Evangelical Support Group

So in other words, truth (if it can be found at all) is found in a communion rather than an individual. The critics would say that whole groups of people (churches) could also be wrong, however. My only response would be: How do the critics define truth?

quote:

---

Settling on an answer to a question without all the facts is a viable option when the alternative is uncertainty. For you, uncertainty is a challenge since you still have a goal. (Finding the truth)

---

But we will never find The Truth, Phat.None of us.Nobody can really Know.Without uncertainty, there can be no learning nor growth.That is because once you are 100% certain of anything, you are no longer open to new and potentially better information.

Could it be possible that the truth would or could find us? (or is that a nonsensical response, in your belief? )

Edited by AdminPD, : Off Topic Content Hidden

I was considering scolding you for an off topic post in my topic but then I realized that I would be abusing my testosterone in my angry outburst..so I'm letting you off the hook!Are you a spiritual person? What are your current spiritual beliefs?

Which is exactly my point. You said that geography plays a part in who knows God and who doesn't. But there are plenty of cases that defy convention. Secondly, Jesus was very clear in the Parable of the Sower that not everyone sticks to the Word-- that if they do, they eventually fall away from it. A common misconception. Eternal separation is not reserved for those who don't know about God. We aren't being judged on what we don't know. We are being judged on what do know, but reject it anyway. The point here, iceage, is that you are questioning the experiences of others, something that cannot be done empirically. This is tantamount to calling, Phat and I, delusional. While you are more than welcome to your opinion, it is not done pragmatically. Its almost like me talking about how I like the taste of Ostrich meat. I have tried it and enjoyed it, whereas you haven't. I then go to describe the flavor and the consistency. You then argue with me, but you have no firsthand experience. Why argue with me on that point?

quote:

---

But really, there is only one of three things to choose from. Either I have met God whereas others haven't, I have not met God, but others have and I am deluding myself, or no one has met God because He is a figment of the imaginations of millions upon millions of people over centuries of human history.

---

That wouldn't change who God is, though. If you'll notice from scripture, Jesus, for instance, always came to people in the context of their lives. His parables correlated with what his audience would understand because he used in context. Then how could anyone even surmise of God if there was not something that first precipitated the belief in the first place? This is what I ask the Deists. They believe in God, but not in God revealing Himself through design, not special revelation, and not in the veracity of scripture. Where then can God be known? Deceiving them to lift the downtrodden, to treat each other with love, to teach people about moral imperatives? That hardly sounds demonic. But, then again, the Scriptures do say that they come to us masquerading as children of light. The only way to go around the message itself is to compromise the position of the message. But that is why Jesus instructed not to go beyond what is written. That invariably brings us back to why we should follow the Word in the first place. What do you mean?

---

"God is like the sun. You can't look at it. But without it you can't look at anything else." -G.K. Chesterton

Phat asks: No, since you asked, I am not a spiritual person”not as you might define one. I am an untheist; I believe it doesn't matter if there is or isn't a God. I also believe that love and hate are natural things, but that goodness and evil are not. And I believe in karma: 'What goes around comes around.' And, finally, I believe another phrase for 'God In Heaven' is 'Fear Of Death.'But if you asked me what I believe God's value is in the historically economic sense, I would say it ranks high even than the oldest profession.”HM

My original focus of this topic was to provide a roundtable discussion only with people who believed the way I do or very similarly. My frustration in the past had been that I never got a chance to lay out my beliefs for myself or others to understand.After losing my fear of opening the topic up a little bit, I saw that it became a bit of a runaway smorgasbord of opinions. While this is a good thing, and while I myself found that I learn more through discussions with those who believe differently than I was taught versus those who believe the same or nearly the same as I do, I thought it wise to issue a challenge in order to further encourage controversy regarding traditional conservative protestant beliefs in the United States.I had a book in my bookshelf that I have never read. Christianity 101: Your guide to eight basic Christian beliefs The author is Gilbert Bilezikian (Th.D., Boston University) who is a professor emeritus of Wheaton College. (click on the "look inside this book" link at Amazon!)I suppose that I should read the book before completing this post, but I am going to attempt to skim enough of it to present Bilezikians opinions so has to provide fodder for further debate within my topic.
He is called "Dr.B" by his students and friends, and is respected greatly within the community of like-minded believers. I don't attempt to defend this mans integrity...that is reserved for people who actually know him....but I trust that I have picked a source that speaks in as educated and eloquent of fashion as the conservative Protestants can muster.As our discussion continues, and as I read Dr.B's book, I will be using quotes that I find which jump out at me as relevant ideas that ring true with my belief.My belief is evolving, to be sure...and it has been pointed out to me that I will usually cling to ideas which I may find comforting whether or not they can be proven to hold any substance.Rather than quote the book, I thought that I would present the basic table of contents and allow anyone who is interested to ask me questions which I will attempt to relay through the lens of the author.Here is the eight doctrines covered in the book:

