Apologetics: witnessing to atheists

[GWH]

I want much rather prefer your own words thank you. Who is Jesus to you.?

Those ARE my words!!

 

[rewriter]

The message in the A&E story/parable Sin includes that sin begins by choosing wrongly to ignore GW, which is immoral inwardly and will manifest outwardly in various evil or immoral actions/chain sinning unless/until confessed instead of denied or blamed on someone else, including the devil.

The possibility of choosing wrongly was created by God when He provided the option of eating or not eating the forbidden fruit aka MFW, which was good, but it was wrong/wicked for A&E to make evil actual by ignoring GW.

I do not understand your question about the unique self/false entity.

I would assume you are a parent, and if not then you have at least been around friends who have been parents. For roughly the first 7 months of life an infant tends to mirror the emotions of those around them. This becomes even more obvious when the infant begins to recognize familiar faces. At that point, diapers that need changed or bellies that need filled get forgotten when a familiar face appears, just as if the infant knows that the discomfort is about to vanish and is thus no longer an issue. A fall and banged head will prompt howls of discomfort, but how long those howls continue depends on the emotions of the person holding the infant. A calm stranger holding for instance can rapidly quiet the howls, but a familiar person holding who is concerned about possible injuries will reproduce the howls. Passing the infant back and forth will confirm that the howls are linked to who is holding the infant.

This begins to change around 7 months of age, the same time frame when the infant begins to notice their hands and that their hands can do things like knock something down. The night terrors also begin about this age, screams in the middle of the night for no apparent reason that are hard to silence unless the person holding the infant is calm.

Now what changes about age 7 months? Psychology finds that the concept of personhood seems to begin about that time, the concept that the individual is a separate entity. And this separate entity, especially at 7 months, is vulnerable to any number of problems. Uncomfortable diapers or empty stomachs cannot be dealt with alone the dark is huge and especially it is unclear if any other benevolent being is out there, the helpless infant is alone and WAAA!!! And if when a comforter appears they are concerned why then there must really be a reason to be afraid. Now remember from A&E, they ate of the tree and realized that they were naked, or more literally defenseless, they were alone, not alone together but two alone entities, equally unable to know what dangers might be around them and they sought to hide. What had physically changed, nothing, but psychologically the change was that they no longer perceived themselves as connected to the rest of creation and God.

Modern physics recognizes that all of creation is interconnected and that it is impossible to do anything to another person without affecting oneself. That which you do to another, you do to yourself or perhaps put as "do unto others what you wish done unto you." Sin is then not the moral action but the false perception that one is separate, aka, the ego or self. Now, given that you have accepted that your image of yourself is real, not something that you created about age 7 months and have continued to maintain and "improve" over time, are you willing to lose this dead thing that you created and return to the spiritual truth that you are connected to the rest of creation? Note, the instinctive reaction of this false self is to deny that it is a false self and find reasons to challenge this revelation, to do anything to preserve and protect itself, but it is a single specific lie that every human chooses to believe and thus fits Romans 1:25. Now unless you have a better single specific lie to fit this passage, I think it stands.

 

[CS1]

Below is what God, Christ and the HS are to me expressed as a/my creed:

1. There is a/one all-loving and just Lord or God (Deut. 6:4, John 3:16, 2Thes. 1:6), who is both able (2Tim. 1:12) and willing (1Tim. 2:3-4, Ezek. 33:11) to provide all morally accountable human beings salvation or heaven—a wonderful life full of love, joy and peace forever.
2. Human beings are selfish or sinful (Rom. 3:23, 2Tim. 3:2-4, Col. 3:5), miserable (Gal. 5:19-21), and hopeless (Eph. 2:12) or hell-bound at the judgment (Matt. 23:33 & 25:46) when they reject God’s salvation (John 3:18, Rom. 2:5-11).

