Why Are Christians Afraid To Doubt?

I've always maintained this would depend a lot less upon us than what God intends the situation to be.If God wants to be undetectable, or render us collectively or individually incapable of detecting Him, I suggest He could manage to do so.If God wants to get in one's face, or summon one to His location, what's to stop Him from doing so?These are the two extreme cases. I think the truth is somewhere in between. Not all would accept sin = barrier & free will & other biblical concepts.I hope this helps you two can make some headway with your discussion.

I'm seeing a lot of the off-topic sign, so I'll play it safe and not reply.Apologetics is a concept we're all at least intuitively aware of, but some of those who've made a systematic study of the issue have discovered some key points that virtually cripple doubts about the gospel.Another thing that has helped in my case is that my faith is in Jesus, rather than His blessed servants who brought the news to me. If I had trusted a fallible preacher rather than Jesus, I expect I should be plagued with doubt.A cousin of a friend once said "Lots of people believe in God, but how many believe God?" I realized at once that this is just what I'd done, and the advantage is incalculable! It seems even some who consider themselves Christians omit to simply trust God, and I can't easily relate to them. That would be a horrible way to live.Doubt for the Christian could appear to be largely a function of environment. Isn't it easy to trust God living in a time and place where persecution is light?But think of the early churches, and the apostles. They lived in a time and place where they were subject to crucifixion and stoning at a moment's notice. Most importantly, they were fully aware of God's promises to provide for them and protect them.Now knowing full well that God has promised protection, I would have difficulties when loved ones or myself were drug out to be killed. I expect doubt would be nearly overwhelming. These people knew God was able to protect them. They could talk to eyewitnesses even if they hadn't seen miracles first hand themselves.What torturous doubt would enter my mind, knowing that the Almighty was withholding His protection! But they overcame any such doubts, and refused to abandon their testimony even under torture and penalty of death. What could God's plan have been? If He loved them, how could He allow such things to happen?God was thinking of us. He gave His Son for us, and he also allowed His followers to suffer (at apparent risk to His reputation) for the sake of those who would live in later times. It is precisely because these people suffered so much and were martyred that we can be absolutely sure they told the truth to the best of their ability.Nobody knowingly dies for a lie. (I must emphasize 'knowingly', as there have been martyrs for false causes.) Thus WE can be certain that the New Testament was written honestly. Unless those men were somehow deceived, their word is good.So we have another reason to "fear" doubt. If we are called to be martyrs, and we give in to doubt... Bummersville! God does not lightly suffer his children to undergo such things. He has a plan, and there is always a far greater good at stake. Actually it isn't needful to fear the doubt, rather we should be concerned that we may give in to doubt hastily and erroneously.It may be said that these facts are somehow invalid because they aren't "scientific". Shall we doubt when we compare the words of martyrs to the words of men who change their story every few years? (Even when they're not directly changing it, they're redefining terms which is just a back-door way of changing it.) Whom shall we trust, and whom shall we doubt?"Science" has in the last 200 years been trumpeted as the ultimate form of knowledge. Any genuine scientist knows this isn't so. Even the best scientist is aware that his work may need to be revised. But we're continually bombarded with this propaganda anyhow. The obvious question: why so much hype? What's the motive? Why are they trying to mislead us?Well guess what? The mere fact that they are trying to mislead us indicates they are not to be trusted. But you already know that, at least on an intuitive level.Don't think there's hype? Just look at the term "unscientific". It may be unscientific to trust my family and friends. It may be unscientific to believe Columbus sailed across the Atlantic Ocean. But both of these things are more certain than the latest versions of many "theories"; so why then is "unscientific" used as a putdown?Faith is involved in all the highest priority everyday decisions we make. When we drive or ride in a vehicle, we have faith in the vehicle and the environment. We cross bridges. We have faith in the other drivers to stay on their side of the road. Now some of these things have science (tested engineering, not speculation, btw) to their credit, and some don't. But we all employ faith on a fairly continual basis; and then let them tell us faith is 'unscientific' and we should doubt anything that is subject to faith.Now doubt is just that which opposes faith, trust, confidence, and certainty. Christians are very concerned with faith. Note the importance of faith. Note also how it is used. Doubt and faith can and will co-exist for a time, until one prevails. We must always decide whom we shall trust.Since God is trustworthy and doubts can come from the wicked, are then all doubts invalid? I don't think so. I am imperfect, so it is valid to doubt my own ideas. This also applies to my fellow man. And there are naturally doubts in all areas of life. One may doubt the accuracy of a clock, for example. These are issues for everyone - not just Christians.Doubts arise and try one's faith. Like muscles and brains, faith grows stronger as doubts are overcome. Such doubts are beneficial in the end. That doesn't mean we should nurture doubts just to exercise faith. To do so would be foolish.Think I'll stop for now. This isn't finished, but that's plenty for one post. I probably could have organized it better if I'd known I was going to say so much. Sorry.

