What to believe, crisis of faith

Hi Aztraph,Before I respond, let me state that I am a Christian who believes in the Bible and who also believes that the events outlined in Genesis actually happened -- including Noah's Flood. I don't believe that everything living evolved from an "amoeba" over the last 3 billion years. Now that you know the frame of reference I'm working from...If the Bible is false, what do you lose by continuing to believe it? If it's true, what do you lose by giving up your faith in it?Do you have any underlying motives for wishing to give up faith in the Bible (i.e., you'd really like to break some of its rules and not feel guilty about it)? Or, are you truly on search for truth? It's funny. You believe in God. You're certain that the Bible was inspired by God, but you don't believe God is capable of keeping His word free from corruption.In Second Peter 1:21, the Bible says: Are you aware that the Bible is not one book, but 66 different books? Are you aware that the New Testament is centuries younger than any book of the Old Testament? (Millenia younger than some of the Old Testament books). Yet, Jesus (God in the flesh) -- in the New Testament -- freely quotes from the Old Testament and never once indicates that there are problems with it.Out of curiousity, which parts do you think man has changed to an extent that the original meaning has been twisted to serve mankind's purpose? What on earth does the Catholic Church have to do with the history of the Bible? The Catholic Church didn't even exist until two or three centuries after ALL the books of the Bible had been written.Your point about the catholic holidays, instead of proving that the Bible is false, indicates that the Catholic Church is a pagan, political organization that has nothing to do with the Bible. The Catholic Church disregards many, many plain Biblical teachings. An excellent observation. Many people never really think about this and think that what they believe is something they've come up with on their own...a conclusion they reached...when, in fact, it is just someone else's conclusion they came in contact with. I must congratulate you on this observation. Many people confuse evidence with interpretations of evidence, and, before you know it, the interpretation becomes a "fact."Was it evidence that made you lose faith in the Bible? Or was it interpretations of evidence?Out of curiousity, are/were you a member of a particular denomination (i.e., Catholic, Presbyterian, Methodist, Baptist, etc.)? If so, which one?Cheers,
--JasonAbE: Oh yeah. My faith has been shaken a few times in different ways: my early college experience was one of those times. I decided to stick with the Bible no matter what...I'm still glad I did.This message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 09-15-2005 02:01 AMThis message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 09-15-2005 02:50 AM

Also, out of curiousity, are there any particular parts of the Bible that are causing you particular difficulty? (If you don't mind sharing such issues on the board)--Jason

Hi TheLiteralist,I realize you are not respondng to me but I saw some things I wanted to reply to. The actual truth. The truth that we can empirically explain to others as being the truth. I'm guessing eternal salvation. For me, there's no doubting that god isn't capable of keeping his word free from corruption, its just that he is so removed from our everyday lives that he allows corruption. Also, he never once indicates that the old testament is literally true. It is ambiguous enough to see it either way.Jesus spoke of Jonas but never said he literally lived inside the whale. Plus, if you compare 3 gospels you'll get 3 different quotes from Jesus that have differing amounts of lierallism that Jesus puts on the story, none of which he claims that Jonas actually lived inside a whale. To provide an example. the 10 commandments lets just say I turn the other cheek When I was taught science in college, almost every conclusion i was taught was taught along with the way to come about that conclusion on my own. The simplest explanation being, my theory is that if you drop this ball it will fall. Don't believe me? here's a ball....drop it. We did the labs and discovered so many of the conclusion they told us we would that I stopped having to do the labs to believe them. Kinda like how I believe Jesus' word. Please don't use that word "fact", it is traditional creationist gobbledegook that has nothing to do with science. And IMO the scientists' interpretation of evidence can be concidered eveidence if they are a credible source.

