theInquirer

Yes, of course!

No, I believe it. . . it's just that when the devil hits me with doubts against it, I have to have something other than it to seek a solution from.

Thanks very much for your encouragement. It always helps me to step back and just remember that in the end, God will give me strength and wisdom to get through the doubt and that each successive wave will pass--and that God will bring good out of it. So to hear that kind of encouragement from someone like you, who has more experience with the kinds of things life and the devil will throw your way, and who has come out the other side. . . well, that really reassures me. Thanks again

All of this is great, but I guess I'm saying that my problem in the first place is questioning that very bastion to which you are saying I ought to run for refuge. How can/do I deal with that? That's really the crux of my problem(s).

Thanks for your advice; I found your remarks to be very interesting. However, if I may, I will take a page from your book and ask how and/or upon what basis do you make your claim the most of modern apologetics is nothing more than manipulative propaganda? You cited how higher classes openly admit to manipulation in apologetics, but could you be a bit more specific? Where exactly have these assertions been made? In how many places? And what exactly do you mean by manipulation? Fallacious reasoning, yes, but which types specifically? I must say, though, that you raise some good points with which I agree wholeheartedly: far too many "arguments" for or against Christianity are nothing more than plays on emotion (although I do believe that the emotional aspect of many questions is a valid one). I will say, though, that I wasn't really asking for "information sources" at all, but rather places where I could actually dialogue with practiced apologists along the lines of Greg Koukl, Sean McDowell (although I guess he doesn't have a q&a resource), etc. I really appreciated your thoughts!

All right! Sorry for the delay, I'm sometimes bad at responding. My main difficulty at present is a question of whether or not it is possible to believe a thing without proof or any other sort of basis for belief except for a desire to do so. In investigating the nature of my existence (that is, of the subject, which refers to the subjective), I have come upon the phenomenon that there are some things that I do which I cannot help but do, namely, to be aware of the external world. I cannot, merely by force of will, cause myself to become unaware of the material/external world, although it could be argued that I am capable of judging it to be an illusion. But my point is, there are some things that I do which I really cannot help but be aware of. The thing is this: am I in control of myself? Whereas the question may sound rather strange, it becomes much more complex upon closer inspection, in which one firstly must note that at the very least, I am in implication of myself, by which I mean that if I do something, I do it. In other words, I imply myself--but this is of not use to know since it tells me nothing. How, then, can I know whether I really control myself and what I do? What exactly do I mean by "I," "control," and "what I do?" When I ask about what I can do or cause myself to do, I must remember that, essentially, what I do is different from what I am; note the difference between essence and act. A thing can be a union of any number of things, including weight, extension, size, color, etc., but it can still be said of it that it does all sorts of other things, such as a brick hitting another thing and knocking it down. It is said of the brick that it caused the other thing to fall down, and yet the conception of necessarily causing other things to fall down is not inherently contained within the definition of "brick." To bring all of these strands of thought back to my question, I ask whether I, though I may be any number of things, actually cause anything. For this is really what I mean when I ask whether I determine what I do, since to "do" anything really means to cause. If I do, then it would be much easier to argue that I am in control of whether or not I believe a thing or not based purely off of desire. What I really need to figure out is what exactly I am, and thereby determine whether I am a cause, and if so, what type of cause, and if the right type, what kind of effects I am capable of producing, and if the right type, whether or not I am capable of choosing to believe one thing or another based purely off of desire. My above remarks would, I judge, summarize the gist of what I am currently considering, although I could probably round out portions of it. I apologize for the likely presence of ambiguity and can only say that I'll gladly try and clear up any lack of clarity if it only be brought to my attention. Thank you for your willingness to consider my questions.

Not at all--in fact, I actually have posted several questions on here about various things I was wondering about--but that's just my point: I haven't found many answers here. That's not to say that I don't appreciate people's effort, or that I think people are dumb, but rather that my thought process is just different from most others here. Of course, if you're interested I'll gladly mention my questions to you, although they probably would seem rather strange and obscure (lol) and I very much doubt whether either of us would actually gain much from the discussion. If you're interested, though, like I said I'll give you the scoop. Regardless, though, I'm still interested in hearing about other sources as well. After all, even if I do find answers here, more help is always good, no?

