Feedback On Series Of Questions

[LogicalFallacy]

Right I had a fairly brief reply so I'll be brief as I just fired off another reply. (Christians replies in blue)

I hit four areas of contention: faith, trust, evidence by report, & age of universe

Faith definitions given prior that I challenged were:

 

1) Believing brings faith

2) The reports (Gospels) is evidence that results in faith

3) Faith is the result of evidence and reasoning.

 

I got a bit of an avoid the questions and redefine it... again. The response: (I kept BAA's challenges to it fairly intact)

Now to Faith. Remember I stated that faith is multifaceted – and that while it incorporates many aspects of what we would term rational processes such as evidence and reason etc., it extends beyond. The real key is that Faith is a spiritual reality and experience that moves you from just believing the evidence to lifting you to a higher plane or realm - one beyond mere ‘existence’ and gives insight into what lies within and beyond the evidence.

Remember where science deals with the natural world and that only, faith deals with the supernatural world and extends into the natural world in a way science can’t.

 

So we have a definite split here where evidence and reason is being used at the same time as asserting faith deals with both supernatural and natural.

 

I simply asked if this is just an elaborate way of defining faith in the usual sense, which it seems to me it is.

 

Trust I talked about as it was raised by him, so I gave a brief 'why the bible can't be trusted, talking about authorship etc. Fairly basic stuff. I got an interesting assertion which I have challenged:

 

Regarding trust and the Bible veracity – again we are not dealing with just a work of history or some great literary work that can be approached with strict intellectual processes, as while it was penned by various men through various ages and verbal renditions, it nevertheless is an inspired spiritual book. Men can extend forth their various researches into it and why it can or can’t be what it is due to this or that, the fact remains that it is inspired and that spiritual themes and spiritual truths run through it from Genesis to Revelation in continuity of thought, type and shadow and in revelation.

 

Basically I've said prove the assertion, and reminded him of the difference between a belief (the bible is inspired) and a fact (apple falls when dropped)

 

Evidence by report - so the gospels. He wrapped his reply up above, so no direct comeback to my points about New Testament authorship. (Pretty hard to counter since I only used main biblical scholar views, not fringe more extreme views... and so pretty hard to argue, well Mark was written by Mark in 34 AD)

 

Age of the universe - "doesn't have an answer at this stage, but it does pose some potentially tricky questions with Genesis" 

 

I wait with bated breath to see what science is used to refute Supernova1987A. Meanwhile full marks to BAA for that one. The rest seemed to be a bit of dodging and stating opinion.

 

Cheers ears ya'll loving creatures of goodness. I'm going to bed. That's another 3 hours writing, emailing, and posting!   

[LogicalFallacy]

Ok, now we have a reversal of the Christians previous position as posted below. His positions in blue

 

 

 

Faith definitions given prior that I challenged were:

 

1) Believing brings faith

2) The reports (Gospels) is evidence that results in faith

3) Faith is the result of evidence and reasoning.

 

I challenged these assumptions and I got a bit of an avoid the questions and redefine it... again. The response:

Now to Faith. Remember I stated that faith is multifaceted – and that while it incorporates many aspects of what we would term rational processes such as evidence and reason etc., it extends beyond. The real key is that Faith is a spiritual reality and experience that moves you from just believing the evidence to lifting you to a higher plane or realm - one beyond mere ‘existence’ and gives insight into what lies within and beyond the evidence.

Remember where science deals with the natural world and that only, faith deals with the supernatural world and extends into the natural world in a way science can’t.

 

So we have a definite split here where evidence and reason is being used at the same time as asserting faith deals with both supernatural and natural.

 

Tonight he said: “You must have faith to see the evidences of God”. He is implying here that without faith, a non believer like me won’t see the evidences of God.

 

I have challenged him thus:

 

Now these are two ideas are mutually exclusive – either you can see evidence and use reasoning and that gives you faith (probably assuming you believe the evidence), or you have faith that allows you to see the evidence, which means faith is a prerequisite. So which one is it?

 

If we apply these two concepts to your claim that God sends a messenger here to preach the unrevealed and not written portion of the bible then how do ‘we’ (in the generic term – I’m meaning any human in the planet) know who this is?

