I’m in a strange place: very conservative, but not Christian

[Wrangler]

What contradictions?

Numbers 23:19 God doesn’t regret
Genesis 6:6 God regrets creating man

“I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.” Genesis 32:30
“No man hath seen God at any time.” John 1:18

Those can easily be explained…

Yet, you did not explain them.

I don't think there is an easy explanation. The best explanation is context and the Bible being a highly figurative book. Our society interprets things much more literally than the smarter humans of yesteryear. Overall, God may not have regrets but he sure regretted how intransigent humans were along his master plan.

Still, today people realize that when a parent says they could kill their kid for something, it is an expression of temporary rage, of how they felt, while at the same time admitting the parent does not actually intent to act on those feelings. Hope this helps.

 

[Mantis]

Yet, you did not explain them.

I don't think there is an easy explanation. The best explanation is context and the Bible being a highly figurative book. Our society interprets things much more literally than the smarter humans of yesteryear. Overall, God may not have regrets but he sure regretted how intransigent humans were along his master plan.

Still, today people realize that when a parent says they could kill their kid for something, it is an expression of temporary rage, of how they felt, while at the same time admitting the parent does not actually intent to act on those feelings. Hope this helps.

I have had apologists explain those “contradictions” and it sure made sense to me. I am not an apologist so I didn’t give explanations. He doesn’t believe them so why bother.

 

[Romanov2488]

I have had apologists explain those “contradictions” and it sure made sense to me. I am not an apologist so I didn’t give explanations. He doesn’t believe them so why bother.

There are Christian apologetics, and then there’s counter apologetics to those Christian apologetics. Criticizing the Bible directly is one thing and certainly nothing new, but criticizing the arguments of a Christian apologist is where the meat is at. A lot of these apologists do great dispelling doubt among believers, but they do a terrible job when it comes to the nonbelievers which I suppose doesn’t matter to them all that much anyways because believers are more important to them. Apologists typically start with the conclusion and then shape the evidence to meet that conclusion. They may be good when it comes to defending Christianity from other religions but other than that, their arguments aren’t bulletproof. One argument by a Christian apologist for example is that science confirms that the universe is limited due to the Big Bang. However, the Big Bang is merely a theory and many scientists can confirm that there is nothing to suggest that the universe is truly finite in the sense of there being a multiverse, multiple big bangs, and the Big Bang just being the singularity of just another black hole. Currently the universe is referred to as the ‘observable universe’ which means that we haven’t truly found a limit to it. The universe is actually expanding faster than the speed of light so it’s basically impossible to ever find the outer edges of it since that light will never reach us. Counter apologetics is next level to merely criticizing the Bible.

 

[Wrangler]

I have had apologists explain those “contradictions” and it sure made sense to me. I am not an apologist so I didn’t give explanations. He doesn’t believe them so why bother.

I'm glad you asked for my reply is prompted by the Holy Spirit.

1st, being an apologist is not an option! We must always be ready to offer a defense of our hope.

but exalt Him as Lord in your heart. Always be ready to offer a defense, humbly and respectfully, when someone asks why you live in hope. ...
1 Peter 3:15-16 (Voice)​

2nd, our job is not to condemn his lack of belief or dismiss this image bearer of God for lack of faith but to plant seeds.

“What then is Apollos? What is Paul? Servants through whom you believed as the Lord assigned to each. I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the growth. So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything. But only God Who gives the growth.”
(1 Corinthians 3:5-6)​

3rd, If you had explanations that made sense to you, it sure would be generous for you to share the wealth of wisdom.

• Whoever is generous to the poor (in spirit) lends to the Lord, and he will repay him for his deed. Proverbs 19:17 ESV (Emphasis added)
  
• I therefore, a prisoner for the Lord, urge you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling to which you have been called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call— one Lord, one faith, one baptism, ... Ephesians 4:1-6 ESV

4th, we should meet people where they are. Humbly admit he sees clear enough to set the foundation for discourse. A wise Christian admitted to me, when I was not a Christian, that these are apparent contradictions. It builds a bridge rather than a wall. It takes Spiritual discernment to recognize the apparent contradictions are not actual contradictions once one has moved on from milk to meat.