Perhaps. I have not yet addressed this issue. For now I'll just say there's no evidence that God is unable to preserve His message. The point is not how you or I can tell. The point is that the martyr believed the cause was true. Yeah right. That's a pretty big price to pay just to pull a prank. Now you can pretend not to have any understanding of human behaviour whatsoever; but don't expect me to educate you further on that matter. You can figure it out if you try.Oh yes. Part 2 was so absurd, and already answered... well now for part 1. One has to study what they said and determine whether or not they could have plausibly been deceived. It can take a while. Since I don't think the disciples were deceived, perhaps you can provide an example? Read it again, please. The pronoun "they" obviously cannot refer to honest scientists. It applies to the hype mongers and those who pander to them (yes even if the panderers are mislabeled as "scientists"). Anyone intentionally dealing in deceit deserves to be called on it, do they not?Do you make any effort to understand what's written? So how do you define "false certainty"?
Who is us? The things I've verified you contend I cannot truly trust.
And I'm sure you would like to "free" every one who possesses a shield of faith therefrom. Fat chance!But you said "Not at all." My definition was So let's have an example of doubt which does not oppose faith, trust, confidence, and certainty. Just one will suffice to demonstrate an imperfection; I won't hold you to a strict "not at all". Any apologist arguments which rely upon circular reasoning are highly subject to doubt. They should either apply another approach or be discarded. You make a pretty blanket statement. Are you saying all apologetics are circular?

I see you are well practiced at circular reasoning. If, during the evaluation procedure, we assume a story to be false... Kind of rigs the evaluation, doesn't it? And wouldn't rigging an evaluation by employing circular reasoning be a means to avoid changing one's mind in the face of new evidence? What a coincidence. Thank you for this insight into the motive. Your recommendation is noted. But how do we determine in advance which evidence we'll honestly evaluate, and which evidence we'll rig the evaluations on? You seem to think I've belittled science by saying it is less than the ultimate form of knowledge. I care little if such be blasphemy in your opinion. So I have not succumbed to the conditioning, what of it?While the answer to your question depends on how one defines 'religion', I don't expect there's any evidence to support your answer. Looks more like hype. Is that its purpose?But you assume we are capable of making advances in 'religion', which may not be the case. A Christian could very well argue that the knowledge we already have exceeds our ability to master it, and the last man who successfully mastered it gave us the New Testament.So if we were to compare knowledge beyond mastery to an ongoing (rapidly, you mention) process, I can't say I'd favour the field which is known to be incomplete.I'm confident people of various religions also have arguments which would slam your arrogant contention, but I shall not presume to speak for them. I do hope someone pipes up. See above.And if unchanging things are unreliable, science is in trouble. Have you seen how many constants they've got in those equasions? And say, what would that say for the Old Earth "data"? You might want to retract that part or something. It's ripe for in-context quote mining. Believe me, I could go on and on! The evidence is abundant, but none of it is scientific. See above. Why not confuse them? Both are subject to doubt, and both are built-up by the same means (repetition of good results, etc.) I notice you make no mention of the other motorists. Do you also "trust" them not to endanger you? Or is that a matter of faith, and thus unmentionable? How strong is your trust/faith in them? Are these total strangers worthy of so much confidence? Could it be that there's no evidence because it's all been screened out in rigged evaluations?