As an individual who is particularly prone to doubting things, I have often run up against doubt against my faith in God and my belief in His existence. Whereas I thankfully have come through all my doubts so far, I have largely had to fight these doubts all on my own without much help from others (except, of course, from God). I really don't mean to come across as arrogant, but most of my doubts have been such that nobody I know has had the knowledge to know how to help me, or at least not especially much, but I really do believe that having someone able to answer my questions would be very helpful. With that in mind, I was wondering if anyone knows of any professional resources where I'd be able to ask my questions? For example, Stand to Reason has a website str.org which is great, but doesn't really have too much of a place where I can ask my own questions. Any advice or thoughts are appreciated.

Right, faith is coming to a conclusion, but I want to come to a correct conclusion, and the only way I can do that is by postulating the Bible (which I am perfectly prepared to do, and have done to an extent) but also by proving it through rational means. If the Bible is true, then one of the above two options will be possible; that is what I have been doing and trying to do. However, the latter part of your statement is based off of the Bible, which is only correct if the Bible is true. . . which is the very thing I was testing/debating (and which, of course, I have established in my mind as true). Your argument is technically circular, unless I am misunderstanding you, in which case please correct me.

Certainly, and I have done so, but it is interpretation that perplexes me somewhat

Well it's a personal choice, yes, but a choice to either obey or disobey the moral laws laid down in the Bible. Morals aren't left up to us to determine. If I'm understanding your response correctly; if I am not, please correct the error of my analysis.

I haven't read about the topic of climate change for a bit, so I am probably a bit rusty. However, my main reasons for disbelieving in it are satellite measurements taken of changes in temperature that clearly show that there has been no significant increase or decrease in global temperature over the past one hundred (I believe) years, although the thirties, I believe, did show a slight increase. I understand, as well, that the earth's total global warming in the atmosphere is overwhelmingly controlled by natural process, the magnitude of which we have not come even close to matching, so that we are seriously incapable of affecting global temperature at all. Also, I have become leery of the credibility of arguments in favor of global warming (or cooling, for that matter) because of the politicizing that has gone into this view and the thus biased reasons for promoting this argument in many people. Also, I note fallacies employed in promoting this argument, such as vastly magnified graphs that make it look like temperature has been changing when, if you look at the y-axis, you see that the change is really quite insignificant; fallacies have made me even more suspicious. Another one is how changes in temperature and climate in certain areas are cited, when these examples do not look at the big picture. We are measuring global temperature, not local temperature. I'm afraid I cannot send a link to a site that has this information since I learned about most of the above arguments in my science course a couple years ago. My science course was done by Apologia, if that helps. Anyway, the above reasons are my main reasons for regarding global climate change as being a hoax. As a side, I see you are from Germany? That's cool, my family isn't from Germany, but we pretty much all speak German (or at least understand it), so it was interesting to see someone from German!