Though I am free and belong to no one, I have made myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. 20 To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. 21 To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. 22 To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some. 23 I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings. 1 Corinthians 9:19-23​

5th, taking the time to dismissively say 'Those can easily be explained' but not taking the time to actually explain it is beneath you. Better to tame your tongue and not strengthen the resolve of one apparently curious enough to post here.

So also the tongue is a small member, yet it boasts of great things. How great a forest is set ablaze by such a small fire! 6 And the tongue is a fire, a world of unrighteousness. The tongue is set among our members, staining the whole body, setting on fire the entire course of life,[a] and set on fire by hell. James 3:5-6 ESV​

 

[Wrangler]

criticizing the arguments of a Christian apologist is where the meat is at

Said in attack mode. It is just as valid to say criticizing the arguments of atheist apologist is where the meat is at.

I read a book last year entitled, Atheism on Trial. The author essentially said the arguments for atheism are the same as 2,400 years ago. At the end of the day, the evidence is in. Each generation must learn for itself what that evidence is - for and against - and come to a reaonable, considered conclusion.

They may be good when it comes to defending Christianity from other religions but other than that, their arguments aren’t bulletproof. One argument by a Christian apologist for example is that science confirms that the universe is limited due to the Big Bang.

It is not a matter of science but philosophy. It is axiomatic that all things that exist are finite.

Currently the universe is referred to as the ‘observable universe’ which means that we haven’t truly found a limit to it.

That everything, including the universe itself, is finite is not a matter of perception but a matter of conception.

The universe is actually expanding faster than the speed of light so it’s basically impossible to ever find the outer edges of it since that light will never reach us.

Interesting. What is the evidence that the universe is actually expanding faster than the speed of light?

 

[Romanov2488]

Said in attack mode. It is just as valid to say criticizing the arguments of atheist apologist is where the meat is at.

I read a book last year entitled, Atheism on Trial. The author essentially said the arguments for atheism are the same as 2,400 years ago. At the end of the day, the evidence is in. Each generation must learn for itself what that evidence is - for and against - and come to a reaonable, considered conclusion.



It is not a matter of science but philosophy. It is axiomatic that all things that exist are finite.



That everything, including the universe itself, is finite is not a matter of perception but a matter of conception.



Interesting. What is the evidence that the universe is actually expanding faster than the speed of light?

The evidence of the universe expanding faster than the speed of light is the recession velocity of the furthest galaxies we can see. That velocity exceeds the speed of light.

How Fast Is The Universe Expanding? Hubble Reveals Most Precise Measurement Yet

How fast is the universe expanding? Galaxies provide one answer: New measure of Hubble constant highlights discrepancy between estimates of our cosmic fate

I would not doubt that the arguments for atheism are the same as they were 2400 years ago. The thing is that atheism doesn’t make any assertions about God’s existence unlike theists do. There are some atheists that hold the negative belief that there is no god whatsoever, which is just a sub category. And while it is equally valid to say that criticizing the arguments of an atheist apologist is where the meat is at, you would be hard pressed to find any actual atheist apologists because atheism is not a faith. It would be more accurate to call them counter apologists because they remain skeptical of assertions being made about God’s existence. There are countless Christian apologists on the other hand which begs the question, if Christianity is so bulletproof, why does it need so much defending? Since the author of Atheism on Trial is an attorney, then he should know that the burden of proof is on the theists, not the atheists. Very briefly in the beginning of his book, he separated beliefs into 3 categories: biblical Christianity, world religions, and skeptical faiths. The third one, ‘skeptical faiths’ is very questionable because it insinuates that an atheist needs faith. This ties back to a common quote thrown around by apologists who say, “I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist” as if atheism is a belief system of sorts-it’s not.

