Rex
>So, you agree you might not be right? That, maybe, another version of Christianity is "righter"? Or maybe another religion altogether? Or maybe us horrid humanists?
Let me put it this way: I have a relationship with the risen Lord. I can only assert that though I do believe it with all of my heart. I cannot prove that to anyone else. I can and will point to facts that I believe back up my assertions.
So far so fair, given that we will inevitably disagree on interpretation of facts or whether some things are facts.
How does your belief structure allow you to understand and deal with a person with a similarly styled but incompatable belief? For example if someone said;
"I have a relationship with the Lord Vishnu. I can only assert that though I do believe it with all of my heart. I cannot prove that to anyone else. I can and will point to facts that I believe back up my assertions."
... where is the difference between the demonstrable accuracy of your faith and theirs?
Likewise, if someone is also a Christian and claims also a realtionship with Jesus, but has a different set of beliefs (for example, more liberal ones where much scripture is seen as allegorical or influenced by the writer's culture, but where the belivers faith in Jesus is no way deminished)
... where is the difference between the demonstrable accuracy of your faith and theirs?
What I am driving at, or course, is that as far as FAITH and belief-based paradigms (as distinct from fact-based paradigms) go, ignoring subjective validation (that many belivers will claim to) as it is unverifiable, one is left with an awful lot of different faiths, each held with equal sincerity, most of which are incompatable with each other.
What makes you think that YOUR relationship with Jesus is so much better that you are right where others who claim this relationship are wrong, or what makes you think others claiming to a personal relationship with Jesus or Vishunu are lying and you are not in any way decieved? That's exactly what some of them think!
I do not accept any assertion that limits my use of history, science or the logical reasoning that is the basis for hermeneutics with regards to 'why I believe as I do'. It is my obligation to use whatever ethical means to defend my beliefs.
- Was you saying you had studied evolution and then showing you really have a very inadequate knowledge of even the basic theory an "ethical means" to defend your beliefs? You do realise if you accept the point I am making here (i.e.; don't bullshit me), then we can out this to one side?
- Do you feel suggesting that evolutionary theory is in crisis and will shortly be displaced almost world-wide by ID is a reasonable assertion to make when you've not been able to back this assertion up?
- Do you feel making the automatic assumption (as you do) that if modern science and the the Bible disagree, then the Bible is automatically right is reasonable, even when with some instances (for example the Flood) it is provable beyond reasonable doubt (pyramids, bristlecone pines) that no global flood could have occured at the dates the Bible specifies?
It is your persistant and intractable refusal to accept what the majority of informed people accept as facts if those facts conflict with YOUR INTERPRETATION of the Bible, it is the very fact that you "do not ... accept any assertion that limits [your] use of history [and] science", even when you have to ignore history or twist science that red flags your beliefs for being as personal and unprovable as they are.
Yet still you assume you are right.
>So what if we don't validate your paradigm? You accept your paradigm FROM FAITH, not evidence, don't you?
The beginning of my faith comes from the historicity of Jesus Christ. It is not circular reasoning. It begins with a person and not a notion. See R.C. Sproul for that basic reasoning.
Whether Jesus was historical is scarsely relevent. What if all he was was a fire-brand who got nailed to a tree, and THEN had his life "borrowed" by "men of faith" who wrote all the bits that made him a candidate for the Messiah? Add in a few centuries of reasonable growth, and then the happy coincidence that as the Roman Empire developed, the god-head of Ceaser ceased to be credible to men, so a new state religion, to keep the diverse Empire together was needed, and Christianity beat-out the competitors as it was more inclusive (slaves, women, non-millitary) than other candidates?
What is relevent is objective proof of Jesus' divinity. That you can't provide.
And the eye-witness accounts; do me a favour. Look at the bullshit over the plane that hit the Pentagon, the well-subscribed to conspiracy theories which hold together when made by those making them. If it is possible to manufacture well-subscribed to ficticious beliefs in the 21st Century with modern news-media, I think doing the same in the 1st Century would be easier.
I do see what you are saying though and I am not superior to anyone here. I appreciate your outreach to me.
And I appreciate you actually taking what I am saying onboard - I don't expect a "Road FROM Damascus moment".
I realize that there is subjective evidence for my faith in Christ and I cannot prove that He is God. I can only show you my reasoning and try to convince you (and others) to investigate the case for Christ, the case for creation and the case for faith......the author, Lee Strobel would be an excellent read to get you started.
Look, individual authors will not suddenly make me go jolly gee. It's like me thinking pointing out "the pyramid at Geza was there before the dates of the Global Flood therefore the Bible is not accurate as obviously the Flood didn't happen" is suddenly going to make you give-up your beliefs.
What are Strobel's arguments to explain how, if evolution isn't so, how the available evidence fits it so well, both current and ancient? I know ANYONE can pick at loose threads, but the wharp and weft of modern scientific theory is so vast that these little picks, even when made accurately and knowledgably, only show we don't know it all yet but we got a pretty damn good general idea (as when a piece is picked at, the rest isn't at risk of unravelling).
You also seem to think that believing YOUR way is the only credible way. There are MILLIONS who believe in Jesus, but just happen to believe the reason modern science and the creation account clash is that the creation account was an allegory cobbled together by a goat herd.
It is your refusal to acceept this as a even a possibility - when to do so wouldn't deminish your faith one iota (unless you are willing to argue those that do believe this have less faith) - I find hardest to understand. It's like you don't want god unless he's like he is portrayed in the Bible - when you can't definatively prove the Bible is an accurate portrayal.
I don't know if you will like them but there they are!
I like them because we are actually talking decently.
