The Tension of Faith

But you can't substantiate your premise that the Bible is God's word. You can't even substantiate your premise that God exists. If by this you mean inerrancy, the Bible contains its own evidence that it is not inerrant by its internal and external errors and contradictions. If you have a fallen mind, how can you know whether any judgment you make is true, including the judgment that the Bible is inerrant?--Percy

Well, there are several significant problems with this. First, you've addressed your message to the wrong people. If Faith had been talking about what the Bible really means then that's what Ringo and I would have been responding about, simply because we both have a discussion style of "quote something from a message, then respond to it", but that's not what Faith was talking about. This subdiscussion began when Faith said this in her Message 158: Faith cannot expect declarations like this to go unchallenged simply because this is a "Bible Study" forum.But that brings us to the second point: this isn't a "Bible Study" forum. There *is* a Bible Study forum, but this isn't it. This is the Faith and Belief forum.Also, this thread is titled The Tension of Faith - it is not a thread about the meaning of the Bible that has simply been accidentally dropped into the wrong forum. It's in exactly the right forum, and it's not about the meaning of the Bible. Faith's opening post doesn't even contain the word "Bible".Third, Faith has made very clear that to her faith does not mean not having evidence for what you believe but believing anyway. She says her faith is backed by hard evidence. It does not go unnoticed when Faith changes her arguments as convenience demands. She can't slip undetected from (sic) "The Bible is God's Word and I can prove it" in one thread to "Substantiating [that the Bible is God's Word] to unbelievers is not possible" in another.So how does a discussion deal with a request to just accept that, (sic) "The Bible is the Word of God and is literally inerrant and there are demons trying to trip us up and we have fallen minds except that mine is regurgitated (oops, sorry, the correct term is apparently regenerated) and so I know things that you're just going to have to accept, and that's that"? Demanding a response along the lines of "Oh, okay" is not a discussion. Yes, of course, but accepting that nature is consistent is not a valid analog to accepting Biblical inerrancy. The valid analog to Biblical inerrancy would be something more like, "My experimental equipment is perfect," when the reality is that the data provided by your equipment depends a great deal on the quality of its design, construction and working condition. That would make sense except that what the Bible means often depends upon whether you accept the Bible as inerrant. For example, if the Bible is inerrant then one of the messages of the Bible is that there was a global Flood around 4500 years ago that covered even the highest mountains. But if the Bible is not inerrant then we can understand that there never was any global Flood while at the same time taking away some meaning from the story, perhaps that God will punish evil.--Percy

Actually it's not a sufficient answer. Here's your original point from Message 278: And you reiterate this point in your current message: Ringo's question remain's unanswered (as does his Message 279). I'll rephrase his question this way: It is your judgment that the Bible is God's inerrant Word, but how do you know your judgment about the Bible is true, especially since you've conceded that your judgment can be false when it differs from Bible, which is only deemed God's inerrant Word by your own (by your own admission) flawed judgment and is not something the Bible says about itself, which would be a circular argument anyway. I can't acknowledge the logic, because there is none there. The errancy of the Bible is self-evident, it's author as God is assumed with no evidence, there isn't even an argument for why books by God must be inerrant, and human judgment is flawed in all things, including about whether a book is God's inerrant Word. Yes, we know you think you're born again. A paraphrase of Hebrews 11:1, which descends into nonsense by 11:3 ("...things which are seen were not made of things which are visible."). This would seem to run counter to your statements that your faith is backed by evidence. So your flawed judgment isn't flawed anymore? You address that next: Then you must spend a lot of time in your "old fallen mind" because your behavior here much of the time can not in any way be seen as relying "on God's guidance." Anyway, I believe you believe this, but even you appear to understand that these are things accepted on faith. So in other words this is something you accept on faith for which there is no evidence. As opposed to the things you accept on faith for which you somehow think there *is* evidence, like the Flood. Two different kinds of faith almost opposite to each other but all part of the same belief system. No wonder your beliefs have The Tension of Faith. Yes, I understand the statement of belief, but... There is nothing simple or logical about it. It is belief that you accept on faith, the kind that has no evidence. And I think few if any of us here have any problems with belief based upon that kind of faith, but it's very hard to accept this statement of your belief based upon unevidenced faith given how extensively and often you've written the opposite.--Percy