And although it’s axiomatic that all things that exist are finite, I’d like to add that an axiom is nothing more than an assumption. Axioms rest upon the validity of human observation and human observation is not infallible. We are stepping out of what to think and how to think at this point where we begin to enter philosophy and metaphysics.

 

[Mantis]

I'm glad you asked for my reply is prompted by the Holy Spirit.

1st, being an apologist is not an option! We must always be ready to offer a defense of our hope.

but exalt Him as Lord in your heart. Always be ready to offer a defense, humbly and respectfully, when someone asks why you live in hope. ...
1 Peter 3:15-16 (Voice)​

2nd, our job is not to condemn his lack of belief or dismiss this image bearer of God for lack of faith but to plant seeds.

“What then is Apollos? What is Paul? Servants through whom you believed as the Lord assigned to each. I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the growth. So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything. But only God Who gives the growth.”
(1 Corinthians 3:5-6)​

3rd, If you had explanations that made sense to you, it sure would be generous for you to share the wealth of wisdom.

• Whoever is generous to the poor (in spirit) lends to the Lord, and he will repay him for his deed. Proverbs 19:17 ESV (Emphasis added)
• I therefore, a prisoner for the Lord, urge you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling to which you have been called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call— one Lord, one faith, one baptism, ... Ephesians 4:1-6 ESV

4th, we should meet people where they are. Humbly admit he sees clear enough to set the foundation for discourse. A wise Christian admitted to me, when I was not a Christian, that these are apparent contradictions. It builds a bridge rather than a wall. It takes Spiritual discernment to recognize the apparent contradictions are not actual contradictions once one has moved on from milk to meat.

Though I am free and belong to no one, I have made myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. 20 To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. 21 To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. 22 To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some. 23 I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings. 1 Corinthians 9:19-23​

5th, taking the time to dismissively say 'Those can easily be explained' but not taking the time to actually explain it is beneath you. Better to tame your tongue and not strengthen the resolve of one apparently curious enough to post here.

So also the tongue is a small member, yet it boasts of great things. How great a forest is set ablaze by such a small fire! 6 And the tongue is a fire, a world of unrighteousness. The tongue is set among our members, staining the whole body, setting on fire the entire course of life,[a] and set on fire by hell. James 3:5-6 ESV​

I was just too lazy to find the answers to the contradictions. I don’t remember them so that wisdom is not in this head. But they can be explained easily by an apologist. Not by me that’s all. Good reply by the way!

 

[Romanov2488]

I was just too lazy to find the answers to the contradictions. I don’t remember them so that wisdom is not in this head. But they can be explained easily by an apologist. Not by me that’s all. Good reply by the way!

Since the Christian faith is so bulletproof, why does it need so many apologists and defending of it?

 

[Wrangler]

And while it is equally valid to say that criticizing the arguments of an atheist apologist is where the meat is at, you would be hard pressed to find any actual atheist apologists because atheism is not a faith

The Supreme Court ruled atheism is a religion.

 

[Wrangler]

The evidence of the universe expanding faster than the speed of light is the recession velocity of the furthest galaxies we can see. That velocity exceeds the speed of light.

How Fast Is The Universe Expanding? Hubble Reveals Most Precise Measurement Yet

Your link says the universe is expanding at 73 kilometers per second. This is faster than light speed?

 

[Wrangler]

It would be more accurate to call them counter apologists because they remain skeptical of assertions being made about God’s existence.

Calling a rose by a different name smells the same.

While there is irrational faith (like looking at my car and still insisting someone stole it), there is also such a thing as irrational skepticism. Hence, the motivation for the book, Atheism on Trial.

In my experience, most atheists like to talk about religion from a position of false impunity of their skepticism. Have you ever critically examined the basis for atheism? An atheist cannot be a skeptic! That would be an agnostic. An atheist is declaring there is no god, which is a positive assertion, not skeptical at all.

