will make sense to you for the first time.
Respectfully, do you see how off-putting the above sounds likely sounds to you? This is how you sound to everybody else. You're doing a disservice to your message.
Agreed. Understanding where other people are coming from with different opinions is for me, a huge positive of this forum.
Captain Cranks
Footballguy
That's what you think he said?
Zow
Footballguy
I honestly believe the human concept of an omniscient G/god doesn't exist but... you really didn't see the point in my post about phrasing one's messaging?You have a right to your opinion, however false I believe it is. Do I agree with it? No way. Is it arrogant? I don’t think so IF it is your honest opinion. I hang out with a lot of Engineers who disagree with me on Religion and we debate thos way for hours. We are good friends and shake hands as we agree to disagree. But what I respect about them is thatvthey tell me the truth about what they honestly believe. Otherwise it is a complete waste of time to even talk about it."I hate to break it to you but it is precisely the educated people who do not take the Bible literally or even seriously. Despite that, atheists are the most learned and educated Bible (or theology) students. I have now located the reason why you struggle believing in fictional nonsense. It is because you do take the Bible literally. If you studied under an objective historian who considers comparative religion and basic scientific principles the fact that the Bible is not the actual word of an omniscient deity will make sense to you for the first time."Page 1 - plants, animals and then man
Page 2 - man, plants and then animals
Is there a common theme or two, certainly. But the different perspectives of the differing authors contradict each other within two pages. Except, I assume you'll assert that Genesis has only one author. While, I say this is only a contradiction if you think the authors are telling you what literally happened. And when you tell me page 1 is about days 1 through 6 and page 2 is only about day 6, you're not really being literal in the interpretation. Maybe you would be correct, but that is based on tradition and not just what is in the text.
This is clearly a convincing argument for some, not so much for others. I think from a "know your audience" perspective that this thread has many more "not so much" posters than "convincing" posters. So not really a good argument here. I also think most, even Christians that otherwise believe this could rather easily and convincingly explain all this evidence away if they had to without much of a stretch or even knowledge of the bible, even if those explanations were all wrong.
But more importantly, this is "evidence" that is not even relevant for me. I'm not looking for signs that "prove" who Jesus is. Fulfilling prophecy, miracles past and present, etc.
Contra Celsus by Origen "as an adequate rebuttal to all criticisms the church would ever face" addresses this directly in the late second, early third century. As do others. Yes, the uneducated masses took it literally and thankfully it offered them a little something. And that continued right up until the masses were educated. At which point in the 18 century the modern literalist movement emerged. A movement which asserts things that the earlier masses would never even have considered because they would never been in a position to ask such questions. So, I think this "ancients took scripture literally" is one of those assertions that is factually true, but somewhat misleading.
And am I really supposed to be impressed by what those that weren't afforded an opportunity to develop whatever intelligence they had understood?
I hate to break it to you but it is precisely the educated believers who do take the Bible literally. Dispensationalists are the most literal and educated Bible students. I have now located the reason why you struggle. It is because you do not take the Bible literally. If you study under a good mid-acts dispensational teacher the Bible will make sense to you for the first time.
Respectfully, do you see how off-putting the above sounds likely sounds to you? This is how you sound to everybody else. You're doing a disservice to your message.
My edited quote dripped with arrogance.
Absolutely.
But regardless of what he said, I think understanding where other people are coming from with different opinions is for me, a huge positive of this forum.
Last edited:
Captain Cranks
Footballguy
Zow
Footballguy
Direct and literal is fine. The below statement is not that:
"I hate to break it to you but it is precisely the educated believers who do take the Bible literally. Dispensationalists are the most literal and educated Bible students. I have now located the reason why you struggle. It is because you do not take the Bible literally. If you study under a good mid-acts dispensational teacher the Bible will make sense to you for the first time."
This statement is condescending to the listener and is myopic and argumentative as to the common sentiment that biblical interpretation is subject to opinion. I further do not see it as Paddington explaining where he "is coming from" regarding his conclusory assertions. My hope with editing so that it reads as if spoken by an atheist to a believer was to demonstrate to Paddington his messaging immediately turns the listener off like it does. Instead, he interprets it as my actual opinion (which it is not).
Last edited:
I’d assume that all intellectually honest atheists would concede they’re in the agnostic atheist quadrant. I might be wrong, but I don’t think there is a proof that God doesn’t exist, nor could there be, really. At best, atheists can try to poke holes in the proofs that God does exist.
