NUance's testimonial about God

[TAKODA]

Thanks TGHusker!

 

I have been reading everything I can find or get my hands on this week on some of the questions that have been posed or will be posed here in our religious section. I am not a religious scholar but rather someone who looks for answers to the very things that are being spoken about here. No, I am not a Bible Thumper and Yes, I am a sinner. I can't tell you why (what the driving force behind this is) I have spent as much time this week reviewing documents, videos, publications and alike, yet I feel the need to educate myself further and share what it is that I do find. This probably is not so different than what Knapp had done previously for himself and should this be strictly a basis for me to re-educate myself on things I may have forgotten or if I can share things with others that may be of educational value, so be it. Regardless, it is healthy to educate one’s self rather than to be part of the ever growing social problem of allowing someone else to think for us.

[TGHusker]

Learning is like rowing a canoe upstream, if you stop, you'll go backwards.

[NUance]

Learning is like rowing a canoe upstream, if you stop, you'll go backwards.

 

Tom Osborne said the same thing for athletics. Something like: "You're always either improving or deteriorating. You don't just stay at the same level." (paraphrasing)

[HuskerShark]

I stopped going to church when I turned 18, too many illogical and contradictory things about Christianity. The science deniers turn me off the most, refusing to accept tested scientific theories and laws. My sister goes to a Christian college and refuses to believe any science that conflicts with the bible.

 

Science does not disprove the existence of God. The two work together hand in hand.

 

You have to take into context the time period that the Bible was written. Their scientific knowledge was very limited, and any part of it that you feel conflicts can be interpreted differently and made fit again into the context of science.

[TGHusker]

Ha ha! The new quoting system strikes again. You can toggle in and out of quote mode when making a post by using the upper left hand corner button that looks like a little light switch. Makes it easier to work with the quotes.

Ok tell me now the quote system works

[NUance]

 

Ha ha! The new quoting system strikes again. You can toggle in and out of quote mode when making a post by using the upper left hand corner button that looks like a little light switch. Makes it easier to work with the quotes.

Ok tell me now the quote system works

 

 

I dunno. When you're making a post just hit the button that looks like a little light switch and see the two different modes. Is that what you're asking?

[NUance]

 

I stopped going to church when I turned 18, too many illogical and contradictory things about Christianity. The science deniers turn me off the most, refusing to accept tested scientific theories and laws. My sister goes to a Christian college and refuses to believe any science that conflicts with the bible.

Science does not disprove the existence of God. The two work together hand in hand.

 

You have to take into context the time period that the Bible was written. Their scientific knowledge was very limited, and any part of it that you feel conflicts can be interpreted differently and made fit again into the context of science.

 

I wish more people understood this. :

[knapplc]

I went through that mental struggle for a while, where evidence was showing one thing (evolutionary chains, disk accretion forming solar systems, the moon crashing into the Earth in protoplanetary stage, etc) and the Bible either never mentions them or has wildly conflicting explanations (the universe created in six days, man coming from dust, etc.)

For a long time I ignored the discrepancies, until the burden of proof outweighed my desire to believe the Bible was accurate. At some point I simply could not ignore the evidence anymore.

If the argument for dispelling those conflicts is "it can be interpreted differently," that raises a horrifying question: If the Bible is the one source of true information about God, and in it is contained information of the ONLY way through which mankind can come to everlasting life, and the consequence of that lack of knowledge is everlasting damnation, how then could a responsible, loving god allow such interpretations to be possible? Because those interpretations lead to sects like the Mormons, or the Westboro Baptists, or Neo-Nazis. I think almost all of us would agree those people interpret the Bible and its message wrongly, but their belief system still stems from that same, interpretable source.

 

"Free Will" alone cannot be the answer for this, because that very free will that makes choosing faith in God so beautiful also condemns the majority of humans. "Free Will" isn't a ticket to freedom, it's a ticket to hell for more than half of all humans who have ever existed, and at one point more than 99% of humans in existence on the planet. Eleven remaining disciples and their handful of followers were the only people to believe that Jesus was the Son of God in the aftermath of his death. Everybody else on the planet did not believe, and thus were not saved.

