• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

A question for Christians who aren't bible fundamentalists.

Scott

New member
Joined
Nov 1, 2008
Messages
97
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
9/5?
Quoting particular lines from Scripture is a really bad way of arguing, unless everyone, including the speaker, is familiar with the context in which it was written. I'm almost positive that we don't have any theologians on the forum, so we shouldn't point to random lines.

The straight answer, real answer, whatever you choose to call it is that I didnt feel the citations meant anything.

Perhaps if I was a literalist, which I'd argued against for most of the thread, I'd care.

I just thought ajblaise's question was a sincere one and didn't see anything in this thread to indicate otherwise. In my judgement, ajb's been perfectly gracious in this thread and has worded his responses with humility and intellectual honesty. If there's something I'm unaware of, I apologize.
 

ajblaise

Minister of Propagandhi
Joined
Aug 3, 2008
Messages
7,914
MBTI Type
INTP
I just thought ajblaise's question was a sincere one and didn't see anything in this thread to indicate otherwise. In my judgement, ajb's been perfectly gracious in this thread and has worded his responses with humility and intellectual honesty. If there's something I'm unaware of, I apologize.

You're an alright guy, Scott. :cheers:
 

Scott

New member
Joined
Nov 1, 2008
Messages
97
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
9/5?
You're an alright guy, Scott. :cheers:

Thanks! :cheers:

Well, I've been meaning to answer the OP myself, and I figure now's as good a time as any. To give the short answer: yes - I do believe in the miracles, that Jesus died for our sins and the resurrection.

To add just a little, I affirm the Nicene Creed, am one of the crazy people who actually love the church, and as for the Bible - I really appreciate the vast majority of what NT Wright has to say here.
 

The_Liquid_Laser

Glowy Goopy Goodness
Joined
Jul 11, 2007
Messages
3,376
MBTI Type
ENTP
In one sentece, my question to you could be summarized as follows. Once we start believing that miracles are possible, how often can we expect for them to happen and under what circumstances, also what kind of miracles are going to be likely to happen?

This is a trick question. If I could tell you how and when miracles would happen then they wouldn't be considered miracles. They would be classified and named as predictable phenomena by science.

As for the rest of your thread you seen to mistakenly believe that faith is opposed to reason. In truth faith is what allows a person to reason properly. This is because fear clouds reason. It can be shown that humans are wired biologically to respond to fear so quickly that the reasoning process is short circuited. When confronted with fear people have two general responses, fight or flight, and reason is not an option.

This phenomenon can be seen all of the time in stock market behavior. Normally intelligent people carefully invest their stocks to maximize returns and diversify against risk. Then their stocks fall, and they sell out of fear. Almost every investor understands "buy low and sell high", but when they see their stocks drop they irrationally sell low.

A person requires faith to counter fear. When a person can confront their fears it allows them to reason properly. Faith is not the enemy of reason. Faith is the guardian of reason. For example a person who has faith in a higher moral authority will not be afraid to do the right thing even if there are negative consequences. This person is free to reason the right course of action without being burdened by fear. This is why faith is so important to a person who values reason.

So to sum up I admit that there are things in this world that we cannot currently explain. And I have faith that some of these things will never be adequately explained, i.e. miracles. But this type of faith I have allows me to keep my fear in check. And by overcoming fear I am able reason properly. Therefore instead of rejecting faith, it should be embraced by those who love reason.
 

wren

New member
Joined
Jul 3, 2009
Messages
384
MBTI Type
infj
Enneagram
4
Quoting particular lines from Scripture is a really bad way of arguing, unless everyone, including the speaker, is familiar with the context in which it was written. I'm almost positive that we don't have any theologians on the forum, so we shouldn't point to random lines.

i agree with that. when i was taught how to read the bible, (a total of a few years at most) the people who i listened to about learning the meaning of lines said that you should always read the paragraph before and the paragraph after the line, as well. not to mention the source and other contextual features. you cannot take a line out of context.
 

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
This is a trick question. If I could tell you how and when miracles would happen then they wouldn't be considered miracles. They would be classified and named as predictable phenomena by science..

Its possible to have miracles as predictable phenomena that can be investigated by science. A miracle is an event where a law of nature is broken by God. How would science inquire into this matter? Take a note that somebody is praying, observe the consequences of their actions, that is, observe the fact that their prayer is making 2 plus 2 amount to six and note that if 2 plus 2 turns to six each time a person prays, he probably has the ability to cause miracles.

