Religion or Science - How do they compare?

I need a really good reason to believe something utterly preposterous.

That lots of intelligent sane people describe them to you really ought to count as a good enough reason to think there might be something to it, even if it doesn't lead you to outright belief in them. Really. And most of the believers in these things are certainly intelligent and sane. But what you do is say they can't be intelligent and sane BECAUSE they believe in these things. Catch 22.

The people that believe in such things are called Muslims and Jews an Druids an Buddhists and Taoists and Hindus and Satanists...

You don't get to exclude any beliefs Faith.

Edited by jar, : No reason given.

Faith writes: That lots of intelligent sane people describe them to you really ought to count as a good enough reason to think there might be something to it

The entire population of the earth can tell me whatever they like, but if they can't provide something real and tangible, I'm not interested. 'I believe...' without good reason, is evidence of nothing except delusion.

But what you do is say they can't be intelligent and sane BECAUSE they believe in these things. Catch 22.

I really don't care how intelligent or how insane anyone is. All I need is a reason based in reality for why I should believe in something preposterous.

People are complicated and complex, they can be both highly intelligent AND insane. Proper out of their head bonkers. That's why reasoning people require objective evidence. Particularly when the claim itself is straight up daft.

Yes lots of people believe in invisible beings and they should be taken seriously, especially if they describe personal experiences.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

When intelligent people believe in something you dismiss as daft, and they claim personal experience whereas all you have is your judgmental attitude, why should anyone believe you?

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Not just invisible beings but rather God.

Not God, and a Christian should know that.

Faith writes: When intelligent people believe in something you dismiss as daft,

Only if it *is* daft.

and they claim personal experience whereas all you have is your judgmental attitude, why should anyone believe you?

Because there are no personal experiences of god that can be shown to have been anything more than imaginary.

Yet they know that it is God as firmly as you believe the parody you market is God.

Faith writes: That lots of intelligent sane people describe them to you really ought to count as a good enough reason to think there might be something to it....

No, that isn't how the brain works. It is possible to be intelligent and sane in some parts of your brain while holding silly thoughts in another part. What distinguishes blind believers is their inability to assess their own thoughts for silliness.

There's a good reason why we often ask each other, "Did you see that?" Our social connections help us to filter out the individual silliness.

Faith writes: I read a lot of heresies, cults, occultism, before going with what I recognized to be the truth. Heresies aren't new, they are very old. At some point, especially with bad eyes, the reasonable thing to do is stop wasting time on the devil's lies and grow in what you know to be true.

There are a great number of Christians that view your understanding of the Scriptures and for that matter of God to be heretical. You adhere to an OT version of God in order to try and twist the Bible into a shape that isn't intended, distorting a great deal of what Jesus taught and died for, and what God resurrected Him for.

Edited by GDR, : a to an

GDR writes: Faith writes: I read a lot of heresies, cults, occultism, before going with what I recognized to be the truth. Heresies aren't new, they are very old. At some point, especially with bad eyes, the reasonable thing to do is stop wasting time on the devil's lies and grow in what you know to be true. There are a great number of Christians that view your understanding of the Scriptures and for that matter of God to be heretical. You adhere to an OT version of God in order to try and twist the Bible into a shape that isn't intended, distorting a great deal of what Jesus taught and died for, and what God resurrected Him for.

I was just reading through some of the reviews of Fleming Rutledge's book, The Crucifixion, that you mentioned you are reading. It may not be possible, in fact I'm pretty sure it isn't possible, but I'm thinking maybe I should read it because it is a whole area of liberal Christianity I'm not up on and it desperately needs comparison with the orthodox view. I was astonished to see her quoted as saying that the cross is hardly ever preached on in churches these days, because in the circles I'm familiar with the complaint might actually be the opposite, that preachers spend so much time preaching the cross of Christ that we hardly ever get to hear about sanctification.

This seems to be another huge area of polarization in today's world, like all the others I particularly encounter here at EvC. This morning it makes me cry. Sometimes it makes me angry but lately I'm seeing how futile the debate is and tears are the only true response to that. And especially to ideas about the crucifixion that deny supernatural salvation of souls because that most likely means there are an awful lot of "Christians" who are going to go to Hell, and that is something to cry about.