 

Before I was created in the womb, God knew me. He knew who I was, what I would become, and the dangers I faced in this life, the single most paramount of which was the ability to fall away from Faith and earn damnation. Were I to have died in the womb, there are those who would argue that I would gain entrance to heaven, having never had the chance to turn away from God. But by being born, living a life and observing the evidence before me, I have turned away. The facts show different than what the Bible says, no matter how it's interpreted. This god who knew me before I was made in the womb allowed me to live, fall away, and earn damnation. This is not the act of a loving god.

 

No, "interpretation" does not solve any problems betwixt science and faith. It is, in fact, one of the worst things to put in the hands of those who should have everlasting life already granted to them.

[TGHusker]

Knapp brings up some very interesting and important points. I really appreciate his honesty. His points should not be taken lightly or dismissed with a casual answer. I won't presume to be smart enough to try to answer - much more capable guys then me could address his important points (no assumption that Knapp wanted someone to address them as they stand on their own merit as being a valid opinion/expression of his experience). My only thought is that I believe God to be more gracious than any of us would give Him credit and that 'he looks at the heart' and not on the outward or our perfect theology.

 

I think we each have a path we walk in coming to understand our world - faith, science, politics etc.

 

Our pastor spoke on the subject yesterday of faith vs science or can they both co-exist. Paul tells us in Romans 1 that creation testifies of God & that God responds to us based on the 'light' that we've received. Paul goes on to say in Rom 2 that there are those (gentiles) who don't know the truth (the written scriptures) but respond to the knowledge of truth in their hearts. There are a great # of people who would solve Knapp's dilemma above by saying that through Christ all of the world would be saved (Romans 5 - all sinned under Adam, all saved by Christ the 2nd Adam) an interpretation called universalism. While I attend an evangelical church, I agree wt a pastor who said - Many in heaven with 'Right' heads (those who held traditional, foundational Biblical theology) will be surprised when they see many there with "wrong" heads (non-traditional or no theology) but right hearts. I expect to be proven wrong in plenty of areas when we no 'longer are seeing through a glass dimly but will know and be known in full. Until then, my 'theology' is a world view that helps me make sense of this world. I think we all look through this dimly lite glass, believer or non-believer. No one has a handle on all of the truth and knows all things - otherwise he is claiming to be - well god himself. We have to remember that the Bible is not a 'science text book' but a book about God and His relationship with man primarily and the salvation story culminating in the person of Jesus Christ and his life, death and resurrection. I'm not saying that the Bible is wrong when it comes to scientific items when it speaks of it but that its primary focus is not science. Job 38 brings up many scientific/natural illustrations when God finally answers Job & his questions on faith/trouble, etc. Basically telling Job to follow Micah 6:8 (which is a good formula for all of us)

He has shown you, O man, what is good.
And what does the Lord require of you?
To act justly and to love mercy
and to walk humbly^[a] with your God.

 

 

Sorry, I probably rambled on too much.

 

 

This scientist, Francis Collins, says we don't have to choose science vs faith. I know there are many other good, accomplished and well respected scientists who would say the same thing.

 

 

 

 

From Wikipedia:

Francis Sellers Collins (born April 14, 1950) is an American physician-geneticist noted for his discoveries of disease genes and his leadership of the Human Genome Project. He is director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in Bethesda, Maryland.

Before being appointed director of the NIH, Collins led the Human Genome Project and other genomics research initiatives as director of the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI), one of the 27 institutes and centers at NIH. Before joining NHGRI, he earned a reputation as a gene hunter at the University of Michigan. He has been elected to the Institute of Medicine and the National Academy of Sciences, and has received the Presidential Medal of Freedom and the National Medal of Science.

Collins also has written a number of books on science, medicine, and spirituality, including the New York Times bestseller, The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief.

After leaving the helm of NHGRI and before becoming director of the NIH, he founded and served as president of The BioLogos Foundation, which promotes discourse on the relationship between science and religion and advocates the perspective that belief in Christianity can be reconciled with acceptance of evolution and science, especially though the advancement of evolutionary creation.^[1] In 2009, Pope Benedict XVI appointed Collins to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences.

[Husker_x]

Francis Collins is a genius and the whole world owes him a debt of gratitude, though most people are unaware of who he is or why they should be thanking him. Our descendants could well look at his work on the Human Genome Project as a milestone of human achievement in medicine and our understanding of countless aspects of human nature. Obviously his Christianity did not interfere with his ability to think rationally on the science of genetics. No one, not even his late friend Christopher Hitchens, questioned his scientific credentials.

