I feel almost as if I’m in a “calf-roping” event at a rodeo and the calf is avoiding being roped. Even ChatGPT can tell that there’s a difference between your thread title and initial post and your latest post to me.
1 Like
a. “Is there any objective or scientific method to prove that Jesus dwells within you”
b. “Growing up evangelical I was taught that true believers can perceive the presence of Christ dwelling within them. At times I felt Christ’s presence, at other times I didn’t. I’d be curious to hear the experiences of others. Is there any way to be 100% certain that the resurrected Jesus Christ dwells within you?”
c. “Gary: “It’s understood as a subjective experience that is nevertheless considered an objective reality, which is why believers can hold to their faith even without being able to answer every external objection.” This statement confirms my assertion that most evangelicals (in the United States, at least) believe the inner testimony of the Holy Spirit is objective evidence of the Resurrection of Jesus.”
Here’s the Baptist Faith and Message page for the Southern Baptists of the U.S., as of 2000. Baptist Faith and Message 2000 - Table of Contents.
Now watch what I do, I click on the “II. God” and I am immediately whisked to a new page. On that page I read:
B. God the Son
Christ is the eternal Son of God. In His incarnation as Jesus Christ He was conceived of the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin Mary. Jesus perfectly revealed and did the will of God, taking upon Himself human nature with its demands and necessities and identifying Himself completely with mankind yet without sin. He honored the divine law by His personal obedience, and in His substitutionary death on the cross He made provision for the redemption of men from sin. He was raised from the dead with a glorified body and appeared to His disciples as the person who was with them before His crucifixion. He ascended into heaven and is now exalted at the right hand of God where He is the One Mediator, fully God, fully man, in whose Person is effected the reconciliation between God and man. He will return in power and glory to judge the world and to consummate His redemptive mission. He now dwells in all believers as the living and ever present Lord.
And I read:
C. God the Holy Spirit
The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God, fully divine. He inspired holy men of old to write the Scriptures. Through illumination He enables men to understand truth. He exalts Christ. He convicts men of sin, of righteousness, and of judgment. He calls men to the Saviour, and effects regeneration. At the moment of regeneration He baptizes every believer into the Body of Christ. He cultivates Christian character, comforts believers, and bestows the spiritual gifts by which they serve God through His church. He seals the believer unto the day of final redemption. His presence in the Christian is the guarantee that God will bring the believer into the fullness of the stature of Christ. He enlightens and empowers the believer and the church in worship, evangelism, and service.
1 Like
So without evidence I just choose to believe and rely on faith. It’s more than good enough for me.
Is that the advice you would give to an unbeliever who asks, “How can I know Truth?” Would you tell him just to pray and the true God will reveal himself? Many people have done that, but invariably it is the god of their culture who responds:
Is there any passage in the Synoptics which states that Jesus raised himself from the dead? If I am not mistaken, the idea that Jesus raised himself from the dead does not appear until the end of the first century in the Gospel of John.
If a spiritual dimension exists, a dimension which cannot be analyzed by science, then how would you know that there are only two gods?
If that is true, what means is there to determine truth in the spiritual domain/dimension?
Yes that’s the advice I give to unbelievers in a nutshell. Given the fact, as already mentioned that there is no evidence, all there is is faith what else would I need to do?
Or are you asking me how do I approach unbelievers and share the gospel? Well there are a few ways but I’ll go the the way that
Is the most common when I have time to spare and not in a rush from one point to the next and that’s when I am hiking.
Often when I am hiking, like today I normally am planning on spending several hours there. Today I hiked 7 hours and covered only 8 miles. The last mile was half jogged and the fastest so for most of them it was quite slow. Well the first mile was jogged too. But on these days what’s important is my time in nature, enjoying it, not how far I go. Sometimes I may hike 20 miles in 8 hours. Sometimes I hike 4 miles in 8 hours. Sometimes I spend 3 hours underneath one tree just reading or using my binoculars to spy on animals. So anyways I’m often open for conversation and will have numerous chit chats while out.
To begin, not to be prideful, just honest, I know far more about ecology and natural history in my area than almost every random person, though I have come across people like the late EO Wilson, Ben Raines, Scot Duncan and recently a assistant of the late Wilfred T. Neill who could tell you essentially anything about southeastern aquatic amphibians in the United States. So often the conversations start around that.