Yet, I encounter a lot of atheists (including many of my close friends) who would say they fall within the gnostic atheist camp, and they point to the big bang, evolution, the existence of evil, and the things they find ridiculous (or even bad) about organized religion. But, when I explain to them that there’s a difference between natural theology and revealed theology, and thus I don’t need to prove that any particular religion is correct, their eyes glaze over.
dkp993
Footballguy
Very PC of you Cranks.
The Longtime Lurker
Footballguy
This is an interesting idea. Are you saying that you don't fall into any particular religion, but believe in god based on what you see in the natural world around you?
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
Direct is fine. Not caring is fine. It is just counterproductive if the goal is to convince someone to change their mind. Though I think "counterproductive" is very watered-down version of the "direct" wording.
That, and the exactly opposite of "understanding where other people are coming from".
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
Shouldn't all believers be agnostic theist for the exact same reason?
Technically agnostic doesn't just mean "unknown" but also "unknowable", but I don't think that changes anything except a willingness to confess their belief is ultimately "unknowable". But isn't it?
Though the other definition of agnostic, noncommittal is not going to apply,
No. I’m Catholic, and I guess you would say I’m a Thomist.
In line with that latter tradition, I see arriving at Christianity as a two part process: (1) Proving the existence of God via philosophical demonstration, which I think can be (and has been) done. From these proofs, the divine attributes follow as corollaries (unity, immutability, eternity, immateriality, necessity, simplicity, omnipotence, omniscience, simplicity, goodness, etc.). (2) God‘s oneness => monotheism. So we search the monotheistic religions for the correct one. Then, the idea is that the miracle of the resurrection shows that it’s Christianity.
(1) is natural theology, which I think gets its name because the proofs come from natural means (I.e., observations about reality and the natural world, and logic and reasoning), not supernatural ones like miracles. (2) is revealed theology, or the stuff of organized religion.
Anyhow, the point I make to my friends is that you can prove that God exists, (1), without relying on (2). So even if someone could prove that the resurrection is false (which would be fatal to Christianity), they have not shown that God doesn’t exist. They still need to grapple with the arguments made by Aristotle, Aquinas et al and show that either their metaphysical principles are wrong or their arguments are flawed.
A lot of Catholics like me do not view faith as being the belief in something uncertain. We contend that our religion is rational, grounded in reason. So, faith, properly understood, is more akin to the faithfulness that a husband has in the relationship with his wife and the natural rules that define it. Indeed, it’s living in union with God and living in fidelity to his will and his word.
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
Do you see the disconnect here? For an atheist to be intellectually honest they would need to concede that they cannot know (or prove) that God doesn't exist, but believers "properly understanding" faith need not be uncertain about God's existence. The analogy doesn't save this, nor even support it.
Paddington
Footballguy
I truly love the amazing amount of discussion in this forum on this topic.
Paddington
Footballguy
It's not about me having all of the answers, it's about the Word of God having all of the answers. I am not trying to sound arrogant, I am trying to express to people here what the Bible says and many don't like it. What if Jesus came here and said these things? Would you believe Him? Jesus proclaimed the Bible, (The OT at that time) and expected them to believe.
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
The “Jewish Bible” was still a hundred years from being a thing during the time of Jesus. However, I don’t think a rational argument can be made that Jesus didn’t accept the scripture of his day which was more or less the same - more towards more.
I assume that if Jesus was here today most of us would see and hear as well as, well everyone Mark. That it’s only the demons and the Centurion that get it while the true believers are running and hiding as they deny everything.
No, I don’t follow you.
If I understand Captain Cranks correctly, being agnostic means that you may believe God exists/ doesn’t exist, but you can’t prove it. Thus you’re conceding that there’s uncertainty.
Atheism is a negative philosophy in the sense that it cannot prove that God doesn’t exist, whereas theism is positive because it claims that it can show that he does. Indeed, all an atheist can do is try to debunk this or that theistic proof or religion. So, an atheist should always identify as agnostic, while a theist doesn’t have to.
dgreen
Footballguy
I’m not sure what you mean by this.
I’m the opposite of you, as my faith journey didn’t really kickoff until I got to college.
My undergraduate degree is in mathematics. While I was taking upper division courses towards that end, I became interested in the questions surrounding the universals (i.e., the laws of logic, mathematical principles, propositions, etc.): Do they really exist? Are they independent of the human mind, or are they mind dependent? If it’s the former, how is that possible? Where do they come from? If it’s the latter, what are the implications? And so on.
I’m not going to bore you with the details, but the short of it is that this line of inquiry ultimately led me to Thomism. Indeed, I’ve come to believe that the greatest thinker in the history of the world isn’t a mathematician or physicist like Newton, Archimedes, Gauss, Einstein, or Dirac, as I had previously thought. No, it’s a Medieval Catholic friar, who expanded upon Aristotelianism and developed what’s basically a unified theory of everything philosophical, theological, and religious.