 

However, when it comes to his theology, or his opinions about religion or God, Francis Collins is no more informed on the subject or qualified to speak intelligently about it than you, me, or anyone else. Working from memory, the reason Collins became a Christian is that one day he was walking in nature and came upon a frozen waterfall split into three branches. The wonder of the sight stirred something inside him, and he dropped to his knees and made a commitment to the Christian faith right on the spot.

 

I don't doubt this story. I don't even doubt Francis Collins experienced something––possibly a transcendent emotion very few people ever have or will experience. What I do doubt is any and every claim he may make regarding this experience, beginning with the idea that his having it is sufficient reason to accept any claims about Jesus or the Bible. Clearly Collins jettisoned a literal reading of Genesis (this I would argue one must do to avoid a conflict between science and religion), but consider for a moment that had an intellect of Collins's caliber happened to be born in Spain in the 1500s and not America in the 1900s, he likely would have been burned to death by his own brethren for merely holding to this now widely-accepted liberal version of Christian doctrine.

 

Capable, intelligent, and earnest as Collins may be, he has failed to do what any scientist, philosopher, or theologian has ever tried to do: present actual evidence for the existence of God. A shame, considering he is perfectly suited to publish the findings.

[TGHusker]

Francis Collins is a genius and the whole world owes him a debt of gratitude, though most people are unaware of who he is or why they should be thanking him. Our descendants could well look at his work on the Human Genome Project as a milestone of human achievement in medicine and our understanding of countless aspects of human nature. Obviously his Christianity did not interfere with his ability to think rationally on the science of genetics. No one, not even his late friend Christopher Hitchens, questioned his scientific credentials.

 

However, when it comes to his theology, or his opinions about religion or God, Francis Collins is no more informed on the subject or qualified to speak intelligently about it than you, me, or anyone else. Working from memory, the reason Collins became a Christian is that one day he was walking in nature and came upon a frozen waterfall split into three branches. The wonder of the sight stirred something inside him, and he dropped to his knees and made a commitment to the Christian faith right on the spot.

 

I don't doubt this story. I don't even doubt Francis Collins experienced something––possibly a transcendent emotion very few people ever have or will experience. What I do doubt is any and every claim he may make regarding this experience, beginning with the idea that his having it is sufficient reason to accept any claims about Jesus or the Bible. Clearly Collins jettisoned a literal reading of Genesis (this I would argue one must do to avoid a conflict between science and religion), but consider for a moment that had an intellect of Collins's caliber happened to be born in Spain in the 1500s and not America in the 1900s, he likely would have been burned to death by his own brethren for merely holding to this now widely-accepted liberal version of Christian doctrine.

 

Capable, intelligent, and earnest as Collins may be, he has failed to do what any scientist, philosopher, or theologian has ever tried to do: present actual evidence for the existence of God. A shame, considering he is perfectly suited to publish the findings.

A thoughtful post Huskerx. I've been thinking about it for a while and had a few thoughts - forgive me if I write too long of a response. It isn't meant to be preachy or trying to refute anything, just thoughts that came to me while I laid in bed last night wt a migraine. (taking Extra strength Excedrin with its caffeine tends to overstimulate my brain and I solve all of the world's problems while trying to fall back to sleep - but it does kill the migraine)

 

Regarding your last statement: Since the God we speak of is a transcendent being, is it possible for any of us, believer or non-believer, to provide actual evidence for or against the existence of God? We are asking for proof of something/someone out of our sphere of living/conscientiousness. It is like asking Hamlet to prove there is a Shakespeare or Tom Sawyer to describe Mark Twain. Hamlet or Tom would only be able to describe the author based on only the info the author chooses to reveal about himself in their respective stories. If we can categorically state 100% that there is no god, then we have become that god that we have denied - 100% knowledgeable. The honest atheist would have to admit that in their sphere of knowledge, our world as we know it, "we believe there is no god". If as the good atheist scientist states that there has to be thousands or more universes out there in order to make our random chance of life on earth occur, even though we cannot see those universes -- is that not the same kind of faith in which we as Christian might state that there is a transcendent God out there in another realm we are not privy to yet? Both atheism and Christianity take faith. Unlike Tom Sawyer, Christians believe that our Author provided information about Himself in the Bible. While we don't claim that the Bible has all of the truth (it doesn't tell us all of the truth of physics, history, etc) we do believe it is truthful about what it does speak of - which is primarily a story of God's relationship with mankind and the story of redemption and God's love shown to us through Christ.

