The Hard Questions

[Good1]

I previously wrote to you, concerned because "Nothing that you just wrote is backed up by Scripture." You replied, "Oh thank you. I will take that as a compliment."

The same is true here. I am only interested in believing what is in the Bible for my understanding of who God is. There are many reasons for this. I'm not going to get into all of them now, but the basics are ...

There is indeed some "scripture" (published books) that backs up what I say, but you have decided, upon your own authority, that beyond the "Bible" there is no authority. I have explained in a previous post your motive for using your authority to make the "Bible" an authority over you. You should not take it personally. I am explaining what motivates mankind, having a clear understanding of what Jesus was teaching. You are motivated by a desire to save yourself, and/or to be "saved". Doesn't matter how do long as your basic persona (what I call ego) is preserved, preferably in a big mansion. This includes the salvation of some semblance of flesh, some semblance of gender, preferably young, healthy and glorious. And, you are motivated to assume a position in a divine hierarchy will be granted you upon passing final judgement >> referably a high position.

There are a couple of core motivations, even more secret, which motivate you to desire these conditions. So long as these motivations remain secret, your current status will perpetuate indefinitely. I call this the "status quo". All of the reasons you list for bowing down before the "Bible" are a biased use of rational intellect (thinking) that endeavor to justify your faith. Beware of how faith works, and how it offers you the "evidence" you think you see.

Your core motivation is to gain more, which translates into a desire for special status. This requires constant vigilance which translates into a struggle to exist, hence your interest in salvation. You wish to exist. You wish "I am" applies to you, implying you exist. In this way, you usurp the existential supremacy of Christ. Later, through theological sobriety, you'll realize just how much your desired existence competes with Christ for existence...and how much it sacrifices Christ's existence for yours. Indeed, you have expressed your wishfullness that Christ die to save your life. Perhaps 25 years from now you will realize that you've been asked to lay down your life for the sake of Christ's life, nor the other way round, as dictated by the status quo. Right now, you don't even know what that means as the alter ego (personal unique identity ) you are trying to have saved rationalizes how or why it must be saved. It is this motivation that causes you to believe that Christ has become flesh, or that Good has a name...and you will hold dear any book that reinforces your core motivation. You will make that book authoritative, even "holy", if it helps justify your salvation. The "Bible " does indeed offer you the status quo, and that is what motivates you to lay down your authority at its feet.

None of my books offer my persona (personal identification as a unique being with a name that has a "life" in need of salvation) any salvation. Salvation is for Christ, saved from the status quo. The status quo is a collective of self-decieved alter egos, all struggling for existence as they actively resist the pre-eminence of Christ as the True Self. While they resist , they assume the qualities of Christ, claiming to exist, saying they have a "life". In this way, the aggregate collective of alter egos, each unique, each having his/her own name, prevents Christ from becoming obvious. In this way, your so-called existence (I am Bob) buries Christ in obscurity, preventing the resurrection of Christ in your experience.

The collective of self-decieved alter egos is the "anti-Christ". The "Bible" offers and justifies the salvation of the collective anti-Christ and is dubbed an "authority" for any ego still associating with the collective, as it offers each one a unique identity (special status within a hierarchy). All such are resisting (fighting against) the equality offered by Christ.

 

[expiated]

I am only interested in believing what is in the Bible for my understanding of who God is. There are many reasons for this.

It is amazing to me—the amount of confidence people will have in notions that come strictly out of their own minds, while they mock me for believing in the God of the Bible, who’s reality is supported by the existence of Scripture itself along with science, history, archaeology and psychology (i.e., practical life experience).

I’ve heard people say, “I would believe in God if I saw a miracle.” But, I wonder if this kind of statement is really true or if, supposing they actually saw a miracle, they would simply rationalize it away. Unfortunately, if indeed a genuine statement, spiritual matters don’t normally work that way. Rather than believing because one sees a miracle—one is more likely to see a miracle because the individual believes…

When they came to the crowd, a man approached Jesus and knelt before him. “Lord, have mercy on my son,” he said. “He has seizures and is suffering greatly. He often falls into the fire or into the water. I brought him to your disciples, but they could not heal him.”