3. Jesus is God’s Messiah/Christ and incarnate Son, the way that God has chosen (John 3:16, Acts 16:30-31, Phil. 2:9-11) of providing salvation by means of his atoning death on the cross for the payment of the penalty for the sins of humanity (Rom. 3:22-25 & 5:9-11), followed by his resurrection to reign in heaven (1Cor. 15:14-28).
4. Thus, every person who hears the NT Gospel needs to repent and accept God’s justification in Jesus as Christ/Messiah the Lord or Supreme Commander (Luke 2:11, John 14:6, Acts 16:31), which means trying to obey (Phil. 3:12, 1John 1:8) His commandment to love one another (Matt. 22:37-40, John 13:35, Rom. 13:9)—forever (Matt. 10:22, Psa. 113:2).

5. Then God’s Holy Spirit will establish a saving relationship with those who freely accept Him (Rev. 3:20) that will eventually achieve heaven when by means of persevering in learning Truth/God’s Word/sanctification everyone cooperates fully with His will (John 14:6, 17&26, Rom. 8:6-17, Gal. 6:7-9, Eph. 1:13-14, Heb. 10:36, 12:1, Jam. 1:2-4).
6. This creed summarizes revelation of the NT Gospel/Truth (Matt. 26:13, John 14:6), which fulfilled the OT revelation (Matt. 5:17, John 19:30, Heb. 7:11-10:10) and culminates the search for salvation by souls who know only general revelation (Rom. 1:20, 2:14-16, Matt. 7:12). Seeking begins when souls love truth/repent of false beliefs (2Thes. 2:10&13, Matt. 4:17, 7:7), which is the Way to eternal life God wills, who is the Lord Jesus (Matt. 7:14, John 1:14, 4:24, 14:6). Lacking this love leads to believing lies and debauchery (Matt. 7:6, Rom. 1:18&25-26, 2Thes. 2:11-12).

I am not interested in your creed, I am wanting to hear your overcoming Testimony and what Jesus means to you. In Laymen's terms

 

[GWH]

I would assume you are a parent, and if not then you have at least been around friends who have been parents. For roughly the first 7 months of life an infant tends to mirror the emotions of those around them. This becomes even more obvious when the infant begins to recognize familiar faces. At that point, diapers that need changed or bellies that need filled get forgotten when a familiar face appears, just as if the infant knows that the discomfort is about to vanish and is thus no longer an issue. A fall and banged head will prompt howls of discomfort, but how long those howls continue depends on the emotions of the person holding the infant. A calm stranger holding for instance can rapidly quiet the howls, but a familiar person holding who is concerned about possible injuries will reproduce the howls. Passing the infant back and forth will confirm that the howls are linked to who is holding the infant.

This begins to change around 7 months of age, the same time frame when the infant begins to notice their hands and that their hands can do things like knock something down. The night terrors also begin about this age, screams in the middle of the night for no apparent reason that are hard to silence unless the person holding the infant is calm.

Now what changes about age 7 months? Psychology finds that the concept of personhood seems to begin about that time, the concept that the individual is a separate entity. And this separate entity, especially at 7 months, is vulnerable to any number of problems. Uncomfortable diapers or empty stomachs cannot be dealt with alone the dark is huge and especially it is unclear if any other benevolent being is out there, the helpless infant is alone and WAAA!!! And if when a comforter appears they are concerned why then there must really be a reason to be afraid. Now remember from A&E, they ate of the tree and realized that they were naked, or more literally defenseless, they were alone, not alone together but two alone entities, equally unable to know what dangers might be around them and they sought to hide. What had physically changed, nothing, but psychologically the change was that they no longer perceived themselves as connected to the rest of creation and God.

Modern physics recognizes that all of creation is interconnected and that it is impossible to do anything to another person without affecting oneself. That which you do to another, you do to yourself or perhaps put as "do unto others what you wish done unto you." Sin is then not the moral action but the false perception that one is separate, aka, the ego or self. Now, given that you have accepted that your image of yourself is real, not something that you created about age 7 months and have continued to maintain and "improve" over time, are you willing to lose this dead thing that you created and return to the spiritual truth that you are connected to the rest of creation? Note, the instinctive reaction of this false self is to deny that it is a false self and find reasons to challenge this revelation, to do anything to preserve and protect itself, but it is a single specific lie that every human chooses to believe and thus fits Romans 1:25. Now unless you have a better single specific lie to fit this passage, I think it stands.

