Why does my God allow children to die? Is he evil?

[JM2C]

Hide? He walked in the garden. He showed his back to Moses. He wrote things in stone. He wrote on a wall. He spoke from heaven. As the second person of the trinity, he incarnated in to a human body. As the third person of the trinity, he lives inside the hearts of believers. In countless fulfilled prophecies, that were mostly written after the event happened, he proves that he's there watching. In sending satan down to Earth to confuse us and cause us to turn away from him, God shows that he is real because all non-believers are confused and have turned away from him. By the proofs of the "gifts" of the spirit, God shows that he is in his people working his miracles, like healings and speaking in tongues. And those healings are tangible proof that something magical has happened, so it must be God. So, therefore, he's real... just invisible, except for Jesus... who was visible but bodily floated away into space and is now invisible until he comes back. Which we know he will because people who saw him and talked to him said that he said he would. So what do you mean "guessing game"?

You've just Summarized Genesis to Revelation.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I do not debate Semitic Jews.

Care to explain what you mean by this statement?

 

[JM2C]

Wait a minute, you let them keep believing that Jesus was not their Messiah? Don't you believe in telling them the "good news" of personal salvation... That they can have their sins washed away by the blood of Jesus? That they don't need to keep trying, in vain, to keep the Law? That without Jesus, they will be condemned to an eternity in hell? Huh?

This is the “mystery/musterion” concerning Israel according to Paul.

Ro 11:25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

This is the reason why I do not debate with the Semitic Jews. "For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits;"

“Gentiles obtain mercy through Israel’s unbelief.”

Ro 11:26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Zion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:

Ro 11:27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.

Ro 11:28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes.

“Untill the fullness of the Gentiles be come in” or “until the full number of the Gentiles has come in” IOW, if you happen to be the last Gentile that is to be save, then, “Ro 11:26 And so all Israel shall be saved:”

The word “Mystery” in Greek is “Musterion”

In the N.T. it denotes, not the mysterious [as with the English dictionary], but that which being outside the range of unassisted natural apprehension, can be made known only by Divine revelation, and is made known in a manner and at a time appointed by God, and to those only who are illumined by God’s Spirit. -Vine

 

[1robin]

We are still talking about theism which is ultimately faith based. You say you need a creator for a creation. I can kinda agree with that but pantheism poses the creator became the creation, which is to say existence exists due to itself, just like you would pose of a creator type god, that god is responsible for itself. A major advantage pantheism, particularly naturalist pantheism, is it never has to disagree with science and just chalk it up to a magically existing being. Science does and will continue to explain away the supernatural or magic or whatever you want to call it.

Every single claim in any category about anything is faith based except the fact we think. Science is based firmly on the assumption that the universe is rational. We do not know it, we assume it. However as I have the faith position saying I do is not much of a threat. Everything is ultimately dependent on some level of faith. All of the science hat contains the least amount of faith is consistent with God, only the parts of science that use the greatest proportion of faith are used against God. If X is never inconsistent with Y then why bother with X but instead just keep Y. I cannot come up with a single advantage to calling nature God. Why bother? If I call my car God (even if it turns out to be) what have I accomplished? Pantheism is the most useless view I can imagine. It is an unnecessary redundancy.

Besides being redundant it makes no sense. Nature is not eternal so how can it be considered God unless God is not God? Nature obeys laws it did not create. How does God obey laws he did not create and who created them? Nature doe snot explain morality, how do you account for the universal apprehension of objective moral truth? Your view most definitely is inconsistent with the evidence. Arbitrarily slapping the label of God on nature explains nothing but leaves out entire categories of explanation my God accounts for. You have just as much work left as you started with to justify it. By including my God most questions have a possible answer. My God appropriately fills the gaps left by naturalistic explanation, Your leaves just as much unknown and unaccountable as it would have if it never existed. Why bother?

 

[1robin]

He didn't design humans to be sinners? What is this "knowledge" of evil about? It did exist, but why the knowledge of it in the fruit of a tree? And, if they hadn't eaten the fruit, they wouldn't have known what evil was? Sounds very metaphoric to me.

He designed us to have free-will, which necessitates the ability to sin. You are assuming a literal fruit tree. I once had a English Lit teacher (of all people) who on the first day of class jumped up on his desk and declared he had determined the tree was a apricot tree. Many interpretations exist for Genesis and I lean towards a metaphoric one myself as well. The point remains the same regardless. You can do X but you will suffer if you do Y. We then declare X to be bad and Y to be good, try and legislate the suffering away or call it progress, then blame God for making us chose Y which he never did.