“You unbelieving and perverse generation,” Jesus replied, “how long shall I stay with you? How long shall I put up with you? Bring the boy here to me.” Jesus rebuked the demon, and it came out of the boy, and he was healed at that moment.

Then the disciples came to Jesus in private and asked, “Why couldn’t we drive it out?”

He replied, “Because you have so little faith. Truly I tell you, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you.”

I can't even count the number of things that the Bible says are true, but that I did not discover to be so until after I acted on them—in faith—but a faith based on evidence.

 

[stu]

Again, I commend you for engaging Stu. I could not even begin to do so because so much of what he says is not even true.

Not true? Let’s check…

It [God] didn’t know it was making a species it wasn’t going to like (Species it wasn't going to like? .

Genesis 6:7 So the Lord said, “I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man and beast, creeping thing and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them.”​

destroyed every living thing (This statement is patently false on its face.)

Genesis 7:23 So He destroyed all living things which were on the face of the ground: both man and cattle, creeping thing and bird of the air. They were destroyed from the earth.​

So is it you being untruthful here or the Bible?

blind religious belief (A Christian’s belief should be largely based on God [the Son] having literally walked the Earth Himself and proven His divinity by performing miracles and rising from the dead [among many other reasons far too numerous to list here]—hardly blind religious belief.

That is exactly what blind religious belief looks like.

devoid of every normal ethical standards it dishonestly claims to own (Devoid? This statement completely ignores religious charities, schools, hospitals, orphanages, relief groups, the fact that religious folks are just about the only people groups in today's society who are opposed to the genocide of babies in the womb justified by a "cynical claim that what’s patently evil is something good," and the significant role Christians played in abolishing slavery in Great Britain and in the United States of America.

Claiming credit for enlightenment because the wind changed, while at the same time excusing your Christian God from all and every atrocity it committed and mandated in the Bible as those same barbarities get condemned, outlawed and refused by common decency under secular law, is nothing but typical religious sycophancy. There are no good deeds that were not, and indeed cannot, be carried out without religious belief.

God of the Bible, who’s reality is supported by the existence of Scripture itself along with science, history, archaeology and psychology (i.e., practical life experience).

Factually untrue. There are people who are, or claim to be, scientists, historians and archaeologists that support a God of the Bible, but there is no actual science, history or archaeology that supports a God of the Bible. None.

and as for psychology....

It is amazing to me—the amount of confidence people will have in notions that come strictly out of their own minds

Wut, like notions of God for instance?

 

[stu]

I guess the reason I've pursued a dialogue with Stu is simple concern for him and others. We Christians have so much joy in our relationship with the Lord and the promises He's given and it's just heart breaking to see so many in this world not knowing the love of God, the love of Christ.

So it was not for thoughtful and open inquiry then. You just wanted to preach. My mistake.

Pity you guys can't just be honest enough to admit all you got is Bible and blind faith. Which would be fine of itself, at least that would be more truthful.
Instead you have to pretend you have other evidence, which of course you don't, as this thread has made abundantly clear.

 

[studentofthemarkets]

So it was not for thoughtful and open inquiry then. You just wanted to preach. My mistake.

Pity you guys can't just be honest enough to admit all you got is Bible and blind faith. Which would be fine of itself, at least that would be more truthful.
Instead you have to pretend you have other evidence, which of course you don't, as this thread has made abundantly clear.

Stu said: "So it was not for thoughtful and open inquiry then. You just wanted to preach. My mistake."

That I wanted to share what I have, or in other words, being a witness to a relationship I have with God and evidences of the Bible's reliability, is true. I do already have my mind made up. I think you already have your mind made up as well, as the evidences I've already shown you you don't really bother to consider.

However, I'm not afraid of thoughtful and open inquiry, because I know the truth is on my side. I'm not afraid of examining truth and rejecting error. On the other hand, I won't be considering all the philosophical religious views others, such as Good1, talk about because I don't want to waste my time on things I have no reason to believe are true, especially because I have very good reasons to believe the Bible is true.

I laughed when reading your response to Expiated because there is so much that you wrote that isn't true, that it was kind of funny (although it's actually pitiful). I'll respond to it, maybe by tomorrow.

