|
Understanding through Discussion |
|
|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
| EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
|
| |
| ChatGPT | |
| Total: 916,784 Year: 4,041/9,624 Month: 912/974 Week: 239/286 Day: 46/109 Hour: 3/5 |
| Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
| Author | Topic: Is God determined to allow no proof or evidence of his existence? | |||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1470 days)  Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Mr. Ex Nihilo Member (Idle past 1363 days)  Posts: 712 Joined: |
Before I go any further, I guess the basic gist of what I'm trying to express is that action constitutes belief. If someone is doing good in God's eyes, then they are being moved by the Holy Spirit to do so. Even if they don't know the source of who's inspiring them to do good, it's still God moving them to do so. Therefore, in a sense, holy action equals belief -- even if the holy action is not properly ascribed to God.
But let's come back to your earlier post here:
purpledawn writes: Paul's statement is centuries old. He speaks of evidence in his time. Paul cannot attest to God's will or existence today. Mr. Ex Nihilo writes: um...wasn't it nature? purpledawn writes: The Creator created the world (nature). Yes. I agree.
purpledawn writes: The nature you see around you now is not the same nature that He created millions of years ago. The nature that was around millions of years ago was also not the same nature that Paul was experiencing either -- so I'm not sure what you're getting at. Are you saying that nature changed that much in the last 2,000 years so as to reduce Paul's statements to nothingness? Is this a young earth creationist position? Or maybe it's a young earth theistic evolutionist position? 
purpledawn writes: Yes it is the same foundation, but my trees weren't there. There are new species of animals, trees, etc. and some have gone extinct. Yes, and the evolution of new species in our modern era is evidence in itself for many theistic evolutionists to conclude that God is still at work. However, on a different level, all life that we know of over the last several millions of years were still basically carbon-based life-forms replicating via either DNA transfers or RNA inserts --even the ones that are now extinct (either asexually or sexually reproducing at that). purpledawn writes: The trees in my back yard were started from seed. Yes. Seed which still testifies to the resurection of Christ every Spring.
purpledawn writes: The Creator didn't create that tree for me, He didn't create that specific seed for me. He still could have guided it's path on a spritual level so as to cause "that tree" to be in your yard -- and specifically for you I might add (among many others who experience the tree).
purpledawn writes: The seed came from the tree. He created the system so to speak. Yes, but the Scriptures do testify that God created all kinds food bearing plants for us to eat and find nourishment. Fairly well all religions tend to view nature as being somewhat teleological at the very least, and even divine in and of itself in other areas -- though I don't actually agree that nature itself is divine. Furthermore, even if these plants we see today are not the "actual" plants that existed millions of years in the past, it still goes without saying that their "descendents" bear the heritage of this blessing God made them for -- and we still receive those blessings today.
purpledawn writes: You can say nature is evidence of a creator, fine, but it isn't tangible evidence that the creator is still present. Ok...so you do agree that nature can be seen as evidence of its creator, but that nature doesn't testify to the creator now, or whether he's even still around now? If so, perhaps I've misunderstood your former question. However, at least some aspects of what you've said seem to contradict your previous statment:
purpledawn writes: I say that nature is proof that God does not allow evidence of his existence. Isn't this switching the goal posts a bit? Or were you implying "present tense" evidence of his existence all along?