Hi CS,About Jonah's whale...Jonah 1:17 says: It was a "great fish" (not a whale). The Bible makes it clear that this was a miraculously prepared fish, too. Science does not disprove the Book of Jonah.About the "corruption" of the Bible...You think the Bible is corrupted, and you consider the 10 commandments to be among the sections that men have corrupted. May I ask: all ten, or just some of them? If not all ten, then which ones do you think were corrupted?TheLiteralists Blunt Remarks About Catholicism... Hey. Somehow I missed your posts when I read the thread. If I had known you had posted I might not have posted quite so bluntly. However, my mother was a Catholic (she almost became a nun...thank God she didn't). My grandmother is a Catholic.I've studied the Bible off and on since I was 12 (I'm 32 now). And I've read a little here and there about the Catholic Church and seen it in the news. Both historically and in modern times the organization strikes me as political and pagan and unbiblical. I'm very willing to try to back up what I say (in another thread), but I realize you may not care to engage in such a discussion.Let me also say that Zondervan (a company famous for publishing Bibles) has published a series of books that supposedly exposes christian sects that are cults. One book in the series, entitled Unmasking the Cults, lists lots and lots of supposed christian "cults". The organization I belong to -- the United Pentecostal Church, International -- is specifically listed. Zondervan actually devoted an entire book in this particular series, entitled "Jesus Only" Churches, to exposing the "cult" doctrines of my organization and churches that teach the same basic doctrines.The main reasons we are considered a cult: (1) we don't believe in the Trinity and (2) we teach that people must be baptized in Jesus name in order to recieve remission of sins.I share this to let you know I understand what it means to have your religious beliefs knocked around. I don't mind my beliefs being mocked or examined. I actually like people to question my beliefs. I do try to be fairly respectful of others beliefs, but I will sometimes "calls it as I sees it." Are my religious beliefs in line with the Bible? Are yours?Some miscellaneous stuff... IOW, you placed a certain amount of your faith in college instructors and scientists. I have, too, but to a lesser degree. When they tell me that all living things -- from dragon flies to water moccassins -- evolved from a single cell over 3 billion years, I don't believe them. Just because they say a number of true things doesn't mean everything they say is true. The word fact, even when used sarcastically, isn't gobbledygook. Perhaps. However, that doesn't amount to being the truth. The ideas of very credible scientists can be proven wrong as new information comes to light -- no matter how good the case seemed for the faulty conclusion before the new information was discovered.--JasonThis message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 09-15-2005 05:00 AM

I believe that the modern theory of evolution is an accurate and well-supported model of the history and diversity of life on Earth. I've never seen any credible challenge to the theory or to any of its vast evidentiary foundation.

Hi Aztraph...I don't know exactly how you did it but you did. You have somehow, despite all the influences from both 'sides' managed to navigate a course through the middle and come to realise that neither of the arguments presented can be said to be true.You will, if you hang around here for any length of time come to realise that most folk here sit in a tentitive zone. Folk who talk about scientific truth, if pressed, will inevitably retreat to a position that science can't tell you the truth it can only say what appears most likely. Neither can science tell you how close to truth (if truth were said to 100%) it is. It could be 2% or it could be 92%. There is no way of knowing.Similarily, people who say they believe in God can't prove it. Quite often the belief is based (according to themselves) on blind faith. They don't pose to know objectively.Nonetheless you seek truth having, it appears, decided that tentitive science/blind faith isn't good enough for you. An admirable position to maintain. "Who am I?" "Why am I here?" "Where am I going?" and their derivitives, are issues which tentitive/blind faith answers cannot satisfy.Some people here say they have a definitive answer. That they know because they know and nothing can shift them from that knowledge. Whilst they may not be able to prove it to others it doesn't matter to them. They have arrived at truth and if that is the goal then the goal has been achieved. The central game of life is for all intents and purposes - over. That is the position you seem to wish to be able to achieve.It would seem like it doesn't matter what truth you hold so long as you know it to be true. That however would patently be a subjective truth and you yourself seem to be able to recognise that that is what it would be and that that does not satisfy. There can be only one truth not many diverging ones. All paths cannot lead to the summit. The truth must be objective for you. I predict that it would be easy to know whether you had reached it - it is precisely because so much 'truth' is patently subjective that when/if you reached real truth you would know it immediately - by it's very rarity.Me? I'm there. I know it and there isn't a thing in the world that could alter it. I don't know everything about it - there is more to find out about it but the main goal has been achieved. I know others have reached it to. It is possible.If you'd like to know more about it then by all means....p.s. Science doesn't conflict at all with it. I mean scientific pursuit, not every tentitive conclusion that science arrives at.