Then science could turn to another shaman who is much less skilled at the endeavor of prayer who can make miracles happen only about half of the time he prays. Thus, on that note science can answer the question of what kind of miracles happen and under what circumstances.

What makes them happen? A certain person praying.

Under what circumstances? If the person praying is skilled enough or has sufficient faith.



As for the rest of your thread you seen to mistakenly believe that faith is opposed to reason...

I think it is opposed to reason because it urges a person to believe in a certain descriptive proposition about the world, yet does not offer rationale or 'reason' if you will in support of why he should do so.


In truth faith is what allows a person to reason properly. This is because fear clouds reason. It can be shown that humans are wired biologically to respond to fear so quickly that the reasoning process is short circuited. When confronted with fear people have two general responses, fight or flight, and reason is not an option....

Suppose that is true. A person who believes that everything will be just fine in the end will have no reason to be fearful. Hence, since he is fearless, fear will not stop him from reasoning properly. Most people without faith don't have any reason to believe that all will be well in the long run, so they have something to be apprehended about.

This phenomenon can be seen all of the time in stock market behavior. Normally intelligent people carefully invest their stocks to maximize returns and diversify against risk. Then their stocks fall, and they sell out of fear. Almost every investor understands "buy low and sell high", but when they see their stocks drop they irrationally sell low.....

It is true that fear often prevents people from thinking rationally.

A person requires faith to counter fear......
Faith may be one way a person could quench fearful sentiments, but I do not think that it is the only way. A person simply could figure out a way to avoid or defeat the source of fear. That is he could engage in 'flight' successfully, or he could engage in fighting successfully. Both outcomes entail a cessation of fear. Moreover, if the person is simply prepared for his situation and is confident that he can handle it, he shouldn't have anything to fear.


When a person can confront their fears it allows them to reason properly. Faith is not the enemy of reason.......
Faith is the enemy of reason because it encourages a person to abandon the activity of using reason to form views about the world in favor of beliefs that are either unsupported or unsupportable by rational thought.


Faith is the guardian of reason. For example a person who has faith in a higher moral authority will not be afraid to do the right thing even if there are negative consequences........

The person who has faith will have little incentive to use his reasoning faculties because his 'faith' quite likely informed him of almost everything that he needs to know about the world. Furthermore, faith often leads a person to develop a habit of forming beliefs in the similar way he or she has formed beliefs in favor of faith itself. That is, by simply and uncritically believing in a proposition regardless of whether or not it is defensible by rational argument. Hence, faith imposes constraints upon reason by leading a person to develop anti-rational reasoning habits and by bringing too high of a degree of closure to his life with regard to knowledge.




This person is free to reason the right course of action without being burdened by fear. This is why faith is so important to a person who values reason.........

It may do a greal deal to take away one hindrance to reasoning, that is fear; but, it will create other interferences that I mentioned above. (1. Closure with regard to knowledge-that is, leads a person to believe that we already know most of what we need to know about the world, so may as well not bother reasoning much further 2. Encourages uncritical acceptance of beliefs, may even lead a person to develop a habit of believing in propositions uncritically.)

So to sum up I admit that there are things in this world that we cannot currently explain..........

Yes, there are things in the world that we currently cannot explain. You phrased this notion very aptly. However, simply because we cannot explain some things now, it does not follow that they lack an explanation or that they break laws of nature, or in other words that they are miraculous in some sense.

And I have faith that some of these things will never be adequately explained, i.e. miracles.
You may have faith in this conclusion, but can you give reasons to support it? That is, does a person who does not share your emotional convictions have any reason to believe in what you do? Moreoever, does a person who does not want to use emotional convictions as a method for establishing conclusions about the world have any reason to believe that unexplainable phenomena exist?

Furthermore, if unexplainable phenomena do indeed exist, how do we know that they are miraculous (contrary to laws of nature) as opposed to resultant of too complex of properties of the natural laws for a human mind grasp?

*Interesting note. Colin McGinn, in the Mysterious flame argues that unexplainable phenomena exist and they include many questions that are by nature philosophical. For example the nature of consciousness and free will. However, he also holds that all of these questions do have a purely natural explanation, yet the explanation is too complex for a human mind to grasp.
Amazon.com: The Mysterious Flame: Conscious Minds In A Material World (9780465014231): Colin Mcginn: Books

His argument is that human minds simply are not made to grasp abstractions well, they are better made for directing our tree-climbing and child rearing activities instead. At least if this argument is not altogether plausible, it is understandable. But how could it be the case that some things simply don't abide by the laws of nature, or are miraculous?

