Tec: Thanks for sharing that, it means a lot. Total dependence on a man-made organisation is an idea that's abhorrent to jw's, and yet that is what is essentially taught from birth for some of us, without realising it.. JonathanH: Thank you VERY much, that is EXACTLY my point, what I've been trying to say right from the start, but not had the intelligience or communication skills to articulate. As you said, if a belief is based on evidence, there will be a way to at least attempt to prove it wrong. But is faith in Christianity beyond that, beyond a book or facts that can be proven/disproven? The previous posts seem to indicate as much. See what you think of my skepticism post, though, as to whether anything can be proven (in a purely physical sense) either way... Aguest: Interesting ideas, I'm glad that you can have such conviction and self-belief. I just don't have confidence in my beliefs at the moment. Perhaps in time..
Can the Bible be proved wrong?
by The Quiet One 158 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
JonathanH
Don't worry, I read your post on socrates and skepticism, the quiet one. I understand your struggle, I went through it several years ago.
First keep in mind that we never "prove" anything outside of math and pure logics, with experience we rather assign probability to things. When we say something is a "fact" what we mean is that based on available evidence it is drastically more likely to be true than opposing ideas. So if you're asking "is the bible and christianity true?" Then you're asking the wrong question. It should be "Which is more probable based on available evidence and reason? The bible is a divine document in some way relating the purposes of a divine being, or that it's a collection of myths not unlike other religious texts?" Once you let go of absolutes and start to deal in probabilities it becomes much easier to unshackle oneself from the burden of needing to think in absolute certainties.
When being skeptical, one must be careful not to descend into epistimological nihilism, the idea that nothing can be known, and thus (logically following) all ideas are equal. I always like using this comic to make light of the problems of this view.
If you really want to go down the road of solipsism and epistimilogical nihilism, then sure. But that puts christianity on equal footing with any insane thing that you can come up with. Or more importantly it is on equal footing with every religion that puts emphasis on intangible divine revelations rather than anything that can be reasoned on. So let's toss out the notion that the bible or christianity can be dealt with on the basis of reason or evidence. What happens when a muslim and a christian try to show each other the truth of their religion now? Both believing that it isn't something that you can reason on, or demonstrate with evidence? Now for both it is very important to convince the other of their beliefs because the salvation of the other person depends on it, and they have both been told to proselytize in the name of their respective saviors. So what do they do? They both say "Isn't X great, X changed my life, and I can feel X in my heart. Won't you accept the truth of X into your life?" And then with no where else to go they leave and mutter to themselves that something must be wrong with the other person, why else wouldn't they be able to accept X into their life?
When one begins to claim that their position can't be reasoned on, and is not an evidence based claim then what they are saying in reality is "I can't back up anything I'm saying, so just believe me.". This is exactly what the society did, and was one of the more salient points I realized when getting out of the organization. They constantly hammered home not to "rely on your own power of understanding" because satan was smarter than us, and if we tried to reason on what the society was teaching then satan could trick us into believing lies. But that is self defeating. If our power of reason were so faulty, then how would we ever know that we had the truth? Couldn't satan just as easily trick us into thinking the witnesses were the truth? We would have to just "know" it's the truth without reason or evidence according to the society (and according to the christians that try to distance themselves from the bible and rely on metaphors).
So are you going to rely on reason? Or are you going to believe something just because? And if it's the latter, what would you believe if you were born in india? What would a conversation with a christian that relies on personal revelation look like from your perspective if you belonged to a culture that considered christianity just another religion out of thousands?
-
JonathanH
Also just as a helpful warning on your guide to enlightment. Learn to spot nonsense answers. That is to say answers that sound good or even follow the rules of logic (we can talk about formal logic and it's important limitations if you want) but don't actually mean anything.
"1. Realities of meaninglessness
In the works of Gaiman, a predominant concept is the distinction between masculine and feminine. Thus, Baudrillard uses the term ‘the precultural paradigm of discourse’ to denote not depatriarchialism, as the prepatriarchial paradigm of context suggests, but neodepatriarchialism.