Yes, we have evidence that God did not choose to use the methods of crashfrog. God is wise.anastasia has made a good post {197}. I'll not add more at this time. Try, try, try. What I said is clear, and you obfuscate in vain. I said the martyr does not die for something he himself knows to be untrue. Since you can't come up with anything better, you try to confuse other readers by bringing up Muslims.The Shiites in particular have a long history of martyrdom. Buddhist, Taoist, Sikh, there have been thousands of martyrs, probably millions. With so many to choose from, surely you can give one example where someone was martyred for something they knew to be untrue, and had only to recant if they were to be spared. You can manage one, can't you? With you evaluating the evidence, I'm confident we never could have any. But the rest of us will do our own evaluations, thank you.You give one definition of "false certainty" and Ringo gives another. If Ringo agrees, we can go with yours and revisit the issue as need be.

Glad to hear it.We need periods of stability. They give us an opportunity to grow in other areas. Faith is but one piece of our armour.

I see you didn't wait any longer to tackle that point yourself.ICANT gave a nice demonstration in Message 169. I reviewed it, but found nothing about timing.After reading your thoughts, I think the question might've better been phrased "when shouldn't we take a stand?"But at any rate, we should take a stand except when we are experiencing nagging doubt on an issue ourselves, or when the issue would cause our brother to stumble. There are perhaps a couple more exceptions, but that's what I've got for now.

All-time bestseller. Maybe you've seen a copy? We don't have to look very hard for positive evidence. I indicated I was likely to say more, but you're impatient. You need to learn patience. Sorry you're missing the point. I'm a failure when it comes to communicating with Ringo & crashfrog. I give up. Since you can't understand that part, you probably won't be able to understand anything more along that given line of reasoning either. But what is to be done? I don't believe I have dismissed it a priori. I have looked over the evidence and formed my conclusion. I am imperfect; so an example from someone with an opposing view might have given me a learning experience. Who knows? Maybe even cause for doubt?But (see above) since you don't appear to understand the basis for accepting the word of the martyrs as sincere, there's no point in proceeding to this stage with you. Really? Have there been no "Scientists create life" headlines? No. I'll stop. This issue is so well known that I need not even respond.Yes I believe IN hype mongers, in the sense that they exist. You BELIEVE hype mongers. And that's inexcusable for anyone with a basic understanding of science who advocates doubt. I refer to them as a group. You act like I should name names. Well, I'm too lazy to compile the list, and too lazy to type it. It would be enormous. Everyone else is too lazy to read such an OT list, so I made the choice I made. Didn't take long. No you would not. You have failed to demonstrate any invalidity in my reasoning beyond your faith in contrary conclusions, coupled with an above-average capacity for misunderstanding written words. If we were to hide behind our shields, we wouldn't be equipped with swords. We have no intention of adopting the ridiculously ineffective defensive posture you propose.Fellow Christians, take no tactical advice from this person. plugged in to: The point of the thread is not that I haven't verified my beliefs. Where did you ever get such an idea? That is just your baseless dodge. You have failed to demonstrate any invalidity in my reasoning beyond your faith in contrary conclusions, coupled with an above-average capacity for misunderstanding written words. So your original objection was an utterly baseless waste of time. I'm patient, but I don't yet have perfect patience. I'll have no more of this.