I wasn't comparing your beliefs to my beliefs. I was making an observation on what it looks like from the outside when someone says their beliefs are evolving over time. Let me state this in the most favorable way possible to your perspective by not describing your views as changing but as undergoing a process of refinement. You once viewed some theological aspect one way, now you view it in a more nuanced way, and you think the view you hold today a closer approximation to the truth than your former view. But that view may change again, and then you'll think that new view an even closer approximation to truth. But... There are not other objective ways of knowing than in the "scientific sense." I'm fine with claims of knowing things subjectively to be true for oneself, but that doesn't make them true for other people, nor does it make them true in any objective sense. But most critically, even the claim of knowing something subjectively to be true breaks down because opinions of what is true change, just as you described. Since all the different beliefs you've held over time can't all be true, likely none of them are true.So when you say, "Maybe one of us is right and maybe both of us are wrong," it isn't doesn't capture the actual situation. I'm not saying I'm right and you're wrong. I don't have a position on this to be wrong about, because my position is that those things claimed religiously are likely wrong, sometimes because they don't derive from evidence and observation, and sometimes because they differ with other religions in ways where they can't both be true, and sometimes for other reasons. Sure, I concede that it must be true that you're possibly right about some things, but that would be by chance or luck and not via any established path to knowledge. Not sure how to interpret the smilie. Is the joke that if they're in jail they're not true Christians? But that would be cold and ungenerous, so that can't be it. Is it that you're trying to be gentle about informing me it's not true what I said about jailhouse demographics? But it is true, so that can't be it. Sorry, don't know what you mean. I don't think many if any here have any problem with people declaring what path works best for them. Argument only arises when that path is the declared the one, right and true path for everyone, or, as you said in a different context, just ask Faith .--Percy

That makes a lot of sense, but my guess is that that passage has had an interpretation for centuries, before we knew about atoms. I just took a look over at BibleHub's interpretation of Hebrews 11:3, they have the commentary from several sources, and it looks like the most common interpretation is along the lines of the universe of things not having a worldly origin.--Percy

You're doing the same thing to me that you're doing to Jar, giving short and empty one or two sentence answers to posts of great detail. I not only showed your premises wrong, I showed your logic wrong. This thread is becoming yet another case of, "Faith declares her position, and having declared it is done and for the remainder of the thread will be repeating that she is right and you are wrong." If that's all you're going to do could you get off the thread?Here are the major points from my Message 296 that you're ignoring:

• You're ignoring Ringo's question from Message 279. Basically it comes down to how the flawed judgment of the fallen mind (even you concede the regenerated mind can backslide at any time) be relied upon to judge the Bible true?
  ​
• How can the the obvious errancy of the Bible be judged true by the flawed judgement of a fallen mind?
  ​
• How do you explain your use of two different definitions of faith, one that requires evidence and one that doesn't? Faith in an inerrant Bible? No evidence needed. Faith in an inerrant Global Flood? The evidence is everywhere.

--Percy

So in other words, no premise stated by Faith can be questioned. You're Trumpian in your megalomania. I can't believe God was in any way guiding you as you wrote those intolerant and ungenerous words. If you truly have a regurgitated mind then it shows up but rarely.Anyway, in yet another big surprise, Faith abandons yet another thread, and since she's changed her status to inactive I presume she's abandoning EvC Forum, too. Well, if history is any guide (as it already is in this very thread), for Faith leaving is just a strategy that enables her to abandon all the discussions she was losing so she can return and start fresh in new threads making the same points and pretending that they weren't already rebutted in the old threads. As was demonstrated in Message 321 and Message 296, none of the substance of either did you ever reply to, both your premise and logic were wrong.You know, it is possible to disagree with people without completely losing it. You explained your position very carefully and thoughtfully in your Message 281, and with a complete absence of malice and hostility, then that all went away in your very next response.--Percy

Well, that's made up. Aside from God's fictionality and basing this on the Christian view, how does one ever gain separation from an entity that permeates the universe? How could you ever know? His presence as indicated by what? Self reporting? Tell us about the intense joys experienced by the baby in this headline: Man held by Taliban-linked captors: They raped my wife, killed our baby--Percy