What your post prompts me to say is that Baptists speak of the stage of accountability at about age eight,
when a soul can conceive of sin against God, which is comparable to the stage of A&E in Gen. 3. Your last paragraph seems problematic except for the reference to the golden rule, which represents the stage of moral accountability.

 

[rewriter]

What your post prompts me to say is that Baptists speak of the stage of accountability at about age eight,
when a soul can conceive of sin against God, which is comparable to the stage of A&E in Gen. 3. Your last paragraph seems problematic except for the reference to the golden rule, which represents the stage of moral accountability.

The age of accountability is nor supported by scripture which credits a sin nature as going back to birth, although given that it is often claimed that children were considered less than full persons until age 3 years that exact statement might be questioned. But clearly scripture recognizes responsibility for sin safely before age 8.

 

[GWH]

The age of accountability is nor supported by scripture which credits a sin nature as going back to birth, although given that it is often claimed that children were considered less than full persons until age 3 years that exact statement might be questioned. But clearly scripture recognizes responsibility for sin safely before age 8.

You will note that I said "about". Perhaps you matured psychologically faster than others and so sinned sooner.

 

[rewriter]

You will note that I said "about". Perhaps you matured psychologically faster than others and so sinned sooner.

Given that from studies all humans have the same experiences at about the same age, it would seem that psychological maturation is similar enough that it would be exceedingly difficult to assign an earlier or later age to the necessary maturation, unless it was being done in an attempt to avoid the implications of the evidence

 

[GWH]

Given that from studies all humans have the same experiences at about the same age, it would seem that psychological maturation is similar enough that it would be exceedingly difficult to assign an earlier or later age to the necessary maturation, unless it was being done in an attempt to avoid the implications of the evidence

I don't know if those studies included me, who realized my sin and need to profess my faith in Jesus at about eight.
Before that by a few years I realized when I disobeyed my parents and needed to admit my doing wrong. I was a very compliant child, who always loved my parents and God/Jesus--imperfectly of course.

 

[rewriter]

I don't know if those studies included me, who realized my sin and need to profess my faith in Jesus at about eight.
Before that by a few years I realized when I disobeyed my parents and needed to admit my doing wrong. I was a very compliant child, who always loved my parents and God/Jesus--imperfectly of course.

Your awareness of your sin does not necessarily correspond to your engaging in sin. You are making a false assumption. Disobeying your parents is listed as a violation of the ten commandments for example and children are known to be very vocal with their "NO" during their "terrible two's", even as they might not be aware of their violation of the commandment.

Or are you claiming that the people who never heard of God and His commandments never sinned because of their ignorance just as you seem to be claiming that you were sinless before you became aware of your sin?

 

[GWH]

Your awareness of your sin does not necessarily correspond to your engaging in sin. You are making a false assumption. Disobeying your parents is listed as a violation of the ten commandments for example and children are known to be very vocal with their "NO" during their "terrible two's", even as they might not be aware of their violation of the commandment.

Or are you claiming that the people who never heard of God and His commandments never sinned because of their ignorance just as you seem to be claiming that you were sinless before you became aware of your sin?

Maybe, but my parents did not think my twos were terrible.

Regarding ignorance: Paul taught that everyone able to contemplate creation should perceive God's power and love and are therefore without excuse for their sins.
Presumably those too young to do such or too mentally unable to do so are not accountable, but Scripture is silent regarding their fate. Will it be the same as animals? or will they wind up in heaven?

 

[rewriter]

Maybe, but my parents did not think my twos were terrible.

Regarding ignorance: Paul taught that everyone able to contemplate creation should perceive God's power and love and are therefore without excuse for their sins.
Presumably those too young to do such or too mentally unable to do so are not accountable, but Scripture is silent regarding their fate. Will it be the same as animals? or will they wind up in heaven?

I would ask you parents, assuming it is possible to do, if your "terrible twos" were a reality or if it was just what they expected and that you were no worse than the typical child during that time where the toddler tends to assert their independence.

And you are missing the point of the infant's pre-7-month stage, where they exhibit behavior consistent with what can be known of creation, behavior that changes after this point.