This doesn't sound right. A theist can only "know" god exists via proof of that existence, just as an atheist can only "know" god doesn't exist via proof of non-existence. To date, no theists have conclusively proven god's existence, thus all theists should be agnostic about their belief. Unless, for example, one uses an argument such as "god spoke to me, therefore god exists" as proof, in which case, atheists should be able to use the same unconvincing, non-evidentiary level of proof.
Navin Johnson
Footballguy
You would think, but if you ask the average believer what would change their mind, they will say "Nothing". Ask an atheist the same thing and they will say "evidence." It is a scary slippery slope you step on to when you can believe without evidence. You can convince yourself of anything at that point.
Navin Johnson
Footballguy
a lot of people lack the self awareness that they aren't very winsome when witnessing/evangelizing
The Longtime Lurker
Footballguy
I've never taken a deep dive into this. Do you have any resources as to the best place to start?
Captain Cranks
Footballguy
Quick video on Did Moses Exist?
What I found most interesting was the walkthrough of what scholars/historians use to determine historicity.
What I found most interesting was the walkthrough of what scholars/historians use to determine historicity.
dgreen
Footballguy
I wonder how many people this historical method can confirm existed so far back in history. And, I wonder if this method would conclude in 3000 years whether or not I existed in 2025.
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
For starters I provided the relevant definition for my post for agnostic.
Agnostic - The existence of God is both unknown and unknowable.
Gnostic - The existence of God is known (in this context one way or another)
And, while there are exceptions to prove the rule in general you cannot prove a negative. So, you get the "I cannot prove that the invisible spaghetti monster isn't..." or "last Tuesday'ism" as analogies as to why one cannot prove the non-existence of God. But despite being a believer I'll assert that not I nor you can offer up a "theistic proof" that God exist or even offer up halfway decent evidence to support the claim. We can believe with our entire being that certain events in our lives convince us of the presence of God where we refuse to accept any other answer. We can "just know". But being "intellectually honest" that is not knowing. That is interpreting facts through the lens of belief. That is faith. Believing based on spiritual conviction rather than evidence. As much as "I know", I don't really know but believe.
The Longtime Lurker
Footballguy
Akhenaten and his introduction to monotheism in Egypt was always pretty compelling to me as source material for this.
World religions seem to be built one on top of the other. Christianity's ties to and borrowing from paganism, flood myths, the Bible borrowing from the book of gilgamesh are a few examples. I don't see why the story of Moses couldn't also be many stories both fact and fiction bled together that lead to the one we know today.
Captain Cranks
Footballguy
Assuming they have access to today's records, I would assume so. They didn't have the same record keeping that we do today.
dkp993
Footballguy
The “What if” being the most important part of this post.
The disconnect in your communication style, or arrogance as we’re referring to it, comes from your position of statement of absolute fact. And while thats absolutely fine for your own personal belief, when in a discussion with someone who doesn’t share your position of something that is genuinely considered unprovable, changing your style of communication with simple words of “ I believe” or “ it’s my understanding” will go along way towards keeping the conversation focused on the topic and not your resolute belief (which again for extreme clarity, is absolutely your right and no one here is trying to change your beliefs).
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
Thanks! You already knew that I'm going to point out the "what is more important" question at the very end of the video.
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
The destruction of the Temple was likely the impetus for formalizing the 24 books of the Jewish Bible, or more accurately the Tanakh. This happens about a hundred years after Jesus. (Though there is no scholarly consensus on precisely when.)
The "T", the five books of the Torah (Law) had pretty much coalesced into the "accepted authorized final form" in 500 to 400 BCE period. Likewise, the eight books of the Nevi'im (Prophets) had pretty much coalesced into "accepted authorized final form" in the 200 BCE period. So, these were pretty much settled by the time of Jesus. The eleven books of the Ketuvim (Writings) were not, however. Now all of these were written and known but acceptance was still in the air. And there were other writings still in the mix. Part of the debate. So much so that a few of Jesus' quotes and mentions are from these Apocrypha writings.
I'm guessing that for you that this is old news. Oh, and I'm guessing that you know that the Tanakh's 24 books are the same 39 of the Old Testament.
The real "smart alecky" reply about Jesus accepting the Jewish Bible I think would have been to ask did "Jesus believe Ecclesiastes?" If so, how? I'm guessing most in this thread support completely Ecclesiastes 5:18-19. What is it actually saying? Isn't more or less creed for non-believers? Now I'm intrigued on what Les Feldick might have said. Really! Not much, except I was not expecting this doozy right out of those Ancient Apocalypse shows.
