Apologetics: witnessing to atheists
- Thread starter GWH
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
LOL angels are spiritual beings created by God for a purpose. Angels who transgressed can't be forgiven. why? Because the Bible doesn't show any angel who was casted out can or has been forgiven. To say that you must have scripture to prove it. Not allegory. I ask you, can Satan be saved, yes or no?
angels have no salvation they obey or not. all angels were created for a specific work unto the Lord.
Title/work:
Archangels Jude 1:19 1 Thessalonians 4:16
Seraphim Isaiah 6:1–7
Cherubim Genesis 3:24; Ezekiel 10; Exodus 25:18–20
Guardian Angels Matthew 18:10 Psalms 91:11
Greek ángelos = Messager
The Angel of the LORD Exodus 3:2–6; Joshua 1:1–5
"The Bible’s angelic hierarchy includes Seraphim, Cherubim, Archangels, Guardian Angels, and the Angel of the LORD, each with unique titles and divine assignments. These roles reflect their functions in worship, protection, guidance, and the unfolding of God’s plan."
If you study church history enough you will learn that it is virtually impossible not to hold a Christian viewpoint that has not been declared heretical at one time or another. Basically, "heresy" means believing something different than is commonly accepted by some specific group. I embrace the title and will even introduce myself to some people as the resident heretic because I know I think differently than most. But when I give a full explanation of my logic, something the message length prevents in this forum, people find my views logical and compelling, even atheists approve as I present the gospel so differently than they are used to hearing.Someone pointed out to me that there might be no atheists on the CC forum, so I rephrased the OP as teaching Christians how to witness to atheists, and then later I realized that there ARE apparent heretical views expressed on CC from time to time, so I amended the OP to include them, but I know of no way to change the title--so there is confusion.
The main heresies on CC are discussed systematically in the Resolving Problematic Interpretations of Scripture thread.
I define "heresy" as doctrine that contradicts/corrupts/perverts the Gospel about God's requirement for salvation, NOT secondary disagreements. That distinction also causes confusion for some, especially those who have trouble wrapping their minds around the Christian creed all who are saved share/agree about.
It sounds as though you think angels are robots, but let us discuss that topic on the thread "How do angels jibe...?"
I will C&P it for you there.
Thanks.
Oh, howdy rew, I assume you are here to discuss an approach that begins where atheists are, so here goes:
I believe reality is interconnected or unified, so that it is not necessary to worry about where to start exploring, but I will begin by asking the following philosophical question: Is there some truth which is not debatable; which everyone believes at least implicitly and uses as a common point of departure in discussing ultimate reality?
I think there is such axiomatic truth, because in order to study reality it appears that one must (logically or implicitly) begin by assuming at least the reality of the student. Thus, absolute skepticism in philosophy is like absolute zero in physics: it serves as a hypothetical point that is not actually achieved or else nothing would happen (even in ice
.An “ism” affirms some valid part of reality. The truth represented by skepticism is that finite human beings cannot know absolutely, infallibly, perfectly or objectively. I find this truth expressed by the apostle Paul in the NT book of 1Cor. 13:9&12, “We know in part . . . We see but a poor reflection” (as in a fogged mirror).
The element of uncertainty does not prevent would-be skeptics from talking as if knowledge with some degree of confidence were possible the moment they attempt to communicate their doubts. An agnostic has “certain” assumptions at least implicitly: that truth is believable, rational and meaningful, even though unprovable or subjective.
These three affirmations seem to be a priori truth or unavoidable (beginning) beliefs:
1. Truth or reality exists. The classic expression of this belief was by Rene Descartes (d.1650): cogito ergo sum: “I think, therefore I am” (cf. Rodin’s sculpture; thinking is believing). The OT says in Exo. 3:14 that God is “I am” (the essence of existence).
2. (Objective) reality is subjectively known by seekers. David Hume (d. 1776) was a notable proponent of this opinion, and 2Cor. 5:7 expresses this truth by saying, “We live by faith, not by sight” (or proof, cf. 1Cor. 13:9&12 cited previously).