And an argument from silence to support your preferred interpretation is meaningless. You might note that I, at least, have attempted to find support for my position that is also consistent with scripture but also consistent with non-scriptural sources.

And a challenge to you, as you seem to accept Paul's statement. Romans 1:25 uses the exact same definite article before the words for "truth" and "lie", so was Paul referring to just any truth and any lie, or a specific truth and thus a specific lie. And if Paul was referring to specifics, what single universally accepted lie was he referring to, and please support your answer.

 

[GWH]

I would ask you parents, assuming it is possible to do, if your "terrible twos" were a reality or if it was just what they expected and that you were no worse than the typical child during that time where the toddler tends to assert their independence.

And you are missing the point of the infant's pre-7-month stage, where they exhibit behavior consistent with what can be known of creation, behavior that changes after this point.

And an argument from silence to support your preferred interpretation is meaningless. You might note that I, at least, have attempted to find support for my position that is also consistent with scripture but also consistent with non-scriptural sources.

And a challenge to you, as you seem to accept Paul's statement. Romans 1:25 uses the exact same definite article before the words for "truth" and "lie", so was Paul referring to just any truth and any lie, or a specific truth and thus a specific lie. And if Paul was referring to specifics, what single universally accepted lie was he referring to, and please support your answer.

You lost me, or I lost you, so let us review:

I said regarding ignorance that Paul taught everyone able to contemplate creation should perceive God's power and love and are therefore without excuse for their sins (Rom. 1:20.

Then I speculated that those too young to do such or too mentally unable to do so are not accountable (=damnable), and I noted that Scripture is silent regarding their fate.

Finally, I wondered whether the fate of those folks will be the same as animals, (which pass out of existence), or will they wind up in heaven?

Regarding what Paul referred to as truth and lie, I think Rom. 1:16-23 indicates truth included the Gospel and that God created the world thus deserves glorification/worship. The lie is indicated in v.22-25, which includes idolatry and lust.

 

[rewriter]

You lost me, or I lost you, so let us review:

I said regarding ignorance that Paul taught everyone able to contemplate creation should perceive God's power and love and are therefore without excuse for their sins (Rom. 1:20.

Then I speculated that those too young to do such or too mentally unable to do so are not accountable (=damnable), and I noted that Scripture is silent regarding their fate.

Finally, I wondered whether the fate of those folks will be the same as animals, (which pass out of existence), or will they wind up in heaven?

Regarding what Paul referred to as truth and lie, I think Rom. 1:16-23 indicates truth included the Gospel and that God created the world thus deserves glorification/worship. The lie is indicated in v.22-25, which includes idolatry and lust.

Scripture is silent on many points, and you point out some of them. It then becomes important how one deals with the silence. Does one decide based on their personal preference or does one seek insights from creation?

As for Romans 1:22-25, is it revealing the causes or the effects? And if the cause is idolatry, what is the idol or is it just any old idol, which again might not fit with the definite article.

You seem to wish to make the choice for Sin to be a conscious act, I see it as an unconscious act fueled by the way creation exists. That is I see creation as encouraging humanity to sin, in order to learn why sin is bad. My logic and the evidence for this is extensive and not conducive to presenting here, once again pages and pages with numerous references. But one key reference, that you will likely not understand, is Psalm 23.

But I will again note, in a different manner, the problem with scripture interpreting scripture. If scripture is true, it need not be verified, rather it is the standard that can verify other things. Thus, all the findings of archeology that agree with scripture are not proof that scripture is accurate, rather they are proven accurate by scripture. That which might be wrong cannot correct what is correct, the correction can only come from what is already correct. I argue that archeology confirms scripture, I can see the evidence and check to see if there is some reason to suspect it was falsified. When the evidence holds up, it supports scripture. Now if scripture is correct already, before this evidence is found, then it is the standard that confirms the findings unless there is obvious evidence of falsification, and no clear reason to look to closely at it if it agrees with scripture.

In the case of the Hezekiah tunnel, does scripture indicate that the inscription is correct, even though scripture never mentions it, or does the inscription, that fits with the proper time frame, confirm that scripture is correct when it says a tunnel was dug.