You're mistaken. I would maintain that God's message has been preserved, and one of the present forms is quite probably 100% accurate.But the copies that contain imperfections may still contain such a preponderance of accurate information as to be profitable. I do not believe 100% accuracy is required in the book of Galations before one can be saved via understanding John's Gospel, for example.I'm not going to restrict God to using any single method. Preserving is preserving. Even if that were true, at least I started at zero.But once again, you try to change what I said. I have consistently maintained that the martyr is sincere. 'Honest' would also apply.
Is sincerity a concept so foreign that you cannot comprehend the term? You should frame this one. It's your best attempt yet to mislead. "martyrdom ALONE is not evidence for the veracity of a martyr's claim" is what I've said. Martyrdom does rule out the possibility that the martyr is telling lies on purpose. I made it clear from the very first that the martyr may have been misled.Nice try, compared to your others. But do you not consider the possibility that the third parties who read will see your game for what it is? You insult their intelligence when you continue on this course. They might overlook a single mistake, but you continue to clarify yourself for them.By the way, why do you fear my little statement so much? You appear terrified of the ramifications, while you maintain that you still don't understand it. Refute it, or let me proceed in peace.You have a large pool of martyrs available, and yet not one single example? Perhaps you might spend more time investigating and less time making posts like this (although that one really was your best).

Take heart, oh Pacmanesque seeker. I have for you an example of intuition vs. logic.Just try to hit a pitched ball with a bat using logic. The formulae are easy to find. You can do math in your head, right? Use a calculator if you must.I think intuition's a much better tool for the job.It might be erroneously argued that the intuition is unreliable since most baseball players have batting averages under .300. The sport has been tuned in relation to the observed limits of our abilities. It's much easier to hit a slow-pitch softball, and most batted balls are fielded for outs. There wouldn't be much game if it was slow-pitch and no fielders, would there? Just easy batting practice, and in batting practice most balls are hit. See?Reason and logic have their place. They are great when used for the purposes God intended. It isn't just baseball; all sports rely on automatic calculations being performed which we do not consciously supervise. We can command our intuition to engage, but we can't keep up with it.You can't even Walk effectively without intuition calculating where & how to move what part, and at what speed; how to maintain balance, and probably other things I can't think of.Intuition works at such lightning speed that we shouldn't be surprised at all that we are unable to translate everything we know into a satisfactory argument. This doesn't mean we don't know it, and it surely doesn't mean the intuition/heart/gut/instinct are inferior. These elements are so mysterious they may be separate, or they may be one thing. They serve us quite well.And their presence can hinder "rational" thought as well. It's easy to stray from pure "objectivity" when the supergenius within has already provided the answer, so we must always be aware of our own prejudices. Christians are not a special case. This applies to everyone.

While some have objected, none have been able to produce a single example which would falsify my statement. This feels almost like science. I don't maintain that it is, but we are at least dealing with potential falsification, which is more than can be said of... (I won't sidetrack myself).There is now the question of mistakes on the part of our witnesses. We have good reason to trust them, but what if they were fooled? I haven't time to compile a list of all the events in the New Testament. I shan't do so. I have decided to focus on a single event. That's right - just one.When Jesus rose from the dead, His victory was complete. If He did indeed rise, what serious objection can remain? "Oh, He rose from the dead alright, but I don't believe he healed such-and-such leper..." That won't cut it. On the flip side, no matter how many lepers, lame, and blind He healed, if He remains dead He is of no use to the Christian or anyone else. This is then very important. The gospel stands or falls here, does it not? One cannot accept as fact that Jesus rose from the dead, and reject the rest of the message. One cannot accept as fact that Jesus did not rise, and accept it.In order to rise from the dead, Jesus must first have died. The Romans were experienced professionals when it came to crucifixion. They'd been at it long enough to know that breaking the legs would speed up the process, and that death could be verified by thrusting a spear into the victim's side. Doubt of Jesus' death is clearly unwarranted. A number of witnesses and disciples were present, and they observed many details down to the parting of raiment. There is no opportunity for them to be fooled on this point.Jesus' body was taken away, wrapped for burial and placed in a tomb. The tomb was sealed with a stone, and placed under guard. Some apologists focus upon the subsequent removal of the stone, and the absence of Jesus' body. They make strong case, but I don't remember how it goes, exactly. First we have only Thomas missing, then Jesus returns again when Thomas is present. How does a dead man manage to fool so many people? Verse 30 assures us that many other signs were done, and this can be verified by consulting the other gospels. No dead man could pull this off, and nobody else could pass for Jesus under these circumstances.So they must've made it all up in that case, right? These are Martyrs we're talking about. Martyrs don't die for lies.(IIRC John wasn't killed outright for the faith, but died in prison. I wish my memory was better. Sorry, folks. If I'd thought of it sooner, I might have chosen another account. Ah, the joys of being imperfect...)If now anyone tells a Christian their faith is blind, based only upon something imaginary, this is no cause to doubt. This is cause to pray for those who are unaware of the truth, for it is well-established. Those who gave their lives that we might be assured have not died in vain.