3. Reality is meaningful and communicable or able to be discussed rationally in fellowship with other truthseekers. As Isa. 1:18a (c.735 B.C.) says, “Come now, let us reason together.” Perhaps whoever invented language should be regarded as the founder of this fact, because the discussion of reality uses language as the means, and in order to communicate sufficiently for attaining agreement or unity, it is necessary to have a common language and cultural context. (I hope that as Earthlings using English these needs are met for you and me
Having established three unavoidable or axiomatic beliefs, my intent now is to discuss the logical point from which the varieties of beliefs extant in the world diverge. Only the first student or one with a tabula rasa (blank slate)—like a newly sentient child—actually starts exploring reality from the beginning. (A pre-sentient infant in the womb is completely agnostic or without knowledge of every ism.) Nevertheless, in Part II the present study “begins” in the midst of this writer’s life and learning by seeking to assume the position or condition of adult innocence (unprejudice/lack of bias).
What do you think about this Cartesian approach?
(I think we discussed this previously on about p.37, so I intend to review quickly.)
The discussion does sound familiar, as if we have covered the ground before, and so far, I agree. My emphasis is on finding what common ground I have with the unbeliever, and starting from there, and bringing scripture in only when they are ready to accept it, often late in the discussion. That is to say, we discover truth through our discussion, not by dictating that this specific source, and my personal understanding of it (even if there is a large group that tends to agree with me) is correct. No matter how large a support group one has for their understandings of some point, there is likely an equally large group that disagrees.It sounds as though you think angels are robots, but let us discuss that topic on the thread "How do angels jibe...?"
I will C&P it for you there.
Thanks.
Oh, howdy rew, I assume you are here to discuss an approach that begins where atheists are, so here goes:
I believe reality is interconnected or unified, so that it is not necessary to worry about where to start exploring, but I will begin by asking the following philosophical question: Is there some truth which is not debatable; which everyone believes at least implicitly and uses as a common point of departure in discussing ultimate reality?
I think there is such axiomatic truth, because in order to study reality it appears that one must (logically or implicitly) begin by assuming at least the reality of the student. Thus, absolute skepticism in philosophy is like absolute zero in physics: it serves as a hypothetical point that is not actually achieved or else nothing would happen (even in ice
An “ism” affirms some valid part of reality. The truth represented by skepticism is that finite human beings cannot know absolutely, infallibly, perfectly or objectively. I find this truth expressed by the apostle Paul in the NT book of 1Cor. 13:9&12, “We know in part . . . We see but a poor reflection” (as in a fogged mirror).
The element of uncertainty does not prevent would-be skeptics from talking as if knowledge with some degree of confidence were possible the moment they attempt to communicate their doubts. An agnostic has “certain” assumptions at least implicitly: that truth is believable, rational and meaningful, even though unprovable or subjective.
These three affirmations seem to be a priori truth or unavoidable (beginning) beliefs:
1. Truth or reality exists. The classic expression of this belief was by Rene Descartes (d.1650): cogito ergo sum: “I think, therefore I am” (cf. Rodin’s sculpture; thinking is believing). The OT says in Exo. 3:14 that God is “I am” (the essence of existence).
2. (Objective) reality is subjectively known by seekers. David Hume (d. 1776) was a notable proponent of this opinion, and 2Cor. 5:7 expresses this truth by saying, “We live by faith, not by sight” (or proof, cf. 1Cor. 13:9&12 cited previously).
3. Reality is meaningful and communicable or able to be discussed rationally in fellowship with other truthseekers. As Isa. 1:18a (c.735 B.C.) says, “Come now, let us reason together.” Perhaps whoever invented language should be regarded as the founder of this fact, because the discussion of reality uses language as the means, and in order to communicate sufficiently for attaining agreement or unity, it is necessary to have a common language and cultural context. (I hope that as Earthlings using English these needs are met for you and me
Having established three unavoidable or axiomatic beliefs, my intent now is to discuss the logical point from which the varieties of beliefs extant in the world diverge. Only the first student or one with a tabula rasa (blank slate)—like a newly sentient child—actually starts exploring reality from the beginning. (A pre-sentient infant in the womb is completely agnostic or without knowledge of every ism.) Nevertheless, in Part II the present study “begins” in the midst of this writer’s life and learning by seeking to assume the position or condition of adult innocence (unprejudice/lack of bias).
What do you think about this Cartesian approach?
(I think we discussed this previously on about p.37, so I intend to review quickly.)