The Bible As God's Revelation

The Doctrine Of God

The Doctrine Of Christ

The Doctrine Of The Holy Spirit

The Doctrine Of Human Beings

The Doctrine Of Salvation

The Doctrine Of The Church

The Doctrine Of The End Times

​

This is about as close to conservative Protestantism as you can get. We have discussed, dismissed, and debated these topics before, but it will be interesting to see what this man actually has to say about each of them and his reasoning behind what he says.

​

BTW when any of you see me quote Dr.B., this is the guy I am quoting.

That he does. He claims that heretics are not to be even engaged in debate over the scriptures due the reason you say. (of course right after that he goes on for page after page doing what he says not to do - engaging a discussion showing how the scriptures back up his position).You have a point, and I don't disagree. The early PO church (and some non - PO as well) certainly did lean heavily on apostolic succession at least as much as on being backed by the ideas of scripture (at least 2nd cent and later - the very earliest scriptures show the opposite - the the early Christians of all stripes argued about things - see many of the pauline letters and letters forged in paul's name).You are also certainly correct that the protestants denied apostolic succession and relied heavily on scripture. Maybe it is a method that comes and goes over history as the circumstances warrant?Have a fun weekend-EquinoxEdited by Equinox, : typo

Phat wrote: Why would you want to? I mean, why not just say what you think,instead of practicing parroting protestant preachers points?On one hand, I appreciate your honesty in telling us that that is what you'll be doing (instead of doing it secretly), but I guess I don't get why the lens of someone else is desired.Maybe the exercise of practicing this may help convince you of the arguments you want to be convinced of? Or did I miss the reason?Have a good weekend, I'll be back on monday--Equinox

Phat said: A very honest statement. Who doesn't do this to one degree or another? One measure of difference amongst the EvC posters is how much comforting they need to get to the substance.”HM

quote:

---

Could it be possible that the truth would or could find us? (or is that a nonsensical response, in your belief?)

---

How would you know if you had the whole truth?

Edited by AdminPD, : Off Topic Content Hidden

Edited by AdminPD, : Off Topic Content Hidden

First I apologize for the description "delusional" it was inappropriate in civil discussion.Now on with the show.... What point? Let me retrace the conversation. So I thought, maybe incorrectly, that you were making the claim that since "innumerable converts from other religions" is some form of confirmation of your religion beliefs.I am just stating the obvious... there are converts each way, conversion from a different religion to Christianity does not validate Christianity. You are ignoring reality, there is maybe a fractional percentage - apostasy is very rare.But as an aside seems to me like a hell of way to run a universe where a sentient being is going to suffer eternal damnation and punishment, by the benevolent creator, just because they were born on the wrong continent or into the wrong family.If conversion is your metric of performance though, consider Islam as the fastest growing religion today - and some Christians do convert very sincerely. Nope sorry - false dichotomy. Yes, but correct me if I am wrong, your theology requires salvation through Jesus *only*. There are many people, as Equinox pointed out, that have religious experiences that are aligned with their beliefs systems which exclude Jesus.Now for my own false dichotomy.If you believe your religious experience confirms the validity of your Christian view (and removes all doubt) and if your religion theology is exclusive as your good book clearly says, then either:

You have to discount the religious experiences of other people that have a different religious view (that even maybe anti-Christian), as counterfeit.

​

or

​

Conventional Christian theology is wrong (or popularly interpreted wrong).

​

or

​

????

​

Edited by iceage, : No reason given.

​

Edited by iceage, : No reason given.

​

Edited by iceage, : No reason given.