purpledawn writes: You can say you can know the Creator's character from looking at nature, fine, but it isn't tangible evidence that the Creator is still present. Sure it is. The tangible evidence is nature itself in the sense of the "system" that God made and still directs. First of all, if the system is capable of surviving millions of years, one would think that the "eternal, uncreated creator" that made the system in the first place could certainly outlast his own termporal creation. Furthermore, Christianity (and a host of other religions I might add) have all concluded that God (or gods) is the ultimate source of the souls of all life. In other words, although various religions fall into various categories (such as monotheistic, pantheistic, or panentheistic) they all agree in various ways that the soul of all living things originates either directly or indirectly from the some form of Godhead. For example, Psalm 139:13 says, "For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb." Likewise, in Psalm 22:10 we read, "From birth I was cast upon you; from my mother's womb you have been my God." Other religions have very similar concepts, with some even going much further than Christianity and stating that the "soul" is like a spark of life directly from God himself. While I don't agree that the human soul is a piece of God's soul, I am willing to admit that God indwells people's souls by the Holy Spirit and animates them in the directions of holiness -- and that without the Holy Spirit's indwelling presence we would eventually die. In other words, even if the the "system" were to continue running without God's (or gods') direct influence, then no new souls would be generated to fill the empty base material lifeforms. From the time the creator supposedly totally left (or supposedly died, or supposedly got drunk and passed out, or supposedly whatever you wish), all new lifeforms from that point on would be souless -- thus eveything newly born would be essentially stillborn without God's divine grace guiding and directing it. Eventually, as time went on, the things that were still alive before God "moved on" would die naturally -- and then there would be no life left to testify to the God that created all things.
Mr. Ex Nihilo writes: What do you think that Paul is talking about when he says, "...being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse." purpledawn writes: Nature, but nature is not the Creator. Nature is the creation. Yeah...and I've never said that nature was or is God. I'm not a pantheist or a panentheist for that matter. I've only claimed that one can intuitively know God from creation. In other words, nature reflects its creator, and it still reveals its creator even today. By your answer above, can I conclude that we are at least finally in agreement that God "was" evident in nature?
Mr. Ex Nihilo writes: And what about all the other things I mentioned, such a primitive monotheisms for example, or the similarities in Stoicism and Christianity for another example? All these things bear a striking resemblance to the Judeo-Christian concept of God, and these understandings came about (especially in the case of Stoicism) by people's understanding of nature. purpledawn writes: They all had the same picture to look at, nature. Ok...so we're kind of agreed I guess. Are we agreed?
Mr. Ex Nihilo writes: I think the more correct word is "exists" as is in "Nature may show that God exists..." purpledawn writes: The Creator obviously existed when he created nature. Ok, so we're agreed here then.  It's the later part (like God's presence right NOW) that we're apparently not agreed on yet.
purpledawn writes: After creation the Bible doesn't mention God creating anything new from scratch. Oh yes it does. The incident of Aaron's rod budding is probably one of the best examples given. And in examining the Hebrew Scriptures more carefully, one is most probably to understand that some parts of Aaron's rod were in bud, others in bloom, and still others had fruited -- all within a period of less than 24 hours. While the Scriptures do not state clearly whether that which had sprouted was an annual, biennial, or perennial growths, it is clear that in all these cases, at least a season's growth is required to produce what was manifested from the staff. For example, summer annuals complete their life cycle during spring and summer whereas most winter annuals complete their growing season during fall and winter. Annuals are said to go from seed to seed in 1 year or growing season. During this period, they grow, mature, bloom, produce seeds, and then die. This was certainly a place where a small miracle would have been convincing. After all, the Lord could have merely made a little green sprout shoot forth from Aaron’s rod alone -- and that would have (or should have) been enough. This is even more true in our modern day now that we are aware of how much factors such as photosynthesis and moisture affect growth. Chlorophyll, a substance in green plant cells, is capable of absorbing sunlight energy and through a complex process is able to convert this light energy into food materials for the plant. Inorder to grow normally and complete their life cycle, plants depend on their environment to provide them with basis necessities for photosynthesis. These essential plant growth factors include light, heat (air and soil temperature), air (oxygen and carbon dioxide), water, nutrients and sometimes even physical support. The Lord, however, apparently gave an infallible proof to demonstrate his approval of Aaron’s leadership. The Lord often