---

Romans 10:9-10: " if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved....."

No, that's what I learned from religion.Did you forget that, once, I was a Biblical literalist and creationist? I suggest that you ask Faith (the member) if she has any doubt in the inerrancy and divinity of the message of the Bible if you don't believe me about not having doubts. Even the new Crashfrog doesn't mince words.

I'll start with an easy one - the holidays aren't that important. You may think that Christians should follow some of the Jewish customs (e.g. Passover) but there's nothing in the Bible forbidding extra holidays that I know of.In the bigger question of science versus religion, I have to say that on its own turf science has a pretty good record - and faith hasn't done so well. So if your faith comes into conflict with science then you really do need to question whether your faith is misplaced. The better established a scientific conclusion the harder you need to question. That the Earth is a lot more than 10,000 years old is very solid. How life originated isn't known scientifically (and may not even be knowable scientifically, although we can reasonably expect that science will eventually come up with plausible scenarios that fit the evidence we do have). That God did or did not subtly guide the course of evolution is something that we just can't investigate.So to be honest if your brand of Christianity comes into conflict with well-established science I think you would be well-advised to at least consider more liberal versions that do not have the same conflicts.

Perhaps the better question would be: Can I trust God? Why does the Bible and your understanding of it have to limit your idea of who God is? As for science? That is easy to trust . its just progressive human reasoning using empirical evidence. Well let me ask you a couple of questions:
1) Where is God right now?
2) Do you know Him or do you just know “about” Him? Lets say you want to learn about cars. Do you have to “trust” the encyclopedia or the mechanics book to know how to drive? Perhaps, in order to fix the car it is best to refer to the manual, but a little hands-on experience is much better if you really want to know that car! Get my parable drift? Well . the fundamentalists would say that the “secular pagans” wanted to steal Jesus main event days from the church. The educated idea, however, is that the church “packaged Christianity” and tried to sell it to the pagans and unchurched. Religion is corrupt. A relationship with God is NOT corrupt. You need to forget everything that you were ever taught about religion and, if you really want to know God, pray and ask Him to reveal Himself to you. Humans do not find God,. He finds us.In the meantime, keep up your studies and quit listening to anyone who tells you that you are learning wrongly. There is no wrong way to learn if you are open-minded! BTW..thanks for an honest opening post! I look forward to talking with you more here . at EvC!

quote:

---

Cmon now...."not having any doubt whatsoever"? Thats bullshit.

---

Well, do you constantly doubt the existence of God and your entire basis of having faith?

The Frog has faith in human wisdom. I, on the other hand, question whether humans are capable of arriving at any conclusions when it comes to our own inner spirituality. Don't think that I am pushing my "rightness" on you....EvC is a great place to kick around ideas...which we do time and time again. We all have a different take on truth and reality. Some of us are staunch fundamentalists. Some are moderate believers who definitely know Jesus yet who believe in evolution. Some of us are staunch atheists.Others are just debate freaks who like a good verbal brawl.(politely, of course! ) Stick around and put your opinions in any thread that you so desire. You will never find a better group to discuss ideas with if you are patient, humble, and polite.