 

[rewriter]

GWH, another point occurs to me, 1 John 5:8. Scripture interpreting scripture has issues with this specific verse, and commentators come up with some explanations that simply do not fit the available facts. However, my understanding, which took a 25-page paper which was accepted through peer review for an international conference and is listed in at least one "essential bibliography", fits with the early ending of Mark (16:8), the plausible first ending of John (20:30-31) and Galatians 3:1. Support outside of scripture comes from Herodian numismatics, the long version of Acts, statements by Justin Martyr and Tertullian as well as a "clearly irrelevant" history that includes details that only fit with the mid-30's CE and are being presented as current events in the same portion with the passage that supports my interpretation.

Now which understanding do you think would have the better support, and why?

 

[GWH]

Scripture is silent on many points, and you point out some of them. It then becomes important how one deals with the silence. Does one decide based on their personal preference or does one seek insights from creation?

As for Romans 1:22-25, is it revealing the causes or the effects? And if the cause is idolatry, what is the idol or is it just any old idol, which again might not fit with the definite article.

You seem to wish to make the choice for Sin to be a conscious act, I see it as an unconscious act fueled by the way creation exists. That is I see creation as encouraging humanity to sin, in order to learn why sin is bad. My logic and the evidence for this is extensive and not conducive to presenting here, once again pages and pages with numerous references. But one key reference, that you will likely not understand, is Psalm 23.

But I will again note, in a different manner, the problem with scripture interpreting scripture. If scripture is true, it need not be verified, rather it is the standard that can verify other things. Thus, all the findings of archeology that agree with scripture are not proof that scripture is accurate, rather they are proven accurate by scripture. That which might be wrong cannot correct what is correct, the correction can only come from what is already correct. I argue that archeology confirms scripture, I can see the evidence and check to see if there is some reason to suspect it was falsified. When the evidence holds up, it supports scripture. Now if scripture is correct already, before this evidence is found, then it is the standard that confirms the findings unless there is obvious evidence of falsification, and no clear reason to look to closely at it if it agrees with scripture.

In the case of the Hezekiah tunnel, does scripture indicate that the inscription is correct, even though scripture never mentions it, or does the inscription, that fits with the proper time frame, confirm that scripture is correct when it says a tunnel was dug.

When Scripture is problematic/contradictory, I triangulate from the guiding teachings: God is love and God is just to arrive at a good interpretation or harmonization, so when Scripture is silent I apply the same hermeneutic, hoping I am guided by the Spirit of truth or employing divine logic.

Regarding silence about the fate of babies and mentally disabled, I have no insight. On the one hand the entire Bible speaks of sin and salvation in terms of being morally accountable for conscious acts, so there is no reason for them to be either saved or condemned. On the other hand it seems sad that for them not to go to heaven--but then I have heard folks wish pets could be in heaven.

I agree that the structure of creation promotes the probability of sinning, and God intends creation and the painful consequences of errors to teach people their need to repent and to seek salvation via accepting Him as Shepherd.

Even if Scripture were perfectly true/inerrant, it would need to be verified or tested, because human interpretation is fallible. One of the tests would be how it compares with the other manifestation of GW: Creation per Gen.1. Thus, Scripture and science including archaeology are mutual proofs/confirmations.

I have no idea about the Hezekiah tunnel, but I like alluding to the fictitious book of Hezekiah as the source of various maxims, such as "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure", which seem true and thus para-Scripture.

Over...

 

[rewriter]

When Scripture is problematic/contradictory, I triangulate from the guiding teachings: God is love and God is just to arrive at a good interpretation or harmonization, so when Scripture is silent I apply the same hermeneutic, hoping I am guided by the Spirit of truth or employing divine logic.

Regarding silence about the fate of babies and mentally disabled, I have no insight. On the one hand the entire Bible speaks of sin and salvation in terms of being morally accountable for conscious acts, so there is no reason for them to be either saved or condemned. On the other hand it seems sad that for them not to go to heaven--but then I have heard folks wish pets could be in heaven.