 

We know we can’t rely on the Bible for evidence of who the messengers are because its not specifically written in it. So assuming you are right we need a messenger to reveal the truth. So how do we know who is the messenger?

 

Do we rely on evidence presented, if so where is it? Or do we need to have faith to know who God’s messenger is? 

[bornagainathiest]

 

Ok, now we have a reversal of the Christians previous position as posted below. His positions in blue

 

 

 

Faith definitions given prior that I challenged were:

 

1) Believing brings faith

2) The reports (Gospels) is evidence that results in faith

3) Faith is the result of evidence and reasoning.

 

I challenged these assumptions and I got a bit of an avoid the questions and redefine it... again. The response:

 

Now to Faith. Remember I stated that faith is multifaceted – and that while it incorporates many aspects of what we would term rational processes such as evidence and reason etc., it extends beyond. The real key is that Faith is a spiritual reality and experience that moves you from just believing the evidence to lifting you to a higher plane or realm - one beyond mere ‘existence’ and gives insight into what lies within and beyond the evidence.

 

Remember where science deals with the natural world and that only, faith deals with the supernatural world and extends into the natural world in a way science can’t.

 

So we have a definite split here where evidence and reason is being used at the same time as asserting faith deals with both supernatural and natural.

 

Tonight he said: “You must have faith to see the evidences of God”. He is implying here that without faith, a non believer like me won’t see the evidences of God.

 

I have challenged him thus:

 

Now these are two ideas are mutually exclusive – either you can see evidence and use reasoning and that gives you faith (probably assuming you believe the evidence), or you have faith that allows you to see the evidence, which means faith is a prerequisite. So which one is it?

 

If we apply these two concepts to your claim that God sends a messenger here to preach the unrevealed and not written portion of the bible then how do ‘we’ (in the generic term – I’m meaning any human in the planet) know who this is?

 

We know we can’t rely on the Bible for evidence of who the messengers are because its not specifically written in it. So assuming you are right we need a messenger to reveal the truth. So how do we know who is the messenger?

 

Do we rely on evidence presented, if so where is it? Or do we need to have faith to know who God’s messenger is? 

 

 

Umm...sorry 'bout this LF, but there's a gaping loophole your Christian can exploit in the challenge you set him.

 

The identity of God's messenger who will preach what is unrevealed is plainly declared by the apostle John.  

 

John 16:13New International Version (NIV)

13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.

 

He is, of course, the Holy Spirit.

Your Christian will probably use this invisible, intangible and undetectable person to escape your challenge.

[LogicalFallacy]

He is, of course, the Holy Spirit.

Your Christian will probably use this invisible, intangible and undetectable person to escape your challenge.

Thanks BAA,

 

BUT, (I didn't include this... I'm still iffy about how much info I'm posting in public... don't know if I think the apocalypse will come or something... I need to get over it)

 

BUT this Christian is claiming that HE is the messenger, and HE will reveal what was not written in Revelations 10:4, that the Holy Sprit is moving through him.

 

"And when the seven thunders had uttered their voices, I was about to write: and I heard a voice from heaven saying unto me, Seal up those things which the seven thunders uttered, and write them not."

 

So he claims that the Seven Thunders that were not written need to be revealed by a messenger and he specifically stated that he is the one sent. This is why I have worded my challenge to him they way I have. (I haven't sent it yet) He has a specific claim that can be challenged in relation to evidence in faith. I am deciding on whether to go with the generic version I posted above, or make it personal.

 

So maybe if I start off by saying "YOU claim to be the messenger of 10:4." then lead in with my queries?

 

No doubt some waffle stuff about evidence of how he's the messenger will be forth coming, but it won't be any real sign (So it won't be I healed x amputee or some such) Thus it will come back to needing faith BEFORE evidence, and in fact faith in the complete absence of evidence.

 

He is also moving away from the Bible being an absolute - in fact he's intimating that the message for the end days is not included in the bible. This of course opens up the opportunity to say whatever his message is, is this message. Rather circular but that's the thinking.

 

So in light of all that, is my challenge to him viable?

 

 

PS I need to apologise, I'm sorry about not putting this info upfront as it may have altered your reply and understanding of what's going on.