Derrida suggests the use of neodialectic capitalist theory to modify and analyse society. Therefore, any number of theories concerning the common ground between class and sexual identity may be found."
That is a small portion of an essay from something called "The post modernism generator" (http://www.elsewhere.org/pomo/). It's absolutely meaningless, but is structured like an arguement and even looks intelligent. But it's fluff, it means nothing. Something I find immensely frustrating about arguing with spiritualists that think they are beyond reason, is that most of their arguements are like the above. Structured, following the rules of logic, but utterly devoid of meaning.
There was a post on a previous page to explain how faith isn't irrational. The post went
That is not quite accurate, dear one, and as you may have noticed, I am a bit pendantic when it comes to things of this nature (i.e., related to God, Christ, faith, etc.). Faith... is the ASSURED expectation of the thing hoped for... the EVIDENT demonstration of reality... though NOT beheld." The word "yet" denotes that one believes in something that will occur in the FUTURE... and yes, that requires faith. However, faith also includes (and actually is BASED on) belief in something that is occurring NOW... even though one does not "behold" it (see it with one's physical eyes/senses).
For example, that Christ speaks. Faith does not just say he will return and speak to us in the future; it says he speaks... and so we can HEAR him... NOW. Just not with our [physical] ears. It does not just say that one day we will see God, but that we can see Him NOW... through Christ... just not with our physical eyes, but with the eyes of our SPIRIT. Because HE is a spirit."
What the hell does that mean? Does that MEAN anything? A theology generator could have spit that out. When you see writing like this, ask yourself "Is anything said in here actually tangible or demonstrable, or is it just gibberish?" How does one see a spirit with one's spirit eyes? What are spirit eyes? Did the reply "Faith is the belief in something occuring now even though one does not behold it" in anyway answer or refute the initial objection that faith is anti rational because it relies on things not beheld? Or did it just deny it then rephrase it? Would this be in any way convincing or meaningful to somebody who belonged to a different religion but also believed because of intangible revelation?
How would you re-write this reply without the flowery religious language?
Faith is believing that something will happen without evidence which requires faith, but faith is also believing in something that is evident right now which provides evidence that the future thing will occur. The thing that is happening now and not in the future is that god is speaking to us, but we can't hear him, and he appears before us but we can't see him. You have to use your spirit ears and your spirit eyes to see jesus who shows us god.
Based on that definition, what does faith mean? Or was that gibberish?
When trying to deduce the reality of things being able to cut to the actual meaning of what is being said will be invaluable. Because the really religious devout have a way of talking alot without ever saying anything with meaning. And some people mistake that for an answer.
Socrates always played the devils advocate. Act like you don't believe a proposition, and then have others try to convince you of it. Don't assume before hand that the position is true and then try to reason on whether or not the assumption that it is true is true. If you didn't believe in christianity would the above definition of faith be in anyway convincing or rational?
-
cofty
Thank you for a very helpful post JonathanH
Believers often don't take the trouble to really define what they mean. I now from experience they often don't actually know what they mean themselves.
-
trevor
Faith is the assured belief that whatever exists in our imagination must be real, otherwise it wouldn't be there.
-
AGuest
Believers often don't take the trouble to really define what they mean. I now from experience they often don't actually know what they mean themselves.
Yet, you SURELY know that such does not apply to me, dear Cofty (peace to you); indeed, quite to the contrary, as my posts, including the following, often show.
Before I respond to your comments, dear JonH (peace to you!), I must ask you: you DO realize that Socrates was a believer, and not only believed in God but was a servant of the Most Holy One of Israel? That he repeatedly TOLD the Senate who sent him? That he received his wisdom from "The God"? You do realize that he even consulted with "the Oracle"? I get quite amused when non-believers point to Socrates as a "source" upon which others should based their reasoning, he who admitted that he was only doing what he was sent to do. Let me tell you WHY Socrates spoke in the manner he did; it was NOT to play "devil's advocate."