Yes, and you agreed previously until I presented the Propensity Principle, but do you want to review and see again how I employ right reasoning to lead an atheist to change his faith? Here is the next part of my train of thought for any reader of this thread to comment on:
Imagine that you have suddenly begun to exist as a mentally competent or normally intelligent human being (like Adam and Eve in Genesis). Certainly, your immediate concern would be meeting your survival needs, but as soon as there was time for reflection, would you not wonder why you were “born”, how you should behave, and what you ought to accomplish with your life?
Since absolute skepticism or agnosticism is unattainable for thinkers or truthseekers, there are only two qualitatively different ways of answering these questions. One way is by assuming that there is no ultimate “whyness” or purpose beyond survival and avoiding pain, so it does not ultimately matter what one believes or does, because humanity merely evolved from eternal energy/matter, into which it “devolves” at death. You may desire for some reason to survive and to save the world, but if life becomes too painful you may wish you were never born and want to destroy the world, because there is no good reason you ought to be like Messiah rather than like Mania or to be loving rather than maniacal. You may believe and act like evil exists or not, because life is a farce or a continual “King of the Hill” (KOTH) struggle against human adversaries and various other types of adversity, having no ultimate or universal moral imperative (UMI).
The second type of answer is that life is NOT a farce—that existence has meaning, and how one believes and behaves does matter for some non-arbitrary reason. This answer seems more appealing to me and almost logically imperative, although some people appear to prefer the paths of nihilism and KOTH (cf. Matt. 13:14-15).
I call the first type of answer cosmaterialism, because it views reality as consisting only of the material cosmos or universe and as having only four dimensions (space plus time), which are perceived by the five physical senses, implying a perpetual history of KOTH. I call the second way of believing moralism, because—while accepting the reality of the physical/material—it also affirms a fifth dimension perceived by a sixth intuitive or spiritual sense that gives reality a logical basis for meaning and morality (which means for ending KOTH).
The choice between cosmaterialism and moralism logically is the first fundamental choice in life (cf. Gen. 3:5). It can be thought of as a watershed decision that divides all people into two essentially different philosophical categories or world-views like a continental divide, although the analogy breaks down at the points the various oceans connect. (Watershed divide: Moralism or Nihilism?) A person who believes cosmaterialism, moral nihilism and that life’s struggles are meaningless frequently tends to seek escape even via suicide, whether by one act or by a downward spiral of self-destructive behavior. Again, until and unless this option were somehow proven beyond doubt, moralism or viewing life as meaningful seems to be the better belief (cf. Deut. 30:19).
Agreed/Right?
I can agree with a qualification. Romans 1:25 references "the lie" which leads to all sinful actions. I would maintain that safely before your mentally competent human faces their two options, they have already accepted "the lie" and damaged their cognitive abilities. Once we accept "the lie" we can no longer accept ultimate reality to a practical degree. I, and many psychologists, can identify "the lie", but dislodging it from influencing our thoughts and lives is impossible for anyone who has believed it. Only God, who has never accepted "the lie" can dislodge it. The only humans who even have a chance at avoiding accepting "the lie" are under the approximate age of 7 months, the time when it appears that humans universally accept it.Yes, and you agreed previously until I presented the Propensity Principle, but do you want to review and see again how I employ right reasoning to lead an atheist to change his faith? Here is the next part of my train of thought for any reader of this thread to comment on:
Imagine that you have suddenly begun to exist as a mentally competent or normally intelligent human being (like Adam and Eve in Genesis). Certainly, your immediate concern would be meeting your survival needs, but as soon as there was time for reflection, would you not wonder why you were “born”, how you should behave, and what you ought to accomplish with your life?
Since absolute skepticism or agnosticism is unattainable for thinkers or truthseekers, there are only two qualitatively different ways of answering these questions. One way is by assuming that there is no ultimate “whyness” or purpose beyond survival and avoiding pain, so it does not ultimately matter what one believes or does, because humanity merely evolved from eternal energy/matter, into which it “devolves” at death. You may desire for some reason to survive and to save the world, but if life becomes too painful you may wish you were never born and want to destroy the world, because there is no good reason you ought to be like Messiah rather than like Mania or to be loving rather than maniacal. You may believe and act like evil exists or not, because life is a farce or a continual “King of the Hill” (KOTH) struggle against human adversaries and various other types of adversity, having no ultimate or universal moral imperative (UMI).