gives us more than enough evidence -- our problem is often a lack of willingness to see what he has made plainly clear. It should be noted that there is nothing overly remarkable about a piece of wood with buds, blossoms, or fruit on it. However, a piece of dead wood with all these things appearing in one night after sitting in a tent is remarkable. Miracles in the Scriptural record are often of this sort: natural events in unnatural conditions --especially pertaining to their timing and placement. It should also be noted that this bud came out of nowhere (i.e., from scratch). Likewise, when one contemplates the miracle that Christ performed at the wedding feast of Cana, one again see God making something from scratch. Here we have an account of Christ not only fermenting wine for this occassion, something which is usually a lengthy process, but we also have him apparently bringing forth grapes out of nothing for the occasion, which also requires time for the grapes to grow. Let's be clear here in discussing this. Wine is fermented grape juice. It can be made from grapes, fruits, and berries. However, most wine is made from grapes. And no matter what the wine is made from, there must be fermentation, that is, that sugar be transformed into alcohol. If the amount of alcohol is relatively low, the resultis wine. If it is high, the result is a "distilled liquor," something like gin or vodka. Within the Hebrew Scriptures recorded within Genesis 9:20-21, the manufacture of wine is carried back to the age of Noah, to whom the discovery of the process is apparently, though not explicitly, attributed. It has been disputed whether the Hebrew wine was fermented -- but the impression produced on the mind by a general review of the Scriptural references notices that the Hebrew words indicating wine refer to fermented, intoxicating wine. The notices of fermentation are not very decisive. However, a certain amount of fermentation is implied in the distension of the leather bottles when new wine was placed in them -- and which was liable to burst old bottles. It is very likely that new wine was preserved in the state of must by placing it in jars or bottles and then burying it in the earth. The mingling that we read of in conjunction with wine may have been designed either to increase or to diminish the strength of the wine, according as spices or water formed the ingredient that was added. The notices chiefly favor the former view; however, for mingled liquor was prepared for high festivals, such as was recorded in Proverbs 9:2 & 5, and occasions of excess. Likewise, if the burying of the wine is symbolic of Christ's resurrection, then it is almost certainly a reference to the former -- after burial, when adding spices and what not, it comes out of the ground stronger. Now, to be honest, I'm not sure exactly which substance was employed by Christ to transform the water in to wine. However, almost all wines refered to in the entirety of the Scriptures, when a substance is listed that is, seems to indicate fruit from the vine -- therefore implying grapes. As recorded in the Hebrew Scriptures, the only other plant whose fruit is noticed as having been converted into wine was the pomegranate -- and this is recorded only once in the entirety of the Scriptures. If this is so, it is well known that grapes grow on vines. This, the first of his miraculous signs revealing himself as the Christ, Jesus performed in Cana of Galilee. He thus revealed his glory, and his disciples put their faith in him. In discussing these things, I would like to note that God finishing (or ceasing) his work on the seventh day in no way seems to imply that God was no longer involved within his Creation. Certainly, as recorded within the Genesis account, God was still walking among the garden of Eden and conversing with Adam and Eve -- conversing just as we would if we gathered together in person and talked with one another. Indeed, one could say that after he finished his ultimately sublime work of forming the entire universe out of nothing, God then stepped down to a more personal level and began to work intimately with his greatest creation of all: the souls of humanity. Of course, in praying over this subject, a few questions do come to my mind. For example, if humanity’s ultimate goal was to reside in heaven, and the souls of Adam and Eve were still very much present within God’s Creation yet still not dwelling in heaven, then could one also infer that God’s work was not completed for humanity at his time -- even though the universe itself was indeed completed? Or stated differently within the context of a personal relationship with God here on earth, could one also say that God finished the ‘material’ creation in order to focus exclusively on and indwell within his greater ‘spiritual’ creation, the soul of man? God’s work associated with the soul of man seems to be easily implied within the Hebrew Scriptures -- and although God no longer appears to be working towards the creation of new material (although this too may be wrong: see below), God still seems to be working toward the maintenance of his Creation in addition to the production of new life within his Creation. Bearing this in mind, God’s goal with the completion of the creation of the material universe on the seventh day seems to be not so much a total cessation of all work -- but rather it seems to be a cessation of all of one kind of work in order to shift his focus more exclusively to a new kind of work -- the more personal work of bringing the souls of humanity to their ultimate rest. If so, his new work is clearly, at