 

[stu]

That I wanted to share what I have, or in other words, being a witness to a relationship I have with God and evidences of the Bible's reliability, is true. I do already have my mind made up. I think you already have your mind made up as well, as the evidences I've already shown you you don't really bother to consider.

You wanting to share, or more accurately, proselytize, wasn't the conversation. The conversation was around what you have called evidence of the Bible's reliability which it turns out, was only the Bible itself. Of course that is a circular and silly argument to be frank, but it is as far as you got.

As already stated, I fully considered what you were saying and directly addressed the 'evidences' you put forward until it became very clear you were only going to do more of the same thing. I agree the evidence you've shown, that the Bible is true because the Bible says it is true, isn't worth my bother.

If indeed you are not afraid of thoughtful and open inquiry then have at it, I'm willing to debate. But if all you are going to do is "share your relationship" then your thoughts in that regard will be no more than disingenuous.

I laughed when reading your response to Expiated because there is so much that you wrote that isn't true, that it was kind of funny (although it's actually pitiful). I'll respond to it, maybe by tomorrow.

May I suggest you start with just one or two of the points made otherwise what I think will be actually pitiful, will be to watch you ramble off once again into telling me how because the Bible says it must be true, you have evidence the Bible must be true.

 

[expiated]

Stu said: "So it was not for thoughtful and open inquiry then. You just wanted to preach."

Could this be what psychologists call "projection"?

"Psychological projection is a defense mechanism in which the human ego defends itself against unconscious impulses or qualities by denying their existence in themselves while attributing them to others."

 

[expiated]

I'm not afraid of thoughtful and open inquiry, because I know the truth is on my side. I'm not afraid of examining truth and rejecting error.

To be a biblical Christian you have to go against the grain, since you are given plenty of reason to doubt. Accordingly, in the course of my life I have examined naturalism and naturalistic evolution, Catholicism, Shinto, Confucianism, Buddhism, JW, Mormonism, humanism, postmodernism, Islam, Hinduism, Judaism and the New Age movement.

For example, I look at the fossil record, acknowledge what it suggests, and come to conclusions based on the evidence. But when I answer the questions of those who hold a worldview that differs from mine, rather than acknowledge the hard evidence I present to them—they immediately change the subject! I've had this happen to me again and again.

Though I am willing to acknowledge when my "opponent" has made a valid point, they are not willing to do the same. It is usually at this stage that I conclude further discussion is pointless.

 

[studentofthemarkets]

May I suggest you start with just one or two of the points made otherwise what I think will be actually pitiful, will be to watch you ramble off once again into telling me how because the Bible says it must be true, you have evidence the Bible must be true.

I should be doing other things, so I'll make just one point, briefly.

Expiated quoted Stu as being in error when Stu wrote:
"destroyed every living thing" Expiated replied with: "(This statement is patently false on its face.)"

Stu responded to Expiated by this:

"Genesis 7:23 So He destroyed all living things which were on the face of the ground: both man and cattle, creeping thing and bird of the air. They were destroyed from the earth.

So is it you being untruthful here or the Bible?"

This is the one I laughed at the most, because anybody reading the passage in context understands that God instructed Noah to build an Ark to save his family and a pair of all living creatures. It's easy to understand that those on the ark were not destroyed, but every animal and bird was, along with the rest of humanity.

However, rather than caring about the context, you simply look at the phrase "destroyed all living things" and used that as an argument.

But this is easily explained by the next few words, "which were on the face of the ground" So, the things on the ground were destroyed. The things in the ark were not.

Very simple. LOLOLOLOL

And there IS evidence for a worldwide flood. I don't have time to share it all now, maybe someday, but briefly.....fossils don't come about in calm conditions, because the bones would erode too quickly. Fossils are made in violent conditions, such as a rapid amount of flooding. Just one instance, of many that provides evidence for a worldwide flood.

 

[stu]

Could this be what psychologists call "projection"?

"Psychological projection is a defense mechanism in which the human ego defends itself against unconscious impulses or qualities by denying their existence in themselves while attributing them to others."

This from someone who can’t answer anything directly and projects that insecurity by responding via the proxy of another poster.
I mean, ironical or what.