If you start with the Adversary in the garden... and then review virtually every discussion between a spirit being and others, from JAH Himself... to John's Revelation... you will see that MOST of the conversations involved questions. Why? Because that is how they communicate! Why? Because of free will! They don't tell YOU; they ask so that YOU tell THEM. THEY already KNOW; they ask to see if YOU do. And this is 99% of how my Lord communicates with me: he ASKS me questions: "How, child, could it be such and so, if..." or "Is it not recorded that I said..." or "Do you not recall that I told you..." or "Was it not promised that...?
The Adversary used this same form of communication on Eve. John was asked, "Who are these?" And so on. Socrates asked the questions he did, in the MANNER he did... because that is how HE was taught. I don't do it here for a very good reason: because virtually everyone here was taught by the WTBTS that asking questions in such a manner... imitates Satan. That is a lie, of course, but many believe it... even those who claim to longer "believe." They, too, still carry some WTBTS "baggage" as can be seen by (1) their judgmental speech and mannerisms; (1) their DISDAIN (and sometimes even contempt) for anyone who does not believe as they do; (3) the words used in their responses (which they often don't even see is a reflection of WTBTS wording); and (4) their own hypocrisy in things such as this (i.e., touting Socrates, when he was a believer and very much so).
The Greeks believed in MANY Gods; due to the Jewish/Hebraic influence, however, he came to know that there is only one TRUE God - the one who sent him to try and turn the Senate back from their wicked ways. Of course, they forced him to kill himself.
Okay, with that said, let's take a look at your comments:
There was a post on a previous page to explain how faith isn't irrational.
Yes, that would have been from me. I won't repost MY comments, for the sake of board space. Anyone who chooses can review it above.
What the hell does that mean? Does that MEAN anything?
It absolutely does. That YOU don't understand it doesn't mean it doesn't mean anything. It just means that YOU don't understand it.
A theology generator could have spit that out.
I doubt it. A "theology generator" usually speaks from what is his own, not from what he received from Christ, the Holy Spirit (although he may claim such). He would tell you that, basically, "it is what it is." That is not what I did. I explained that faith is NOT limited to the hope of something that will occur in the future, but in something that may be occurring NOW... although not experienced with our physical flesh.
When you see writing like this, ask yourself "Is anything said in here actually tangible or demonstrable, or is it just gibberish?"
Are you saying that EVERYTHING in the physical world is tangible/demonstrable by or as to our physical flesh? If so, I would have to disagree with you. There are many things that exist in the physical world that our physical senses cannot realize. There are things, in fact, that have not yet even been "discovered." We STILL don't know how "everything" works (although we arrogantly believe we will find out).
What you MISSED, however, were the words "EVIDENT DEMONSTRATION"... just as many do. What does that mean, "evident demonstration"? It means that SOME evidence WAS/IS demonstrated... so that the thing IS real/a reality. We just cannot " BEHOLD that reality... with our PHYSICAL senses.
How does one see a spirit with one's spirit eyes? What are spirit eyes?
Well, to understand how one sees with one's spirit eyes... one has to understand what the spirit IS. Yes? And you apparently don't. But I will explain:
You, JonH, although perhaps you might believe to the contrary, are NOT the sum total of your flesh. Your flesh (body) is merely a vessel, a "cup" if you will, that holds the man you are... on the INSIDE. If a surgeon were to remove your legs... YOU would still be JonH. Because WHO you are is not tied to you legs of flesh. If he were to remove your arms... heart... lungs... kidneys... corneas... etc., perhaps even giving you someone else's heart, lungs, etc., YOU... would STILL be JonH. Because... YOU ARE NOT YOUR FLESH. You are a spirit being residing IN that flesh.
So, even if you could not see with your eyes of FLESH... YOU could still PERCEIVE. If you could not hear with your ears of flesh... YOU could still PERCEIVE. If you could not feel with your skin of flesh... YOU... could still perceive. If the flesh were the be all end all of it all... then we might as well take those whose flesh is "wanting"... the deaf, blind, speechless, etc., and cast them off. We DON'T... because they are not LIMITED by their flesh... or its lack.