The second type of answer is that life is NOT a farce—that existence has meaning, and how one believes and behaves does matter for some non-arbitrary reason. This answer seems more appealing to me and almost logically imperative, although some people appear to prefer the paths of nihilism and KOTH (cf. Matt. 13:14-15).
I call the first type of answer cosmaterialism, because it views reality as consisting only of the material cosmos or universe and as having only four dimensions (space plus time), which are perceived by the five physical senses, implying a perpetual history of KOTH. I call the second way of believing moralism, because—while accepting the reality of the physical/material—it also affirms a fifth dimension perceived by a sixth intuitive or spiritual sense that gives reality a logical basis for meaning and morality (which means for ending KOTH).
The choice between cosmaterialism and moralism logically is the first fundamental choice in life (cf. Gen. 3:5). It can be thought of as a watershed decision that divides all people into two essentially different philosophical categories or world-views like a continental divide, although the analogy breaks down at the points the various oceans connect. (Watershed divide: Moralism or Nihilism?) A person who believes cosmaterialism, moral nihilism and that life’s struggles are meaningless frequently tends to seek escape even via suicide, whether by one act or by a downward spiral of self-destructive behavior. Again, until and unless this option were somehow proven beyond doubt, moralism or viewing life as meaningful seems to be the better belief (cf. Deut. 30:19).
Agreed/Right?
Romans 1:25: "They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen."
The lie is identified as worshipping created things instead of God; IOW, atheism.
The cure is repentance, which is possible because God enables it, although He allows sinners to resist His will.
Those who are raised by Christian parents have the best influence to avoid becoming an atheist.
Anyway, because I am reviewing quickly, here is the next car in my train of thought for everyone's consideration:
The second watershed decision flows immediately and implicitly from the moralist viewpoint (like major rivers from one side of the Divide)—choosing what (or who) to believe gives existence meaning and under-girds moral conscience. As one analyzes the variety of moralistic beliefs, there seem to be four main viewpoints: the ground of meaning/morality is human power (humanism, cf. Gen. 11:4), there is a natural moral law or karma in the universe (karmaism, cf. Gal. 6:7), there is natural “meaning” with an instinct or proclivity toward morality (naturalism, cf. Rom. 2:14), or a supernatural Supreme Being exists, who has a moral will for humanity, with which humans may cooperate or not (biblical and especially NT monotheism or simply theism or belief in one God, cf. Gen. 17:1).
Humanism has three denominations including: egoism (meaning is self-dictated), elitism (“might makes right”) and popularism (“the majority rules”). These isms implicitly recognize that souls are forced by the structure of reality to choose what to believe; humans are volitional beings, paradoxically forced to make free moral decisions. However, this choice or affirmation does not necessarily mean people determine or create truth ultimately. (Is mankind the pinnacle?)
The truth of egoism is that each individual is responsible for his/her choices (but to whom; is there a Higher Authority?). The truth of elitism is that the ruling class of people has political power over those who are governed (although a superhuman Governor of the universe may exist). And the truth of popularism is that in a democracy the majority may be the governors (however, this does not mean its decisions are objective or right). In short, selfish people may be I-dolatrous, but they cannot become God.
Karmaism, (found mainly in Hinduism/Buddhism), has a doctrine of reincarnation according to one’s karma or performance of good and evil deeds. This belief provides a rationale for universal morality (a UMI), but its fallacy may be assuming that the ground of meaning is impersonal, merely natural or even subhuman. Although there are occasional claims by someone to have memories of previous lives, if karmaism were true one might expect that everyone who was a sentient human being in the previous life would remember much of it. Thus, I find insufficient evidence for karmaism (reaping what is sown naturally).
The adherents of naturalism posit that humans instinctively accept the validity of morality or of acting in accordance with a reciprocity principle or the “golden rule” (do unto others as you would have them do unto you, cf. Matt. 7:12), and they are satisfied with whatever meaning can be derived from this earthly existence. The problem with this view is that humanity has also had a proclivity toward evil throughout history, so there is no basis for saying the negative force toward others is not equally valid and for mandating a universal golden rule or moral imperative. Logically, all it can offer is a “pyrite suggestion”. Morally, it merely continues KOTH.