least within the Judeo-Christian context, aimed at securing the eternal life of those souls he created so that they will be joyfully enjoined with him forever more. If one would take umbrage with the concept of God still being at work after the completion of the Creation, then one must also take umbrage with the Christian Scriptures themselves -- for they clearly imply that God is at work within our souls and guiding our works through the Holy Spirit well into our Christian era. For example, the Scriptural passages found within Romans 8:28 clearly states, And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. The Scriptural passages found within 1 Corinthians 12:6 clearly states that, There are different kinds of working, but the same God works all of them in all men. Along similar lines, Ephesians 1:11-12 also states, In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will, in order that we, who were the first to hope in Christ, might be for the praise of his glory. Ephesians 2:10 goes even further in discussing God’s work -- for it goes so far as to say that we are God’s workmanship thus implying more work for the Lord after his Creation is finished -- when it states clearly, For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do. Although certainly God prepared good works in advance for us to walk in (in this sense, he fore-ordained the paths that we should walk in even if we do not follow them), his workmanship in Christ is still going on. We know this because every day millions of new people are being born into this world -- and every day thousands of people are being born into Christ as part of the new creation in him. In fact, he is quite active in it. So effectively we know that he is actively working on our behalf today. Yes. God is still at work. Indeed, are we not still awaiting the full consummation of the new heavens and new earth? As the Christian Scriptures reveal Christ speaking in John 5:17, "My Father never stops working, so why should I?"
purpledawn writes: So nature continued on its own. Actually, it didn't. God guided and directed it -- at least, that's how many Christians view it. Many other religions have very similar views.
purpledawn writes: Unless you can show that the Creator is still creating things from scratch, then nature does not show that the creator is still present. But new material is being created everyday, material that seems very similar to what one would expect from the Big Bang. Consider the following information... http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/bigbang.htm
The Big Bang writes:
One of the most persistently asked questions has been: How was the universe created? Many once believed that the universe had no beginning or end and was truly infinite. Through the inception of the Big Bang theory, however,no longer could the universe be considered infinite. The universe was forced to take on the properties of a finite phenomenon, possessing a history and a beginning. About 15 billion years ago a tremendous explosion started the expansion of the universe. This explosion is known as the Big Bang. At the point of this event all of the matter and energy of space was contained at one point. What exisisted prior to this event is completely unknown and is a matter of pure speculation. This occurance was not a conventional explosion but rather an event filling all of space with all of the particles of the embryonic universe rushing away from each other. The Big Bang actually consisted of an explosion of space within itself unlike an explosion of a bomb were fragments are thrown outward. The galaxies were not all clumped together, but rather the Big Bang lay the foundations for the universe. The article goes on to say...
The First Atoms writes:
Now that an attempt has been made to grapple with the theory of the Big Bang, the next logical question to ask would be what happened afterward? In the minuscule fractions of the first second after creation what was once a complete vacuum began to evolve into what we now know as the universe. In the very beginning there was nothing except for a plasma soup. What is known of these brief moments in time, at the start of our study of cosmology, is largely conjectural. However, science has devised some sketch of what probably happened, based on what is known about the universe today. Immediately after the Big Bang, as one might imagine, the universe was tremendously hot as a result of particles of both matter and antimatter rushing apart in all directions. As it began to cool, at around 10^-43 seconds after creation, there existed an almost equal yet asymmetrical amount of matter and antimatter. As these two materials are created together, they collide and destroy one another creating pure energy. Fortunately for us, there was an asymmetry in favor of matter. As a direct result of an excess of about one part per billion, the universe was able to mature in a way favorable for matter to persist. As the universe first began to expand, this discrepancy grew larger. The particles which began to dominate were those of matter. They were created and they decayed without the accompaniment of an equal creation or decay of an antiparticle. As the universe expanded further, and thus cooled, common particles began to form. These particles are called baryons and include photons, neutrinos, electrons and quarks would become the building blocks of matter and life as we know it. During the baryon genesis period there were no recognizable heavy particles such as protons or neutrons because of the still intense heat. At this moment, there was only a quark