Finding Faith

by Ima Apostate 54 Replies latest jw experiences

BurnTheShips

Hi Trevor:
On many other threads you quote the bible with great precision even highlighting words to emphasise their importance and significance. In other words you quote from the Bible as your absolute authority to ‘prove’ your points.
Yet on this thread, entitled finding faith, you make it clear that you only accept parts of the Bible and even then have a subjective opinion on how they should be understood.
I do use the Bible as an authority, certainly. Please read my prior posts. I did not say I accepted only parts of the Bible, I accept all of it.
Why support your claims by quoting from a book that you describe in this way?
Because the Bible contains truths regarding God and our salvation.
Such duplicity does nothing to help people see the bible as more than a rather poor work of fiction. Some would say it was dishonest of you but I see it as a sincere attempt to defend your beliefs at all costs because of the value you place on them.
I am not duplicitous. I believe your own view Bible is perhaps due more to your own perception rather than my postition. Perhaps this document will help you to understand what I am trying to convey better than I can.
I understand this because like many other on this board we have all been there and will not trust again unless the facts are clear and indisputable. If God cannot provide such information then I must conclude that he is either unable or unwilling to - or does not exist at all.
Specifically what do you mean by "trust"? I suspect you still trust a good deal. We all have to accept certain axioms on trust.
BTS
Shazard

sweet pea :)

What I would like to ask you is how come there is absolutely NO historical evidence to support the existence of Jesus? (C)

Sorry, as I don't know you I may be very very wrong when I speak the words I spoken in case if you directly 1:1 map them on yourself. You know I don't know you I know it, so please forgive me in case if you thought all that was personal. Not at all... I was speaking in "class" level... like... breed... or some special kind of ppl I tag "materialists" meaning believers in doctrine of phylosophical doctrine.

Now to your question. This can turn into very very deep rabbithole coz I used to speak with ppl about matters when I get feeling I understand they patter of thinking. If I do not know what you mean when you say something I am not able to answer in your framework and you will not be able to understand me if I will use terms and words you understand differently then me!

What you asked, for example, does not make sense to me. Christianity itself is the very first proof of Historical Jesus Christ. Like Islam is first proof of Historical Existence of Muhammed, and meny other written texts in History are the first order evidence about existenc of Persons they are written about.

But I guess your question comes from matter I call - "Evidece is what I say is evidence". So I ask you, what exactly you mean by "historical evidence to supprot the existence of Person X" ANY Person X? For example, what is Historical Evidence of existenc of Napoleon for you? What you accept as historical evidence about any matter? Why? How it lines with Historical methodology? Does respectable historians agree with your assessment? Why do YOU think 2 billion ppl believe in existence of Jesus... That would be more ppl then ones believing in historical existence of Lincoln or George Washington!
NanaR

Ima:
I so relate to what you are saying. Congratulations for finding a real relationship with Our Lord Jesus Christ!!
I was baptized, confirmed, and received Holy Communion this past March. It truly was, as you say, heaven!! Indeed, as a Roman Catholic, I believe that Heaven and Earth meet at each and every Mass ;-)
Thank you for your upbuilding testimony. It is my prayer that more of our brothers and sisters who have escaped the Watchtower will be able, by the Grace of God, to come into full communion with other Christians.
Feel free to IM me if you would like to talk off-board about any of these things.
Your sister in Christ,
Ruth
trevor

BurntheShips
I am surprised that, after your comments, other Christians who do believe the Bible to be the Word of God, in addition to Christ himself of course, have not come forward to defend the Bible and affirm that it is God’s Holy Word.
Either the Bible is, as many Christians believe, the infallible inspired Word of God. To be quoted chapter and verse to settle any depute regarding the nature of Christ and his plan for mankind. This is the way you use it in many of your posts.
Yet when pinned down you claim to accept it entirely but state ‘The Bible account was written from a human perspective. An ancient and more primitive one.’ This being the case it is prone to error and cannot be relied upon to settle debates.
Most people including myself ‘accept’ that the Bible is an historical account of man’s struggle to find the meaning of life, written by imperfect men. Seeing the Bible in this realistic way we do not accept every word it contains as the Word of God and final authority in any discussion.
What I and many others whom you have debated with question, is the way you
switch between these two views of the Bible as it suits you to do so.
Convenient as it would be you can’t have it both ways and I am not the first to point this out.
trevor
Liberty

The argument Shazard uses stating that science and reason is just another rigid religion that people put faith in is pure nonsense. Richard Dawkins will not shun me if I disagree with one of his theories, nor would Carl Sagon's ghost condemn me to death because I didn't watch Cosmos or read one of his books. The scientific/humanist establishment allows you as an individual to believe anything you want. My Paleontology Professor at a major University didn't believe that dinosaurs evolved into birds which is a major departure from 98% of what other Paleontologists believe but he was still invited to their functions and conventions and submitted papers without any reprucussions because he backed up his oddball theories with evidence.
In science, if you have enough convincing evidence you can overturn any established principle. It happens all the time. Religion and science are nothing alike and reason is the exact opposite of faith.
BenV

I am so burned out on religion. Checked out various religons/ beliefs -- but "couldn't go there."
I see the bible as being a literary work, like all ancient texts.
BTS wrote:
Nature abhors a vacuum.
I rather think:
Religion whores a vacuum.
Ben (screwed by the god-thing)
BurnTheShips