Perception is not always based on physical evidence; sometimes it's based on intuition. Sometimes... it's based on faith: the evident demonstration of reality, though NOT beheld (by the flesh).
Did the reply "Faith is the belief in something occurring now even though one does not behold it" in anyway answer or refute the initial objection that faith is antirational because it relies on things not beheld?
It did not, but only because my response did not go to the question of rationality (which I will get to in a moment), but only to the literal wording used. As I said, I am pedantic about such things and so I merely responded to that. My apologies if what I DID respond to caused you to blow a fuse. Wasn't intended, truly. But you and others were more than welcome to answer the question. It wasn't directed at me alone and, again, I answered the part that spoke to MY senses at the time. But if you insist:
Faith IS rational, if you understand the contrast between the physical world and the spirit realm. What is rational HERE... is quite irrational there. And vice versa. HERE, we seek our own desires, even to the point of taking from, betraying, and killing one another. To those who exist in the SPIRIT realm... that is HIGHLY irrational. HERE, we follow man and his ideals and teachings, even if it's to our own detriment. Which is HIGHLY irrational there. HERE, we not only take... but MUCH more than we need or could ever use - the ONLY creatures in the physical world to do so. Which is HIGHLY irrational there. HERE, we based all we put our hope in on what we can experience with our flesh... even though the flesh is often an enemy, will turn on us and attack, will betray us, and eventually dies. Which is HIGHLY irrational there (as they understand that it is just a vessel, and a temporary one, at that).
THERE, the desire of everyone BUT self is paramount which, to many here, is highly irrational. THERE, they follow the will of the Most Holy One of Israel, and are taught by Him, because it is to everyone's BENEFIT which, to many HERE, is highly irrational. THERE, they give... and MUCH more than anyone needs... which, to many HERE, is highly irrational. THERE, they know the flesh is of no use at all, and so they have no hope in it, so that although they may, from time to time, put it on, they rejoice when they put it back off which, to some HERE, is highly irrational ("Doesn't everyone envy us and want to be human? Don't WE have it best?") And so on...
So, while I understand you basis for what is "rational", what YOU don't grasp is how limited... and limiting... YOUR "reality" really is.
Or did it just deny it then rephrase it?
Ahhh, you imply a wrong motive to me, dear one. If you knew me you would know that nothing of the sort occurred: it did neither. My respond didn't even consider the question of rationality. Because I focused on what "blew a fuse" with ME. Again, it was the added word "yet", which rendered the statement inaccurate. Regardless of its rationality.
Would this be in any way convincing or meaningful to somebody who belonged to a different religion but also believed because of intangible revelation?
I have absolutely no idea, but I think it's safe to say, no. I base that on experience: people who put their faith in religion tend to not get it, either. In fact, even less than those who claim absolutely no belief whatsoever.
How would you re-write this reply without the flowery religious language?
While I admit to being somewhat "flowery" in my responses, I've explained that previously. Given the abrupt, blunt, and tactless language many tend to use today, a bit of floweriness may not be such a bad thing. However, there is nothing "religious" involved at all. What I share is absolutely anti-religion, dear one. Has been for MANY years now. The language is not religious, but it is how my Lord speaks and how he has taught me to think. I explained that here:
http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/jw/friends/211507/1/A-Thing-About-Language-and-Thought-Processes
That you have an aversion to HOW I phrase my comments is... well... on you, dear one. You have to ask yourself (1) why it bothers YOU, and (2) why you even CARE how someone else "speaks." Again, that smacks of former WTBTS (or other religious) baggage, where anything and anyone that doesn't look or sound like YOU... is worthy of YOUR disdain. To me... it's utter hypocrisy and makes the one with viewpoint no different than all the other hypocrites. Including the WTBTS.
Faith is believing that something will happen without evidence which requires faith, but faith is also believing in something that is evident right now which provides evidence that the future thing will occur.
Notice your words... "without evidence." That is not my understanding of what faith is. Your second definition, however, is accurate. Right now, I believe... because I heard (something evident right now)... that such and so is true. Because what I hear has ALWAYS proved true (the evidence "provided")... then I can know that I WILL receive corroboration of it... and/or the thing itself (the future thing).