Hi ForEverYoung,There are two general reply buttons on each page of a thread, one near the top of the page, the other near the bottom. These buttons are appropriate for when you're replying generally to a thread and not to anyone in particular.At the bottom of each message is a reply button. That button is appropriate for when you're replying to that specific message.Also, there's a quoting mechanism. For example, when I type this into a message: Then what I get is this: Well, thank you for the invitation to provide my own interpretation, but why would an interpretation that I (or anyone else) make up be any better than one you make up? What is the value of a made up interpretation? If you believe in your understanding and don't think it is made up then a better response than soliciting better interpretations might be to provide a defense, a justification, a rationale. There's more than one way to respond to this request. One is by example, e.g.:

• You tell me how to prove the Flying Spaghetti Monster fictional and I'll prove God fictional. Deal?

Another is by explaining the request has the way we acquire knowledge backwards:

• We don't assume something exists until it is proven that it doesn't. Rather, we only assume something exists when overt evidence for it is uncovered. For example, we didn't know bacteria existed until microscopes provided evidence. Where is your evidence that God exists?

--Percy

That's a couple of fundamental beliefs, but what about the rest? Are you born again? Do you believe Jesus died for your sins? Do you believe in the fall? Do you believe in original sin? Do you believe in redemption through belief or deeds? Have your views changed on any of these things? Most of Christian theological writing is about how to interpret the Bible, whose ambiguous and contradictory nature is why there are so many Christian sects. It's also why your beliefs keep changing. And yet the words don't change. Is the similarity to mysticism apparent to you? Again, yet the words don't change. Also, how do you know that mankind's understanding of God is becoming more clear or is just changing? Since the great variety of Christian sects concurrently represent a great many different beliefs about God, the evidence favors a view that there can be no one, right and true Christian belief. The beliefs of all Christian sects will change over time, as they have in the past, these beliefs will always be in conflict, and they can't all be right. So most likely all or wrong, no matter what sect or what time period you're talking about.And I've only mentioned Christianity so far. There are other major religions, all with their own sects of differing beliefs, and then there are a huge host of minor religions. You mean the Gospels, or are you claiming that every single NT writer "wrote that God resurrected Jesus." Did they really write that "God resurrected Jesus"? Didn't they more write things like, "He is risen", leaving open who did it? You can label the Bible a "historical document" if you like, but interpreted historically it is obviously a religious book where some of it (mostly the OT) contains some history that can be substantiated.No one could reasonably question whether the Battle of Hastings "happened at all" - there's far, far too much evidence. If you want to draw a comparison to some event in the Bible that actually happened you could try Babylon conquering Judah around 600 BC, something for which there is good extra-Biblical evidence. But most events of the Bible are completely missing any extra-Biblical support, including almost everything related to Jesus. My use of the word "position" in two different ways was unfortunate. I was responding to where you say something like your beliefs could be right, mine could be right, or we could both be wrong. What I was trying to say is that I don't have beliefs in the same way that you do. Where I have no evidence I have no beliefs, while you believe plenty of things without evidence. I don't think the difference between knowledge based upon evidence and what you're labeling "subjective belief" should be minimized. You're referring to where I said, "If morality came from religion then wouldn't our jails be filled with atheists instead of Christians?" This is true. How was I to know you didn't know this and would want evidence? Anyway, why are you saying this now since Tangle's Message 292 preceded mine: RationalWiki has an article on the topic: Atheism in prison that is fairly balanced, exploring various explanations. Patheos has a short article: Atheists Now Make Up 0.1% of the Federal Prison Population. Here's another article from TheHuminist: Nonbelievers behind Bars: Does the US Prison System Privilege Religious Inmates?Of course it's germane. In your Message 261 you asked, "Where does the sense of morality come from in a materialistic world?" I've provided an answer. Obviously morality doesn't come from religion. You know that religionists only have subjective beliefs that differ widely not just between people but between the same people at different times in their lives, you know you don't have objective knowledge, and yet you say this? Gee, that's hard to fathom. The evidence seems to pretty clearly be against there being a "one, right and true path for everyone."--Percy