Pantheism or belief that nature is god and polytheism or belief in many gods envision a vitiated or diminished divinity and thus are tantamount to atheism. Also, deism says God created the world but does not interact with it (as though He died), which amounts to practical or functional atheism. The cry of Jesus on the cross, “My God, why have you forsaken me?” (in Matt. 27:46) expresses feelings in accord with this view, while the resurrection of Jesus (Matt. 28:5-7) provides hope that such feelings do not match the facts.
Before we move on, are there any other categories of world views we ought to consider?
Once again there is a translation problem. They serve "THE creature" rather than the Creator. Once again, the definite article appears and it is a singular term. We are back to a problem, a specific lie, a specific creation, a conclusion that will actively resist being uncovered.
Psychology and modern physics both agree on a key point, that humans are not separable entities but rather inexplicably bound to the rest of creation including all other humans. Whatever one does to another part of creation, human or non-human, animal, plant or inorganic, one does to oneself. There is absolutely no REAL self that only the individual may know, such is simply a creation that each individual creates and then chooses for the rest of their life to maintain is real and separable from the rest of creation.
Even with THE, the lie is atheism.
Per axiomatic truth #1, the self/thinker is the only thing known; everything else is subjective.
Per Scripture a human's existence is bound to/dependent on God's will, but only vaguely connected with creation others than one's own sphere of influence/acquaintances.
Okay, the next car following the axiomatic engine, the first watershed choice (moralism or nihilism) and the second watershed choice (theism or atheism) is this:
The only viable alternative to atheism is NT theism, which reformed the OT concept by revealing that the one almighty God is also all-loving. It views God as creating and communicating by means of His Word (Logos in John 1:1), and it affirms that the world is created intentionally rather than accidentally “banged” from a “singularity” (Rom. 1:20&25).
The atheist opinion indicates that the existence of a supernatural Deity is not proven, although it is not disproved either, which means that the evidence needs to be evaluated honestly. Atheists assert that one cannot prove a negative, so the burden is on theists to prove God exists. However, this assertion assumes God is not the positive “I AM” (see axiomatic belief #1). A neutral statement about ultimate reality is the following: “It is logical to remain open to believing all credible possibilities (those which present sufficient evidence) and to hope the most desirable rational possibility is true.” Alternatively, the Bible indicates that the purpose of this life is rather for humans to prove to God they are worthy of—or qualify for—heaven (cf. Deut. 6:16, Matt. 4:7).
This discussion shows that everyone lives by faith regarding God or ultimate reality (2Cor. 5:7), and the structure of earthly reality forces souls to choose between various contradictory beliefs and to make (albeit sometimes rather subconsciously) the two watershed choices described: between nihilism and moralism, and between the various atheistic beliefs and the highest type of theism, NT Christianity. Atheists claim there is no more evidence for the existence of God, the Creator and Judge of humanity, than for the reality of obviously fictional entities, such as Odin or unicorns. However, four types of evidence or reasoning may be viewed as supporting rational belief in God, although they do not prove He exists: the unique universe, theocentric human history, existential need and moral conscience.
Current scientific theory states that the universe began with a “bang”, when a marble of matter or a singularity of energy suddenly exploded, and that it will end with a “whimper” when the stars eventually fade to darkness. This unique universe theory is compatible or consistent with belief in a God who created the universe “ex nihilo”, who sustains it by His power, and who will judge its moral agents at the end of time.
Current knowledge of world history suggests that humanity descended from one genetic source and evolved into various cultures. Throughout history humanity has perceived deity to be the ground of meaning and morality. Theocentric history reached its apex or spiritual climax with the NT teaching that there is one almighty and all-loving God, who desires all humanity to live in harmony on earth and also in heaven, and who allows humanity to experience earthly existence including pain and disappointment (KOTH) for the purpose of teaching them their need for Him (cf. Heb. 12:10).
Current existential reality indicates that mortals need God in order to obtain immortality, that morality needs God for a universal moral imperative (UMI) and ultimate justice, and that the NT offers the best hope that this “duo of desirables” (DOD) or heaven and justice/hell can be attained. Just as physical needs are satisfied by material realities, perhaps our metaphysical needs indicate the reality of supernatural solutions (the God of the DOD).