The thing that is happening now and not in the future is that god is speaking to us, but we can't hear him, and he appears before us but we can't see him.
Ummmm... not quite, dear one. God is speaking, yes, but through His Son. So, no, we can't hear Him, per se. But we can hear His Son. Not exactly the same thing, yes, but exactly the same message. This one is truly no - the Most Holy One of Israel does not appear before us - we must go before HIM... and can only do so when in spirit (flesh and blood cannot enter).
You have to use your spirit ears and your spirit eyes to see jesus who shows us god.
Jah eShua, yes, but YES!!! How hard is that to grasp?! Look, see, it sounds like YOU got it, so it CAN'T be that hard. I mean, all of your vast intelligence and all aside (which is usually what gets in most folks way - they prefer it to take some quantum physics calculation to "see" Christ... rather than, say, 1 st grade arithmetic, which is really all that required - you know, the "become as little children" requirement?)...
Based on that definition, what does faith mean? Or was that gibberish?
No, seriously, it wasn't gibberish, not at all. It simply means that you KNOW what has occurred with YOU... HAS occurred... because it was EVIDENT... however, such "evidence" was manifest... and what the occurrence revealed, told you, showed you... and what you realized, perceived, discerned, came to know AS A RESULT... was TRUE... even if you didn't use the physical "receivers" that are you eyes or ears... to "receive" it. You used other receptors. Which ALL of us have... and have the ability to USE... but just don't know it... or know HOW.
Capiche? Surely, your vast ability to analyze and dedeuce will help you out here. Surely.
Again, I bid you peace!
YOUR servant and a slave of Christ,
SA
-
JonathanH
Case in point of alot of talking with little meaning. I mean you as a person no disrespect, Aguest, only your ideas.
First, socrates was not a follower of the judeo-christian god. He was a polytheist, he believed in a great many gods and didn't give any great reverance to Yahweh or Adonai in particular over the pantheon of gods he believed in. I would like to see your sources saying that he was a follower specifically of the judeo-christian god, or if that's just an assertion because you like socrates. Also an appeal to authority such as saying "Socrates believed in the divine, funny that skeptics wouldn't" is erroneous. Newton believed in alchemy, saying "I can't believe any physicist would believe in chemistry" on these grounds would be absurd.
Fine, you are anti-religion. Just change anywhere that I say "religion" to "personal divine revelation". Same difference in mentality, just more emphasis on self rather than a group.
Two, your discourse on rationality has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not faith is rational. Pointing to hedonistic actions, saying that people think they are rational, and then claiming they are in fact irrational in a spirit world, then claiming that more socialistic and religious practices are irrational on earth, but very rational in the spirit realm does not in anyway make believing that the voices in your head are of divine origin more rational. They are just assertions with no backing. This was more theology speak in that it was alot of talking that made no meaningful point whatsoever, nor had any evidence for their claims, or means to falsify their conclusions, and little to do with the topic anyway. None of that has anything to do with reason or rationality as it pertains to believing things without any means of demonstrating, reasoning, or falsifying.
And furthermore, we are not a soul, we are a brain that receives stimuli from organs that sense the world around us. Take my legs and I may still perceive, but take my amygdala and see where I am at. Altering one's brain alters one's perceptions, there is no evidence that some outside mystical force is manipulating our brain, there is ample evidence and experimentation that changing the brain, changes the person. A tumor or railroad spike to the head can completely change your attitudes, beliefs, thoughts, and mentality. If our thoughts and perceptions were the result of a soul, electically stimulating certain parts of the brain wouldn't radically change how we think, feel, and perceive. And just to cut you off at the pass, claiming that we don't understand everything about the brain doesn't some how imply that there are magic forces making us happy instead of endorphins.