soup. As the universe began to cool and expand even more, we begin to understand more clearly what exactly happened. After the universe had cooled to about 3000 billion degrees Kelvin, a radical transition began which has been likened to the phase transition of water turning to ice. Composite particles such as protons and neutrons, called hadrons, became the common state of matter after this transition. Still, no matter more complex could form at these temperatures. Although lighter particles, called leptons, also existed, they were prohibited from reacting with the hadrons to form more complex states of matter. These leptons, which include electrons, neutrinos and photons, would soon be able to join their hadron kin in a union that would define present-day commonmatter. Consequently, the standard Big Bang model appears to explain all there is after the Big Bang occurred. It can trace things back to within planck's time of the beginning (1 x 10-43 seconds). But it can not explain what occurred before that point. Now, bearing this in mind, lets take a look at what is theorized to exist on the quantum scale... http://quantumfoam.tripod.com/q-foam.html
Quantum Foam writes:
At around 10 to the power -43 of a second, time itself becomes quantised, that is it appears as discontinuous particles of time, for there is no way in which time can manifest in quantities less than 10 to the power -43 (the so called Planck time). For here the borrowed quantum energies distort the fabric of space turning it back upon itself. There time must have a stop. At such short intervals the energies available are enormous enough to create virtual black holes and wormholes in space-time, and at this level we have only a sea of quantum probabilities - the so called Quantum Foam. Contemporary physics suggests that through these virtual wormholes in space-time there are links with all time past and future, and through the virtual black holes even with parallel universes. Interestingly, the author notes the following "spiritual implications" of the quantum foam.
Quantum Foam writes: It must be somewhat above this level that our consciousness works, weaving probability waves into patterns and incarnating them in the receptive structure of our brains. Our being or spirit lives in this Quantum Foam, which is thus the Eternal Now, infinite in extent and a plenum of all possibilities. The patterns of everything that has been, that is now, and will come to be, exists latent in this quantum foam. Perhaps this is the realm though which the mystics stepped into timelessness, the eternal present, and sensed the omnipotence and omniscience of the spirit. Now let's take a look at the nature of these "virtual particles" based on what Stephen Hawking lectured.
Hawking Lecture writes:
This would be a violation of the uncertainty principle. Instead, the fields would have to have a certain minimum amount of fluctuations. One can interpret these so called vacuum fluctuations, as pairs of particles and anti particles, that suddenly appear together, move apart, and then come back together again, and annihilate each other. These particle anti particle pairs, are said to be virtual, because one can not measure them directly with a particle detector. However, one can observe their effects indirectly. One way of doing this, is by what is called the Casimir effect. One has two parallel metal plates, a short distance apart. The plates act like mirrors for the virtual particles and anti particles. This means that the region between the plates, is a bit like an organ pipe, and will only admit light waves of certain resonant frequencies. The result is that there are slightly fewer vacuum fluctuations, or virtual particles, between the plates, than outside them, where vacuum fluctuations can have any wavelength. The reduction in the number of virtual particles between the plates means that they don't hit the plates so often, and thus don't exert as much pressure on the plates, as the virtual particles outside. There is thus a slight force pushing the plates together. This force has been measured experimentally. So virtual particles actually exist, and produce real effects. Because there are fewer virtual particles, or vacuum fluctuations, between the plates, they have a lower energy density, than in the region outside. But the energy density of empty space far away from the plates, must be zero. Otherwise it would warp space-time, and the universe wouldn't be nearly flat. So the energy density in the region between the plates, must be negative. We thus have experimental evidence from the bending of light, that space-time is curved, and confirmation from the Casimir effect, that we can warp it in the negative direction. Consequently, although we don't see these virtual particles working on the same level as that theorized within the expansion of the Big Bang singularity, we still nonetheless have some evidence of their existence. And, as noted above, we have demonstrated that, mathematically speaking, the character of these vitual particles seems very similar to what one would expect at the beginning stages of the Big Bang -- albeit, at a much calmer level now than in the past. In other words, Creation is still happening -- but at a very relaxed rate compared to the former levels that once were transpiring.
purpledawn writes: Now the miracles described in the OT made God's presence known, not nature. Yes, but, even though God did actually appear in very profound and personal ways to the Israelites, nature was by far still the most used medium upon which God acted in order to make his presence known.