 

So this brings us to Collin's story of his conversion experience - the walk in nature etc. I thought of 4 scriptural witnesses of God and typically conversion happens as we walk through those 4 witnesses: Creation, Our inward moral compass/conscience, written scripture - the Bible, finally Christ himself. A person may think about God because of the witness of nature, is prodded by an inner witness of conscience, is challenged by the claims of the Bible which introduces him to the person of Jesus Christ, who said he is the Way, the Truth, and the Life and an earthly/flesh reflection of the transcendent God.

So, while Collins speaks of the emotional experience in nature, his conversion rests on more than just that experience.

 

A few scriptural references of the 4 witnesses to back up what I am saying:

 

1. Creation - Romans 1:18-23 - I think most of us as kids have looked up at the sky at night and thought - there's got to be a god - a designer of all of this. Or as we get older and we understand DNA structure and factory like make up of each living cell, we think - there has got to be a god a designer. This is the witness of creation. As note in these versus, many of us end up suppressing this witness - we often do so because we don't know how to deal with the pain and suffering & evil in this world & in our own lives specifically and we often start wt the 'How can a good God allow this evil?' A good question but one that while causing doubts even in believers at times, is still answered more effectively by the Christian faith than by atheism. I've heard it said that many outspoken atheists (and many normal unbelievers) started out as believers but because of the death of a loved one/or some other tragedy and their inability to deal wt the pain, they ran from God toward atheism in order to fight the God they blame their pain on and who could have brought comfort in their pain.

¹⁸ For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, ¹⁹ because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. ²⁰ For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, ²¹ because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. ²² Professing to be wise, they became fools, ²³ and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.

 

2. Inward moral witness - The knowledge of right and wrong. The sense of justice vs injustice. Why should the atheist be alarmed at injustice if it is all a mater of material existence - the strong should control the weak. Where does this sense of injustice come from. Some call it natural law. Romans 2 speaks to this point - esp the versus in bold below. Had to copy the full context -sorry for the length:

 

You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. ² Now we know that God’s judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. ³ So when you, a mere human being, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God’s judgment? ⁴ Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, forbearance and patience, not realizing that God’s kindness is intended to lead you to repentance?

⁵ But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God’s wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed. ⁶ God “will repay each person according to what they have done.”^{[a] 7} To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. ⁸ But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. ⁹ There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; ¹⁰ but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. ¹¹ For God does not show favoritism.

¹² All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. ¹³ For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. ¹⁴ (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. ¹⁵ They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.) ¹⁶ This will take place on the day when God judges people’s secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.

 

3. Scripture - point towards Christ . Christ speaking of the Old Testament: John 5:39 You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me.

 

4. Jesus Himself: John 14:9 Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? John chapter 1 living Bible version: ^1-2 Before anything else existed,^[a] there was Christ,* with God. He has always been alive and is himself God. ³ He created everything there is—nothing exists that he didn’t make. ⁴ Eternal life is in him, and this life gives light to all mankind. ⁵ His life is the light that shines through the darkness—and the darkness can never extinguish it.

^6-7 God sent John the Baptist as a witness to the fact that Jesus Christ is the true Light. ⁸ John himself was not the Light; he was only a witness to identify it.

⁹ Later on, the one who is the true Light arrived to shine on everyone coming into the world.

¹⁰ But although he made the world, the world didn’t recognize him when he came. ¹⁴ And Christ^[d] became a human being and lived here on earth among us and was full of loving forgiveness* and truth. And some of us have seen his glory*—the glory of the only Son of the heavenly Father!*¹⁸ No one has ever actually seen God, but, of course, his only Son has, for he is the companion of the Father and has told us all about him.

[Husker_x]

Forgive me if I write too long of a response. It isn't meant to be preachy or trying to refute anything, just thoughts that came to me while I laid in bed last night wt a migraine. (taking Extra strength Excedrin with its caffeine tends to overstimulate my brain and I solve all of the world's problems while trying to fall back to sleep - but it does kill the migraine)

 

No worries. Considering how many paragraphs I've stacked in this forum on this topic, who am I to tell someone else to hurry? And sorry about the headaches. Hope they don't keep you down too long.