 

[1robin]

My comments are usually something I find to be truthful, just putting it out there for attack, or designed to get someone else to question the truth of something. Paul was not a Christian when he had this experience, so being a Christian is not a requirement.

That is irrelevant hair splitting to some degree. No one is born again having already been a Christian. However no one is born again who is not made a Christian by the experience according to the doctrine by which we get revelation about the experience to begin with. So Paul nor any other Christian is an explanation of what you claimed for your self. You may begin the experience not knowing but you do not end it that way. That is the experiences function. If you deny it's purpose then I doubt it's authenticity according to scripture.

I just meant the same as you. Reading about the north pole is not the same as being their. A person is capable of fooling themselves into believing they've been to the north pole. I'm just saying this in general, not about anyone specific.

The point was it is far more likely to be fooled about what it feels like without having been there than it would be to think you have been there but haven't. You can easily and sincerely think you know what it feels like without going but it is next to impossible to sincerely think you have been to he Antarctic but haven't been. It was a comment on he quality of a type of claim not it's absoluteness.

I believe God is capable of providing the answers I need when I need them. A mistake I've made is in assuming I can rely on my own thinking. This include my own thinking with regards to the Bible as well. I do it still, but I don't rely on it, nor your (no offense) nor Paul's. I can see people guessing. I can see where assumptions are made. For myself, I just remain honest about it.

If God exists then by definition he could but that does not mean you would recognize it. The Bible could be (and stands by far the best chance of being) God's true revelation and you not recognize it. IMO it is a grave mistake to rely too heavily on our own thinking. Much of what I have come to believe about a great many things I believed were untrue. Little of what I have said is a guess. I may be wrong but my claims are based on sound deductions, logical, and experience. You may be honest but you may be wrong. Success is depends on being right not being sincerely mistaken. My points have been about what claims have the greatest potential for establishing truth. I believe my claims are by far the best explanations and have the greatest probability for being right. You may be perfectly sincere but are using metaphysical speculation and this it has about the worst possible chances to produce truth IMO. Most, including me at a younger age used it and were left sincere but blind and lost. I do not recommend the method.

Fine, it doesn't mean they are free of assumptions.

Nope, but then again nothing is free from assumption. I only claim that my conclusions are based on less of them than competing theological views.

You don't have to explain what you experienced to me.

I do not have to say anything to anyone. I chose to do what I think is appropriate and according to my duty.

I don't assume to define it. It seems to me similar to what Paul experienced. However in interpreting his words I have to rely on what I experienced

So you were blinded, knocked off a horse, heard Christ, and were given instructions that when followed produced a miracle. Yet you do not have faith in Christ. Paul's said so much that what he meant is easily determined as opposed to James for example. There is little chance he meant anything different that the traditional consensus has concluded. Paul may be wrong but what he said is very easy to understand. I do no think any view that interprets him in other ways is justifiable.

I question my rationalization. I am quite capable of providing an interpretation of the Bible I am comfortable with. I see people rationalizing the Bible to fit a truth they have no knowledge of. I believe God is capable of providing the answers we need. Meanwhile I go here and there trying to figure things out. Test ideas until the truth resolves itself.

What makes us comfortable is irrelevant. What is the result when using proper hermeneutics and exegesis is. The bible interprets the bible not me or you. In very few cases does that leave any ambiguity. It is so exhaustive and emphatic (especially about core claims) that it must stand on it's own and can not be bent to fit anything.

Do you trust God to reveal the truth to you or do you think it is something you have to figure out for yourself? If it is the latter I'm in trouble because I'm really bad at it.

I think God has revealed the truth to us but it is not always easily found. He also gave us the ability to recover even hard to see lessons and facts, however he requires faith and faith precludes certainty. This how I understand revelation.

New International Version
It is the glory of God to conceal a matter; to search out a matter is the glory of kings.

Well there actually was a Catholic Deacon once. Generally though people disappoint. They want you to trust them, not God.

No deacon, preacher, or teacher has determined what I believe. When I experienced I God I felt compelled to determine my understanding of the bible in isolation. I spent years in payer and with only a bible to determine what I thought it said. Only then did I select a denomination and I have never stopped questioning all of them yet they have survived all scrutiny and have only gained in reliability over the years.

You find the Holy Spirit in the strangest places, like while riding a bike.

Before I concluded where and what produced the Holy Spirit I would make very sure that my conclusions about what the Holy Spirit was are justifiable and reliable. I have no idea what the truth actually is but I get the impression your views come from metaphysical speculation and you interpret events by it. I can only suggest that in my experience speculation is about the most unreliable foundation for theological knowledge possible. If we are as horribly flawed in theological speculation as we have been about all other areas of it is hopeless. Even in far more evidenced based areas available for testing like applicable science we have gotten it far more wrong than right over the course of history. Every success comes after massive and repetitive failures but if we get theology wrong over the 90 years or so we have there is no recovery. No other concept in human history deserves more reflection, deduction, and consideration and less speculation than theology. It was only when I gave up looking at theology through the lens of what I speculated about it did I begin to see it as it was.

We seem to have gotten into discussions about motives or methods. I much rather prefer to discuss actual claims. Is there anything specific you would like to contend? Maybe the historical Christ, the bible's accuracy, or philosophic principles.

 

[Nakosis]

That is the experiences function. If you deny it's purpose then I doubt it's authenticity according to scripture.

(note: shorting your responses just to limit the size of the post)

Yes, that is part of the reason I refuse to judge the experience of others based on my understanding of the Bible.

Your interpretation of the Bible, not your experience make this true.

The point was it is far more likely to be fooled about what it feels like without having been there than it would be to think you have been there but haven't. You can easily and sincerely think you know what it feels like without going but it is next to impossible to sincerely think you have been to he Antarctic but haven't been. It was a comment on he quality of a type of claim not it's absoluteness.

Which then wouldn't really apply in this case. But it was the analogy you provided so I tried to make the best of it.

If God exists then by definition he could but that does not mean you would recognize it. The Bible could be (and stands by far the best chance of being) God's true revelation and you not recognize it. IMO it is a grave mistake to rely too heavily on our own thinking. Much of what I have come to believe about a great many things I believed were untrue. Little of what I have said is a guess. I may be wrong but my claims are based on sound deductions, logical, and experience. You may be honest but you may be wrong. Success is depends on being right not being sincerely mistaken. My points have been about what claims have the greatest potential for establishing truth. I believe my claims are by far the best explanations and have the greatest probability for being right. You may be perfectly sincere but are using metaphysical speculation and this it has about the worst possible chances to produce truth IMO. Most, including me at a younger age used it and were left sincere but blind and lost. I do not recommend the method.

Success depends on being right enough. How much of your understanding of the Bible is based on your own thinking? Who's to say. You feel confident that you are capable of determining the truth of the Bible. However there's no guarantee that will lead to the truth of God. You have faith though.

Nope, but then again nothing is free from assumption. I only claim that my conclusions are based on less of them than competing theological views.

People like yourself, capable of error. However it is the political way. Truth in numbers. Still not a guarantee. For me I have found truth in numbers to be unreliable. Still without direct revelation it maybe the best you have.

I do not have to say anything to anyone. I chose to do what I think is appropriate and according to my duty.

I only meant I understood because of having the experience myself.

So you were blinded, knocked off a horse, heard Christ, and were given instructions that when followed produced a miracle. Yet you do not have faith in Christ. Paul's said so much that what he meant is easily determined as opposed to James for example. There is little chance he meant anything different that the traditional consensus has concluded. Paul may be wrong but what he said is very easy to understand. I do no think any view that interprets him in other ways is justifiable.

Only in being blinded by a light. By blinded I mean I could only see the light. I could not otherwise see where I was. Within the light was a presence. I felt warmth and at peace. I was only told by burdens had been lifted. After a time the light faded and I could see again.

What makes us comfortable is irrelevant. What is the result when using proper hermeneutics and exegesis is. The bible interprets the bible not me or you. In very few cases does that leave any ambiguity. It is so exhaustive and emphatic (especially about core claims) that it must stand on it's own and can not be bent to fit anything.

I think that is what you are comfortable believing. In my experience the truth is otherwise.

I think God has revealed the truth to us but it is not always easily found. He also gave us the ability to recover even hard to see lessons and facts, however he requires faith and faith precludes certainty. This how I understand revelation.

Well I agree here. Yet you seek certainty in the Bible. It's human nature to seek certainty even if it is not given to us.

New International Version
It is the glory of God to conceal a matter; to search out a matter is the glory of kings.

I like this one...

how are ye able -- ye -- to believe, glory from one another receiving, and the glory that [is] from God alone ye seek not?

No deacon, preacher, or teacher has determined what I believe. When I experienced I God I felt compelled to determine my understanding of the bible in isolation. I spent years in payer and with only a bible to determine what I thought it said. Only then did I select a denomination and I have never stopped questioning all of them yet they have survived all scrutiny and have only gained in reliability over the years.

It is how you choose to pursue it. Certainty is gained by hearing something over and over again. Constant exposure patters your thinking. The mind will create certainty even even when not warranted. My awareness of this is what prompted my original post.

No other concept in human history deserves more reflection, deduction, and consideration and less speculation than theology. It was only when I gave up looking at theology through the lens of what I speculated about it did I begin to see it as it was.

Where as I am aware and acknowledge my own speculation I also see this is not so much the case in others. Speculation becomes certainty, it is an easy thing to fail to.

We seem to have gotten into discussions about motives or methods. I much rather prefer to discuss actual claims. Is there anything specific you would like to contend? Maybe the historical Christ, the bible's accuracy, or philosophic principles.

My only point was that people should not rely on there own certainty, at least be willing to question the basis of that certainty.

No issues with Bible accuracy or a historical Christ.

I suppose though I could ask what causes you to trust Paul's authority with regard to Jesus? I think you may have implied why, but perhaps we could focus on it.

You trust Paul to speak for Jesus and God. I think Paul only spoke for himself.

 

[CG Didymus]

Many interpretations exist for Genesis and I lean towards a metaphoric one myself as well.

Metaphor works for me. But where does the metaphor stop and literal begin? That seems to be what we're all arguing. Where is that point? The extreme of literal makes religious people seem too... extreme. And the extreme of metaphoric makes all of the Bible fantasy.

To live by some reasonable "spiritual" rules, I would say, is a positive thing for society. However, the Bible and other religious books have some rules that don't seem very reasonable. And they don't sound like a kind, loving, all-knowing God would have asked humans to even try and live by some of those rules. So it makes some of us question if there really is such a God. Or, another possibility is... did people, maybe well intended, made up those rules, and explanations for why there is evil in the world, and then, attributed all to God?

 

[Nakosis]

Metaphor works for me. But where does the metaphor stop and literal begin? That seems to be what we're all arguing. Where is that point? The extreme of literal makes religious people seem too... extreme. And the extreme of metaphoric makes all of the Bible fantasy.

To live by some reasonable "spiritual" rules, I would say, is a positive thing for society. However, the Bible and other religious books have some rules that don't seem very reasonable. And they don't sound like a kind, loving, all-knowing God would have asked humans to even try and live by some of those rules. So it makes some of us question if there really is such a God. Or, another possibility is... did people, maybe well intended, made up those rules, and explanations for why there is evil in the world, and then, attributed all to God?

I agree with this.
I think some have learned good from evil. I think there are some guidelines that the Bible can provide those who still are struggling with self-determination. However those guidelines are not universal. We at some point need to assume the responsibility of choosing "good".

It's true there was a time in man's ignorance they could not determine good from evil. I think we are beginning to get the idea though. Some perhaps are afraid of the responsibility. Man has historically not been very "good".

 

[CG Didymus]

...How much of your understanding of the Bible is based on your own thinking? Who's to say. You feel confident that you are capable of determining the truth of the Bible. However there's no guarantee that will lead to the truth of God. You have faith though.

People like yourself, capable of error. However it is the political way. Truth in numbers. Still not a guarantee. For me I have found truth in numbers to be unreliable. Still without direct revelation it maybe the best you have.

Does the typical Christian read or even care what Jewish commentaries say about the Bible? Does a Protestant care what the Catholic interpretation is? Does anyone care what the JW's say? A Christian has to trust the writers of the NT. If something in one book contradicts something in another, someone has to come up with a "logical" explanation that keeps the whole of the NT still "inerrant". Early Christians developed doctrines based on their understanding of the Bible. And for somebody to say now, that they "know" what the Bible means? No, they are taking what they prefer it to mean. What to them makes the most sense. But there is no one "true" interpretation of the Bible.
How is it possible for Christians to say that the Bible is word for word absolutely true, since it was written by men. Those writers might have thought they knew what God wanted them to write. They might have said that God told them what to write, but God supposedly told Mohammad, Joseph Smith, Baha'u'llah and others what to write.