What evidence do we have in favor of the existence of miracles other than apocryphal and vague testimonies of the archaic, vulgar folk? With regard to the testimonies of the modern people, contemporary psychology has evinced to us that our mind has a host of biases that lead us to have confused and distorted perceptions about the world that are often a result of wishful thinking, intellectually irresponsible assessment of information and poor reasoning?


Therefore instead of rejecting faith, it should be embraced by those who love reason.

Those who love reason should find other ways to keep their fears in check. That way they overcome their fears and are not forced to accept the limitations on their reasoning ventures that faith imposes.
 

Skyward

Badoom~
Joined
Jul 3, 2008
Messages
1,084
MBTI Type
infj
Enneagram
9w1
Church is cool as long as you remember that you should be getting in touch with God, not church.

Exactly. My Christian belief relies heavily on bible reading and speaking in tongues to be more connected with Christ and his will for me on this world. I don't think of myself as religious, but I think of myself as spiritual. I read the bible and the Holy Spirit gives me insight into what it truly means. It is basically God-guided intuition.

Pentecostalism really just relies on each member of the church having a close relationship with the Lord. Church on Sundays and Wednesdays is a gathering to help each individual's relationship with Christ. New members of the church are treated warmly (Some people are even freaked by how nice Pentecostal congregations can be. Which is sad since, when should a person be made nervous by genuine niceness? Life-trained paranoia I guess.).

People who do not practice speaking in tongues are missing a key part of their Christian spirituality. Baptists are... interesting to me because many believe that speaking in tongues was only for people back then. If Baptism is a deep-cleaning of the soul, why don't followers of Baptist preaching have multiple baptisms to keep themselves clean?

I imagine baptism and speaking in tongues as keeping a home clean. Baptism is the first major cleaning and renovating (same house, just not as dirty) and speaking in tongues is proof that the Holy Spirit of the Lord has entered your heart.

After I received the Spirit for the first time I felt much lighter.

And back to the OP:

Jesus lived and died for our sins. He was God's sacrifice to allow all people to have an intimate relationship with God, not just the High Priests that were allowed past the Veil in the temple and into the presence of the Holy of Holies. That is why I never really thought of Catholic Confessions as useful. Why not confess to God who already knows but is waiting for you to come to him? It is much easier to trust him than a human.

-----------------------




And also: SolitaryWalker/BlueWing has the opinion that many members of the athiest scientific community poses: 'Lo'jik is the only God worth following because I'm afraid of taking leaps of faith. I must logically know EVERYHING. I am only satisfied by more knowledge. If a certain path limits the knowledge I can gain, even if I just think it is limiting me when it isn't, I scream and run away and deem it 'illogical.' People who follow logic only are just as bad as stereotypical SJs. They only accept concrete knowledge and have no faith in the things they cannot explain and they deem those things as 'irrelevant.' Or they may think they can explain it and end up way off base because they have insufficient data. (People who rely on logic rely on data. They make assumptions based off of data and if there is a way to gain information in a non-concrete form they call it irrelevant because it changes without a way to know how it is going to change. This is the same thing that causes many 'logic elitists' to scorn the Feeling function. They will also read this paragraph and call it irrelevant. If they do not I will expect PMs from them who have more questions.

Loppu.
 

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
And also: SolitaryWalker/BlueWing has the opinion that many members of the athiest scientific community poses: 'Lo'jik is the only God worth following because I'm afraid of taking leaps of faith. I must logically know EVERYHING. I am only satisfied by more knowledge. If a certain path limits the knowledge I can gain, even if I just think it is limiting me when it isn't, I scream and run away and deem it 'illogical.' People who follow logic only are just as bad as stereotypical SJs. They only accept concrete knowledge and have no faith in the things they cannot explain and they deem those things as 'irrelevant.' Or they may think they can explain it and end up way off base because they have insufficient data. (People who rely on logic rely on data. They make assumptions based off of data and if there is a way to gain information in a non-concrete form they call it irrelevant because it changes without a way to know how it is going to change. This is the same thing that causes many 'logic elitists' to scorn the Feeling function. They will also read this paragraph and call it irrelevant. If they do not I will expect PMs from them who have more questions.

Loppu.

Okay, lets not use logical reasoning to help us decide if we want to believe in God. Why should we, or should we not? I may have a feeling we should not, yet somebody else may have a feeling we should. At that point the question becomes altogether irrelevant. If we are not using logical reasoning, we may believe in whatever we want. So in the case person A can freely believe in God because he feels that he should and person B can freely choose not to believe in God because he feels that he should not, there is no reason for the two of them to even have a discussion. There is no reason for them to have a discussion because since we are not using logic, we do not have a method that can be used to gauge how justifiable a belief is.