Mr. Ex Nihilo writes: I'm not sure if this is the direction that you're going, but some of your points here seem to be leaning in the direction of the question, "If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it actually make a sound?" purpledawn writes: Nope wasn't going there at all. Pretty much asked a straight forward question.
purpledawn writes: ...but what today shows that God has made up his mind to allow evidence that he still exists today? Actually, I think you are using this kind of argument. For example, the question...
'if a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it actually make a sound?' ...could be rephrased as...
'if nature is evidence that God existed and no one was around back then to witness him creating, does it actually prove that God still exists?' Anyway, let's come back to your question: ...but what today shows that God has made up his mind to allow evidence that he still exists today? Have I answered it yet?
purpledawn writes: If you read some of my posts and threads I've started in the BA&I Forum, you will probably get a basic idea of what I mean by reality of the Christian Bible. Thanks. I'll go check it out some time when I have a chance. This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 06-03-2005 05:26 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Mr. Ex Nihilo Member (Idle past 1363 days) Posts: 712 Joined: |
Sorry Faith. I didn't mean for it to startle you.
 BTW: BOO!
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Faith Suspended Member (Idle past 1470 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
My skin didn't stop crawling for an hour. So THAT's how you defeat your opponents, give them a heart attack!
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
AdminJar Inactive Member |
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3483 days)  Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Mr. Ex Nihilo Member (Idle past 1363 days) Posts: 712 Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Mr. Ex Nihilo Member (Idle past 1363 days) Posts: 712 Joined: |
Make mine a bud please.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3483 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
Good thing this thread is coming to a close, because you apparently don't understand anything I'm saying.
Suffice it to say, IMO you haven't shown that God is determined to allow proof of his existence today. You've mentioned if's, maybe's, beliefs, feelings, the invisible and the unknown. So since we don't seem to have a good line of communication going on here, I bid you good day. "The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Mr. Ex Nihilo Member (Idle past 1363 days) Posts: 712 Joined: |
purpledawn writes: Good thing this thread is coming to a close, because you apparently don't understand anything I'm saying. Apparently not.
purpledawn writes: Suffice it to say, IMO you haven't shown that God is determined to allow proof of his existence today. You've mentioned if's, maybe's, beliefs, feelings, the invisible and the unknown. There is, however, one thing that you yourself failed to mention: How exactly do you think people get to know God then if he doesn't reveal himself in some way to them?
purpledawn writes: So since we don't seem to have a good line of communication going on here, I bid you good day. Oh well. Thanks. Bye. This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 06-04-2005 04:54 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3483 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3483 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
Water on the rocks please.
It is very hot out here today. "The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Mr. Ex Nihilo Member (Idle past 1363 days) Posts: 712 Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Mr. Ex Nihilo Member (Idle past 1363 days) Posts: 712 Joined: |
Mr. Ex Nihilo writes: Faith, I'm not trying to water down the gospel. I'm saying that one can warn someone of their eternal separation from God without preaching the fire and brimstone in the process. Faith writes: Well I'm glad you told me that as I really didn't know what you were saying. I thought you were talking about the common evangelical technique of killing people to bring them to Christ. No. I'm talking about the common evangelical technique of scaring the crap out of little children who refuse to believe what they're saying with the threat of hell.  Get the picture?  There's a lot of stuff that goes on in churches that are, in my opinion, simply wrong. I'm not saying that children shouldn't be taught the dangers of rejecting Christ. However, even if they are doing it with "good intentions", there are people who nonetheless abuse their authority and try to scare people into believing. Let's tackle a few more issues while we're at it.
Faith writes: As for the fire and brimstone bit, very few preach that these days so you shouldn't have much of a complaint there. You cannot be seriously advocating this? Faith, you actually use techniques which I would consider to be fire & brimstone techniques.