 

Regarding your last statement: Since the God we speak of is a transcendent being, is it possible for any of us, believer or non-believer, to provide actual evidence for or against the existence of God? We are asking for proof of something/someone out of our sphere of living/conscientiousness. It is like asking Hamlet to prove there is a Shakespeare or Tom Sawyer to describe Mark Twain. Hamlet or Tom would only be able to describe the author based on only the info the author chooses to reveal about himself in their respective stories.

 

If you expect me to believe claims––yours or anyone else's––about a god's existence and/or directives, there had better be some reason. And if God wants me (or anyone) to believe he exists, then what's the hangup? The Christian God is reportedly "outside of the universe," or our consciousness, but 1) he is also reported to have regularly intervened in history for the express purpose of displaying his existence to certain people, 2) is capable of manifesting again should he choose to, and 3) this God has only my consciousness as a point of contact, where the totality of my experience ultimately resides. So he'll have to figure something out.

 

The analogy to literature strikes me as shaky for a few reasons. First, the texts you cited were deliberate works of fiction. Their purpose may or may not have been to reveal something about the author. Regardless, there will always be an impassable gap between what the author intended and what the reader (or audience member at the Globe in Shakespeare's case) perceives. The Bible is not––so it is claimed––a work of fiction. Its purpose is to provide a reliable account of God's actions, character, motivation, and desires. Sadly it cannot do this for a variety of reasons. We'll come to that shortly.

 

If we can categorically state 100% that there is no god, then we have become that god that we have denied - 100% knowledgeable. The honest atheist would have to admit that in their sphere of knowledge, our world as we know it, "we believe there is no god". If as the good atheist scientist states that there has to be thousands or more universes out there in order to make our random chance of life on earth occur, even though we cannot see those universes -- is that not the same kind of faith in which we as Christian might state that there is a transcendent God out there in another realm we are not privy to yet? Both atheism and Christianity take faith.

 

I take issue with the first statement. I am not a hard atheist––in fact, I'm not sure I've ever met one. I do not claim to be certain there is no god. I see no evidence for one. That's a crucial distinction. But I've heard Christians use this sort of logic before, and I don't understand how they arrive at it. How by claiming certainty that the Christian God is false would I suddenly become God? I wouldn't be able to part the red sea, feed the five thousand with a few fish and loaves, walk on water (or turn it into wine), create a universe, or kill a fig tree by talking to it.

 

About the multiverse: that is a hypothesis. There is some evidence to suggest our universe may not be the only one. I'd look at Lawrence Krauss's work if you'd like the details, but there is no conclusive proof, and not one prominent scientist I'm aware of has claimed it certainly exists. It takes no faith to put forward a testable hypothesis; quite the opposite, actually. It takes faith, sola fide, to posit the supernatural as an explanation for natural phenomena we observe. That is why Creationism is not an explanation; merely a dogmatic claim lacking evidence or those who even expect to find any. If the multiverse hypothesis fails, it fails. No one swears absolute allegiance to it or stakes their life on faith in its existence. Not anyone who wants to remained an employed scientist, anyway.

 

So this brings us to Collin's story of his conversion experience - the walk in nature etc. I thought of 4 scriptural witnesses of God and typically conversion happens as we walk through those 4 witnesses: Creation, Our inward moral compass/conscience, written scripture - the Bible, finally Christ himself. A person may think about God because of the witness of nature, is prodded by an inner witness of conscience, is challenged by the claims of the Bible which introduces him to the person of Jesus Christ, who said he is the Way, the Truth, and the Life and an earthly/flesh reflection of the transcendent God.

 

This is really the crux of the issue. One thing that is remarkable about these four witnesses is how circular they really are in practice. I've mentioned this before, but I once met a Mormon who literally claimed to see Jesus in his living room (stranger even than this claim is how unperturbed Christians are by it when I bring it up, given our problems with evidence and such). Before we got to that part, he handed me a Book of Mormon and said that if I read it and prayed sincerely enough, God would reveal himself to me. The Catch-22 of the situation was not at all obvious to him: if I prayed and God revealed himself, he was real. If I prayed and God did not reveal himself to me, I was not sincere enough. This was like a shittier Las Vegas. The House literally never loses.

 

But let's look at these four witnesses.