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
You have this completely backwards. The one arguing something exists has the burden of proving it. Not the other way around because of the "proving a negative".
There isn’t really a proof that God doesn’t exist, nor do I think there could be. To do that, you would have to show that the existence of God is metaphysically impossible, which I’m guessing even the staunchest atheist would concede they cannot do. Indeed, that’s why philosophical atheism has only been in the business of refuting existing theistic proofs.
Side note: A lot of my atheist friends are hoping that a theoretical physicist will provide a unified scientific theory that describes reality without reference to God. However, that still wouldn’t prove God’s non-existence.
Aristotelians/ Thomists believe, for example, that Aristotle’s proof from motion/ change conclusively shows that God exists. While atheists may claim that they’ve poked holes in this proof, the Aristotelians/ Thomists think that they have successfully countered. So, in their mind, the proof still stands. The same is true of various other proofs.
Fair or not, someone like Paddington can always come forward and say that he knows God exists via divine revelation. So, it’s up to the atheist to refute him, which is what folks have been trying to do in this thread. Of course, an atheist cannot fall back on something like revelation because a thing that doesn’t exist will never be able to reveal something to you. That’s logically impossible.
In fact, I think we’re saying the same thing, which was implied in one of my OG posts when I said atheism is a negative philosophy. Yes, the atheist can put the burden of proof on the theist. However, the atheist still can’t prove that God’s existence is metaphysically impossible, which, IMO, would be required for them to conclusively close the door on God.
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
This is a claim, not evidence, yet alone "proof". And extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence (either quantity and/or quality) to support it.
dkp993
Footballguy
This line of thinking makes no sense to me, maybe I’m misunderstanding. So I’ll try an analogy…..
If I claim that we are living in a simulation and my evidence for such is my belief in it (ie faith) and some written anecdotal evidence, you’re saying the burden of proof lays with the people who don’t believe what I’m saying to be true?
Captain Cranks
Footballguy
Through divine revelation, I learned there is a herd of magic ponies that live in the center of the sun. Are you saying it's on you to disprove that?
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
You keep saying a believer can claim that they know that the invisible flying spaghetti monster is present in the room and it is up to non-believers to prove that it isn't. (ETA: When I wrote this I wasn't piling on.)
No, we are not saying the same thing. You are imposing a higher standard on what is required for a non-believer being "intellectually honest" to claim to "know" than you are on a believer. The standard of knowing should be the same, to actually know. Not to believe, no matter how strongly. If believing strongly is enough for a believer, then it is not enough for a non-believer? That is the disconnect! If there are reasons for the standards to be different, you haven't really made that case.
Scoresman
Footballguy
Really though, Paddington or anybody doesn't have to prove to us God exists. That's what faith is. We could however, do with less preaching and especially less condescension when being preached to.
dkp993
Footballguy
I disagree. Outside of some isolated comments most of the atheists in this thread have not tried to refute Gods existence with Paddington. The conversation is largely around how his experience is not proof of Gods existence to the rest of us, it anecdotal to him. No one, en masse, is attempting to convince him God doesn’t exist, they are just speaking about their personal beliefs.
dgreen
Footballguy
Yes. I just wasn't sure if you were saying certain parts didn't exist at the time of Jesus or if it just wasn't all put together into one "thing" yet. I assumed the latter. No idea what Paddington pictures when he says Jesus believed the "OT", but I think his main point is usually just to say that Jesus valued their scriptures (regardless of what was and wasn't included under that label at that time).
Aren’t we just talking about personal identifiers here: gnostic v agnostic? That is, a gnostic claims they know God exists, whereas an agnostic says they’re not sure.
And yes, a lot of theists would say they fall in the gnostic camp, regardless of whether you agree with their reasons or not. Indeed, they claim to have knowledge that God exists. As for the atheists, I don’t know anyone who really claims to have direct knowledge that God doesn’t exist. IMO, that seems impossible and perhaps it has to do with the “proving the negative” issue. That’s all I was saying.
What got me interested in this gnostic v agnostic distinction was when Zow (maybe the smartest poster in this thread) suggested that for all intents and purposes an atheist is an agnostic atheist. So, I was wondering whether a theist could consider themselves a gnostic theist. Based on the definitions, I think they can. You seem to disagree though.
Note: I feel like you’re trying to push me to prove too much, well beyond what I was originally talking about. Like, I suspect this is unfortunately turning into something where you’re gonna ask me to prove God’s existence to justify my gnosticism. Otherwise, I must conclude there’s no such thing as a gnostic theist.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll
