__________________
...Testifying both to the Jews, and also to the Greeks, repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ...(Acts 20:21)
I have doubted man made doctrine and the way it was presented, but I never doubted the God of the doctrine.
A common response theme in that thread is apparently, "God is true, but man has messed up things." The reason for this is simple projection. The true believer projects everything "good" to be definitely God and everything "bad" to be definitely man or otherwise "not God." How convenient for God, he wins every time. And thus becomes the evolving pattern through the centuries, and also within our specific lives. God gets to evolve into being defined as "that which is good" and everything else is "not God." A nice gig if you can get it.
A common theme in that thread, "God is true, but man has messed up things." The reason for this is simple projection. The true believer projects everything "good" to be definitely God and everything "bad" to be definitely man or otherwise "not God." How convenient for God, he wins every time. And thus becomes the evolving pattern through the centuries, and also within our specific lives. God gets to evolve into being defined as "that which is good" and everything else is "not God." A nice gig if you can get it.
Its good to be the King! But seriously where I was coming from, is my change in doctrine from the water/spirit to the faith/grace doctrine.
__________________
Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand. (Romans 14:4)
Scripture is its own interpreter. Nothing can cut a diamond but a diamond. Nothing can interpret Scripture but Scripture" Thomas Watson.
A common theme in that thread, "God is true, but man has messed up things." The reason for this is simple projection. The true believer projects everything "good" to be definitely God and everything "bad" to be definitely man or otherwise "not God." How convenient for God, he wins every time. And thus becomes the evolving pattern through the centuries, and also within our specific lives. God gets to evolve into being defined as "that which is good" and everything else is "not God." A nice gig if you can get it.
I posted a thread on CARM once, entitled "a Convenient list" or something like that. Had things like "It doesn't have to make sense, just believe it" and "If things don't work how we say they will work, you did it wrong."
It was deleted.
__________________
Hebrews 13:23 Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty
Its good to be the King! But seriously where I was coming from, is my change in doctrine from the water/spirit to the faith/grace doctrine.
Understood. Sometimes I overgeneralize a comment, when really I did originally understand the nuanced take of that person. Nevertheless, generalizations (AKA stereotypes, or even undue bigotry) acquire traction for valid reasons, IMO.
Here are some interesting discrepancies we can examine… Did Mary and Joseph Flee to Safety? Where Did the Devil Take Jesus? The Anointing of Jesus Where Did Jesus Meet Simon, Peter and Andrew? Did Jesus Allow His Disciples to Carry a Staff? Did the Fig Tree That Jesus Cursed Wither Immediately or Overnight? What Color Robe Was Jesus Given? When Was Jesus Crucified? Where Was Jesus on the Sixth Hour of the Crucifixion? Who Were the First Visitors to Jesus’ Tomb? Where Did Jesus’ Ascension Take Place?
And these are just a few of the many discrepancies that I’ve found in my studies.
A good habit to have when reconciling contradictions is to ask "Am I accepting a merely possible argument, or is it rather a probable good answer--one that comports with the way things do work in real life?" The Christian is forced to accept what he or she thinks is perhaps possible, or even to insert the miraculous, when nothing else seems possible.
The prime directive for Christians is "MAINTAIN FAITH, at all costs." The prime directive of the skeptic is to "Seek truth, at all costs." Admittedly, the skeptic is a bit too severe in what evidence to accept or not accept. Conversely, the Christian is too credulous and gullible about what to accept. But which method is more likely to arrive at the way things happen in real life? The Prime Directive is easy enough to live by do when you a) can believe whatever may be possible, and b) can insert a miracle whenever and wherever you need to (to maintain Faith, of course ) The skeptic, however, is allowed to seek truth regardless of the pleasantness or unpleasantness of any conclusion--and the conclusions are allowed to remain provisional.
Suppose your 4 children claimed to be close eyewitnesses to a crime, let's say outdoors, out in the middle of nowhere. You debrief them afterward: "How many criminals" were there? One child says "Two." Another says "Three," and another says "More than three." The fourth witness defends her siblings by telling you an ancient parable about three blind men who each describe touching an elephant. "One man described the tail, another described the tusk, and the third one, etc. etc." Would you say?, "Oh silly me, yes of course!"
I recall at taking a course at CLC where we worked through the book, "Harmonization of the Gospels." Of course, for the believer, the task is to show somehow or t'other that there are no problems, and never were any, once you understand things. IOW, once you arrive at some answer or other that preserves your faith, suddenly there never were any contradicitons! Interesting that I've never seen a book titled "Harmonization of J.S. Bach," because Bach's music arrived already harmonized. Too bad the Omniscient, Omnipotent Yahweh/Jesus God didn't care enough to do the same for his own listeners, fans, and patrons.
Here's a humorous (and entirely fair, IMO) 4 min Youtube that makes the point another way.
The prime directive for Christians is "MAINTAIN FAITH, at all costs." The prime directive of the skeptic is to "Seek truth, at all costs."
My prime directive is to seek truth, at all costs.
That's why I became a Christian, even though it cost me my home, friends, and my family (although the latter was only a temporary loss, for the most part).
My prime directive is to seek truth, at all costs.
I have no doubt that you deeply believe the above statement is "true." But please consider the necessary distinction between belief and knowledge, and maybe apply the following self-test to assess your own willingness to follow truth "wherever it leads." If you really are willing to seek truth AT ALL COSTS, then that ought to also mean you are willing to overturn your current beliefs or supposed "knowledge" IF it can be demonstrated to be erroneous, or even probably erroneous. So, what would that evidence be? Can you propose ANY DEGREE of evidence that WOULD change your mind about God? I presume you (or at least most Christians) will say, "No, nothing can change my mind about who my God is." Yet I can propose dozens, or even just one simple bit of evidence that would in fact cause ME to completely overturn my conclusion--and I would stop saying that "probably no god exists." So who is really pursuing the truth wherever it leads, and who is leaning upon their own dogma? Most AFF apostolics probably side with the claims of christian apologist William Lane Craig, who freely admits his perceived "witness of the Holy Spirit" trumps everything else, no matter how compelling the "everything else" may be. For example, he says, "If in some historically contingent circumstances the evidence that I have available to me should turn against Christianity, I don't think that that controverts the witness of the Holy Spirit." Interesting that his "witness" doctrine (upon further reading about WLC) is mostly used to claim a few basics, such as, that god exists, and that he (WCL) is a sinner who needs god; whereas Apostolics with HG Baptism use the same "witness" to claim a different set of claims (not necessarily contradictory set of claims, but definitely a different set of claims,) such as that Jesus and God are the same, and there is no Holy Trinity. Therefore, the variety of claims among the Christian world strongly indicate that the "witness of the Holy Spirit" is a subjective phenomena. And subjective phenomena have never accomplished any rigorously testable results on earth, such as to be able to go to the moon and safely return. Or for that matter, let's imagine expanding the "inner witness/feeling from god" to include that other faiths claim and experience (Jews, Hindus, Mormons, etc) and suddenly all your "inner witness knowledge" is indistinguishable from mere opinion, imagination, and wishes.
When beliefs are conflated to be equivalent with knowledge, that is the practical definition of dogma. Therefore, your claim that your prime directive is to seek truth at all costs is itself not true. The bottom line is, if you can't show it, then you don't reallyknow it--rather, you believe it. Furthermore, isn't "belief" really all your holy book asks for? Yes, that, along with behavior commensurate with your beliefs. Therefore you are safe to not even experiment with the real world of verifiable knowledge. That is also a big reason very few Christians ever really dig into learn how science really works. For example, even many Christian apologists don't really understand how biological evolution works--why study a textbook about such heresy when you have God's Real Textbook about how life got here? So just be honest and call it "What I prefer to believe." That doesn't mean we cannot or should not depend on the credible expertise of others. For example, I don't really KNOW that when I board an airliner that it will fly according to how engineers claim it will, but I have good evidence that can show that the track record strongly indicates that the presumption of safety is verifiable "true." The ignorant sometimes try to label that type of knowledge "belief" also, in order to justify their own belief in a Magical Man in the sky. But if you can't SHOW it, then you don't really KNOW it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Esaias
That's why I became a Christian, even though it cost me my home, friends, and my family (although the latter was only a temporary loss, for the most part).
I had a similar testimony.
However, the level of one's sacrifice, how much one has invested, and how deeply one believes has nothing to do with whether the belief is true. But the investment we have--and have paid for a belief--often makes us not seriously consider or accept its errors.
But seriously where I was coming from, is my change in doctrine from the water/spirit to the faith/grace doctrine.
Linear Mode