If by this you mean being honest with yourself and finding the truth inside yourself, sounds good to me. To me it depends upon what kind of book you're reading.A science book? It has evidence behind it, so you shouldn't have to say you don't know.A dating guide? "I don't know," seems like a pretty good answer.A religious book? Which one? The Bible? The Koran? The Bhagavad Gita? They can't all be right, so again, "I don't know," seems like a pretty good answer.--Percy

Hi GDR,It looks like our discussion has now drifted considerably away from shared beliefs and into the realm of beliefs that make no sense to me, that seem irrational, and that don't even seem Christian. I'm not a Christian, but I think I can recognize Christian views when I see them, and your views seem to deviate considerably from what is normally considered Christian. Finding what works for us is all we can ask for, but I wonder to how great an extent you've carved out a path that even other Christians wouldn't recognize as Christian.Am I wrong about that? Is my view of traditional Christianity that flawed? What do other Christians say when you tell them that, for example, you don't consider Jesus dying for your sins a fundamental tenet of Christianity? But that's your own private definition of theology, even incorporating your own private view of what is fundamental to Christianity. It isn't the actual definition of theology. I don't think I'd be able to understand what is being said, or even what I'm saying myself, were I to try to adopt private definitions.This that you say in your first paragraph about using the concepts from physics: Is completely opposite to what you say in a later paragraph about interpreting Scripture in it's original cultural context: And not consistent with this either, since the Gospel writers wouldn't have been both incorporating concepts of physics while also staying within their own culture: Were I to respond to everything you say this message would become incredibly long and mostly about how your views make no sense to me. So I'll just say that I wish we could have continued to find elements of common belief, but unfortunately to me your views are full of contradictions that you seem to both recognize and ignore at the same time.--Percy

Well, possibly. My cultural background is Christian because of where I grew up, but I was raised Unitarian, and subsequent musings have led me a considerable distance from even their "big tent" theology.So while possibly we do hold more Christian beliefs in common than we've identified so far, that isn't the direction the discussion has taken. I originally commented because of what we held in common, but now after we've found so many differences it doesn't feel right to me to make up some weasel words about how much more we probably have in common. It feels more honest to just say straight out how your beliefs strike me more as random strands of disconnected belief that you've convinced yourself are interrelated and have meaning. I feel uncomfortable saying that because I don't want to offend you, or offend anyone who is working hard at making themselves understood while not making judgments as if they were God himself (I obviously have someone in mind when I say that last part). Well, you gave a) God is good; and b) God resurrected Jesus; as your fundamental beliefs, but I think there are more than just those two. For example, Beliefs of the Anglican Church (this is the website for a single Anglican church, not for global Anglicanism, if there is such a website) mentions several others. It doesn't mention the "God is good" part, but I agree with you on that one, that it should be one of the fundamental precepts of Christianity. People need to be reminded that God is good. This is especially important after getting lectured by anyone like Faith, since it seems that many religious people speak threats and call it love when engaged in the evangelism that is part of Christianity.Sidenote: I invited a couple convasing JW's into my home recently for a half-hour conversation (they broke it off, not me). I was honest about my beliefs, and they said not a single judgmental word.Backing up a bit, back in Message 347 you wrote: That confused me all to hell, and that confusion was one thing that convinced me to not reply to everything you said, because to do so would have me writing a very long message, but after some further thought, if I understand you correctly, then I think you're likely wrong.My understanding of what you're saying (and naturally the arguments that follow should be ignored if this is wrong) is that you're saying that being resurrected from the dead is a different event than "being risen," which means rising to heaven to be with the Father. I decided to look this up in the ultimate source. Starting in Matthew at 27:53 it seems that Jesus must have been resurrected immediately upon his death (I'm open to other interpretations - it's not like the Bible is an icon of clarity).But though he was already resurrected, he was still dead when a bit later Joseph of Arimathea collected Jesus' body and put it in a tomb.Then Mary comes by three days later and is told in 28:6 "He is not here; for he has risen" and in 28:7 "he has risen from the dead." Matthew definitely does not mean risen to be with the father because in 28:9 "Jesus met them" as they were running to tell the disciples that Christ is risen. Since it isn't possible that Jesus met them on the road after he had already risen to heaven, obviously he hadn't risen to heaven yet. There's nothing in Matthew about rising to be with the Father.Now let's look at Mark. Rather than me quoting pieces of passages, just read Mark 16 - it's the last chapter. It describes his coming back to life as his being risen. The words "resurrected" or "resurrection" do not appear. And at the end Jesus is "taken up into Heaven", he doesn't rise to heaven.So let me stop with all the analysis and just state what seems obvious to me: If for you "He is risen" is a separate event from the resurrection, that is an invention of your own. Even the Anglican website seems to differ with you, saying on their home page, "We believe in The Risen Savior." And the Wikipedia article titled Resurrection of Jesus says:

quote:

