I don't understand religion.

• jhay78

  

  I like Josh McDowell's stuff, which is more geared towards college students and his work with Campus Crusade.
  
  A guy I've really come to appreciate is John Warwick Montgomery. Tough Minded Christianity (a collection of essays in honor of JWM) is a great read. The point he (and McDowell and others) have made, is that if Christianity can't be defended logically and is not evidence-based, then it's not worth following. The apostle Paul said basically the same thing about the Resurrection- if it didn't happen, then the Christian faith is worthless.
• O-Trap

  

  areyoukiddingme;616631 wrote:O'Trap,
  
  Respectfully, if you can find a hole on each page, start by stating them. I'm not saying the entire book is without some scrutiny, but most of that book offers solid, theological answers.

  Many of them are penned in the pages, as I tend to read books with pen in hand. Foregone conclusions were, as I recall, the one I kept seeing (admittedly, it's been many years since I read it). I just recall having that book "pitched" to me as a solid defense for the Christian worldview. I was actually kind of excited, because I thought that by saying that, they meant that it was a defense that could stand up against the commonplace logical objections to Christianity with at least some level of competence.
  
  Think about it like this: I'd been searching for a solid defense for the Christian worldview, purely because at the time, I'd never seen one constructed. When the person who gave the book to me (a dear friend of mine to this day, and a fantastic Christian man), they touted it very highly, which got me VERY excited to read it. When I did read it, all that elation was quickly deflated.
  
  It's like when you go to see a movie. If you go in with no expectation, you might find it palatable, even enjoyable. However, if your friends hype the movie for weeks before you go see it, telling you it's the GOAT movie, and then you go see it with that expectation, the letdown is greater because the bar has been set so high.
  
  Lee Strobel is a bright mind, don't get me wrong (not everyone graduates with a Law degree from an Ivy League school). However, his books are lightyears from a "slam-the-door-shut end-of-story" final word on the validity of the Christian life, and I suppose what gave me such a distaste for it was the fact that it was (and still is) touted that way. If someone ever has questions about the legitimacy of an aspect of the Christian walk, inevitably someone pipes up with, "Oh, well then you should read <enter Strobel "Case" book or McDowell "Evidence" book here>!"
  
  I know that, as a non-believer, such advice only frustrated and disenfranchised me further in regard to the reality of the Christian worldview. Benevolent as these folks were, they unknowingly did me a disservice. I certainly don't hold it against them, as I was never mad at them about it, but I was indeed VERY frustrated by their recommendations ... which they thought were good at the time.
  
  If I had been given the choice between reading something that was frustratingly over my head or frustratingly unfulfilling, I would suggest that the "over the head" option will ALWAYS be the more solid case made. Will it force a person to grow and bring them some level of aggrivation? Most assuredly. Still, I don't think the aggrivation is any less if it is caused by being promised answers to questions you've been asking for years, only to find out that your questions remain. You find yourself desperately asking, "Is THIS really what you would consider a solid defense?" If you don't know any better, and others acclaim it like it's the best Christianity has to offer, it's almost crushing.
  
  The Gospel/Good News/Message of Salvation/etc. has POWER! It has the power to reach the emotive and the logical. The simple and the complex. It has the power to successfully engage ANYONE on their level. It has the power to engage the questions we ask with GENUINE answers ... or at the very least, the ability to exist reasonably in the midst of those questions.
  
  I think that was the most convincing thing about Dr. Plaster to me ... what made him so different. He was the first person I'd met who spoke about the Gospel as though he actually believed it had power, and I could tell that he had a "well-reasoned" faith that had been built on decades of pondering, doubting, questioning, and learning.
  
  If someone tells you something worldy is true. Suppose your boss tells you he has a Diet Coke in his office. He will rarely do so by saying, "Well, I just believe that the Diet Coke is in my office. I have a really strong feeling that it is. So I believe it."
  
  That kind of logic indeed may be sufficient for HIM to believe it, it's hardly showing him as being "ready to give a defense" for it. Now I know that is just a silly example, but the point is the same. If you ask him how he knows (after he's done laughing at the silly question), he'll probably give you a logical reason for him saying so ("Because I saw it there with my own two eyes!" or "Because this morning, I was called by my wife who has a track record of being trustworthy about trivial things, and she said she was bringing it in.").
  
  After that, if you still don't believe him, he'll use terms you'll accept (like maybe he'll take you to his office and show you).
  