Someone will see m n handling a spider or snake. Or they will see me with my mushroom keys out going through the identification process. Or they will just walk by and I’ll point out a super rare mushroom, some of which I was the first to find a population of in my state. Found some populations of a very rare pink brittlegill mushroom about 200 miles further north than it’s ever been found and 80 miles further west than it’s been found. I’ve found some of the biggest populations of western mud snakes on their very eastern habitat zone showcasing what is the main water system they are in. Often a random person will be coming by and I’ll ask them if they want to see something cool. Some say yes, some say no, some are extremely passionate about it and want to get tons of picks and are excited even if they are not entirely sure why. With these I’ll start to discuss basic ecology with them. Some are so ignorant of the subject of evolution that I teach them more in 15 minutes than they learned in the last 25 years.
But I almost always eventually bring up why it’s important to me which dives into my faith as a Christian. Stewardship theology
Is my favorite biblical topic. So I’ll talk about it. This often bleeds into why I’m also a vegan for almost 20 years now. Animal sanctuaries and so on. Local foraging.
During these discussions I often see some hesitant faces and it’s often rooted into a particular niche of Christianity centered around young earth creationism and an infamous political party. So I then defend why conservatives don’t own the faith. That there are liberal Christians as well. I’ll dive into the irony of how white colonizers broke treaty after treaty with indigenous people and drove them away, and enslaved and killed them. Stole their culture and land as best as they could and how nowadays we have descendants of these white people telling Mexicans who are also descendants of indigenous populations to the Americas to leave when often they can trace their ancestors in America back 40k years with science. How they are living in an occupied land much like Jews in the first century was under the rule of Romans.
This usually leads into discussions about syncretism which leads into Omnism. This often leads into discussions around conditional immortality and universalism. This bleeds into other topics of social justice intersecting with the teachings of Jesus Christ.
I’ll discuss how people for thousands of years all around the world have had what they feel are spiritual experiences. I’ll discuss some of my own, and highlight how I’m aware it could just be coincidental. Many , even the atheist, will share how sometimes they feel there has been weird experiences in their lives as well. That even if they rationalize it away like I do often, it just keeps coming back to them. This dives into accomondationism. We end up having a big discussion that is very much pro spirituality, pro nature and wildlife and pro science.
3 Likes
But we do not. it is you who claims that we have no objectivity or evidence, not us
I have come across your reasoning before on this forum. Scientists refuse to accept some criticisms because there is no “new” or pertinent evidence to support them. Just because some has a different view of the same evidence dos not make their view any more right or wrong than yours. Scientific method be D@mned.
Empircalism is a mode of thought, it is not the mode of thought.
Just because you cannot see or perceive something does not mean it does not exist, or that someone else cannot see it either.
I know it it trite but God seems to only reveal Himself to those who already believe in Him. I can offer reasons for that but they will be as trite as that apparent fact. In the mean time, if you really care or want to find God, you can always ask Him to show Himself to you. Trouble is, He will see straight through you if you are not being sincere. From what i have seen, your interest is purely academic or theoretic. You just want proof. That is not enough. And mocking those who have faith will not help, either.
The paradox remains. Before you can prove that the parachute you are wearing works, you have to jump from a great height. Seeing others work, and knowing the theory is not enough. The parachute on your back might have worked for others, but until you jump, you cannot be certain it will work for you.
Richard
Allah (Lord Krishna/the Mormon god) seems to only reveal himself to those who already believe in him.
I hope not @Mervin_Bitikofer as that is deist nonsense. All realms are created, sustained and governed by God every instant. That is the backbone of creation ex nihilo and metaphysical arguments like Aristotle’s prime mover and Aquinas’s first way. “Laws of physics” doesn’t replace God. Instead, they are us learning how God chooses to sustain and order creation which He upholds at every instant. There are many different understandings of what “laws of nature” actually mean and this is something that should probably be defined before being used in such a way. It is clear that @Gary_M doesn’t have a proper understanding of physics or metaphysics but is instead content to expect scientific explanations for things science methodologically excludes going in.
There is only one God as sound metaphysical arguments demonstrate. If you follow Aristotle/Aquinas and many other proofs through this is obvious. Here is part of Feser’s take on the prime mover of Aristotle and first way of Aquinas which starts off with change being potentials that are actualized.
- So, there is a purely actual actualizer.
- In order for there to be more than one purely actual actualizer, there would have to be some differentiating feature that one such actualizer has that the others lack.
- But there could be such a differentiating feature only if a purely actual actualizer had some unactualized potential, which, being purely actual, it does not have.
- So, there can be no such differentiating feature, and thus no way for there to be more than one purely actual actualizer.
- So, there is only one purely actual actualizer.
