(This article is designed for a Christian audience, but all are welcome to read and consider the content. It's something I composed because I saw something this past week about the nature of faith that I did not understand before and this article comes from that revelation, so to speak, but it is the first time I transposed it from my heart and mind to "pen and paper.")
We were created for a Kingdom of faith and belief not of doubt and fear. It wasn’t that Adam and Eve needed to doubt Satan, it was that they needed to believe God. Satan was presenting a false reality, if they were living the true reality and believing accordingly, the deceptive offer would have been inconsequential in comparison. The thing that got them into trouble was doubting God, rather than, believing Satan. They could not have believed the lie, if they had not doubted the truth.
Christians are often conditioned to be skeptics rather than believers. We are fearfully skeptical of being susceptible to anything false—so much so that we live according to that fear reality instead of the true reality. More than fear of being taken in by a false religion, we fear being taken in by a false doctrine or a false prophet.
It is the Holy Spirit that leads us into all truth. If we are living in a place of believing God and being led by His Spirit, His Spirit will witness to our spirit the truth in which we are to abide.
We ought to be able to see truth in all things in all forms because Satan cannot create anything, he can only distort what is already real. It’s like opening a clam and finding a pearl. It may need a little cleaning, but a real pearl is still there.
Bill Johnson often states that under the old covenant you touch a leper and you become unclean, but under the new covenant you touch a leper and the leper becomes clean. I think this principal holds true for other things as well. We can touch something false and the falsity will fall away to reveal the true glory of the thing.
Click here to read the full article at Helium.com.
14 comments:
No comments?
Good morning,
In a recent discussion on this blog, the subject of "faith" came up, including your rejection of the colloquial meaning of that word. You advised that I refer to the post where you supposedly delineate what "faith" means to you, and how you employ it.
Welp, I take it that this is the place, yes? Although, I admit that I didn't dig back any further than here.
In any event, if this is the post that's supposed to clarify your position on "faith", then I'm not surprised to see anything "substantive" in an objective sense. I only see you, once again, asserting your premise true(begging the question), along with the various fallacious tenets of Christianity so commonly used in your apologetics.
I found this part particularly amusing, though:
"Christians are often conditioned to be skeptics rather than believers" ~ Karla
False dichotomy. Skepticism and belief aren't mutually exclusive. All "believers" are skeptical of other people's religious beliefs. Sheesh, Christians are even skeptical of other Christians.(see below)
You continue..."If we are living in a place of believing God and being led by His Spirit, His Spirit will witness to our spirit the truth in which we are to abide."
And as I've pointed out more than once, *IF* Christians are being "led by His[God's] Spirit", then this "God" is evidentally revealing information that is conflicting. But interestingly, no Christian will admit that he or she is the one who is receiving the lies and/or false instructions from "God". No, it's always those "other false christians", etc.
Perhaps this is where the "faith" part comes in though, yes? One Christian cannot prove that they are right over another. All they have is their respective opinions, and meanwhile, this "God" stands by(or hides) and lets its followers misrepresent him.
There's a much better explanation, BTW.
Boom “Welp, I take it that this is the place, yes? Although, I admit that I didn't dig back any further than here.”
Yes.
Boom “In any event, if this is the post that's supposed to clarify your position on "faith", then I'm not surprised to see anything "substantive" in an objective sense.”
I’m not surprised either by your response.
Boom “I only see you, once again, asserting your premise true(begging the question), along with the various fallacious tenets of Christianity so commonly used in your apologetics.”
I am going to be speaking out of a Christian paradigm, just as much of what you say speaks from a paradigm where God is absent.
It’s really not necessary to keep saying “apologetics” as if I am using some kind of sly tactics. Apologetics simply means to give “a defense.” Everyone does this every time they make a case for anything at all that they are proposing.