  Lee, intelligent and learned as he is, just didn't really bring that kind of conviction in the book. It felt a lot more like him trying to convince the reader, instead of him telling how HE had been convinced (even though it is pitched as the latter).
  

  ernest_t_bass;616645 wrote:O-Trap - I respect your intellect on a lot of this stuff, but one thing you have to realize is that most people aren't of the same level. For some people, that particular book might be their "answer."

  To be sure, though, I have to admit, I've never met or heard of someone being convinced by the book if they weren't already leaning in that direction. I've experienced how the book can have an adverse effect, though. Thus, I try to handle it with care.
  

  ernest_t_bass;616645 wrote:I think stating something like that (holes in logic, etc.) only hurts, more than it helps.

  In saying that, I'm just trying to be intellectually honest. There are a lot of people out there that are smarter and more logical than I am, and I would hate to see the truth of the Gospel presented to someone like that in a way that might seem irreputable.
  
  It's more the attitude that would rather present a Doctoral Thesis on metaphysics than a high school report paper on metaphysics ... because the explanations and reasonings contained are thought out more clearly and likely do a better job of engaging real questions being asked in the proverbial public square.
  
  I met a lot of Christians who depicted either cognitive dissonance or intellectual dishonesty when I asked them questions about the subject. I was MUCH more interested in listening to someone who recognizes a flawed argument and addresses it, showing their faith that the Gospel doesn't need to rely on undetected flaws in order to be seen as viable.
  
  There are good, provoking discussions on the legitimacy of the Christian worldview. Why would we, then, offer anything but the best when asked about it?
  

  ernest_t_bass;616645 wrote:For some people, their faith is purely enough, even though you hate hearing that. Not everyone needs "proof" or "evidence" of God existing. Again, I respect (and appreciate) your logic and thoughts on the subject, but I just think that everyone needs different types of affirmation.

  Certainly. As I said, I know many, and they are no more or less redeemed than any other disciple of God. However, to a genuinely wondering mind, they are generally less helpful to engage questions about their faith.
  
  I remember hearing that in order to believe in God, one needed faith. But I didn't know where to get faith. Was it like a precious stone that I might trip over the woods? Was I in the wrong line when they were handing it out?
  
  It just sort of begged the question for me. It worked for them, which was fine, but it wasn't helpful to me, because it didn't engage me on terms I understood or accepted at the time.
  

  ernest_t_bass;616645 wrote:Respectfully, I think you're coming off as a little pompous.

  I'm so sorry. I wasn't meaning to at all.
  

  Con_Alma;616648 wrote:Theologically, does not "believing" come from the Holy Spirit as a gift as opposed to some rational thought process?

  I don't think so, biblically speaking. As I recall, the Holy Spirit never really inspires the unwilling or those not wanting to follow God already. I just did a two-week study on the Holy Spirit, both in the OT and the NT, and the Spirit in the NT church is, as Jesus put it, a "helper" for those already following. It CAN have an impact on the unbelieving, as Peter was "filled with the Holy Spirit" and spoke convincingly to the people on numerous occasions in Acts. I do think that this happened with Dr. Plaster.
  

  Con_Alma;616648 wrote:I ask because it's my understanding that one cannot think their way into a Christian faith. It doesn't mean that study and investigation should not exist but rather that true faith does not emerge from it.

  Interestingly, the Bible references faith fairly regularly in the New Testament ... NEVER in the context of being a prerequisite for non-believers to become believers. It is a command to the believers, rather.
• O-Trap

  

  Sorry. Post was too long. Had to break it up.
  

  Skyhook79;616737 wrote:Thats your opinion. I'm sure people could find holes in Dr David Plasters words or the 3 authors you listed.
  Matter of fact the only book and Author that you can't poke holes in the logic is the Bible. I know thats probally a "cop out" answer for you but if there are holes in the logic of the Bible please let me know.
  
  I just finished reading Francis Chan's "Crazy Love" and would reccomend it to anyone, also Miles McPherson's "Do something" is an excellent read.

  
  I know Francis personally, and I've read "Crazy Love." WONDERFUL book ... particularly the beginning when he essentially reminds you of how insignificant you are in the cosmic scheme of things. Very humbling ... I would compare that feeling to one I got reading a book by Louis Giglio called "I Am Not, But I Know I AM."
  