---

The resurrection of Jesus is the Christian religious belief that, after being put to death, Jesus rose again from the dead. It is the central tenet of Christian theology and part of the Nicene Creed: "On the third day he rose again in accordance with the Scriptures".

---

I of course have only scratched the surface of this issue, and maybe I misunderstood you, but what I've learned so far tells me that there may be more differences between your beliefs and standard Anglicanism than you think.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Clarify a bungled sentence.

Hi ForEverYoung,Gee, four replies from a single person to one of my messages - I think that's some kind of record for me. I'll reply to them all in this message.From ForEverYoung's Message 359: Why don't you answer the original question? If, as you say, Hell is separation from God, then how does one ever gain separation from an entity that permeates the universe?If you're interpretation isn't made up, then tell us what passage of the Bible you're interpreting.From ForEveryYoung's Message 360: Why are you addressing me in the 3rd person in a message that's a reply to me? Generally in such contexts you refer to the person you're addressing as "you". I don't believe the Bible has no value, but Hell is a fictional place. You didn't provide any such references in making your pronouncement that "Hell is separation from God," why should I? How could I, given that I have to idea what passages you're using? Plus there's still my unanswered question about how there could ever be separation from an entity that permeates the universe. All books were and are written by men and/or women. What is your evidence behind, "I believe the Bible to be inspired by God"? That's a good point. After arguing with Faith I tend to forget that not all religious believers think faith is backed by hard evidence. If your belief that the Bible is inspired by God is based upon faith (where faith means not having evidence for what you believe) then that's fine. But I don't believe the Bible is complete rubbish. I believe it is a book written by men that contains much knowledge and wisdom (and also a lot of crap), but that is not the inspired Word of God. Well, that's great. You can start by referencing the Biblical passages that support your contention that, "Hell is separation from God."From ForEverYoung's Message 361: Please see the Wikipedia article on the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Please see Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster: Sighting off the Angolan Coast. It references a New Scientist article titled ‘Flying spaghetti monster’ caught on video off the Angolan coast. I don't know. Is a minimum number required? I'm not familiar with the rules for evaluating encounters with fictional beings. That he's a damn son-of-a-bitch who lightened up quite a bit in the NT? Uncountable numbers of people have claimed to have seen God. And ghosts. And UFOs. Why don't you just say what's true, that your belief in God is based upon unshakeable faith. What more need be said? Ah, geez, now why did you have to go and say that? No one said anything disparaging about Paul making up a religion out of whole cloth.From ForEverYoung's Message 362: Is there anything else besides God that even in the absence of evidence you believe exists anyway? Leprechauns, perhaps? Witches, since they're in the Bible plus we're getting close to Halloween? Just a quick reminder, you still haven't provided any Biblical passages supporting your statement about Hell. "God tortures people in eternity"? And you worship this being? Are you sure you didn't mean the Devil? Well, wait a minute here. I said I would back off on requesting evidence because real faith doesn't require evidence. To me faith is having no evidence but believing anyway. But if you're going to take a stance identical to Faith's that evidence exists for the existence of God and everything else in the Bible (you just stated that you've proven God exists), then discussion of the evidence backing your faith seems very much a fair topic in a thread titled The Tension of Faith. Well now you've gone off in the opposite direction. First you say you *can* prove God exists, now you say it's ridiculous to demand proof of God. Which is it? It's a reasonable demand in science threads, but this isn't a science thread. This thread is in the Faith and Belief forum. So whether evidence is relevant to this discussion is wholly dependent upon whether you belief your faith is supported by evidence.--Percy

You missed the part about Matthew 27:51 in Aussie’s Message 399.Percy