No, I agree with you. Christians, today, are relying on what others claim is the truth about the Bible. Because of they are limited to the Bible to determine what the "truth" is, we get into the problems like this one... God made everything. He set it all up. He knows the beginning and end, yet he allows the horrible pain and suffering to continue. He has an evil adversary, but he is the all-powerful God. Yet he allows the evil one to continue to exist. Is this really the best he could have come up with?

 

[JM2C]

What is this "knowledge" of evil about?
It did exist, but why the knowledge of it in the fruit of a tree?
And, if they hadn't eaten the fruit, they wouldn't have known what evil was?
Sounds very metaphoric to me.

Jn 6:48 I am that bread of life.

What is the hidden literal meaning of the metaphor, the “Bread of life”?

The Lord Jesus Christ, wasn‘t it?

Why then the Jews could not understand the meaning of the metaphor, “the bread of life?”

Jn 6:41 The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven.

Bread of Life, a metaphor in relation to the Lord Jesus Christ, or literally, the Lord Jesus Christ is the “Bread of life“.

As far as I am concern, from metaphor, to parable, to symbolic, then to literal, it did not create any conflict at all.

If Genesis “Sounds very metaphoric” to you or perhaps symbolic, then what is your literal understanding of it all?

 

[JM2C]

Does the typical Christian read or even care what Jewish commentaries say about the Bible?

Jewish commentaries of the bible was base on what? The bible!

How is it possible for Christians to say that the Bible is word for word absolutely true, since it was written by men.

So you don’t believe that God is the author of the bible, and was written by men from God Himself?

Are you saying now that Jewish do not believe that God told Moses, a man of God, to write Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy?

The bible is not really from God, “since it was written by men,” but Jewish did commentaries about what the bible says and you want us Christians to read it.

I am really puzzled here

 

[JM2C]

A Christian has to trust the writers of the NT.

Who do true Christians trust then if not the writers of the NT?

 

[JM2C]

If something in one book contradicts something in another, someone has to come up with a "logical" explanation that keeps the whole of the NT still "inerrant".

There were no contradictions at all in the bible. It’s the people who cannot understand the bible are the one contradicting what the bible is saying.

 

[JM2C]

And for somebody to say now, that they "know" what the Bible means?
No, they are taking what they prefer it to mean.

Do you? Do you know what the bible means?

I was thinking about you, that know better “what the bible means” since you say we don’t know what it means.

But why all these questions from Genesis to Revelation if you know the meaning of the bible or “what the bible means“?

 

[CG Didymus]

Jn 6:48 I am that bread of life.

What is the hidden literal meaning of the metaphor, the “Bread of life”?

The Lord Jesus Christ, wasn‘t it?

Why then the Jews could not understand the meaning of the metaphor, “the bread of life?”

Jn 6:41 The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven.

Bread of Life, a metaphor in relation to the Lord Jesus Christ, or literally, the Lord Jesus Christ is the “Bread of life“.

As far as I am concern, from metaphor, to parable, to symbolic, then to literal, it did not create any conflict at all.

If Genesis “Sounds very metaphoric” to you or perhaps symbolic, then what is your literal understanding of it all?

In the my post just before yours, I ask if any Christians really care about what the Jewish commentaries say. I could also ask do Christians care what Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, or Baha'is say? Do Protestants care what Catholics say? Probably not, because it would change how you view the Bible. You're locked in on an interpretation of the Bible that makes the most sense to you. I would suspect it probably includes something about the inerrancy and infallibility of the Bible. So if you believe that, there is no way for you to agree with or even consider something other than what you already believe to be true. All other Christian interpretations that don't coincide with yours are wrong. All other religions, including Judaism, are wrong.

The most important non-Christian interpretation to me, is the Jews. They don't have the same concepts of the devil, hell, the afterlife and the need for personal salvation from our sins like most Christians. Where did those ideas come from? When I took a basic course on religion it seemed to me that all religions are an expression of how a particular culture and society view themselves and their relationship to their Gods or God.

There even seems to be an evolving of religious thought. So that things like the concept like good vs. evil of the Zoroastrians could have easily influenced Judaism then later Christianity. The Christian devil could have easily evolved from Pagan religions. And then, to make it "fit" into Judaism, things like the one reference to a "lucifer" became proof that this evil spirit being was there all along? First as Lucifer, the angel, then Satan, the devil? But is that what Jews believe? It is their own writing, in their own language. Lucifer is not a Hebrew word. This "morning star" thing makes a heck of a lot of sense as a metaphor for the king of Babylon. Somehow, you prefer to make the king of Babylon a metaphor for the devil. Fine, but I don't agree with your interpretation. I think you have to go through to many hoops, or manipulations, to get to "lucifer" being the name of the angel that becomes the devil.