I found this part particularly amusing, though:
"Christians are often conditioned to be skeptics rather than believers" ~ Karla
Boom “False dichotomy. Skepticism and belief aren't mutually exclusive. All "believers" are skeptical of other people's religious beliefs. Sheesh, Christians are even skeptical of other Christians.(see below)”
This is true that Believers are typically skeptical of other religious beliefs, or non-religious beliefs even those of other Christians. This is precisely why I made the statement I did. I don’t think I need to be skeptical of A if I experience the truth of B. If someone tells me my mother does not exist, I do not need be skeptical of their assertion; their assertion doesn’t even meet the grid of skepticism. I don’t become skeptical of that statement, I just continue in knowing she does exist regardless of whether or not my evidence for that would convince the person saying otherwise or not.
You continue..."If we are living in a place of believing God and being led by His Spirit, His Spirit will witness to our spirit the truth in which we are to abide."
Boom “And as I've pointed out more than once, *IF* Christians are being "led by His[God's] Spirit", then this "God" is evidentally revealing information that is conflicting.”
Or He isn’t and we hear wrong sometimes because none of us are infallible, or the things we think contradict do not. I even mishear people sometimes who are audibly talking to me or misread something written. So I am sure I mishear God sometimes.
Boom “But interestingly, no Christian will admit that he or she is the one who is receiving the lies and/or false instructions from "God". No, it's always those "other false christians", etc. “
No, but I’ll admit I mishear Him. Truth cannot lie. So it’s not God that is in error, it is me. The other day a friend asked me what he should do about something and my response was I won’t tell you what you should do. I will encourage you to ask God and do that. Even though I had a personal opinion on the matter, it wouldn’t do for me to tell him what to do, it is up to him to hear God for himself and do that. However, there are guidelines in the Bible that can help us know if we are hearing God or hearing our own voice. I really doubt you want a whole teaching on that though.
The bottom line is that there is freedom and I don’t think Christians I disagree with are false Christians. It could be I that needs to mature rather than them. There is freedom for mistakes.
Boom “Perhaps this is where the "faith" part comes in though, yes? One Christian cannot prove that they are right over another. All they have is their respective opinions, and meanwhile, this "God" stands by(or hides) and lets its followers misrepresent him.”
The only way we can represent Him is by having relationship with Him and that is a process that on the outside looks more and more like Him as we grow in Him. He is patient with all of us on that journey just like a natural Father should be with his son. The faith does come in here, but not in the way you define it. It comes in because we are receiving that faith through that relationship. It is a substance NOT a thing of the mind believing what evidence cannot support.
Your thoughts as to how God should “run” things seems to be more religion that I espouse. I speak of freedom, love, and relationship and you speak of rigidity, uniformity, and control.
Boom “There's a much better explanation, BTW.”
Do tell.
"It’s really not necessary to keep saying 'apologetics' as if I am using some kind of sly tactics." ~ Karla
True, it's not necessary that I call it an "apologetic". But that word fits best. Your arguments are designed to give a defense of *objections* raised against your brand of theology, including its byproduct, the "super-natural". To my knowledge, no one is objecting to the natural, physical world. Thus, the natural, physical world needs no "defense"(aka apologetic).
Again, you think there is a corollary where there simply isn't one.
Karla: "If someone tells me my mother does not exist, I d"[EDIT]
You've used this disingenuous tactic(since you don't want me calling it an "apologetic"), gee, I don't know, a dozen or so times, now? First it was your "husband", and now it's your "mother", next, who?..maybe your aunt?
In any event, ALL of the aforementioned can be *PROVEN* to exist, if in fact anyone is skeptical of their existence. Your analogy is unsatisfactory. Not only that, you now seem to be saying that you're not skeptical of beliefs that conflict with your own....
"I don’t think I need to be skeptical of A if I experience the truth of B." ~ Karla
Unless you've redefined "skeptical"(which wouldn't shock me), you are spouting nonsense. If you know for certain that "A" is a Truth, then by default, you would be skeptical of anything *BUT* "A".
Previously, me: “And as I've pointed out more than once, *IF* Christians are being 'led by His[God's] Spirit', then this 'God' is evidentally revealing information that is conflicting.”
Karla responds..."Or He isn’t and we hear wrong sometimes because none of us are infallible, or the things we think contradict do not. I even mishear people sometimes who are audibly talking to me or misread something written. So I am sure I mishear God sometimes."