I will respond to each premise (I believe that's the correct term?) of your argument. 1') I'm not talking about murder or crime, I'm talking about self-defense as well although I agree that in the Old Covenant one was allowed while the other was not. However, my whole debate on the topic comes from passages in the New Covenant such as in Matthew 5 where Jesus said we ought to turn the other cheek as opposed to what "you have heard." This would make the most sense to be interpreted as being a change of/from the Old Covenant, at least to the best of my understanding. If I am misinterpreting this, please correct me. 2) Yes, they do teach to follow the government; however, this could be viewed in a couple of ways that both debunk certain aspects of this that support the just war theory. First, we ask whether government has any validity at all under the New Covenant? Of course, we read about how God has established the government and uses it to His own ends. . . but this means He established all governments. Including Nazi Germany, Communist Russia, fascist Italy, etc. My point is that just because God uses government doesn't mean that God approves of government as such. Why, God uses sin to accomplish good (Thomas Aquinas cited this in Summa Theologica where he pointed out that God only allows evil to exist so that He may bring good out of it)! Clearly, then, just because God establishes and uses government does not mean that it is good. We may submit to evil so long as we do not ourselves sin, which is the view that could be held in interpreting such passages in Romans. Second, even if the above argument is false, there is another argument. We ask where government gets its authority in the first place, and for what purpose(s)? Naturally, its authority comes from God, and we shall assign all basis for government existing (e.g. to keep man from sinning against fellow man, to prevent evil, to promote liberty) to set A. Therefore, the very basis for government is A, meaning that government may and shall function only so long as it fulfills A. If it does not do so, it is overstepping its bounds into areas where it has no authority. If it has no authority over an area, then any command it may give regarding such an area shall be null and void to us. Take, for example, Roe vs Wade, which I believe to be absolutely outside any bounds God gave for government. Roe vs Wade has no authority since the government never had the authority to make such a ruling in the first place; therefore, we ought to act completely as though it never existed and has no sway over us in any way. (Essentially, civil disobedience; but this is a discussion for a different day.) Therefore, to bring this back to pacifism vs just war, we realize that if war/violence is elsewhere prohibited in the Bible in a universal sense, then the government has no authority to make us practice it since it would be sin. If violence is an inherent sin, and since the government derives its authority from the same source that commanded the former, the government has no authority to command violence in any form and thereby violate the very source of its authority. 3) I suppose I summarized above part of what you said here. However, I confess that beyond that, I do not fully understand what you are saying in this premise. Clarification? 4) First off, if something is explicitly identified as a sin, it cannot inherently be of faith, as such (take adultery, for example). Therefore, if violence is explicitly stated to be wrong, then it cannot be of faith. Actually, I believe that the whole discussion on things being right if they come from faith centers around what tempts one person over another. If a certain style of inherently fine music or color or what have you, if this makes someone have wrong thoughts or causes them to want to sin, then it is sin to them. This whole discussion essentially comes down to motives: you can do anything as long as your motives are good (i.e. if they are rooted in love of God and/or love of others). Now of course, there are some things with inherently imply bad motives, such as adultery, murder, insulting others, blasphemy, etc. When it says that some things are of faith for some people and that some of those same things might not be of faith for someone else, I believe that it is saying that there are some things that cause some of us to sin while not causing others of us to sin. Another interpretation which also could be true is that when it says not to do things that aren't of faith, it is saying that unless you know that something is all right, you shouldn't do it, i.e. that everything you do should be something that you believe is all right, something that you have good motives for doing.

How do you explain all the times, then, when Jesus would start out by saying, "You have heard. . . but I tell you. . ." (emphasis added)? Or where He talks about giving us a new command? How could these things be changed at all unless the principles were thus being changed as well? I'm going to guess you'd point out that since God is the same and never changes, the precepts that flow from Him ought not to change either. However, my answer is this: God's nature is the source of morals (how we ought to behave) which basically say in effect that for set A of circumstances, our response ought to be B. But this is only the surface of morals; we have not asked why A implies B. Were we to do this, we might see that the principles, C, behind A do not demand B if instead of A we are placed in set D of circumstances. Basically, what I'm saying is that the morals didn't change in the New Covenant, but the circumstances did, thereby demanding different responses/outcomes to situations. The commander hasn't changed, but the battlefield has.

The thing is, all of the above is a pragmatic, utilitarian argument, not one from morals or principles set down in the Bible. . . where do we see it stated that we are to act according to whatever achieves the most "expedient" route? Since when were we called to be "safe?" I'm more looking for moral principles in the Bible, not so much outcome arguments. . .

Well this is all fine and good, but that's in the Old Covenant. . . what about Matthew 5 where Jesus said "but I tell you, do not resist an evil person. . ."? There is a distinction between the Law and the New Covenant. . .