So now you want to know who is the "bread of life". It's not that easy. Obviously, it is Jesus. However, does all of the Bible make enough sense to believe it is the perfect, infallible word of God? Not necessarily. So, because of that, there is a question as to what the NT says about Jesus, who he is and what he did and what he will do. And the best answer a Christian could give to show the reality of God... is not their words but their actions. But that's not all that easy to do. Most Christians aren't all that different from people in any other religion. You have some good ones. You have some bad ones. Probably the worst thing going for Christianity is the terrible "witness" of TV evangelists. And if that's not bad enough, you have churches filled with lukewarm, nominal Christians. So why would any thinking person believe there is any truth in Christianity? Sure, Jesus is the Lord. Too bad so few Christians really live like they really believe it.

 

[JM2C]

Probably the worst thing going for Christianity is the terrible "witness" of TV evangelists.

I have to agree with you on this one, but not all of them though. This is what I’m saying, there are true Christians, and there are semi-hybrid Christians. When you see a TV evangelist preaching tithings, especially MalachI 3:8-10, to Christian congregations, then they are not the true Christians I was talking about because tithing is only for the Hebrews under the Law of Moses. All they want is your money. They are living in luxury while at the same time preaching about poverties.

Look at the Vatican, the most luxurious place in Rome, or maybe on earth. Kings and Queens were like peasants compare to the enormous wealth they have gathered, but when you go to a country like mine, the Philippines, poor catholic people, the poorest of the poor, scavenging garbage cans for food scraps.

Sell them gold crosses, gold ornaments and statues, and feed the hungry.

People rather have leaders that are oppressing them, than the true leaders that should help them with their basic needs.

If a person can dominate a mind of another person, then that person can do anything, physically and mentally, to that person, until that person see the truth.

The most potent weapon of the oppressor is the mind of the oppressed. -Steve Biko

Tyrants, dictators, and religious leaders all have the same thing in common, and that is, to oppress their people. This is the exact opposite of what the Lord Jesus Christ said in,

Mt 11:28 Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
Mt 11:29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.
Mt 11:30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.

 

[1robin]

(note: shorting your responses just to limit the size of the post)

Yes, that is part of the reason I refuse to judge the experience of others based on my understanding of the Bible.

Your interpretation of the Bible, not your experience make this true.

They both do, and both agree. I am not making any final judgment concerning your claims just pointing out what makes me suspicious. The Bible is not some random book I am using to judge this concept. It is the book that serves as almost the entirety of the source by which we come to expect or believe in the experience. I am using by far the greatest possible source in human history to judge a concept that it is the primary source for. If the bible is rejected there is left almost (actually none) no reason whatever to ever come up with the idea of being born again to begin with. It certainly does not appear in human history before the NT. So my comparison is perfectly valid and justifiable. Does not necessarily make it right but it does make it by far the best investigative tool I can possibly posses outside of your experiences.

Which then wouldn't really apply in this case. But it was the analogy you provided so I tried to make the best of it.

It appears to apply perfectly where used. It was a comment meant to show the difference in quality between two types of claims and I think it does so.

If God exists then by definition he could but that does not mean you would recognize it. The Bible could be (and stands by far the best chance of being) God's true revelation and you not recognize it. IMO it is a grave mistake to rely too heavily on our own thinking. Much of what I have come to believe about a great many things I believed were untrue. Little of what I have said is a guess. I may be wrong but my claims are based on sound deductions, logical, and experience. You may be honest but you may be wrong. Success is depends on being right not being sincerely mistaken. My points have been about what claims have the greatest potential for establishing truth. I believe my claims are by far the best explanations and have the greatest probability for being right. You may be perfectly sincere but are using metaphysical speculation and this it has about the worst possible chances to produce truth IMO. Most, including me at a younger age used it and were left sincere but blind and lost. I do not recommend the method.

Success depends on being right enough. How much of your understanding of the Bible is based on your own thinking? Who's to say. You feel confident that you are capable of determining the truth of the Bible. However there's no guarantee that will lead to the truth of God. You have faith though.