I agree that the structure of creation promotes the probability of sinning, and God intends creation and the painful consequences of errors to teach people their need to repent and to seek salvation via accepting Him as Shepherd.

Even if Scripture were perfectly true/inerrant, it would need to be verified or tested, because human interpretation is fallible. One of the tests would be how it compares with the other manifestation of GW: Creation per Gen.1. Thus, Scripture and science including archaeology are mutual proofs/confirmations.

I have no idea about the Hezekiah tunnel, but I like alluding to the fictitious book of Hezekiah as the source of various maxims, such as "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure", which seem true and thus para-Scripture.

Over...

Then we agree on testing scripture, if not to prove that it itself is true, but to check that our interpretation of it is correct.

From my examinations, I find that some aspects of scripture make the most sense, given evidence from other sources, if the way certain things were expressed in the NT and tradition is if they were "adjusted" in light of Rome winning the 1st Jewish War and thereby gaining absolute and potentially fatal censorship over Christian writings. One notable example would be absolving the Romans of any anti-Christian bias. Tiberius seems to have been pro-Christian, Nero sort of flip-flopped but Vitellius and Vespasian (and his sons) were not fond of Christians (and they all had credible reasons) despite the best efforts of some Christians to make nice with Vespasian. But at that point we are getting into obscure evidence, including some from classical literature as well as numismatics.

 

[GWH]

Then we agree on testing scripture, if not to prove that it itself is true, but to check that our interpretation of it is correct.

From my examinations, I find that some aspects of scripture make the most sense, given evidence from other sources, if the way certain things were expressed in the NT and tradition is if they were "adjusted" in light of Rome winning the 1st Jewish War and thereby gaining absolute and potentially fatal censorship over Christian writings. One notable example would be absolving the Romans of any anti-Christian bias. Tiberius seems to have been pro-Christian, Nero sort of flip-flopped but Vitellius and Vespasian (and his sons) were not fond of Christians (and they all had credible reasons) despite the best efforts of some Christians to make nice with Vespasian. But at that point we are getting into obscure evidence, including some from classical literature as well as numismatics.

Yes, as correct as reasonably possible for finite and fallible truthseekers; we cannot avoid walking by faith.

I focus on the main aspect of Scripture, which is God's requirement for salvation,
and I am not as interested as you in the "other sources" you mentioned, although
I may note them in the HOB thread, and I briefly compare major other faiths in this thread.

 

[GWH]

I am not interested in your creed, I am wanting to hear your overcoming Testimony and what Jesus means to you. In Laymen's terms

My creed IS my main testimony, in Biblical terms, but I will answer other questions you may have.
Jesus means salvation to me--the reason for/meaning of creation.

What is your overcoming testimony and what does Jesus mean to you?

 

[LTL]

My testimony.
Jesus is my friend.
He stands with me when I am wrong.
He stands with me when I am right.
He allows me to grow into a better person.
He allows me to be a better friend.
He shows me the mistakes that I make.
He supports me to correct myself.
Jesus is my friend.

 

[GWH]

My testimony.
Jesus is my friend.
He stands with me when I am wrong.
He stands with me when I am right.
He allows me to grow into a better person.
He allows me to be a better friend.
He shows me the mistakes that I make.
He supports me to correct myself.
Jesus is my friend.

Amen! That reminds me of a favorite old hymn I led troops in singing when I preached as a chaplain:

1 What a friend we have in Jesus,
all our sins and griefs to bear!
What a privilege to carry
everything to God in prayer!
O what peace we often forfeit,
O what needless pain we bear,
all because we do not carry
everything to God in prayer!

2 Have we trials and temptations?
Is there trouble anywhere?
We should never be discouraged;
take it to the Lord in prayer!
Can we find a friend so faithful
who will all our sorrows share?
Jesus knows our every weakness;
take it to the Lord in prayer!

3 Are we weak and heavy laden,
cumbered with a load of care?
Precious Savior, still our refuge--
take it to the Lord in prayer!
Do your friends despise, forsake you?
Take it to the Lord in prayer!
In his arms he'll take and shield you;
you will find a solace there.