Both of their views are equally justified. If belief in God takes a justifiable leap of faith, why not take the same leap of faith to believe in dragons that appear to people through revelation? After all, you can't prove that dragons don't exist, maybe I can access them through prayer and they will be with me in spirit? Maybe the martial arts champion of the world and the toughest boxer pray to dragons and they give then strength. That is the reason why they are such ferocious fighters! What can you do to refute that? It is justified on the same grounds as the belief in God. But, wait, we are not supposed to be using logic, so we can't even talk about whether my belief in dragons is refutable or any less justifiable than a belief in God.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As for your comments on the Feeling function and the intuitive method of reaching conclusions about the world, the feeling function and intuitive reasoning may be good for a lot of activities, yet arriving at true and justified beliefs about the world simply is not one of such activities.
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,187
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Okay, lets not use logical reasoning to help us decide if we want to believe in God. Why should we, or should we not? I may have a feeling we should not, yet somebody else may have a feeling we should. At that point the question becomes altogether irrelevant. If we are not using logical reasoning, we may believe in whatever we want. So in the case person A can freely believe in God because he feels that he should and person B can freely choose not to believe in God because he feels that they should not, there is no reason for them to even have a discussion. Case closed.

That pretty much sums that angle up nicely.

(And it's sort of why I personally get no value out of the Unitarian Universalist denom, although others might.)
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,187
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
ha ha, SW, you edited that post so much...!
I do that too, I rewrite it after I post and tweak everything.

I liked your first draft best. The latter is more thorough and tries better to explain things, but the first was intuitive and cut right the heart of the matter without getting cluttered.

I mean, really, isn't just the basic issue that either we all believe whatever we want to believe, or else we have to choose a set of criteria as the framework and then see what beliefs make the most sense? Most of the disagreements occur because the framework is what is being argued over.
 

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
ha ha, SW, you edited that post so much...!
I do that too, I rewrite it after I post and tweak everything.

I liked your first draft best. The latter is more thorough and tries better to explain things, but the first was intuitive and cut right the heart of the matter without getting cluttered.

I mean, really, isn't just the basic issue that either we all believe whatever we want to believe, or else we have to choose a set of criteria as the framework and then see what beliefs make the most sense? Most of the disagreements occur because the framework is what is being argued over.

Seems to me that those who think that we should believe in whatever we want greatly outnumber those who think that beliefs need to be supported by a certain epistemic criteria that does make sense.
 

Lark

Active member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
29,569
I dont believe what people believe makes a difference to objective reality, what we believe may not make a real difference to God but being superstitious or fearful, the opposite of knowing God, sure can spoil your life.
 

Chunes

New member
Joined
Sep 9, 2009
Messages
364
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
9w1
Seems to me that those who think that we should believe in whatever we want greatly outnumber those who think that beliefs need to be supported by a certain epistemic criteria that does make sense.

I think it's a grave mistake to judge that another's beliefs don't follow some sort of criteria that make sense to that individual.
 

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
I think it's a grave mistake to judge that another's beliefs don't follow some sort of criteria that make sense to that individual.

It's not that there is a certain criteria that makes sense to some individuals and not all. There is a criteria that makes sense to all individuals and that criteria is of logical reasoning. If an argument is deductively valid (contains no logical reasoning errors) and its premises are founded on factually accurate statements, then the argument simply points to the truth. Whether those who do not understand how such arguments work agree or disagree is irrelevant. The disagreement of those who refuse to entertain notions that aren't compatible with their beliefs is also irrelevant.

In short, there is a difference between what objectively makes sense (logical reasoning and factual accuracy) and what does not 'make sense' to some people because they have a certain bias against this or that view or they are too ignorant or too stupid to understand something.
 

Chunes

New member
Joined
Sep 9, 2009
Messages
364
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
9w1
The way I look at it, there's scarcely a difference between supposed epistomological rigor and any alternative. Starting with perhaps 50 logical premises to come to a conclusion is hardly any different than starting with one or none. It's all a drop in the bucket compared to the premises required for an accurate conclusion, which would be.. roughly infinite.

What I'm saying is that logic is meaningless outside of closed axiomatic systems, and anyone who considers himself logical under such circumstances is delusional.
 

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
The way I look at it, there's scarcely a difference between supposed epistomological rigor and any alternative..