Moral conscience indicates and logically requires accountability to a moral authority, and the supreme Authority would be God. Paul wrote (in Rom. 1:32 & 2:15) that people “know God’s decree that those who do evil deserve death” and that their consciences “show that the requirements of the [God’s moral] law are written on their hearts.” Our feeble attempts at earthly justice may reflect or serve as evidence of God’s perfect justice. This view is similar to Platonic idealism (cf. 1Cor. 13:12, Heb. 8:5, 9:23 & 10:1). We may perceive perfect justice partially (1Cor. 13:9-12) using spiritual eyes/intuition/a sixth sense along with inference, logic, and even imagination. [Slashes indicate essentially equivalent terms.]
This evidence is not proof, but because this hope and belief are based on evidence and logic, it is rational rather than “blind”, and it is made even more intellectually reasonable or defensible by acknowledging ways God would be disproved, which include the following (Scriptures are cited for Christian theists):
1. If atheists or anti-Christians created eternal life, because the Bible teaches that eternal life is God’s gift only to believers in Him (John 3:16).
2. If the body of Jesus of Nazareth were discovered in a tomb, because Paul stated that if Christ is not resurrected, then faith is useless (1Cor. 15:14).
3. If it were proven that moral free will (MFW) is an illusion, because the premise of biblical morality is that human souls are accountable (Deut. 30:19-20).
4. If human-like beings on another planet had no salvation history involving God and Christ, because the Bible teaches that God is Lord of all (Phil. 2:9-11). (Caveat: If they are included in the Great Commission, their history would be like the OT.)
5. If God could prove His existence to people without abrogating free will (cf. 2Cor. 5:7), but apparently God performs miracles only as necessary to accomplish His plan of salvation.
6. If it were proved that the universe is not created, because resurrection or re-creation presupposes creation and thus a Creator (Acts 17:24-31).
Thus, both theism and atheism are unproven opinions or opposite subjective conclusions requiring faith concerning ultimate reality. However, the NT teaches there will come a time—at the resurrection or eschaton—when the proof atheists demand will be provided, and KOTH will end. At that time theism will be revealed as the right or true ideology as souls reap the opposite destinies of heaven and hell in accordance with their moral choices, beginning with their decision whether to love or to disregard God (cf. Matt. 7:24-27) .
Anyone want to comment on car #3 in this logical train of thought following the engine/thinker?
A fair amount of what you are posting is a repeat, so I will focus on just a few points. Should the body of Jesus be discovered in a tomb it will trach the faith of SOME Christians, because they rely so heavily on a physical resurrection. It would not negate Paul's claim which appears to pre-date the claims of a physical resurrection, and indeed a physical resurrection might be understood as contradicting both Galatians 3:1 and 1 John 5:8, although it would be consistent with a deliberate attempt to conceal things from nonbelievers (it also allows for Ephesians to be clearly Pauline and datable to a very specific 3 1/2 year period at the outside). Should you wish to defend the physical resurrection please feel free to do so, with an eye on the two passages I pointed out, the obscure numismatic evidence and the disputed evidence from Moses of Chorene. I realize that some of what I just referenced is likely outside your current knowledge, and quite possibly your comfort zone, but it does fit with both Justin Martyr's and Tertullian's claims regarding Tiberius (and indirectly with 1 Clement), as well as many other historic events.
Now it only took me some 40 years of studies and research to find all this evidence, but it is what wows those NT graduate school profs who have seen significant portions of my research and got a paper through peer review for an international conference. Ask politely and privately if you want help in doing your research.
Yes, the crux of Christian faith per the accounts of Christ's resurrection in the four gospels and 1Cor. 15:14 is the bodily resurrection,
which included translation from a physical to a spiritual body that ascended to heaven.
Not sure what evidence you refer to that disproves Christ arose from the grave.
Here is the next car in my train of thought beginning from atheism that we are reviewing:
The choices involved in making the second watershed decision (the ground of meaning/morality) correspond to the following questions: For a humanist, “Is there any reason I should not be selfish?” [No/Yes, depending on how you feel or what the rulers decree or how the majority votes.] For a karmaist, “Does how I live ultimately matter?” [Not unless you can remember previous lives.] For a naturalist, “Does instinct negate volition? [If not, then why is evil/hatred not equally right or existentially lawful?] And for a theist, “What does God desire?” [That depends upon what message or revelation is from God.]