You evidentally didn't notice that I was giving benefit of the doubt for sake of argument. I was granting that all self-professed, "True Christians" are hearing "God" correctly, since, let's face it, not many "True Christians" admit that they "mishear God".(until they get caught doing something wrong. Then they blame "Satan")
In any event, you are underscoring my point(as you so often do).
If believers can "mishear God", then "God" hasn't quite perfected the means by which he reveals "His Word", in which case, he is still at least partially responsible. If a parent tells their child to stop smoking in school, but the child keeps getting caught smoking and tells the Principal, "Oops, I must have misheard my parents, because they told me I could smoke in school!", those parents are going to get a phone call. Why? Because they are responsible for making sure the rules are heard and UNDERSTOOD.
Previously, me: “There's a much better explanation, BTW.”
Karla says.."Do tell.
Sure. There isn't a "God", and Christians are self-deceived.
Boom “True, it's not necessary that I call it an "apologetic". But that word fits best. Your arguments are designed to give a defense of *objections* raised against your brand of theology, including its byproduct, the "super-natural". To my knowledge, no one is objecting to the natural, physical world. Thus, the natural, physical world needs no "defense"(aka apologetic).”
You still give a defense for a world that needs no supernatural. You don’t defend what you see, but once you start talking about how and why of it you reach the point of needing a defense for your position on the matter.
Boom “You've used this disingenuous tactic(since you don't want me calling it an "apologetic"), gee, I don't know, a dozen or so times, now? First it was your "husband", and now it's your "mother", next, who?..maybe your aunt? “
Lol, I’m sorry to keep using the same analogy.
Boom “Not only that, you now seem to be saying that you're not skeptical of beliefs that conflict with your own....”
True. I don’t need to be skeptical about arguments against God’s existence, because I have already connected with the reality of His existence. The arguments have no substance, to me, to even need to employ skepticism.
Boom “Unless you've redefined "skeptical"(which wouldn't shock me), you are spouting nonsense. If you know for certain that "A" is a Truth, then by default, you would be skeptical of anything *BUT* "A".”
See my answer above.
Boom “Previously, me: “And as I've pointed out more than once, *IF* Christians are being 'led by His[God's] Spirit', then this 'God' is evidentally revealing information that is conflicting.”
No, it is us that make claims contrary to what He is actually saying either for honest reasons of mishearing, or for dishonest ones of wanting to do things the way we want to and call it God.
Boom “You evidentally didn't notice that I was giving benefit of the doubt for sake of argument. I was granting that all self-professed, "True Christians" are hearing "God" correctly, since, let's face it, not many "True Christians" admit that they "mishear God".(until they get caught doing something wrong. Then they blame "Satan")”
I don’t think I always hear God correctly, nor do I think anyone can claim to hear Him 100% right all the time. I don’t even hear people right all the time – even in these dialogs you’ve pointed out my mishearing you.
In any event, you are underscoring my point(as you so often do).
Boom “If believers can "mishear God", then "God" hasn't quite perfected the means by which he reveals "His Word", in which case, he is still at least partially responsible.”
No, it isn’t a failure on His part, but a learning process on mine. Part of learning to hear Him is learning to know Him and if He always breaks through our lack of knowing Him to be sure we got it right, we will miss out on the important ingredient of that relationship.
If a parent tells their child to stop smoking in school, but the child keeps getting caught smoking and tells the Principal, "Oops, I must have misheard my parents, because they told me I could smoke in school!", those parents are going to get a phone call. Why? Because they are responsible for making sure the rules are heard and UNDERSTOOD.”
The child is responsible to take the time to listen and to not lie about what his parents told him. Sometimes we hear just fine and choose to disobey and the problem was then not in the hearing, but in the heart. And sometimes we don’t listen on purpose.
Boom “Sure. There isn't a "God", and Christians are self-deceived.”
That doesn’t explain the world, that is just statement telling me you don’t accept my explanation of the world.
"You still give a defense for a world that needs no supernatural." ~ Karla
We've been over this.
Let's review:
You are the one saying the natural world "needs" the "supernatural". Therefore, the burden of proving that claim is upon you. It is *NOT* my burden to disprove your fantastic, mystical claims. Shifting the burden of proof is a common (disingenuous) tactic of Xian apologists. I recommend you see "Occam's Razor".