You know what, you're absolutely right. Since logical reasoning and any other alternative are equally justified, why don't I just say that you're wrong and thats the end of the story. I could go on to think of how your views may be logically inconsistent or your starting facts are inaccurate, but this requires some logical reasoning. Since logical reasoning is just as effective as any other alternative, I don't need to bother engaging in logical reasoning. I will just use an alternative to it and my alternative is simply stating that you're wrong.

Why do I think you're wrong? Should I cite a reason why you are? No, I don't need to because if I did so I'd be using logic. If I use any other alternative, I would have just as much of a justification in saying that you're wrong as I would have had if I did use logical reasoning.

------------------------------------------------
Note: Logic alone does not entail any conclusions outside of some closed system. Logic and mathematics are the only examples of such systems. In everything else, we need not only logical consistency, but also facts.

Facts are not provided by logic alone, does this mean that we can use any method we want to get these facts? Likely not. In addition to purely logical reasoning or deductive reasoning, there is also probability and inductive reasoning. Both of those methods tell us how likely a certain statement is to be true granted that we cannot prove that it is true by logic alone. The fact that probability shows that we can use any method that we want to arrive at a certain conclusion about the world.

What happens after we do arrive at our starting facts for the argument? Then we have this closed system of axioms (axioms can be called our basic starting facts for the argument) where logical reasoning is indeed necessary.

--------------------------------------------------------

But please, do not despair! I get your point! What you said is true, logic alone cannot tell us anything about the world as it only works in closed systems. Hence, logic alone can't tell us if God exists. Since logic alone cannot answer a question, it means that its not useful to us at all.

You know this is just like our mothers often told us: you either do a job entirely and well, or you don't do it at all. In other words, unless you get all of your tasks done, you get no credit for your work!

But really, are these statements anything more than the 'cultural wisdom' of our ancestor generation? Is there any truth to that? Lets see what happens when we apply this statement. A racer who did not finish the race did not participate in the competition at all. Hence, if we know that the racer did not get his entire job that done, that is, he didn't get through the entire course, he did not get through any of it. Isn't there a fact that he did cover a certain distance which means that the statement that he covered nothing is just false?

-----------------------------------------------------------

In short, just because a certain activity is not completely effective or does not get the entire job done, it does not mean that it's not effective at all, or that any other activity is just as effective as this activity that didn't get everything done.
 
Last edited:

Kaveri

New member
Joined
Aug 18, 2007
Messages
183
MBTI Type
intp
A lot of (fundamentalist) Christians wouldn't probably even think that I'm Christian but I'll answer the questions...

Did Jesus perform miracles?

I don't know the answer. That is not a question that I actively think about. I concentrate on his teachings and I think of his miracles as beautiful stories that I can learn from, wether the miracles really happened or not.

"Did he die for our sins?"

I believe this doctrine to be only one interpretation and as such only one way to put it. You could say that he died for our sins but that isn't to me a doctrine that has to be repeated again and again because as humans, we can't really understand why Jesus had to die. Saying that he died for our sins is imo like telling a child that an angel has taken your grandma to heaven and now she's looking down at us from above the clouds-- it's a beautiful thing to say, but the truth is not necessarily so literal.

"Did the resurrection happen?"

I don't know if any Christian could say that the resurrection didn't happen. Of course, what the resurrection means is a more complicated thing. Personally, I don't believe that Jesus's body literally rose to heaven. It could have happened but it's not an essential foundation of my faith to believe that. I don't actively think about how it happened. I believe that Jesus lives in some way that I can't understand and I think that saying that his body rising to heaven is, again, like tellinga child about an angel who took grandma to a palace in heaven.

"Or is the Jesus story a creation of the Gospel writers and based largely on earlier Messianic figures?"

No, I believe that Jesus was (and is) real.
 
G

Ginkgo

Guest
Church is cool as long as you remember that you should be getting in touch with God, not church.

What's the point of going to Church in the first place if you are seeking God on an individual basis?

The Church is the body of God. Not the physical body, but the spiritual body. Neglecting it is only a disservice to yourself and God.
 

Nyx

New member
Joined
Jul 31, 2009
Messages
444
What's the point of going to Church in the first place if you are seeking God on an individual basis?

The Church is the body of God. Not the physical body, but the spiritual body. Neglecting it is only a disservice to yourself and God.

Right. The Church was set up by Christ for salvation. Protestants seem to forget this. If you deny the importance of the Body of Christ on Earth, then you deny the importance of the Apostles and their successors, as well as the traditions of the first Christians such as their liturgy.
 
Top