Coming out as an Agnostic

[ALAYMAN]

Why did an omniscient, omnipotent God write a book that would require apologetics to come to its rescue?

That is rather loaded language.  By "come to its rescue", do you mean why is there a need for apologetics?

If so, how much of the concept of freedom of the will and the Imago Dei have you studied?+

 

[Joseph007]

Why did an omniscient, omnipotent God write a book that would require apologetics to come to its rescue?

That is rather loaded language.  By "come to its rescue", do you mean why is there a need for apologetics?

If so, how much of the concept of freedom of the will and the Imago Dei have you studied?+

Yes.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

 

[ALAYMAN]

Why did an omniscient, omnipotent God write a book that would require apologetics to come to its rescue?

That is rather loaded language.  By "come to its rescue", do you mean why is there a need for apologetics?

If so, how much of the concept of freedom of the will and the Imago Dei have you studied?+

Yes.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

"Yes" what?  You have studied the Imago Dei and sufficiently understand the implication of freewill/choice?If so, what is difficult to grasp about how those issues deal with the need for a defense of the faith?  We aren't automatons.  Reason and logic are a part of the human experience.

 

[Joseph007]

Why did an omniscient, omnipotent God write a book that would require apologetics to come to its rescue?

That is rather loaded language.  By "come to its rescue", do you mean why is there a need for apologetics?

If so, how much of the concept of freedom of the will and the Imago Dei have you studied?+

Yes.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

"Yes" what?  You have studied the Imago Dei and sufficiently understand the implication of freewill/choice?If so, what is difficult to grasp about how those issues deal with the need for a defense of the faith?  We aren't automatons.  Reason and logic are a part of the human experience.

Yes to the first question, no to the second.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

 

[ALAYMAN]

There are people of high intelligence and advanced degrees in the Muslim world that have "come to terms" with the "holy" scriptures of the Koran and its difficult parts (crazy and evil) and have exercised their "moral will" against their common sense and they are convinced that the Koran is Allah's holy word.

People of intelligence in that part of the world think so. And "defenders" of its faith could give its reason why it is.

But that doesn't change the fact that there are not 72 virgins waiting on the faithful.

And Joseph realizes that pigs never talked and snakes never walked and had chit chats with gullible women.

At least, I think he does.

I think you may have missed my simple point.  Intelligent people fall on both sides of the deistic equation, so it's not a question of intelligence as to whether a person exercises faith.

 

[Route_70]

Why did an omniscient, omnipotent God write a book that would require apologetics to come to its rescue?

Answer:  if by "book" you refer to the Bible, then God did not write the Bible.  The Bible was written by men.  Were the Bible actually written by God, then there should be no ambiguity as to its meaning.

I agree with the notion that an omniscient, omnipotent God should not need anyone's help for anything.

 

[Ransom]

Were the Bible actually written by God, then there should be no ambiguity as to its meaning.

. . . he asserted, without a shred of evidence or plain reason to back it up.

"Were the Bible actually written by God, it would conform to my idea of what divine revelation ought to be like": an assertion made with equal basis in fact, i.e. none.

I agree with the notion that an omniscient, omnipotent God should not need anyone's help for anything.

Who said it was God who needed the help?

 

[logos1560]

Answer:  if by "book" you refer to the Bible, then God did not write the Bible.  The Bible was written by men.
Were the Bible actually written by God, then there should be no ambiguity as to its meaning.

You have not proven your opinions to be true.    You jump to wrong conclusions in your invalid question.   

The fact that there may be ambiguity or unclearness in the understanding of Scripture on the part of imperfect men does not lead to the bogus conclusion that God could not have given the Scriptures by inspiration to the prophets and apostles.

Are you suggesting that men have to be like "infallible popes" who can supposedly understand and interpret the Scriptures perfectly before it can be believed that God gave them by inspiration?

 

[ALAYMAN]

Yes to the first question, no to the second.

Please, please, please don't view this following question(s) as combative or an attempt to make sport of you.  I promise that is not my motive....

In your journey to unbelief or agnosticism, when you began to have trouble with the parts of Scripture about God's morality (ie "God ordering the kidnapping and rape of women,") did you seek sources to answer your dilemma that were Christian philosophy and/or ethicists, or did you read a lot of critical material and commentary from atheists and agnostics?  If you did read Christian apologists at all, if you don't mind telling, who were they?

