Tribute Thread For the Recently Raptured Faith

The apologists claim to have studied and have interpreted the book which satisfies basic Christian consensus on one level. Critics have trashed the apologists as largely making stuff up in collusion....but have never given a reason why they dont respect the scholarly disciplines that many of these people have earned to gain their reputation. We get back here to EvC and find arguments from laymen who dont even specialize in the field of study and are told to plainly read the text. Then what happens?We find contradictions and inconsistencies concerning the character of God and Jesus as presented in the book. And then are told---by laymen outside of their field of study and expertise, remember--that this only proves that the entire religious and belief systems are like so many houses of cards. Which is one reason that you are atheists, I suppose.The other chief reason would likely have to do with so many Christian believers appearing to be bonkers and in jumping through so many hoops themselves in order to justify the belief. Which is fine. At least you are logically consistent. One question before we go on. Why does no one trust the apologists? Have they spent their lives studying fruitlessly? Cant we trust these people?

It does get rather difficult to present any argument. I threw away inerrancy simply for the sake of argument. I rarely agreed with Faith because she appeared so hopelessly mired in cognitive dissonance regarding flood evidence and in sticking to her guns regarding the Chicago Statement.I was willing to toss aside Biblical Inerrancy for tghe sake of argument, believing personally that Jesus is alive outside of the book and that He Himself reinterpreted the book within His own times on earth...GDR believes similarly, I think. But then what ends up happening is that the other side claims that we either limit ourselves to accept the nature of the characters to the book itself or that evidence clearly shows the characters cannot exist apart from the book.SO it slowly dawned on me that neither you nor Tangle nor ringo have ever embraced even the possibility of the idea that God exists and that Jesus is alive and larger than the book(s) themselves. Which basically means that we are left holding our beliefs and having no evidence which your side prefers to use exclusively in arguments. In that sense, Faith alone seems truer to her belief in inerrancy, even if she seems illogical most of the time.

I'm not claiming to be an apologist nor do I believe that either Faith nor creation can claim enough knowledge to be one. I am talking about people such as this guy:
I'm not claiming any special authority on the educated apologists nor do I see any in educated skeptics. I simply respect the effort behind the arguments, such as Craig Parton. You claim that no special education is necessary to understand this stuff, but I would give some of these people a modicum of respect...just as Faith gives the authors of the Chicago Statement.

So where do we draw the line between "interpreting the text" and "making stuff up"?And why cant we use our imaginations? You claim that only the basic message is important...but its based on your own interpretations of right and wrong anyway. When I do it, I'm told I'm guilty of ignoring the plain text message.If the message clearly shows a God who kills people at His own whim, of course I'm going to attempt to reinterpret the understanding.

Oh? Explain what you mean. Before, you used to refer to the messenger as a needless envelope. Now you have something new to say?

I disagree, even though what you say is evidentially logical...it shuts the door on belief and experience of said belief. In other words, if I claimed to have been born again...even if only to myself...your statement would disallow the possibility that Jesus or God exist outside of a book written thousands of years ago. Moreover, you are quite blatant in your disrespect for some well-learned apologists. Craig Parton is an attorney and I doubt you would win any argument with him. The real question the peanut gallery would ask at that point is whether Parton was being honest.

OK, lets again review what convinced you otherwise. Before, you have essentially claimed the reason in one word: Evidence. (or the lack thereof)So some questions:You and tangle both claim that all of what is known about the Christian God and/or Jesus is contained (and limited) to the books of the Bible. Thus, my question would be more specific: Did you ever at any time believe that God existed apart from the book and that Jesus was "alive" in a current context....awaiting further evidence for confirmation?

I am well aware that I have nothing objective. All that I have is subjective experience...much of which would be questioned.

So your position is that unevidenced belief is a "childish" concept?Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

He also suggested that we could learn to be like the children.

Based on taking the message of Corinthians and applying the context of our discussion, the author would thus agree that we should throw God away (as jar has hinted at).

Trying to understand the broader context is fine. Why are the apologists disrespected for attempting to do this? Why does Craig Parton, an attorney, support apologetics while tangle dismisses any respect for the definition? Is it because of a preconceived result that supports the message and humanism yet rejects belief?

I dont see these guys mangling anything.
Just watch the first 5 min....

Even Percy says that you differ from both GDR and me. So we all recognize your authoritarian view on God and the Bible in general.I have a question, though. Do you believe that only through an inerrant Bible can GGods character be known? Do you ever feel as if though when you pray, God confirms Himself or desires to know you better? If so, what differentiates you from other praying believers? If not, that is, if God only speaks through the book, how would the ones being killed even have an opportunity to know Him since there was no book at that time? Or do scrolls and original manuscripts qualify---and if so, what of the people who never read or heard those?

This is an interesting and difficult argument! So to begin with, the questions in my mind are whether Jesus was anything more than human, whether sacrifice and devotion led to the group members being any more empowered to overcome the natural human tendencies of greed, dishonesty, and less need for power than any normal group...among other questions. The question in my mind is whether the power in following Jesus is greater than the power to follow any other movement, cause, or belief in History. If so, this leads to hope. It all boils down to two views:
1) Belief follows Evidence.
or
2) Evidence grows stronger following Belief and practice.If one presupposes the former, it would thus make sense that the stories were made up and that the Apostles and other humans within the movement were no stronger than today's revolutionaries throughout the world...simply humans pushing a cause. Though this hypothesis makes sense, it disallows for any actual communion between God and humanity that transformed the world from that point onward. It basically turns our belief and religion into ringos dreaded secular humanist responsibility rather than an encouragement and subsequent Spiritual equipping by God through a Risen Christ. But that's because your belief only follows evidence and you would never even be open to such "magic" being manifest in your life. You are quite happy to be responsible, go fishing, and lead a life without what ringo calls an "alien overlord" influencing your conscience and daily decision-making. I don't see your arguments as necessarily wrong---they are just unsettling to my belief paradigm. I don't like them. Keep in mind, however, that for me, evidence follows belief. I won't simply become an atheist or agnostic and wait at the altar forever for God to be validated by humanity. It may never happen.