Think about telling some one you have absolute belief that jesus revealed himself to you, but there is no way to demonstrate this other than say it's true, and that he would reveal himself to anyone if they allowed it. Is this rational? Put yourself in some one elses shoes. Could you expect somebody to accept this as a rational answer without tangible evidence? To answer this, replace "Jesus" with "Cyborg Napoleon from Mars", or better yet, "Allah" or "Vishnu". As absolutely certain you are of your divine revelation, what would you say to some one who was equally certain about their divine revelation about "Allah"? Could you say anything? Would the fact that this person has absolute faith in what Allah is telling him, mean that in some way for some reason he has rejected Jesus in his life? What would be your explanation as to why this person believes absolutely in Allah as has been revealed to him, but does not believe in Jesus as you do? After all you have evidence of jesus, but it is invisible to everyone else, the evidence is "in you". He has evidence of "Allah" but his evidence is invisible to everyone else, the evidence is "in him". At such an impasse, what do you do, and why the difference? Why should anyone believe you over him or him over you?
I also find it telling that, much like the society, you posit that education and intelligence are a hinderance to understanding. If only we were more like children, that are prone to believing in santa, the easter bunny, monsters under the bed, and imaginary friends then we would believe the voices in our head are coming from spirit dimensions. Claiming that ignorance, or willed ignorance is a helpful requisite to believing something is not something to be proud of. The society called this "humilty" or rather the abject acceptance of things without question or evidence. This goes back to what I said before that this view of divine revelation is incredibly disrespectful of anyone that does not hold the same view. It implies that it's not something that is a matter of going to the drawing board, and if you saw A, reasoned on B, and came to conclusion C then you would get it. It's that for some reason you refuse to get it, you don't want to get it, and by definition that makes you wicked. The guy that accepts the revelation of "Allah" in his life isn't ignorant(as we are all ignorant), he's stubborn, haughty and prideful for not accepting jesus. It has to make the assumption that one never earnestly sought truth, or else he would've already found jesus. Do you honestly think that every atheist, agnostic, and buddhist here didn't ever earnestly search for truth? They never read the bible looking for answers? You have to either believe that jesus is hiding from us, or that we absolutely refuse to accept him in our life due to our own wicked natures? Or is there a valid reason for not hearing the voice of Jesus in your head, or your spirit head, or whatever?
-
The Quiet One
Wow, this discussion has taken quite a turn while I was away, and I fear for the worst. I began this thread, not to attack or attempt to destroy anybodys beliefs in any way, I merely wanted to hear arguments and/or evidence from different viewpoints, to assess things for myself when I'm ready and also to hopefully ask questions and prompt others to think. From the tone of the last couple of posts, I am concerned that we might just be overstepping the boundary of a respectful exchanging of views into something approaching a war zone. Aguest+Jonh: Perhaps you can both agree to disagree and move on? Maybe I'm just oversensitive, but I don't want to see people getting attacked and feelings being potentially hurt on my thread. Whilst there is a veneer of being respectful to each other, IMO, it appears as though Aguest is attacking people such as JonH by calling them hypocrites because their choice of words/perceived judgemental views being apparently similar to the Society that they condemn, and at the same time JonH compared Aguest with the Society for promoting what is, from his viewpoint, blind faith with no evidence (refusing to even politely acknowledge that spiritual evidence could exist although not all may be able to perceive it), and went so far as to essentially attack her beliefs, which no matter how he may have began his post, are no doubt a part of who she is.. Please, lets step back and look at what is happening here. Feel free to disagree, but I see things that have not been handled in the right way, here, on all sides. Perhaps my throwing skeptical philosophy into an essentially religious discussion partly triggered this problem, so I'll take responsibility for that, but.. What is the purpose of this forum? Why did we leave the organisation (at least mentally), with it's black+white mentality and intolerance for others beliefs/lack of beliefs (the GB hates apostates, theist or atheist)? How are we helping each other to learn by throwing out accusations of hearing voices or comparing others to a controlling and close-minded group of men in Brooklyn? If we could just think about some of these things, maybe we could at least come back and talk to each other more respectfully, maybe agree to disagree? I certainly hope so, because this has been an interesting topic to me, and I'd hate to see it ruined by intolerance or lack of respect, let's remember why we're here. Thanks :) Aguest: I just went back and noticed something.. In context, JonH's reference to your flowery language was not, in my view, meant as an insult to you personally or him saying that you should change. He was pointing out that it is necessary, in order to examine a statement rationally, that you filter out any unnecessary words (from your viewpoint) and/or translate them into something you can relate to. Otherwise you can be lost as to what the person really meant. Jesus set a good example in speaking with depth but also in a way unbelievers could understand him. Just a thought :) JonH: On the other hand, THIS is a sweeping generalisation, and you're clearly intelligient enough to know better.. "Because the really religious devout have a way of talking a lot without ever saying anything with meaning." ..I'm sure you're aware that not all devout people do this, and also, just because you might not be able to see where someone is coming from, doesn't mean that their statement doesn't mean anything, it just means nothing to some people but something to at least that person, if not others.