"You don’t defend what you see..." ~ Karla
Right, nor do I need to.
Example: I "see" a leaf fall to the ground, and I "see" the law of gravity in effect. That's nature. If it is your position that an invisible, super-natural being is lowering the leaf to the ground with his invisible hand(or whatever super-duper powers it uses), then, again, the onus is on > you < to prove it.
"...but once you start talking about how and why of it you reach the point of needing a defense for your position on the matter." ~ Karla
The "how and why" of natural occurances is explained by, guess what? Nature. And I wouldn't be talking about "nature" at all, if it wasn't for theists and their super-natural claims.
"Lol, I’m sorry to keep using the same analogy." ~ Karla
But evidentally, not sorry enough to realize it's not convincing.
"I don’t need to be skeptical about arguments against God’s existence... ~ Karla
You can be (and are) skeptical of other theist's claims. IOW, your skepticism is most certainly not limited to the arguments of nonbelievers.
"...because I have already connected with the reality of His existence. The arguments have no substance, to me, to even need to employ skepticism." ~ Karla
Yes, yes...'got it: It is impossible that Karla is wrong.( despite that we have her admission that she is not "infallible")
Notwithstanding, in your saying that the "arguments" against your religious conviction(s) "have no substance", you are employing skepticism, de facto.
Example: On at least one occasion, I presented data where you said you'd have to "get back to" me. This is because you were skeptical of the data I presented.
Karla, every theist is skeptical of another's claims at some time or another. That you are defending this, is, quite frankly, silly.
"See my answer above." ~ Karla
I did. Your argument is that any argument against your belief in "God", lacks "substance", when I have pointed out that your skepticism is *NOT* limited to the claims of nonbelievers. You are skeptical of other theist's claims, too. The proof is all throughout this blog. You are simply wrong, but yet, you are seemingly happy to keep defending your errors. Nothing especially new, here.
"No, it isn’t a failure on His part..." ~ Karla
Yes, the failure is partially the fault of your "God", because a "Perfect" being would get *PERFECT* results every flippin' time it tries to acheive or accomplish something. If the "fault" is within the "receiver", then that is *still* the fault of person or being who created the defective receiver.
"No, it is us that make claims contrary to what He is actually saying either for honest reasons of mishearing.. ~ Karla
Then why didn't "He" just drown everyone and start over? "He" did it once; "He" can do it again.
...or for dishonest ones of wanting to do things the way we want to and call it God." ~ Karla
Oh, the irony.
"The child is responsible to take the time to listen and to not lie about what his parents told him."
Right, and if the child keeps screwing up at school, despite what has been said to him or her, the parent will get a phone call. If you know and agree with this, then you are implicitly conceding my point.
Previously, me: “Sure. There isn't a 'God', and Christians are self-deceived.”
Karla responds: "That doesn’t explain the world.."
Neither does "GOD DID IT!"
"..that is just statement telling me you don’t accept my explanation of the world" ~ Karla
You haven't given me any good reasons to accept your "explanation of the world". Your argument amounts to special pleading...i.e..the world exists and Atheists can't explain why, so therefore, it must have been created by God!!!!
Boom "You haven't given me any good reasons to accept your "explanation of the world". Your argument amounts to special pleading...i.e..the world exists and Atheists can't explain why, so therefore, it must have been created by God!!!!"
That's not been my argument.
Boom "Right, and if the child keeps screwing up at school, despite what has been said to him or her, the parent will get a phone call. If you know and agree with this, then you are implicitly conceding my point."
It's only the parents fault if the parents are not raising their kids right--which in our world happens a lot -- I haven't met any perfect human parents--and I often meet parents who don't care about their kids over their own desires.
Even with the best of parents, the kids could still be "misbehaving" and it not be the parents fault.
Previously, me: "You haven't given me any good reasons to accept your 'explanation of the world'. Your argument amounts to special pleading...i.e..the world exists and Atheists can't explain why, so therefore, it must have been created by God!!!!"
Karla responds: "That's not been my argument." ~ Karla
I think it is. Let's see....
Have you encountered an Atheist whose "explanation of the world" you'd accept? Yes, or no? If not, a 3rd of my case is already won.