Which option and opinion is best or most true? Answering this question involves understanding how truth is acquired (epistemology). Some knowledge is gleaned directly from personal experiences and is available to all who seek to know the truth with an open mind (like Socrates or Buddha) by means of reflecting or meditating on experiences logically. The apostle Paul indicated the world reveals God’s “invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature” (Rom. 1:20) and that conscience indicates “the requirements of the law” (Rom. 2:15).
A second possible way of obtaining knowledge is by learning from the insights or inspiration of others. Divinely inspired knowledge was claimed by Jesus (in John 14:9-11), Paul (in Gal. 1:11-12 & Tit. 1:1-3). Insights could be a combination of reflection and inspiration, perhaps taught by God’s indwelling Spirit, who Jesus said would “guide you into all truth” (John 16:13).
The problem for truthseekers is evaluating the various teachers or claimants to knowledge, especially when their messages are contradictory. In my opinion humanism provides no hope for ultimate “oughtness”, because there is no logical way to avoid moral relativism without a superhuman Judge. Karmaism offers a rationale for reincarnation, but I have explained why I view it as incredible. Naturalism does not even provide a rationale for morality/the UMI, but rather it implies that what is, is right. However, I do find reasons to believe NT theism is true.
While conducting a comprehensive comparison of theistic religions is not my desire, I think any open-minded truthseeker who compares the NT teachings of Jesus and Paul with the founding scriptures of other religions will reach the same conclusion as I have: The NT is the most credible canon or collection of writings purporting to be a communique from God. The NT hope for heaven is based on evidence in support of Jesus’ claim to be Messiah/Christ, which includes: the prophecy or foreshadowing of His life (in various OT scriptures, including Isa. 53 and Psa. 22, and by the sacrificial system), the purpose of His death (as explained in the NT, such as Heb. 7:18-10:18), and the probability or credibility of His resurrection (in history as recorded by the last chapters of the Gospels and Rom. 1:3-4).
Christianity qualified OT theism, which emphasized God’s love for some people (descendants of Abraham), with a UMI to love everyone by reflecting His love, beginning with God and continuing with one-self and one’s neighbors (whether Jew or Gentile) and even including one’s enemies (per Matt. 22:37-39 & 5:44). The best reason to hope in God is Christ. Paul calls those who have saving faith/cooperate with God’s will the spiritual or righteous children of Abraham (Rom. 3:28-30 & 4:9-16).
1Pet. 3:15b indicates that Christians should share their testimony or reason for their hope of heaven, so here is mine (cf. “Love God with All Your Mind” by J.P. Moreland):
I used to be afraid of witnessing; as an introvert I was rather defensive and nervous. However, understanding why I believe has brought me both peace of mind and a non-defensive boldness to witness to others. I only wish that I could credit church training in apologetics for this, but in my experience it left Christian young people vulnerable to atheistic college professors and failed to note that the apostle Paul reasoned with people intelligently to accept Christ.
Although from infancy I learned Scriptures about salvation through faith in Christ Jesus, I knew few doctrinal details that would enable me to defend against the arrows of atheist arguments (Eph. 6:11&16), so I began to study Scripture on my own in order to become better able to discern how disparate teachings comprise a harmonious whole truth, eventually sharing what I learned on a website, which is the content of this lesson and others that follow regarding topics including the Christian creed, the teachings of Jesus and Paul, key OT teachings and the history of beliefs.
Over for comments...
The Bible provides clear guidance on the issue of angel worship.It sounds as though you think angels are robots, but let us discuss that topic on the thread "How do angels jibe...?"
I will C&P it for you there.
Thanks.
Oh, howdy rew, I assume you are here to discuss an approach that begins where atheists are, so here goes:
I believe reality is interconnected or unified, so that it is not necessary to worry about where to start exploring, but I will begin by asking the following philosophical question: Is there some truth which is not debatable; which everyone believes at least implicitly and uses as a common point of departure in discussing ultimate reality?
I think there is such axiomatic truth, because in order to study reality it appears that one must (logically or implicitly) begin by assuming at least the reality of the student. Thus, absolute skepticism in philosophy is like absolute zero in physics: it serves as a hypothetical point that is not actually achieved or else nothing would happen (even in ice
An “ism” affirms some valid part of reality. The truth represented by skepticism is that finite human beings cannot know absolutely, infallibly, perfectly or objectively. I find this truth expressed by the apostle Paul in the NT book of 1Cor. 13:9&12, “We know in part . . . We see but a poor reflection” (as in a fogged mirror).