To paraphrase global warming alarmists, what caused you to abandon your skepticism of being skeptical, to finally assert with epistemological certainty that there is no god? Friend, I do not have enough faith to be an atheist.

 

[Wrangler]

There are countless Christian apologists on the other hand which begs the question, if Christianity is so bulletproof, why does it need so much defending?

Christians are called to reconcile people with God. It is our mission.

The Bible puts it this way. Some people do not have eyes to see or ears to hear.

Since the author of Atheism on Trial is an attorney, then he should know that the burden of proof is on the theists, not the atheists.

You should know religion is not about proof but faith. But that brings up a good question; what proof will you accept? I started a thread Evidence To Be Seen | Christian Forums @ Christianity Board

 

[Wrangler]

And although it’s axiomatic that all things that exist are finite, I’d like to add that an axiom is nothing more than an assumption.

False. An axiom is a self-affirming principle of reality. In trying to refute something that is axiomatic, you demonstrate its validity. It is axiomatic that all things that exist are limited.

Let me give you an example of a recently asserted axiom. My retired pastor said she does not have to hear all the details of why family members are not talking to each other. Right away, she KNOWS why. The axiomatic analysis is the family lacks grace.

 

[Romanov2488]

The Supreme Court ruled atheism is a religion.

False, it did not rule that atheism is a religion. Rather it acknowledged atheism as an equivalent of religion for first amendment purposes only to give atheists the same rights as those who proclaim to belong to an actual religion. The term ‘atheism’ shouldn’t even exist, but it does as a reactionary position to theism. It’s for the same reason that we don’t have a term to describe those who don’t believe in winged rabbits from Mars.

 

[Wrangler]

Axioms rest upon the validity of human observation and human observation is not infallible.

Completely wrong! As I said, it is not about perception but conception. We don't need to measure every circle that exists to know it is round. It is round, by definition. Perceiving a circle that is not round is not a triumph of human observation but a failure at humans to grasp reality at the conceptual level.

 

[Wrangler]

We are stepping out of what to think and how to think at this point where we begin to enter philosophy and metaphysics.

Yup.

 

[Wrangler]

It did not rule that atheism is a religion. Rather it acknowledged atheism as an equivalent of religion for first amendment purposes only to give atheists the same rights as those who proclaim alto belong to an actual religion. The term ‘atheism’ shouldn’t even exist, but it does as a reactionary position to theism.

Isn't that a distinction without a difference?

 

[Romanov2488]

False. An axiom is a self-affirming principle of reality. In trying to refute something that is axiomatic, you demonstrate its validity. It is axiomatic that all things that exist are limited.

Let me give you an example of a recently asserted axiom. My retired pastor said she does not have to hear all the details of why family members are not talking to each other. Right away, she KNOWS why. The axiomatic analysis is the family lacks grace.

“In trying to refute something that is axiomatic, you demonstrate its validity.” This is fallacious since it is tautological at best. It’s like saying, “A beginner who just started.”


‘Accepted’ truth. ‘General’ truth. But not Truth.

 

[Romanov2488]

Isn't that a distinction without a difference?

If you consider it to be a distinction without a difference then it would be a rationalization for false equivalency. If you mean that atheism is a religion just like the others in the sense that apples and oranges are both generally spherical, sure…but it ends there. Just because atheism is protected constitutionally like all other religions are, does not mean that atheism must also be a religion..that would be akin to ambiguity of circumstance because we are all of a sudden changing the meaning of atheism due to the circumstances (being protected constitutionally like other religions). Men and women both have the freedom of speech. Are men women?


Notice how it says disbelief or lack…it does not mean belief in no god. This is the #1 mistake the religious make when it comes to defining atheism.

 

[Mantis]

Since the Christian faith is so bulletproof, why does it need so many apologists and defending of it?

Because you don’t believe. You read the Bible like a phone book if it is not interpreted by the Holy Spirit. People look for reasons NOT to believe instead of looking for reasons to believe.