Actually, I think that some people were 100% convinced about their religion and its ideas because they trusted the wisdom of the familiar people that they knew. When none of the people could give them any solid answers, they found other people (more open minded types like you, Schraf) who encouraged them to think for themselves.My take on it is this: I know that I "met" God. I have felt His guidence. I have seen His power in many unexplainable ways. I have heard all of the apolgetic reasonings and I have talked with a number of skeptics and believers in other faiths.Because I met God, I could no more denounce His reality than I could denounce the reality of a person named Schrafinator! I have met you through your words, and, although I have never seen you, I trust that you are real. Why should I question that? (You ARE a real person, right? Not a computer generated response?? Nah....too human! )Step One: Knowing "about" God. Many people have been at this point at one point in their lives. They either denounce god as a myth, or they meet Him.Step TWO: "Meeting God." Fewer people have claimed to have "met" God...either through a personal encounter, an epiphany of sorts, or a gradual acceptance. They know that "something" happened and believe that they met "someone". They are hooked...and curious about what they experienced. They may later disbelieve because they trust human wisdom of familiar people more than unsupported stories.Most of them end up as mindless sheep who listen to a Pastor or evangelists rant on what God says and what He wants. Still not good enough!Step THREE: A day to day relationship with God through prayer and two way communication...usually inner verbal or non verbally confirmed. While skeptics say that these people willfully converse with themselves, and while there is no absolute proof of the reality unless one has experienced it, there is no doubt among these believers that God is not only real..He is personal and living! These people need no Pastor to tell them the truth...they interact with the living Truth every day.The atheist/agnostic counterpart to level three? A day to day acceptance and peace with human wisdom...both your own and that of others...that is logically based, non-superstitious, and definitely comforting due in large measure to the logic backing it.This message has been edited by Phatboy, 09-15-2005 07:18 AM

quote:

---

Folk who talk about scientific truth, if pressed, will inevitably retreat to a position that science can't tell you the truth it can only say what appears most likely.

---

"When pressed"?Actually, us science-minded folks are quite up front about the tentativeness of science, and how the job of science is to come closer and closer to having full understanding of natural phenomena in the full realization that we will never reach full understanding.

quote:

---

Neither can science tell you how close to truth (if truth were said to 100%) it is. It could be 2% or it could be 92%. There is no way of knowing.

---

Actually, that is inaccurate. For example, we hold the Theory of a Heliocantric Solar System as a very highly confirmed, very well-supported theory of science. We are not as confident in the various Theories of Gravity, and less confident still in certain theoretical quantum theories of Physics.

quote:

---

Similarily, people who say they believe in God can't prove it.

---

Sure they do, and they do it all the time!Just about every new Creationist who comes storming here bashing Science says they have proof of God. Scientific proof, even.A few threads where people try to get them to show this proof later they then either disappear or they reluctantly "retreat" to the position that they can't show proof of God and that they just have to believe for themselves.

quote:

---

Quite often the belief is based (according to themselves) on blind faith. They don't pose to know objectively.

---

Again, my experience is quite the contrary.

quote:

---

Because I met God, I could no more denounce His reality than I could denounce the reality of a person named Schrafinator! I have met you through your words, and, although I have never seen you, I trust that you are real. Why should I question that? (You ARE a real person, right? Not a computer generated response?? Nah....too human!

---

What tests could you perform to show to others that I exist?For example:We could talk on the phone where a disinterested observer could listen in.We could have a video conference call in which a disinterested observer could observe my voice and image on the screen.We could meet in person in the presence of a disinterested observer observes that I exist and that you met me.Can you do the same for God?

I could pray for someone who later reported either inner peace or even so much as an answered prayer. A disinterested observer could verify the reaction and check back with that person in six months to see if they had stronger faith...either in God, prayer, or even in themselves.If a disinterested observer hung around me or some (very few, but some) ministers, they would see a positive corallary between our interactions with the inner city kids and the results and changes within their lives.Perhaps you could argue that the reaction is due to human interaction and that God is not a provable part of the picture or process.Thus...it all comes down to belief. Perhaps the disinterested observer would sense more than human interaction at work. Scientifically, they could not record their subjective feelings and interpretations as fact.Does this prove that belief, although perhaps effective, is not scientific? (Or are you going to cite the human interaction as the placebo effect, where God is the pill being presented?)Thats one difference between believers and non-believers. Believers are often satisfied with non verifiable "warm fuzzy" feelings whereas non-believers want to see concrete results on a graph or blips on a brainwave.This message has been edited by Phatboy, 09-15-2005 07:37 AM