 

[Joseph007]

Yes to the first question, no to the second.

Please, please, please don't view this following question(s) as combative or an attempt to make sport of you.  I promise that is not my motive....

In your journey to unbelief or agnosticism, when you began to have trouble with the parts of Scripture about God's morality (ie "God ordering the kidnapping and rape of women,") did you seek sources to answer your dilemma that were Christian philosophy and/or ethicists, or did you read a lot of critical material and commentary from atheists and agnostics?  If you did read Christian apologists at all, if you don't mind telling, who were they?

Are you telling me there are actually apologetics (apoligetisists? apologizers?) that defend the kidnapping and rape of women? If so, it is a safe assumption that they also defend slavery and other atrocities. I would love to read those defences. It would be interesting. I'm not interested in buying any books. Online resources that include only relevant information would be great.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

 

[ALAYMAN]

Are you telling me there are actually apologetics (apoligetisists? apologizers?)

The word "apologetics" is a technical theological term that relates to the defense of Christianity, defending it from those who would attempt to undermine it.  See this link for a primer on it.

Again, keep in mind that I am not trying in any way to condescend or mock you, but if you haven't began a journey of studying apologetics (dealing with the hard subjects of morality and the Bible) then you haven't given the Scriptures a fair hearing and I urge you to do so.  In the matters of dealing with evil and God's morality you should look into the subject of Theodicy.  Keep in mind, when it comes to important and complex issues of philosophy and theology you aren't going to find answers in 5 minutes via short articles.  You'll need "roll up your sleeves" and do the necessary and arduous homework to arrive at reasonable and coherent logical arguments (whichever side of the issue you end up falling on).

Here's a couple of starter articles (and I'd recommend listening or reading folk like RC Sproul, Ravi Zacharias, William Lane Craig, etc).

link


link

link

link

Let me reiterate that I don't need to remind you (based on what you've been taught for decades) the importance of the answers to these questions of morality and eternity.  It's worth the time to look into these things with more than a cursory 10 minute study.  I'm not telling you to only look at Christian philosophy and apologetics, but in your study of the topics give a fair and objective hearing to quality articles written by scholarly sources.

Having said that, as a scientist/chemist trained in the discipline of critical thinking one of my strongest points of challenge to the naturalistic/rationalistic/atheistic/materialist worldview of life is this question....


If at any time in the existence of our known universe there was a time where nothing, literally NOTHING existed, how did something (time, matter, space) come from absolutely nothing?  And if you argue that any of those things have always existed then how is that not a trait of deity (ie, eternality)?

Lastly, the articles I linked are really not heavy-weight philosophy or Christian apologist stuff, but are more for a layman , but they will get you started.  IF you'd like some heavier more intensive stuff just say the word.

 

[Route_70]

Here's a couple of starter articles (and I'd recommend listening or reading folk like RC Sproul, Ravi Zacharias, William Lane Craig, etc).

Ah, William Lane Craig.  What  fraud!

The Teleological Argument is the one with which most Christians are familiar: the so-called ?fine-tuned? argument

The Ontological Argument for the existence of God is as weak as simply saying: ?I believe because I believe.?

The Kalam Cosmological Argument derives from the Cosmological Argument, which posits an argument for the existence of a "causer" of that which has been "caused." In other words, there is the creation; ergo, there must be a creator. Believers have employed this argument for thousands of years, Plato and Aristotle among the first to actually record their thoughts on this subject.

In other words, the Bible isn't good enough on which to base one's "apologetics."

 

[Joseph007]

Are you telling me there are actually apologetics (apoligetisists? apologizers?)

The word "apologetics" is a technical theological term that relates to the defense of Christianity, defending it from those who would attempt to undermine it.  See this link for a primer on it.

Again, keep in mind that I am not trying in any way to condescend or mock you, but if you haven't began a journey of studying apologetics (dealing with the hard subjects of morality and the Bible) then you haven't given the Scriptures a fair hearing and I urge you to do so.  In the matters of dealing with evil and God's morality you should look into the subject of Theodicy.  Keep in mind, when it comes to important and complex issues of philosophy and theology you aren't going to find answers in 5 minutes via short articles.  You'll need "roll up your sleeves" and do the necessary and arduous homework to arrive at reasonable and coherent logical arguments (whichever side of the issue you end up falling on).