Faith writes: The usual way it is done a person wouldn't really have much of an idea why salvation was even necessary. You know, Jesus loves you. So big deal. So does their mother. Well...this is quite an extreme dipole from the fire & brimstone techniques of saying "beleive or be damned".
Mr. Ex Nihilo writes: For example, if someone asks me what I think about sex outside of marriage, I'd say that I think it's wrong. More specifically, I'd express my conviction that I feel that this is something that God does not desire and that doing so could result in a permanent separation from his presence. If they asked me why, then I'd take the time to explain to them via the Scriptures why I felt this was so. Faith writes: As opposed to what? Killing them for having sex outside marriage? Beating them up, hacking off their heads, burying them up to their chins in sand and stoning them? Some of these methods are actually partially instructed in the Hebrew Scriptures directly by God eh? I think crashfrog was actually very correct when he said, "Ah, the oldies but goodies... " Getting back to the point, no, I'm not talking about killing them for having sex outside marriage, or beating them up, or hacking off their heads, or burying them up to their chins in sand and stoning them. I talking about the inability of a Christian to refuse to acknowledge that a non-Christian who disagrees with them could still nonetheless be their friend. I think excluding others from your group of friends because they are "different" is simply wrong. Furthermore, I have been to churches where people are frowned upon for not wearing "nice clothes" -- and they are eventually "rejected" because they didn't appear to "respect the Lord" based on their dress-code. There's a lot of crap that happens in churches Faith (in every church and in every denomination), and if we're going to point fingers at non-believers then we shouldn't be surprised when they point their fingers right back at us.
Faith writes: What typical evangelical witnessing technique are you contrasting your method with? Mr. Ex Nihilo writes: I won't disagree with you that many simply look for reasons not to believe in God, specifically Christianity here in North America because of its fairly dominant influence. However, these same people are not always prejudiced against Christianity per se. Rather, they are simply against the concept of belief in general no matter what religion is presented. Faith writes: God knows how to lead people to himself without our doing anything but telling the truth... Really...so this is why he turned a river into blood, brought on the plague of toads and gnats, threw hail and storms and darkness, and slaughtered the first born of all the Egyptians including Pharaoh's son?
Faith writes: ...and as for your idea that one should listen to endless complaints about Christianity... I didn't say I would "listen to endless complaints about Christianity". I said I was willing to patiently listen to others and try to answer them, Eventually we will agree or disagree, but at least I'll have spoken from my heart as the Spirit leads me.
Faith writes: I haven't run across any new ones lately, have you? I didn't say there were. But there are always "new people" asking these questions. Maybe you've heard the complaints a million times -- but it still might be the very first time they've ever had the courage to speak openly what they thought.
Faith writes: I've certainly been treated to the one about the "cruel God" hundreds of times. People who argue along those lines are just anti-Christianity and it's become ingrained. Some do. Some don't. Just don't be too quick to judge someone else Faith. In doing so, you might turn them away from Christ -- and then God might have a few questions for you. In saying this, I'm not talking about someone who has known Christ and then rejected them -- that's up to God to decide (and even then I would most certainly listen to their complaints). But, if I'm not sure that they've even rejected Christ, then I would give them the benefit of the doubt and try to explain what I could. I realize that some do pose these questions with the specific intention of proclaiming how non-sensical faith in God is. But that's not why I'm doing this -- and not ALL "non-believers" that ask these questions are out to prove the Scriptures wrong either. Maybe this doesn't apply to you, but can't you remember a time when you didn't believe in Jesus? If so, how did you feel back then? Likewise, if this does apply to you, what were some of the thoughts that were going through your mind back then? Can't you at least acknowledge that not everyone who doubts God's word is out to hide behind these perceived inconsistencies? I know when I was a "non-believer" I had many thoughts like this. I think it's intellectually bankrupt to deny it to be honest. This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 06-04-2005 09:00 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Faith Suspended Member (Idle past 1470 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024