-
startingover
I personally don't see any disrepect and am totally into the discussion. There have been a ton of threads like this and although the persons discussing never change their viewpoints, others reading it can sure be enlightened, like I was many years ago.
-
tec
Thanks for sharing that, it means a lot. Total dependence on a man-made organisation is an idea that's abhorrent to jw's, and yet that is what is essentially taught from birth for some of us, without realising it
You're welcome. I think jw's do a great many things that they denounce and preach against. They just don't see that. Once clear of them, a person's eyes tend to open and even this becomes clear. But before then? Blind guides.
I would like to respond to a couple points raised earlier, if I may. Don't worry, QO... there is no anger in me. I could hazard a guess and tell you that there is none in Shelby either, but I will let her speak for herself. Jonathan, I don't know very well. But please don't be concerned. You have started an interesting and thoughtful thread.
To contrast this with the previous view, this means that all the muslims, atheists, buddhists, hindus ect that do not believe in christ are not lacking in reason, or evidence, but rather they as people are in some way defective or more wicked because jesus isn't in their lives. This revealed knowledge and relationship they must have rejected in their wickedness.
I understand that it might mean this to you, and some others, but it does not mean this at all. I do not believe it (and I know that Shelby does not as well) Because it implies that a person is super 'good' or 'special', which then earned them the right to have Jesus in their lives. Which is not the case. The only thing you need, to hear, is faith that you can hear. Not always so easy to come by... and a lot of things can get in the way, including the belief that such things are impossible. Some also might think that they want to hear, but they don't REALLY want to hear... or they want to hear an affirmation of something specific, and so are only looking to hear THAT, and nothing that contradicts it. So maybe they DO hear, but ignore it, or disregard it as random thoughts or whatever.
Why does the Hindu never feel the presence of christ in his life? Why does the skeptical atheist calling out for a messiah to reveal himself never hear back from one?
Like I said above, faith... or rather lack of faith. A Hindu is not likely listening for Christ, because to a Hindu, Jesus might have been a man who died a long time ago. Same for an atheist.
Just a thought, or rather a question, I guess: Do you think an atheist would call out for the messiah, out of love? Or as more of a test?
If Jesus wanted to have this relationship with people, then it must be the person's fault for not having that relationship. There is something fundementally wrong with that individual, be it their hautiness, their pride, their stubborness, their idolatry, something.
Sometimes, probably. I would think lack of faith, more though. Not because they're bad and someone with faith is good. Someone without faith just might be listening to someone else's voice - such as all those who say such things are not possible, or try to get someone to listen to them, and not Christ.
Otherwise Jesus would be in their lives. In this view one's beliefs have nothing to do with their geography, culture, philosophy, education, but rather whether or not they are righteous enough to have christ in their lives. This smacks of the witness view point of demonizing anyone who disagrees with them. To not accept their beliefs is a result of a defect in the individual.
One's beliefs have very much to do with geography, culture, philosophy, education. But we are the ones responsible for teaching 'our' people what to believe, think, do... and what is possible, or impossible... so isn't that on us?
Even so, there are some who Christ knows, even if they do not know Him. Because they are doing and loving as He taught, by nature.
Peace to you,
Tammy