Here's a couple of starter articles (and I'd recommend listening or reading folk like RC Sproul, Ravi Zacharias, William Lane Craig, etc).

link


link

link

link

Let me reiterate that I don't need to remind you (based on what you've been taught for decades) the importance of the answers to these questions of morality and eternity.  It's worth the time to look into these things with more than a cursory 10 minute study.  I'm not telling you to only look at Christian philosophy and apologetics, but in your study of the topics give a fair and objective hearing to quality articles written by scholarly sources.

Having said that, as a scientist/chemist trained in the discipline of critical thinking one of my strongest points of challenge to the naturalistic/rationalistic/atheistic/materialist worldview of life is this question....


If at any time in the existence of our known universe there was a time where nothing, literally NOTHING existed, how did something (time, matter, space) come from absolutely nothing?  And if you argue that any of those things have always existed then how is that not a trait of deity (ie, eternality)?

Lastly, the articles I linked are really not heavy-weight philosophy or Christian apologist stuff, but are more for a layman , but they will get you started.  IF you'd like some heavier more intensive stuff just say the word.

I know what apologetics is I just was not aware if any defended rape, slavery and other atrocities prevalent in the Bible. I am familiar with the apologetics of the "science" of the Bible. I am interested in the apologetics of the moral questions.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

 

[ALAYMAN]

I know what apologetics is I just was not aware if any defended rape, slavery and other atrocities prevalent in the Bible. I am familiar with the apologetics of the "science" of the Bible. I am interested in the apologetics of the moral questions.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

What do you mean by "apologetics of the science of the Bible"?

More importantly, if you're concerned with the morality of the God of the Old Testament did you read ANY of the links provided in my previous response?

 

[Joseph007]

I know what apologetics is I just was not aware if any defended rape, slavery and other atrocities prevalent in the Bible. I am familiar with the apologetics of the "science" of the Bible. I am interested in the apologetics of the moral questions.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

What do you mean by "apologetics of the science of the Bible"?

More importantly, if you're concerned with the morality of the God of the Old Testament did you read ANY of the links provided in my previous response?

I read them. Not in their entirety because I was looking for specific subjects.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

 

[Joseph007]

I know what apologetics is I just was not aware if any defended rape, slavery and other atrocities prevalent in the Bible. I am familiar with the apologetics of the "science" of the Bible. I am interested in the apologetics of the moral questions.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

What do you mean by "apologetics of the science of the Bible"?

More importantly, if you're concerned with the morality of the God of the Old Testament did you read ANY of the links provided in my previous response?

One of your links wasn't actually a link, btw.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

 

[ALAYMAN]

In other words, the Bible isn't good enough on which to base one's "apologetics."

Joseph already stated that he doesn't want a "because the Bible (or the preacher) says so" answer.  The aim of classical apologetics is to lay the philosophical and logical groundwork for a theist position.  That can be done without reference to the Bible.  Try to keep up.

 

[ALAYMAN]

I read them. Not in their entirety because I was looking for specific subjects.

What specific subject are you looking to study?


And which link was not working?  I just checked them all again and was able to access them all.

 

[Joseph007]

I read them. Not in their entirety because I was looking for specific subjects.

What specific subject are you looking to study?


And which link was not working?  I just checked them all again and was able to access them all.

I am looking for an explanation that explains God condoning rape, slavery, etc.

You have "link" listed 4 times. The first one doesn't work, at least not on my end.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

 

[ALAYMAN]

I read them. Not in their entirety because I was looking for specific subjects.

What specific subject are you looking to study?


And which link was not working?  I just checked them all again and was able to access them all.

I am looking for an explanation that explains God condoning rape, slavery, etc.

You have "link" listed 4 times. The first one doesn't work, at least not on my end.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

All four links are to different articles, and they all work on my end.  Don't know why the one is bombing out on you, but the other three deal with the nature of your concern in general.

Could you cite some specific passage(s) that you believe portray troublesome moral things that God authorizes?