  Logical fallacies are inconsistencies in logical law. Hardly opinion-based. However, you are right in that NOBODY is beyond reproach, even from a logical standpoint. We are holistically fallen, not just morally. Just as we strive to actively participate in the redemptive process of our morality, I think we ought to at least try to do the same with our physical bodies and our minds as well. I've heard Moreland say just as much in terms of his own fallenness when it comes to his way of thinking.
  
  Please understand, I don't hate Strobel, and I wasn't intending to be divisive by my comment. I was merely wanting to input that I, as a NON-believer, was incredibly DIS-enfranhised toward Christianity as a result of that book. Thus, I cannot, in good conscience, recommend it as a good source for a defense of the truth of the Christian worldview. I feel obligated to put the best defense I can out there for Christianity, because there truly is that kind of power in the message of Christ, and I would feel like anything less would be a disservice to both the inquirer and the Creator.
  
  I don't say that to mean that others are rude or wrong for suggesting it, but as Ephesians tells us, we are a body of many parts (I, for example, am probably the asshole.), and those parts all bring something useful to the body. I hope that my experience as a non-believer can be used to help the body, and that's all I was trying to do.
  
  Grace to you.
• O-Trap

  

  jhay78;616881 wrote:I like Josh McDowell's stuff, which is more geared towards college students and his work with Campus Crusade.
  
  A guy I've really come to appreciate is John Warwick Montgomery. Tough Minded Christianity (a collection of essays in honor of JWM) is a great read. The point he (and McDowell and others) have made, is that if Christianity can't be defended logically and is not evidence-based, then it's not worth following. The apostle Paul said basically the same thing about the Resurrection- if it didn't happen, then the Christian faith is worthless.

  
  And THIS is a premise I honestly hold very close, because unless the Gospel has that kind of power ... that it can be defended as the truth that it is ... then it isn't worth following or sharing.
• Con_Alma

  God always acts first. "How then shall they call upon Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach unless they are sent?" (Rom.10:14-15). The answer is, "They cannot"-- the reason being, "faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ." (Rom. 10:17).
  
  Yes we must respond and through our free will we must choose, but faith itself is not generated by our own reasoning.
  
  It comes from God's word and our obedience to it. The Word becomes life from the presence of the Holy Spirit.
  (Mk. 16:15-16). From that time never has an individual been converted unto God unless it was through hearing and obeying the gospel of Christ proclaimed by men.
  
  Faith then, in and of itself is a gift given to us from God.
  
  A certain measure of faith has been given to all men.
  
  Romans 12:3 For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think [of himself] more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith. or "a measure of faith."
  
  It is from there that we must hear the word and respond to the gospel. God uses people to present the gospel to us, to accept or reject by free will, faith. God does not endow people with saving faith nor can we think it present within us. Those people presenting the Gospel are filled with the presence of the Holy Spirit and are often times our exposure to the perfect and unchanging Word of God.
  
  It is God who acts first...always. We get to choose to respond or not.
• BoatShoes

  Con_Alma;616988 wrote:God always acts first. "How then shall they call upon Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach unless they are sent?" (Rom.10:14-15). The answer is, "They cannot"-- the reason being, "faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ." (Rom. 10:17).
  
  Yes we must respond and through our free will we must choose, but faith itself is not generated by our own reasoning.
  
  It comes from God's word and our obedience to it. The Word becomes life from the presence of the Holy Spirit.
  (Mk. 16:15-16). From that time never has an individual been converted unto God unless it was through hearing and obeying the gospel of Christ proclaimed by men.
  
  Faith then, in and of itself is a gift given to us from God.
  
  A certain measure of faith has been given to all men.
  
  Romans 12:3 For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think [of himself] more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith. or "a measure of faith."
  
  It is from there that we must hear the word and respond to the gospel. God uses people to present the gospel to us, to accept or reject by free will, faith. God does not endow people with saving faith nor can we think it present within us. Those people presenting the Gospel are filled with the presence of the Holy Spirit and are often times our exposure to the perfect and unchanging Word of God.
  
  It is God who acts first...always. We get to choose to respond or not.

  
  Even if it is true that faith can not come but through the hearing of the Gospel of Christ and everyone has a "measure of faith" why can it not also be the case that for the most ardent non-theist that an evangelist's best approach would be to use non-biblically based arguments for the existence of God, the logic of Christ's resurrection, etc. to bring that person to the place wherein they might actually listen to the gospel of Christ and allow the Holy Spirit to water that measure of faith so that it may grow into a bona fide faith in Christ?
  
