Two witnesses (Bible & Church) and the one who listens

[daddy1gringo]

and again we come to the point that there are many people convinced by "something in their heart", beyond all proof or disproof, that their vision of god(s) is the real one.

which has always been my problem with belief/faith.

Case in point. We're so used to thinking that way that we don't recognize it.

Do you see how that's exactly what I was talking about? Confusion over specifically what the "something" is used as a reason to reject the existence of "something".

Admittedly, that's easier to do because a lot of believers, for example the ones you're talking about, indulge in the same kind of sloppy thinking: confusing the subjective reasons to believe that there is something more, with a reason to commit to one "truth" or explanation about its nature.

As I said, I think an honest and clear investigation will lead one to Jesus, but if you don't make this distinction I'm talking about, once we're done with the investigation you could just shift back to, "Well, it's all just fairy tales anyway. I'm a man of science and reason, and believe only what I see."

[PLAYER57832]

and again we come to the point that there are many people convinced by "something in their heart", beyond all proof or disproof, that their vision of god(s) is the real one.

which has always been my problem with belief/faith.

I, too have a big issue with folks who want to say "faith above all else", which really translates to MY version of faith, the way I see the Bible(or any other religious reference .. K'ran, etc.), the way I have been taught to see the Bible is to be believed over any other kind of evidence, regardless. These people are fanatics, plain and simple. AND, regardless of the belief, they cause great and serious harm. Usually, they make small errors, which because of their intensity compound.

This is true if a man starts by thinking the world might end at any time and so should prepare his family (a reasonably sane thought, not too harmful in itself) and then moves that to suretty that he knows exactly when the world will end OR, knows what must happen for that to occur and then moves to either deciding he isn't going to make his family wait for the perdition OR that because he understands all the steps and a lot of people do not, he needs to work to ensure that these steps are accomplished.

Right now, for example, there are end-timers who will give money to Jews wanting to migrate to Israel, because they believe that the Bible specifies that the end times will come when the Jews are returned to Israel. Now this is a relatively harmless act (though many Palestinians would disagree, of course). However, there are other issues that are far less innocuous. I won't get into any specifics here, but my basic point is that you HAVE to temper faith with basic reason, always.

This is part of the distinction between the Roman Catholic and Protestant Church. Protestants believe that each person is vested with the ability to reason, to think and to relate to God. Roman Catholics (to grossly, grossly simplify) believe in reason, too, but also believe that certain people, specifically the priests, are vested with greater knowledge/ are closer to God than others. This culminates in the Pope, who is supposed to be second only to Christ in his purity and adherance to, understanding of the faith.

I won't say either track is free of problems. They are just different. However, I personally like the balance that we have here in the US. Basically, everybody has the right to think and believe and more or less act as they will, as long as they don't cause harm to other people. That bit about "causing harm to other people" changes in time and is constantly debated, but as a principal, I believe it does stand.

Within that farmework, then, we can each debate what we believe and think to our "hearts content". Within Christianity, what the Bible means and its significance is naturally central to any debate. However, how we have seen the Bible, how we read various passages has absolutely and completely changed with time.

In some cases, things that have been passed down "through tradition" are now understood differently, in part because of archeological verificaiton. Science does not correct the Bible, but it definitely can correct and clarify misunderstandings of and confusions within the Bible. For example, many people still say that Moses parted the Red Sea. IN reality, it was almost certainly the Sea of Reeds. This is a different area, an area that actually matches descriptions far more readily than the Red sea. There is even archeological evidence that such an event might have happened (remains of chariots, etc.). Similarly, science has clarified confusions over various other issues.

[jonesthecurl]

and again we come to the point that there are many people convinced by "something in their heart", beyond all proof or disproof, that their vision of god(s) is the real one.

which has always been my problem with belief/faith.

Case in point. We're so used to thinking that way that we don't recognize it.

Do you see how that's exactly what I was talking about? Confusion over specifically what the "something" is used as a reason to reject the existence of "something".

Admittedly, that's easier to do because a lot of believers, for example the ones you're talking about, indulge in the same kind of sloppy thinking: confusing the subjective reasons to believe that there is something more, with a reason to commit to one "truth" or explanation about its nature.

As I said, I think an honest and clear investigation will lead one to Jesus, but if you don't make this distinction I'm talking about, once we're done with the investigation you could just shift back to, "Well, it's all just fairy tales anyway. I'm a man of science and reason, and believe only what I see."

But, see, if Mr A has a something that tells him to believe in Allah, and Mrs B has a something that tells her to believe in version 17(a) of Jesus, and MS C has a something that tells her there's a whole 'nother true bit of the bible set in America, how is an outsider to judge the relative merits of the "somethings"?

Surely not by the degree of conviction - 'cos then the people who hear voices that tell them to kill all the whores, or the guys that think they'll go to heaven by strapping a bomb to themselves will take the prize.

[daddy1gringo]

But, see, if Mr A has a something that tells him to believe in Allah, and Mrs B has a something that tells her to believe in version 17(a) of Jesus, and MS C has a something that tells her there's a whole 'nother true bit of the bible set in America, how is an outsider to judge the relative merits of the "somethings"?

Surely not by the degree of conviction - 'cos then the people who hear voices that tell them to kill all the whores, or the guys that think they'll go to heaven by strapping a bomb to themselves will take the prize.

Sorry it has taken so long to get back to you on this, but besides working 2 jobs just now, I am confused about where you were coming from.