 

1. Creation. A poor choice of words because it stacks the deck, but anyway, it is evident to me that I occupy a physical reality that I and others can interact with and describe––in speech or writing, in physics and mathematics, and in ways that basically predict what will happen (what goes up comes down) by collecting data and finding patterns. It is probably true that most people who look at the staggering immensity of the universe have no other means of explaining it than: "Well . . . someone must have made it this way." But this is an inclination, an assertion, not based in fact. How many people have this feeling is irrelevant. If God is real and he did create the universe, one of the design features is his apparent absence.

 

Equally irrelevant is the presence of pain and suffering in our experience. The only one with any explaining to do about why there is pain and suffering in the world is a religious person. Atheism is a lack of belief in a god. Nothing more. I can give you a series of very simple reasons why pain and suffering exist––most of them related to your central nervous system––but as to why they exist in the first place, the question presumes there is a reason. What if there isn't? I say again, this is only a problem for a religious person. Why does Jesus allow tsunamis to sweep away hundreds of thousands of people––typically heathen––men, women and children all destined to continue suffering forever after their deaths because they were unfortunate enough to be born into cultures with similar but incorrect versions of gods?

 

2.

Inward moral witness - The knowledge of right and wrong. The sense of justice vs injustice. Why should the atheist be alarmed at injustice if it is all a mater of material existence - the strong should control the weak. Where does this sense of injustice come from.

 

A sense of injustice stems mostly from incidental features of our species. Humans are apes. Like dogs, apes are a social species. We derive a share of our pleasure in the world from contact with other people. Our senses of empathy and shame (among others) steer the ship of social interaction. My life is directly benefited by the presence of things like justice, law, and compassion. And since this life is the only one I'm reasonably assured of having, however temporary, I am alarmed at injustice and hope for it to vanish even while realizing it won't. I do not require supernatural permission from an invisible person to behave ethically (or to have the desire to behave ethically).

 

3-4. The scriptures. I was surprised how little explaining this section needed. In my view, this is the point which requires the most explanation. I will include my response to point four here as well, because the only record that provides us potential access to the person of Jesus is the scriptures.

 

What are the scriptures?

 

As they pertain to Jesus specifically, four hand-selected, anonymous, non-eye witness documents created decades after the man himself was rumored to have died. Not a word of them can be corroborated by other sources, not even the existence of Jesus as a historical figure. They contain wild accounts of magical powers and deeds not all that far off from our modern fantasy genre. Some of the claims are historically absurd. These texts had the misfortune of appearing in a time and place where these kinds of gods and stories were common throughout the known world, transmitted orally from one language into another language that subsequently died. The synoptic gospels––Matthew, Mark, and Luke––both plagiarize and contradict each other. Not one original of any gospel (or epistle) survives to this day. Among the existing copies, there are far more variants in the manuscripts than there are words in all of the texts combined.

 

To understand the power of the point I'm making, I refer you back to Knapplc's post, third paragraph. For the moment I hope it is enough to explain why when a religious believer cites scriptural references to back their case, I am unmoved by these witnesses; in fact, they ignite an overwhelming sensation of skepticism about the very thing the scriptures are supposed to give evidence for.

[TGHusker]

Thanks X for your thoughtful response & thanks for the sympathies on the headaches. They are a bummer for sure. You (and Knapp) are very reasoned in your statements. I for one, don't want to go back and forth wt you on this - much brighter men than I have carried on this debate for centuries (nor do I have the time as I get on here from work during break)- but I do respect your opinions and thoughts on this. Josh McDowell ( - one video Josh speaks of the $24k surviving NT manuscripts) William Lane Craig ( http://www.reasonablefaith.org/ ) and other contemporary apologists do a good job addressing many of the issues (particularly the reliability of scriptures and the 'contradictions') you have brought up. These are but 2 guys that come to mind. So we could each build our team and this could last for then next 20 posts. I do like to hear what you have to say and I'll not ever doubt the sincerity behind it. My post above was never meant to be an exhaustive treatment of what I considered the 4 witnesses of scripture - and yes as scriptural related they are circular. I didn't post it to be 4 "outside' witnesses - only as what scriptures says about the conversion experience in a nutshell - again just wt a few references.

 

I do agree, your Morman friend placed you in a no win situation. And yes, I get pretty perturbed when I hear stories of 'Jesus in my living room' or other such things. I believe faith can be and should be 'reasonable' and these kind of stories are very unreasonable. (You hear them from some money grabbing teachers/preachers occasionally also who think some miraculous event like that will give them street cred).