You did not ask what was right. You asked what was enough IMO. I not only said it would lead to God, it actually did. I know more certainly that I have experienced God as a direct result of using the Gospels as a road map and finding exactly what it promised, than I know Elvis or Obama exist or existed. Who is to say? I am to say. I am the one who had the experience. I have spent 17 years scrutinizing it and my confidence has never flagged since that night. I am histories greatest possible expert on what I have experienced. Now however certain it is to me it is of little help to you so we are left with an impasse. The question was however about how I define faith as enough. That was it. Many Christians go a long way past that point but that point is a minimal, and enough.

People like yourself, capable of error. However it is the political way. Truth in numbers. Still not a guarantee. For me I have found truth in numbers to be unreliable. Still without direct revelation it maybe the best you have.

Well your criteria have just removed the reliability of any claim ever made about anything since everyone can err. I was not attempting to supply proof by numbers, however numbers are so often indicators of truth that courts, industry, and science constantly use statistical data and spend billions to acquire it. Why in the world are you saddling faith with the burden of certain proof? That is self contradictory and not how you live your life in almost every other area. No one does. We all do exactly what I did and make the best decision given the best evidence we can. In my case I received confirmation.

Continued:

 

[1robin]

I only meant I understood because of having the experience myself.

I think you sincerely believe that but I can find no reason beyond giving you the benefit of the doubt to agree. Of course you have little opportunity to supply evidence in this format but I can say the book that gives us all of our expectation of the experience and the reason for it does not line up with what you claim. It claims the primary purposes of the experience are to provide perfect confirmation of biblical doctrine and to unite you with God. Yet you deny both purposes so I doubt your claim to experience. Let's say I have been to the North pole and can remember exactly what it felt like. You show up and tell me you have been there but you claim to have gotten there by going south, found it devoid of snow, and hot. Now I do not know your wrong but nothing you said lines up with my experience and maybe more important almost every text written by people who have also been there. We are almost universally consistent in our accounts.

Only in being blinded by a light. By blinded I mean I could only see the light. I could not otherwise see where I was. Within the light was a presence. I felt warmth and at peace. I was only told by burdens had been lifted. After a time the light faded and I could see again.

Again I cannot know with certainty but have increasing doubts. Paul's experience is extremely rare, it is the only one like it in the entire 750,000 words of the bible. I had to write a paper on salvation experiences for a request from someone. I found several blogs that had hundreds. None contained a Paul like experience and all were extremely similar to mine. Paul was given something unique because Paul and his mission was unique. Paul was perfectly committed to the opposite belief. It took extraordinary means to change his mind and his experience had factors that produced extreme results. IOW the level of the experience aligns up with the logic behind the intent of the experience. However your experience produced the opposite effect from the purpose of the event in Paul's case. My skepticism is firmly rooted in logical deduction and personal experience as well primary doctrine.

I think that is what you are comfortable believing. In my experience the truth is otherwise.

My claim is knowable. I can look up hermeneutic and exegetical traditions that have been tested and affirmed for thousands of years and see if they agree. There is no faith or preference involved in my specific claim here. You might as well tell me I am only comfortable in believing 2 + 2 = 4. No you can actually test this one.

Well I agree here. Yet you seek certainty in the Bible. It's human nature to seek certainty even if it is not given to us.

It is also human nature to recognize certainty where it exists but I do not find certainty in the bible. I find certainty in my experience and find that the bible perfectly justifies my confidence in that certainty. You have also smuggled in an assumption here that you could not possibly know even if it was true. Your statement assumes you know that certainty does not exist in the bible. You cannot know that. It is a perfect genetic fallacy.

I like this one...

That's odd. I find it to be true but I do not like it. I do not like the idea that truth is hidden. I find hat it indeed is hidden, and the verse to be accurate but I do not like it. I find the bible to be true but not what I would choose necessarily. This demonstrates your genetic fallacy about wishful thinking. I wish the truth was different, but find it to be as the bible claims whether I like it or not. Biblical doctrine is anything but a warm a cozy comfortable placebo. It is the hardest and most devise book ever written.

It is how you choose to pursue it. Certainty is gained by hearing something over and over again. Constant exposure patters your thinking. The mind will create certainty even even when not warranted. My awareness of this is what prompted my original post.

You are really way way off on this faith by other means stuff. When I was born again I was not in any church had not read the bible in more than ten years, had almost no contact with any Christian. My journey to faith was not wishful thinking, not coerced by anyone, and was against my former beliefs completely. What you have next? Maybe the epilepsy defense?