I am surprised that, after your comments, other Christians who do believe the Bible to be the Word of God, in addition to Christ himself of course, have not come forward to defend the Bible and affirm that it is God’s Holy Word.
I can't speak for others here. Am I not enough of a defender for you?
Either the Bible is, as many Christians believe, the infallible inspired Word of God. To be quoted chapter and verse to settle any depute regarding the nature of Christ and his plan for mankind. This is the way you use it in many of your posts.
Not infallible--the Bible is not an active agent but an inactive thing-- but inerrant in matters relating to salvation. Please do read the link I provided you.
the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings (5) for the sake of salvation. Therefore "all Scripture is divinely inspired and has its use for teaching the truth and refuting error, for reformation of manners and discipline in right living, so that the man who belongs to God may be efficient and equipped for good work of every kind" (2 Tim. 3:16-17, Greek text).
Yet when pinned down you claim to accept it entirely but state ‘The Bible account was written from a human perspective. An ancient and more primitive one.’ This being the case it is prone to error and cannot be relied upon to settle debates.
I see no incongruity in my statement. Are you maybe laboring under dichotomous thinking? That the Bible alone doesn't settle debates..well that is pretty obvious. You said that I reduce the Bible to a fiction.....the U.S. Constitution alone doesn't settle many legal debates either...even when interpreted by the highest judges in the land there is disagreement as to the proper application of the document. Is the Constitution a fiction?
What I and many others whom you have debated with question, is the way you
switch between these two views of the Bible as it suits you to do so.
As I have said, there is no "switching" here.
BTS
trevor

BurnTheShips
Am I not enough of a defender for you?
Unfortunately not. You seek to compare the bible with the US Constitution but that is the work of man. It has never claimed to be inspired by God - as such it can be amended as needed.
The Bible does claim to be inspired by a God who claims to be unchangeable - and you quote from it, on that basis whenever it suits you to. On the other hand you explain away its importance.
I see no incongruity in my statement.
I doubt that you ever will. Once you move the basis of Christianity to faith alone and reject the Bible as the Word of God, any number of tricks of the mind are possible. You have evolved an elastic religion that can be stretched to any shape or size and made fit whatever requirements you have. The Bible is the definitive guide by which most Christians live.
You will never see the contradictions in your faith because you are a new breed of Christian that has adapted to survive in a modern world. This has more to do with evolution and survival than Christianity. Your faith will always make sense to you but it is a long way from Christianity and God as described in the Bible.
trevor
BurnTheShips

Unfortunately not. You seek to compare the bible with the US Constitution but that is the work of man. It has never claimed to be inspired by God - as such it can be amended as needed.
You seem to not understand what an illustration is and how it is used. I hope you are being deliberately obtuse! My point is that the Constitution, a relatively recent and brief document, is open to interpretation and disagreement by the best interpreters in the country, the Supreme Court judges. Being that this is the case, what makes you think the Bible is any different? Words are nothing but ink on paper until they are interpreted. Interpretation is always subjective.
The Bible does claim to be inspired by a God who claims to be unchangeable - and you quote from it, on that basis whenever it suits you to. On the other hand you explain away its importance.
God is unchanging as you state. Man's understanding of him is not. Even Scripture alludes to this in Hebrews 1:1:In times past, God spoke in partial and various ways to our ancestors through the prophets; in these last days, he spoke to us through a son
I doubt that you ever will. Once you move the basis of Christianity to faith alone and reject the Bible as the Word of God, any number of tricks of the mind are possible. You have evolved an elastic religion that can be stretched to any shape or size and made fit whatever requirements you have. The Bible is the definitive guide by which most Christians live.
*shrug* You just don't seem to get it. There isn't much more I can say here. Christianity has always been based on faith. There was no Bible for 400 years after the founding of the religion so what did they have? Most believers through most of history never even owned a copy so what did they have? I have categorally stated here that I do not reject the Bible either in part or in totality. I have quoted 2 Tim 3:16 as something that I am in agreement with. I have cited and linked Dei Verbum to explain what I believe but apparently you haven't looked at it. I have explained how I believe Scripture to be inerrant. Yet you come back with the assertion that I "reject the Bible as the Word of God". Apparently, none of this seems to be able to get through your mental sunglasses.
You will never see the contradictions in your faith because you are a new breed of Christian that has adapted to survive in a modern world. This has more to do with evolution and survival than Christianity. Your faith will always make sense to you but it is a long way from Christianity and God as described in the Bible.
A "new breed"? To you maybe. Read the first paragraph,
http://www.catholic.com/library/Scriptural_Reference_Guide.asp
BTS
NanaR

You will never see the contradictions in your faith because you are a new breed of Christian that has adapted to survive in a modern world. This has more to do with evolution and survival than Christianity. Your faith will always make sense to you but it is a long way from Christianity and God as described in the Bible.
Trevor:
Perhaps you are misunderstanding BurnTheShips because you do not understand the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox perspective. Catholicism and her Eastern Orthodox counterpoint are the MOST ANCIENT Christian religions.
Catholic belief stands on three things equally: Holy Scripture, Holy Tradition, and the Teaching Authority of the Church.
Jesus did not write a book, he established a Church. He did not send forth the Apostles to write, he sent them forth to preach. The writing was done, of course, and then it was assembled and verified and preserved BY THE CHURCH.
Sola Scriptura is the new idea -- it is only about 500 years old. Sola Scriptura has resulted in the fracturing of the Christian congregation into thousands of sects, each claiming to have the correct interpretation of the Bible.
The Bible is inerrant and is meant to be interpreted by the Church that Jesus Christ established.
Not a new idea, rather a very old idea.
Pax,
Ruth

Finding Faith

Share this