Um, source? Book, Link, anything at all?

Lashing out at logic? Really?All Phat said was But of course, it is blasphemous to contend logic might just not trump everything! Shame on you Phat! How can you be so disrespectful of another's religion? What would St. Spock say?

Judging from your repeated use of the question "why not?", it appears you did not read or did not understand the I Cor. 15 verses. It might also be that you did not understand some of what I wrote as well, as these things were covered.Perhaps if you look up I Cor. 15, it might help. Would you like some links? I can probably locate some newer versions that employ more modern English if that will help. I have never heard of any Christian denomination that would claim this. Is there one? As we are in "Faith and Belief" this statement seems out of place if there isn't; and the Islamic view of Jesus is not our concern here. It's commonly accepted that Christians at least know what the term "gospel" refers to. "Christianity" can be broadly interpreted, but I've never heard it refer to faith in a lifeless corpse - without exception the faith is always in a LIVING Saviour. You might like to invent a straw man theology, but I don't think it would be appropriate or wise to do so. I'm fully aware of what this thread is about. I suggest you return to the first post and read it, as I and others have done. If it is appropriate, I may post some of these things elsewhere when I have the time and inclination to do so. Thank you for suggesting it.I'm sure you'd prefer that I'd run around in circles forever, trying in vain to force you to admit that you understand my previous posts. But that's not what happened, now is it? And I don't intend to run in circles here, either. Got it?Since you continue to maintain there are issues I should doubt, but am afraid to; perhaps you can help by providing another example. Don't get me wrong; I see you've raised the issue that faith itself should be doubted, simply because it is faith. You've also to convince us that all faith is essentially "blind". Trouble is: I've already evaluated these issues; they're old enough to retire and they're no longer a challenge.Speaking only for myself, a brand new, fresh doubt would be in order. Not some worn-out has-been, but a talented rookie. One not based on bogus assumptions or incomplete reasoning. I doubt that I'll be able to abandon my faith, so don't get your hopes up.

Thanks for the lesson.However, I wouldn't agree that this is not an aspect of intuition. Other aspects of intuition do exactly the same thing: they perform calculations and evaluations far more rapidly than the main, conscious, "thinking" part of the mind (I'm tired.) Yes, but not using means that you are aware of.You can do these things without ever learning math, can you not?Whether or not we can agree on a way to define intuition, I am unconvinced that analogous functions are missing for other purposes. Indeed, we make many, many decisions. If we have an Optic Tau which we only occasionally use, why don't you think we have a Choice Tau as well?See, knowing things is not predicated upon being able to express them rationally. Otherwise you couldn't know anything until you learned language. And how about animals? And absolute certainty is available, as absolute as it ever gets, without any need to express it rationally. Some of the most basic, important, fundamental things we know are the ones we learned before we could speak, let alone apply formal logic to explain them.Really, Optic Tau strongly implies that we knew complex math before we ever learned to count! No, I don't buy for one minute that everything I can't express logically and rationally is inferior knowledge on that basis alone.But maybe it's been forgotten that logic isn't foolproof. Just look at the number of logical fallacies available. Are we so perfect that we can catch them all? If so, every post that contains one is evidence of an intentional lie.