Where as I am aware and acknowledge my own speculation I also see this is not so much the case in others. Speculation becomes certainty, it is an easy thing to fail to.

That is far too simplistic. Most of what you said I can see nothing except speculation in it (however as long as that is admitted it is justifiable). My faith is based on things that range from absolute certainty (actually one thing only), to almost certainty, to probable, to pure speculation. You would have to identify the claim before how reliable it is could be established.

My only point was that people should not rely on there own certainty, at least be willing to question the basis of that certainty.

I don't, I rely on a certainty that completely abrogated my prior certainty and did not originate in me. It was given to me from God. I do not even think saving faith is possible by human effort alone. You may get to the brink of the infinite divide by effort and study but that last infinite step is wholly a gift from God.

No issues with Bible accuracy or a historical Christ.

Well I am glad to hear than but then that leaves us with only your metaphysical musings. Though I regard that as the most unproductive foundation possible, as long as it is admitted to be such, I cannot complain. However it does not make for much of a debate.

I suppose though I could ask what causes you to trust Paul's authority with regard to Jesus? I think you may have implied why, but perhaps we could focus on it.

Well I can get as in depth as you want but let me start simplistically.

You said you do not have a problem with biblical reliability nor the historical Christ. Therefore Christ himself commissioned Paul. Validation does not get any higher. In fact Paul is the primary source by which we know of what Christ taught. To get rid of Paul you necessarily get rid of much that is thought to be Christ. Now if you wish to backtrack on your not having a problem with the bible or Christ we can get much deeper but unless you did then my argument has no flaw.

You trust Paul to speak for Jesus and God. I think Paul only spoke for himself.

Every single apostle that ever gave us any information about Christ accepted Paul as his representative. In fact in every disagreement with them Paul prevailed and God revealed he was right. IOW the bible validates Paul in every way possible so if you do not reject the bible then you must as well. Only outside the bible (which is by far the less reliable realm) can you find any reason to attack Paul. So it is the bible and Paul or no bible nor Paul. Take your pick. Paul is also the earliest source and his source material goes back to within a few years of Christ. His mission was greater than the others. He was trusted with more doctrinal issues than the others. He wrote more and so what he said is more discernible. I not only find many of his teachings as perfectly lining up with my experience but I find them the only possibility of being true given philosophy. I can go on forever so you will have to limit what you want to discuss.

 

[1robin]

Metaphor works for me. But where does the metaphor stop and literal begin? That seems to be what we're all arguing. Where is that point? The extreme of literal makes religious people seem too... extreme. And the extreme of metaphoric makes all of the Bible fantasy.

Since not a single claim in Genesis is what my faith is grounded on I have had little necessity to determine what it says in detail. I am of course familiar with the arguments. The most meaningful thing I ran into lately was the fact that even long before anyone knew the universe was millions of years old, evolution has occurred, or relativity exists people like Maimonides, the Cabbalists. and the Hebrews had interpretations that allowed for and incorporated all of them. For example no Hebrew calendar ever goes back past Adam. Adam was day one. This was because they must have had some idea that the universe perspective of time that precedes Adam was different from the earth centric time that came after him. I would strongly recommend the science of God by Schroeder. You will find some brilliant deductive arguments about Genesis from a respected scie3ntific scholar there and commentaries on exactly what your asking.

To live by some reasonable "spiritual" rules, I would say, is a positive thing for society. However, the Bible and other religious books have some rules that don't seem very reasonable. And they don't sound like a kind, loving, all-knowing God would have asked humans to even try and live by some of those rules. So it makes some of us question if there really is such a God. Or, another possibility is... did people, maybe well intended, made up those rules, and explanations for why there is evil in the world, and then, attributed all to God?

Would it not seem exactly as if some rules from a perfect omniscient absolutely moral being did not make sense to a rebellious, limited, and corrupt creature. I cannot think of any that within their context and given purpose are senseless but even if they were I should expect it to not be so. If the bible is right we are not very good judges of what is moral to begin with and our moral insanity that allows the systematic destruction of billions of the most innocent human lives among us based on rights we invented for ourselves but deny the ones we kill is sufficient evidence of this. I do not think a race that currently has enough weapons aimed at each other to eradicate all life that is known to exist and the moral corruption to have almost done so several times justifies our being capable of judging any perfect being if it exists.

New Living Translation
And the judgment is based on this fact: God's light came into the world, but people loved the darkness more than the light, for their actions were evil.