So I guess I was previously arguing on a purely (more or less) pragmatic/utilitarian basis of, "what's the best way to reach people?" However, since we are now discussing the moral accuracy of turn or burn, I will point out that since there is nothing inaccurate about it, we are technically not being at all wrong when we state that it is true. Beyond that, I suppose it does come down to how we use it and/or what we do with it. I suppose you are right that it ought not to be the reason, or underlying motive for being saved; that should be out of love of God. But I do still hold that it is a way to make people stop and think instead of just shrugging off Christianity. You say that in your experience, people get upset, etc. I can (at least at this point) only conclude that that is due to either them misunderstanding the implications of this message (e.g. that they might think God is cruel, mean, etc.), or that the message has been used incorrectly upon/for them. And look at the occasions when this message has been used correctly, particularly on that fateful day when Jonathan Edwards delivered, "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God." Why, the Second Great Awakening was sparked thus! There are other instances of this message being used to great effect, but I believe it would be unnecessary for me to give more, at least at this point. On a lighter note, I want to say that I agree with you wholeheartedly on the topic of the global warming hoax.

That's true, I see what you're saying now. Although I wonder why it is that we are more likely to take seriously things that we experience as opposed to things that we merely hear about. After all, both types of events are perfectly verifiable and just as true for one as the other; maybe it's because of emotions we experience during the real life one? Who knows? In theory they should both hold equal weight, but I suppose it doesn't work thus in real life for people.

Well said I want to point out that I do believe this, just in case you or anyone else got the impression from my question that I do not or do not want to believe it

I guess you might say that my question comes down to: is it possible to love someone while killing them? I heard about one veteran who said he loved his enemies even while he was killing them, but I'm not sure. It's certainly a very difficult question, and I'd have to say that at this point I'm still undecided. Thanks for your comment though

Here's the thing: is the argument you just made above a rational one? If not, then one may discount the assertion that rational arguments do not mean anything. If so, then you just used reason to try to disprove reason. I guess I am saying that your experience is in a way a rational argument in and of itself.

But my question was more having to do with how we know that it has purpose in the first place. And why inherently does it have to have these certain reasons to exist? What is existence based off of at all? That's like saying that if a clock breaks, it shouldn't exist anymore because it's not fulfilling the purpose for which we made it.

Oh, well I didn't mean questioning in the sense that I genuinely do not believe in God, but rather that I want to know why I believe Him, you might say. When I ask how we know God exists, I'm not asking out of unbelief, I'm asking out of hope for more belief and hope for "not less" belief.

No, I wasn't intending to say that I was talking about the turn or burn thing at all. My question was instead about how we (can) know that God is good. Responding to your reply, though, I must point out that you only know you're going to burn if you know that Jesus is real. After all, how can you be saved unless there's something to be saved from? My view is that the "turn or burn" message in general causes people to take Christianity seriously, even if it makes them uncomfortable. True, people sometimes try to follow God only because they're afraid of hell, but in truth, if you're really following God, it will be because you love Him; thus, if the turn or burn message does truly turn even one person to God, it is worth it to the utmost. So essentially, "turn or burn" either does nothing (i.e. it is ignored or taken wrongly) or it does something (i.e. it actually saves someone). There is no negative to consider, right?

Actually, I'm not even in a public high school, but rather I am a homeschooled teen who had been surrounded all his life by Christian society and really good people. This questioning is actually completely coming from me. I realize that natural science cannot give us the whole Bible written out for us, but it can give us a good bit, such as proof for the existence of God and useful insight into His nature as observed by reality as we understand it. Philosophy can prove the existence of a moral value. Science can prove the validity of the Creation account. Yes, and mathematics underlies science, thus contributing as well. And I will say that this isn't about me wanting to believe God or not. . . I really, truly, and honestly do want to Christianity to be true, but I am just ridiculously obsessed with making sure that it is, in fact, true. I have to make sure that I am right about this, because if I am not, then everything I have based my life and hope and future off of is meaningless and absurd. And tbh that scares me quite a bit. But you seem to be saying, just believe. I'm saying that unless Christianity is positively proven false, I will believe, because I do really want to believe. But beyond that, I also want positive proof of my position, if I can have it, because it adds security to my position. So yeah, maybe I'm just being insecure about my faith, but regardless, proof cannot hurt anything, right? I will admit, though, that you are right that I ought not to be so insecure about my faith when it seems that neither side (Christianity vs. every other belief) is inherently probable or proved.