Next, regarding the "explanation of the world"---do you believe that "God did it"??? Yes, or no? If so, another 3rd of my case is won.
Lastly, is there any other alternative that you'd accept other than "God did it!"? Yes, or no? If not, my case is won, because the implication is that it "must have been created by God", which, if you have no objective, verifiable evidence that "God did it!"(and you do not), that is special pleading.
"It's only the parents fault if the parents are not raising their kids right [...]" ~ Karla
Right, and if the parent isn't doing their parental duty to make sure the rules are put in place and UNDERSTOOD, then that parent is cuplable. A good parent is pro-active in these matters. A good parent doesn't *knowingly* let their children misunderstand them, whereas, your "Heavenly Father"(if it exists) evidentally does let it happen.
"which in our world happens a lot -- I haven't met any perfect human parents--and I often meet parents who don't care about their kids over their own desires" ~ Karla
Irrelevant. Your biblegod is presumably "Perfect", thus, we should rightfully expect "Perfect" results in anything it attempts to do, in this case, simply get its desires/rules across effectively.
Boom “Have you encountered an Atheist whose "explanation of the world" you'd accept? Yes, or no? If not, a 3rd of my case is already won.”
Part of it. My view includes the naturalistic view, it doesn’t deny it.
Boom “Next, regarding the "explanation of the world"---do you believe that "God did it"??? Yes, or no? If so, another 3rd of my case is won.”
Yes I believe God created the world, but when I say “explanation” I don’t just mean it’s origin.
Boom “Lastly, is there any other alternative that you'd accept other than "God did it!"? “
Well since I’m not just referring to it’s origin, then yes there is more to it than that statement. BTW, it’s my starting point, not my alternative.
Boom “ If not, my case is won, because the implication is that it "must have been created by God", which, if you have no objective, verifiable evidence that "God did it!"(and you do not), that is special pleading.”
None that you are willing to accept.
Boom “Right, and if the parent isn't doing their parental duty to make sure the rules are put in place and UNDERSTOOD, then that parent is cuplable. A good parent is pro-active in these matters. A good parent doesn't *knowingly* let their children misunderstand them, whereas, your "Heavenly Father"(if it exists) evidentally does let it happen.
Do you think that if someone knows fully that XYZ is right behavior that they would do it? And if they don’t do it, then something is wrong with the communication of that right thing? Is that the way you see it?
Boom “Irrelevant. Your biblegod is presumably "Perfect", thus, we should rightfully expect "Perfect" results in anything it attempts to do, in this case, simply get its desires/rules across effectively. “
We aren’t perfect.
Boom “Karla, you either accept that the world/universe came into existence by natural means, or you do not. If not, then your answer is "no", above, and you are helping to make my case.”
I wasn’t even thinking of origins of the physical world/universe when I made my original statement. I was thinking of explanation in terms of why the world is the way it is such as things being imperfect, unjust, a mixture of beauty and destruction, etc. Why is there a tension between meaning and no meaning, value of life and no value, justice and injustice, good and bad, etc.? Those kinds of things.
For a yes or no on origins, no I haven’t encountered a Non-Divine answer that was sufficient to how the world first came into existence. I find many good explanations as to why things are built the way they are and how things work after it came to be, but not regarding how and why it and we got here to start with.
Boom “Let the record show that I am talking specifically about origins, based this exchange....
me: “There isn't a 'God', and Christians are self-deceived.”
you: "That doesn’t explain the world [...]"
It was *you* who brought up the subject of origins and how existence needs an "explanation". Remember?”
I can see how you thought that from what I said. But really I wasn’t even thinking of origins until you answered as if I had.
Boom “Was the world/universe necessarily "created" by a "God"? Yes. or. no.(?)”
Yes.
Boom “If "yes", then you are conceding that the world "must have been created by God". Take that, and the fact that you do not accept an Atheist's *natural* explanation, and I have thus proven my previous hypothesis about special pleading.”
Okay, it really doesn’t matter to me what you think that proves.