  Why cannot it not be the case that philosophical reasoning can be tools to guide the hard-hearted to the ultimate tool of the Gospel?
  
  A serious non-theist would question how you can even accept any of those conclusions you accept as the truth in regards to the Gospel and Christ unless you have grounded them further. Plenty of atheists, even if they do indeed have a "measure of faith" have had their hearts hardened by being told the Good News alone. It seems to me that if one is to be a sincere evangelist and be a lighthouse for the lost they have to take this reality seriously. But, that is JMO of course.
  
  Ultimately, if you are a Christian, the love of the gospel is what wins a soul for Christ, but like the Crescendo in a symphony it most be woven into the appropriate place. JMO.
• Con_Alma

  BoatShoes;617013 wrote:...
  
  Why cannot it not be the case that philosophical reasoning can be tools to guide the hard-hearted to the ultimate tool of the Gospel?
  
  ...

  I would never suggest that it is not a "tool". The point being that they are not on their own enough and that they always follow the first action of God Himself.
• O-Trap

  

  Con_Alma;616988 wrote:God always acts first.

  Very much so. Got has acted already (so that no man has an excuse), and he has done so by more than just burying a little nugget of faith in us. He has made himself known in the Word. He's made himself known in logic. He's made himself known in nature. He has indeed acted already, as it is ABSOLUTELY necessary for him to do so, as our fallen selves would be wholly incapable of recognizing him otherwise.
  

  Con_Alma;616988 wrote:"How then shall they call upon Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach unless they are sent?" (Rom.10:14-15). The answer is, "They cannot"-- the reason being, "faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ." (Rom. 10:17).
  
  Most assuredly! One cannot follow God without having listened to him. However, one can know he is real, and one can know to listen to his Word through means other than a happenstance faith. Through those other areas of our world where God has revealed himself. It's a process.
  

  Con_Alma;616988 wrote:Yes we must respond and through our free will we must choose, but faith itself is not generated by our own reasoning.

  Oh, absolutely not! We absolutely need the Holy Spirit in order to have faith. However, as I said, faith is still a command in Scripture, and a command to the followers of Christ, not to the rest of the lost world. What you have said here is the very reason that makes sense. Without following Christ, we do not have the Spirit. Without having the Spirit, we cannot have faith. It is the Spirit that even allows for faith, and from there we are commanded to have it.
  

  Con_Alma;616988 wrote:It comes from God's word and our obedience to it.

  I HAD to draw attention to that word, because it is SO crucial!
  
  If we are obedient, then we are following, and if we are following, we are already children of God.
  

  Con_Alma;616988 wrote:The Word becomes life from the presence of the Holy Spirit.

  Very much so! After all, when "the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us," it was indeed facilitated by the Holy Spirit conceiving the child within Mary, so even in a very literal sense, this is so true (not to diminish the spiritual side of this truth).
  

  Con_Alma;616988 wrote:(Mk. 16:15-16). From that time never has an individual been converted unto God unless it was through hearing and obeying the gospel of Christ proclaimed by men.

  Again, this is not something I disagree with. That same Gospel, however, can be communicated, and even evidenced, in many ways. 1 path. Many ways of describing it and showing it. Such is the POWER I was talking about earlier.
  

  Con_Alma;616988 wrote:Faith then, in and of itself is a gift given to us from God.

  Very much so, as was the Holy Spirit!
  

  Con_Alma;616988 wrote:A certain measure of faith has been given to all men.
  
  Romans 12:3 For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think [of himself] more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith. or "a measure of faith."

  And to whom is Paul speaking?
  
  The church. He is telling them that each one of them has been given the capability for faith, which is through the Spirit ... because the are the church.
  

  Con_Alma;616988 wrote:It is from there that we must hear the word and respond to the gospel.

  Those words were for those who had already done so.
  

  Con_Alma;616988 wrote:God uses people to present the gospel to us, to accept or reject by free will, faith. God does not endow people with saving faith nor can we think it present within us.

  Indeed, and God of course, speaks (through the Apostles) very strongly AGAINST thinking that it is of ourselves that we are saved!
  

  Con_Alma;616988 wrote:Those people presenting the Gospel are filled with the presence of the Holy Spirit and are often times our exposure to the perfect and unchanging Word of God.