You are talking about the relative merits of different belief systems. As I see it there are 4 different things you may be saying: (I'm not trying to be funny or sarcastic about any of them)
1. You are agreeing that there is "something" as I describe, and are moving on to phase 2 to challenge my insistence that a particular one is "the truth".
2. The same as (1) but rather than actually agreeing, you're just saying "Let's say for the sake of argument that I agree..."
3. You haven't gotten my point about the need to distinguish between, on one hand, cause to believe that there is "something", and on the other, reasons to believe specifically in any particular understanding of it.
4. You have gotten that point but disagree. In other words, you insist that the myriad conflicting beliefs are a good reason to conclude that there is no "something".

Each of those positions requires a different answer, and a post that gives all of them would take time which I don't have until my second job ends in a few weeks. If you're interested, please clarify. If not, I hope to get around to the inclusive post sooner or later. Ziesa Pesach. -- d1g

[MeDeFe]

Well, to be fair d1g, you've in effect claimed that the divine "something" is Jesus. Either that or you will have to give up Jesus' divinity completely.

[tzor]

I think that's tzor's point. It has to be God working in your heart, independently of the written Word, to make a person receptive of it. Like what I said in the "evidence" thread: one hears the call, senses that there is "something" before he considers what the "something" is. John 6:44: "No one can come to me unless the Father, who sent me, draws Him..."

That's the "second witness" tzor was talking about, I think. Something intangible in you that turns on a light bulb when you hear it and says, "that's truth."

Sorry if I'm mis-representing your point, t-z. Would you agree with this?

Yes, that is my point; God inspires the writer and the reader.

[tzor]

But eventually you can see the proof behind DiffEQ - not so with the bible without faith.

But you can only see the proof behind DiffEq because some one has already revealed it (or discovered it, or derived it).

There are many things that we do now know yet; those things not revealed or discovered or derived. Just because we do not know of them does not mean they are any less true. So eventually ... we may know a lot more than we do now.

[daddy1gringo]

Well, to be fair d1g, you've in effect claimed that the divine "something" is Jesus. Either that or you will have to give up Jesus' divinity completely.

Well sure I proclaim that, but that's beside the point. The point is that often real progress in these discussions is short-circuited by an illogical ground-shift.

When I'm talking about reasons to believe that there is something more than what your 5 senses attest to, you, and others, often say "That doesn't prove Jesus any more than the Tao, Thor, etc." The point is: I agree with you.

What could convince a person of one thing wouldn't necessarily convince him of the other. Not necessarily. For some people it is the same; it's very personal and individual.

Take my brother and me for instance. We were raised Catholic and both wandered from it in different directions. He became an atheist; I never stopped believing in "God" but by the time I was 17 I had mixed my beliefs with such a smorgasbord of eastern mysticism, New England Transcendentalism and such that when I said I "believed in God", I didn't mean the same thing I do today. We each came into contact with people who preached the Gospel. For me, examining Jesus' claims and my own beliefs, I came to the conclusion that if I was going to be consistent with the things I valued most, I had to commit.

For my brother, I once asked him "How long was it between when you decided God even existed and when you decided to 'get saved'?" He answered "About as long as between when I'd clap my hands and when you'd hear it." For him they were the same, but I think he's pretty rare. For me, the question of whether there was "something" and of whether the "something" was Jesus were two completely different questions.

So, no, what you're saying doesn't logically follow.

[bradleybadly]

by the time I was 17 I had mixed my beliefs with such a smorgasbord of eastern mysticism, New England Transcendentalism and such that when I said I "believed in God", I didn't mean the same thing I do today. We each came into contact with people who preached the Gospel. For me, examining Jesus' claims and my own beliefs, I came to the conclusion that if I was going to be consistent with the things I valued most, I had to commit.

I generally understand what transcendentalism is but could you explain what the New England brand of that is? I've never heard of it.

Also, thank you for sharing your story. I disagree with your conclusion but it's interesting to hear how you arrived at your belief.

[daddy1gringo]

I generally understand what transcendentalism is but could you explain what the New England brand of that is? I've never heard of it.

Heh, you caught me. Far as I know it isn't any different in New England than anywhere else. I guess being a native New Englander I was taught about it as our own property. Maybe I was trying to claim credit for writers like Emerson and Hawthorne.

You know what they say: the doctrines of Unitarianism are restricted to the Fatherhood of God, the Brotherhood of Man, and the neighborhood of Boston.

[MeDeFe]

ok...

So there is "something". You say that the "something" is Jesus but that this may not be immediately obvious to those who experience the "something". You also say that an inquiry into the "something" may lead one to a completely different result than Jesus, and since this experience is, using your words, "very personal and individual" they would be every bit as right as you.

You do realize that this is indistinguishable from a person having a natural high for some reason, or from a person convincing themselves that there must be a god for the world to make sense, or from schizophrenia, or from a hundred other things. It's not just indistinguishable to an outside observer, it's indistinguishable to the person experiencing the "something".

So even if you posit a reason for religious belief that is independent of every religion in the world, it is largely meaningless. The way you have framed it one cannot determine what religion is "true" or the best from the "something". You state that in your opinion "an honest and clear investigation will lead one to Jesus", but what can you possibly offer to back that up? Merely your own belief system, you have certain preferences, convictions and ways of thinking and these will influence which things you think are more important than others, someone with other preferences would disagree, not because they're wrong, but simply because they are not identical with you.
And the very existence of the "something" itself remains as dubious than ever. No religious text can be more than an interpretation of a personal and individual experience, an experience that could have been almost anything. Reports of people having seen god or angels or demons are more likely to be fables, early horror literature, or the ramblings of a madman than a reliable record.