The element of uncertainty does not prevent would-be skeptics from talking as if knowledge with some degree of confidence were possible the moment they attempt to communicate their doubts. An agnostic has “certain” assumptions at least implicitly: that truth is believable, rational and meaningful, even though unprovable or subjective.
These three affirmations seem to be a priori truth or unavoidable (beginning) beliefs:
1. Truth or reality exists. The classic expression of this belief was by Rene Descartes (d.1650): cogito ergo sum: “I think, therefore I am” (cf. Rodin’s sculpture; thinking is believing). The OT says in Exo. 3:14 that God is “I am” (the essence of existence).
2. (Objective) reality is subjectively known by seekers. David Hume (d. 1776) was a notable proponent of this opinion, and 2Cor. 5:7 expresses this truth by saying, “We live by faith, not by sight” (or proof, cf. 1Cor. 13:9&12 cited previously).
3. Reality is meaningful and communicable or able to be discussed rationally in fellowship with other truthseekers. As Isa. 1:18a (c.735 B.C.) says, “Come now, let us reason together.” Perhaps whoever invented language should be regarded as the founder of this fact, because the discussion of reality uses language as the means, and in order to communicate sufficiently for attaining agreement or unity, it is necessary to have a common language and cultural context. (I hope that as Earthlings using English these needs are met for you and me
Having established three unavoidable or axiomatic beliefs, my intent now is to discuss the logical point from which the varieties of beliefs extant in the world diverge. Only the first student or one with a tabula rasa (blank slate)—like a newly sentient child—actually starts exploring reality from the beginning. (A pre-sentient infant in the womb is completely agnostic or without knowledge of every ism.) Nevertheless, in Part II the present study “begins” in the midst of this writer’s life and learning by seeking to assume the position or condition of adult innocence (unprejudice/lack of bias).
What do you think about this Cartesian approach?
(I think we discussed this previously on about p.37, so I intend to review quickly.)
- Worship belongs to God — The Bible consistently states that worship is due to God alone, as seen in Colossians 2:18.
- Angels reject worship — In Revelation, angels explicitly refuse worship, directing it to God instead.
- Counterfeit worship — Paul warns against the worship of angels as a form of false teaching in Colossians.
- Scriptural admonitions — Various scriptures emphasize the supremacy of God and the proper order of worship, forbidding the worship of angels.
are you and GWH the same person? Because you love to suggest others are saying things they never did. FYI John Chapter 1 :1-2
says in the beginning was the word and word was God and the word was with GOD. He was in the beginning with God.
The name Jesus was given which identifies with the humanity of man as Jesus is fully God and fully man. John states He has always been. Then name was Given before His incarnation. Matthew 1:18-22
The Spirit of Christ is eternal. He was and has always been with the Father. His name was not revealed in the Old other than Emanual which is God with us. That title was also repeated in Matthew chapter 1:18-22. The name Jesus Joshua which means what ? God is the Savior God is salvation or Yahweh saves.
Well, you place your confidence about the physical resurrection on rather flimsy grounds. The two earliest gospels, Mark and John (I can justify John as originally written in the mid-50's before a rewriting in the 80's if necessary) both appear to have multiple endings (Mark has 4 well-documented endings, John appears to have two) and in both gospels, the earlies apparent ending in the text does not include a physical resurrection. Justify endings that do not include such if it was real. Now if the physical resurrection is a cover story for some other evidence (see Galatians 3:1 for a hint that this might be the case), then adding a physical resurrection makes sense.
Now Matthew and Luke are later gospels, plausibly written when concealment of some inconvenient facts might be important, that is protecting the truth of the resurrection from Roman eyes. As for Paul's statement, it is totally ambiguous. It works as well with a physical resurrection as it does with some other evidence for the resurrection.
Now against your cited "evidences" stands 1 John 5:8 which describes the evidence for the resurrection, and which does not fit with the recorded physical resurrections. Please provide your reconciliation, then we may return to your train of thought. Unless your approach to apologetics is to simply brush off any objections in order to continue your line of argument and thus disrespect the person whom you are trying to evangelize, which is a very poor approach by the way. Most peole recognize when they are being disrespected and many will return the "favor".