"Do you think that if someone knows fully that XYZ is right behavior that they would do it?" ~ Karla
Boom “Not necessarily. But we aren't discussing "free will" right now; we are discussing this whole issue of "mishearing" the "XYZ". I'm saying that a "Perfect" being would NOT allow/permit "someone" to "mishear" the "XYZ". What you are suggesting is that people have been "mishearing God" for two-THOUSAND years. What?...am I to believe that "God" can't(or won't) do anything about it, even to this day? I call bull'.”
But our state of being has a lot to do with our ability to hear. If something interferes with that hearing, something in our heart then the problem is on our end. And that’s okay, God can fix that, but that is a matter of our choice to draw close to Him with His help.
Boom “And who "created" the imperfect? How is a "Perfect" being able to make(or allow) something "imperfect"? The proverbial garden duo did NOT *choose* their nature; they were giventhat nature.”
God created us good. He didn’t make us imperfect, just free. We were just as able to choice life and all that is good and probably more so than we were able to choice sin which brings death and destruction to that connectedness to God. Once that connectedness is broken a new nature – a nature not connected to God is born and that needs fixing.
They did choose to disobey God and to walk away from His goodness. That choice had consequences that were known to them before hand. They were told.
Does it really help at all to keep rehashing all this? I’m answering you so as not to ignore you, but I don’t see the need to keep going over this again and again unless you really want to.
Good afternoon,
Again, please either post my comment in its entirety, or do NOT post it at all. Thanks. Once more, you have gone into your email and selectively replied to that which you *think* you have answers, and left out the rest.
Moving on...
Previously, me: “Was the world/universe necessarily 'created' by a 'God'? Yes. or. no.(?)”
Karla: "Yes."
So, despite that you have since clarified what you meant by "the world", the statement that the world/universe "must have been created by God" is, in your view, true, therefore, that is certainly part of your argument.
In which case, when you say...
"that's not been my argument" ~ Karla
...that is not entirely true.
Moreover, since you haven't provided me with any good reasons for why anyone should conclude that a "God" must have "created" everything, nervermind proffering any objective, verfiable evidence to back that assertion, your argument amounts to special pleading.
To that, you respond...
"Okay, it really doesn’t matter to me what you think that proves." ~ Karla
For that matter, why does anything I say "matter"? You are the one who claims that you cannot be mistaken; you are the one who claims to know things with "Absolute certainty". So?...why even entertain anything at all that your Atheist readership says, since you have determined, a priori, that they are mistaken in anything that contradicts your beliefs? So flippin' what if I illustrate over and over and over that Karla makes *demonstrably* false statements? She'll just keep denying it. Whatever it takes to defend her "faith".
"[...] our state of being has a lot to do with our ability to hear. If something interferes with that hearing, something in our heart then the problem is on our end. And that’s okay, God can fix that, but that is a matter of our choice to draw close to Him with His help" ~ Karla
Okay, so you are making it clear that "God" possesses the knowledge and power to overcome this "glich" of interference between him and his followers. But yet, your reasoning for why "God" chooses not to overcome this problem is completely circular: You have to *first* choose to become dependent upon "His help", and it is only then that he will "fix" the "mishearing" problem.
You are, on the one hand, saying it is the follower's "choice", but on the other hand, it is "God" who chooses who is sincere enough of a follower to *get* to hear him properly. IOW, "God" could make sure every follower hears him properly, but doesn't. I smell Calvinism.
Let's be sure, though: Does "God" have the ability to make sure that every person who chooses to follow him can hear him properly? Yes or no?
"God created us good." ~Karla
And yet, we were "created" with the ability to displease "God"; we were "created" with a flaw.
So, evidentally, having a flaw is "good", and it is "Just" to be created with a flaw and be held accountable for it.
Your apologetic for this(which fails miserably each time you use it), is...
"He didn’t make us imperfect, just free"
If we are "free" to be imperfect, then we weren't "Perfect" from the onset. If we were "made" in "the image of God", but yet, we can make mistakes, then "God" can, does, and *did*, make mistakes.
"Does it really help at all to keep rehashing all this?" ` Karla
It doesn't help you, because your mind is already made up. On the other hand, it may help any onlookers who are genuinely questioning their "faith" and seeking truth(lower case "t").
Post a Comment