I couldn't find out from any of the reviews, though they are full of praise of a general sort, what she thinks the crucifixion most importantly represents in her system of thinking. Is there a way you could describe that briefly? Is any of it about supernatural salvation in which He died to pay for our sins to remove God's wrath from us?

As for calling each other heretics, it seemed to me that you are calling most of the greats of Christian history heretics, the ones who have most inspired me. I don't suppose it will persuade you of anything but I got into trying to list them all in my head and thought I might do it here just for the record.

• So I'd start with Jesus' twelve apostles.
  
• Followed by most of the Early Church Fathers, Athanasius, Polycarp, most but not all of Augustine's writings, others whose names aren't coming to me.
  
• Then come the ones the Roman Church persecuted, the Waldensians, the Lollards, the Albigensians, the Cathars, others. They weren't all perfectly orthodox but they knew that Christ died to pay for our sins and that's what the cross is all about.
  
• Peter Waldo, John Wycliffe, Jan Hus. early Protestant evangelists
  
• Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Melancthon. Protestant Reformers
  
• The Pietists and the Anabaptists are mostly orthodox with some deviations here and there. Count Zinzendorf,
  
• Gerhard Tersteegen.
  
• The Amish, the Hutterites, the Doubhobors, mostly German.
  
• William Tyndale, Ridley, Latimer, Cranmer, Cromwell. John Bunyan (Pilgrim's Progress), John Knox, some of the English greats, some burned at the stake by the Roman Church.
  
• William Wilberforce (led the abolition of the slave trade in England), John Newton ("Amazing Grace), the poet Cowper ("God works in mysterious ways His wonders to perform.."
  
• The Puritans.; John Owen, Thomas Boston, many others whose names aren't coming to mind.
  
• Jessie Penn-Lewis, Duncan Campbell, the Welsh revival and other revivals, other names I'm forgetting.
  
• JC Ryle, Charles Spurgeon, Martyn Lloyd Jones great English preachers of the last century Murray McCheyne
  
• Hudson Taylor, Adoniram Judson, William Carey, Amy Carmichael, Gladys Alward, missionaries
  
• Jonathan Edwards, American preacher. David Brainerd, American evangelist to the American Indians
  
• George Whitefield, John Wesley, Charles Wesley, English preachers part of the Great Awakening in America just before the American Revolution
  
• Charles Finney, revivalist but he's got some doctrinal issues
  
• Watchman Nee great Chinese preacher of the early twentieth century, imprisoned for his faith
  
• Jim Elliott, missionary, killed with four missionary friends by the Auca Indians in 1956; Elisabeth Elliott, his wife, who lived with the Aucas who became Christians.
  
• Some contemporaries: RC Sproul who just died, John MacArthur, Alister Begg, John Piper, Sinclair Ferguson

Lots more I know I'm forgetting. But there are a few off the top of my head that I consider great preachers and teachers that you must be classifying as heretics because they preach salvation by God's grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone by scripture alone .

ABE: Some I've remembered since writing the above:
George Muller, who lived more completely by faith alone than any other Christian I can think of;
Corrie ten Boom, Dutch protector of Jews during WWii, who spent time in a Nazi prison camp
Brother Andrew, Dutch Christian called by God to take Bibles behind the Iron Curtain after WWII
Dietrich Bonhoeffer, German Resistance to Nazism who was executed for an attempt on Hitler's life.
Billy Graham of course.
Albert Mohler, contemporary,
A W Tozer one of the greatest American preachers and writers, mid 20th century,
AW Pink, English theologian early 20th century, love the guy,
Oswald Chambers,
Francis and Edith Schaeffer, 20th century. And now I've forgotten some others I'd remembered too,

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

If you have a subscription to Christianity Today here is a link to an interview of Rutledge that would anser your questions. If you don't have a subscription you can subscribe to an outline subscription.

Flemming Rutledge Interview

I was hoping you could just sum it up in a couple of sentences. So far the article has that same vagueness all the reviews have. It's hard to tell how certain words are being used --- liberal Christians don't use words the same way orthodox Christians do. However, just saying that the crucifixion has always been problematic reveals the liberal framework since no orthodox would ever say it was problematic. I'll have to copy the article and try to read it later.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Missed your point. I don't want to subscribe to CT. If you can't or won't try to sum it up for me I'll just have to wait until I run across a review that is clearer.