  I've experienced this, as I mentioned. It's such an exciting thing!
  

  Con_Alma;616988 wrote:It is God who acts first...always. We get to choose to respond or not.

  
  Agreed. My point is that his actions in bringing us to himself are not limited to supernatural intervention. God has filled this world ... his creation ... with representations of his love, his character, and his mercy. Even prior to surrendering to the authority of Christ, that is evident if one is willing to look.

• Con_Alma

  O-Trap;617047 wrote:...Agreed. My point is that his actions in bringing us to himself are not limited to supernatural intervention. ...

  We are not far apart in our understanding.
  
  Your point is a different approach in terms of explanation yet is still the same point...I think.
  
  I have never suggested His actions were limited in any way but rather that it is His actions, His presence, His Word that brings us.
• I Wear Pants

  A pet peeve of mine is when people act like it is particularly more logical or more illogical to believe or disbelieve in God.
  
  Edit: This isn't pointed at anyone in the thread. Just something I wanted to say.
• O-Trap

  

  Con_Alma;617052 wrote:We are not far apart in our understanding.
  
  Your point is a different approach in terms of explanation yet is still the same point...I think.
  
  I have never suggested His actions were limited in any way but rather that it is His actions, His presence, His Word that brings us.

  
  Indeed, and I have never suggested His presence and action was not required for us to come to know and follow Him, but only that the Word he has given us, precious as it is, is not all-inclusive in terms of how God reveals himself.
  
  I think we're describing different steps in the process by which God brings us to himself. Before I trust the Word of God ... before I have any reason to respond to faith ... before I have any reason to trust God himself ... I must see glimpses of his strength, benevolence, and presence that he has revealed all throughout the earth, so I am able to know to even engage the Gospel. The step I'm talking about is earlier in the process by which God gathers us to himself.
  
  And what a beautiful process it is.
• O-Trap

  

  I Wear Pants;617059 wrote:A pet peeve of mine is when people act like it is particularly more logical or more illogical to believe or disbelieve in God.
  
  Edit: This isn't pointed at anyone in the thread. Just something I wanted to say.

  
  I tend to agree with this to some degree as well.
• Thread Bomber

  

  My Grandfather once questioned me "how can one believe in love and yet not believe in God? Niether can be seen, yet both are felt." he went on to say that they are "both one in the same in that God is love".
  
  
  Lord, how I miss that guy.
• ernest_t_bass

  

  O-Trap;616955 wrote:I'm so sorry. I wasn't meaning to at all.

  
  Oh, I know. Even though I don't "know you," through your posts I have come to know better than for you to actually be that way. I guess I was simply stating that your post came across in a pompous manner. I was not calling you pompous.
  
  You self righteous cunt!
• Bigred1995

  

  I don't understand either, but this video reminds me of so many on here...
  
  [video=youtubeK7P7uZFf5o][/video]
• jmog

  I Wear Pants;617059 wrote:A pet peeve of mine is when people act like it is particularly more logical or more illogical to believe or disbelieve in God.
  
  Edit: This isn't pointed at anyone in the thread. Just something I wanted to say.

  
  Even though I am a stounch believer in Christ and it pains me to say this, I agree with this statement.
• I Wear Pants

  I have some friends who think people are sheep or stupid for believing in Christ/God/etc and some who think people are lost/evil/just trying to be rebellious for not believing.
  
  I feel animosity towards both of these types of people. Call me indecisive or unwilling to stand up for what I believe but especially in matters of faith I cannot under good conscience assume something bad about someone because they think differently.
• O-Trap

  

  I Wear Pants;617183 wrote:I have some friends who think people are sheep or stupid for believing in Christ/God/etc and some who think people are lost/evil/just trying to be rebellious for not believing.
  
  I feel animosity towards both of these types of people. Call me indecisive or unwilling to stand up for what I believe but especially in matters of faith I cannot under good conscience assume something bad about someone because they think differently.

  
  I think the biggest peeve I have about it is that people would even think ill of you at all. In fact, you ARE standing up for what you believe, because you've recognized a false dichotomy, and you refuse to give into it.
  
  That isn't to say that I don't think one of the worldviews is decisively more in-line with reality. However, that does not AT ALL mean that I have ANY right to think of myself as any better, and the Bible reflects this I think:
  
  Ephesians 2:8 - It is by GRACE that we are redeemed, not by our deeds, so that not a single person has any bragging rights over another.