The definition of God we glean from sound reasoning coheres with what scripture teaches. The Lord is one. You can reject the whole argument but if we accept God as an unactualized actualizer necessary for the actualization of any hierarchal series in the here and now, why God has to be one is quite obvious.
You can’t scientifically investigate miracles because they go beyond the natural order. They are supernatural. And there is plenty of historical evidence Jesus rose from the dead following standard historical methodology. In fact, the primary reason to reject that Jesus rose from the dead is based on philosophical grounds (it couldn’t happen). But if all the evidence we have for the resurrection was for some non-supernatural mundane claim (for example that Jesus overturned some tables or went to Jerusalem for passover) it would pass tests to historicity with flying colors. It would be considered a bedrock fact about the life of Jesus. You are free to reject this “extraordinary claim” and I am sympathetic to that posture, but you can’t claim there no evidence for the Resurrection when in fact there is a ton of data attesting it and the only reason you really don’t accept it because you don’t think that sort of thing is possible. I would tend agree considering it is a “super-natural” miracle. For man such a thing is impossible.
From here: Who resurrected Jesus? | GotQuestions.org
The Bible indicates that all three Persons of the Trinity were involved in Jesus’ resurrection. Galatians 1:1 says that the Father raised Jesus from the dead. First Peter 3:18 says that the Spirit raised Jesus from the dead (see also Romans 1:4, and note that Romans 8:11clearly says that God will resurrect believers “through His Spirit”). And in John 2:19 Jesus predicts that He will raise Himself from the dead (see also John 10:18). So, when we answer the question of who resurrected Jesus, we can say God did. And by that we can mean it was the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
Jesus repeatedly identifies Himself as God and the earliest Church and the Jewish followers of Jesus believed He was Lord, Creator and Sustainer of the universe. This is not a late creation…super high Christology occurs in the earliest material we have in spades. The Triune Godhead acts in unity.
Vinnie
2 Likes
You are obviously much more knowledgeable than me regarding philosophical principles. It would therefore be foolish for me to even attempt to debate you regarding these principles. I can only respond to your impressive and intimidating philosophical arguments with these humble observations:
If a thorough knowledge of philosophical principles leads to recognition that our creator is the monotheistic Christian god, why do philosophers in non-Christian cultures not come to this conclusion? And, why is it that the majority of philosophers in the western world are atheists? Philosophy, therefore, doesn’t seem to be a good method to prove supernatural claims such as the existence of gods, devils, ghosts, and other ghouls. It appears to be a very subjective field.
You are asking me why people disagree with one another. That is not an argument, just a tactic those who wish to sow doubt use. This is how anti-vaccine and conspiracy theorists argue. We don’t learn in pure vacuums. We are all products of our environment and live in a fallen world. That is just the reality of the situation. People disagree. What more can I say? Your question is simply disingenuous.
I’ll give you a charged answer to this. Because most are hacks when it comes to God’s existence living in echo-chambers. I say this on several grounds.
-
the “who created God” objection demonstrates how lazy and misinformed atheist philosophers are about actual arguments for God’s existence.
-
Ever hear of Antony Flew? He was one of the world’s most prominent and famous atheist philosophers. He converted to theism (not Christianity) very late In life. Why? Because he had never truly read Aristotle. Once he finally did he was forced to become a theist. I suspect it is the same for many philosophers today. As Feser opened his book The last Superstition with:
“In 2004 the philosopher Antony Flew, who had been to that time perhaps the world’s most prominent atheist, announced that he had changed his mind. While he had no intention of embracing Christianity or any of the other traditional monotheistic religions, he had, he revealed, been led by philosophical arguments to conclude that there really is a God after all – specifically, a First Cause of the universe of the sort described by Aristotle. The Aristotelian rationale for Flew’s change of view might be as surprising as the conversion itself. Aristotle and his teacher Plato are almost universally regarded as the two greatest philosophers ever to have lived. Their arguments have been known and studied for over 2,300 years. Flew was 81 years old at the time, and had been for over fifty years one of the most influential and respected philosophers in the world. Surely, one would have thought, there were no arguments for the existence of God he hadn’t already heard before. And yet at the end of his career, and in the face of the atheism he had for half a century made his reputation defending, Flew found himself admitting that the ancient Greek thinker the Medievals referred to simply as “The Philosopher” had been right all along. “I was not a specialist on Aristotle,” Flew explained, “so I was reading parts of his philosophy for the first time.”1”
This is a cautionary tale. To be fair, not all philosophers are “philosophers of religion.” So your consensus doesn’t really hold as much weight as you might think. I would also like to point out that consensus is the last thing that should ever be used as an argument in philosophy. Arguments > appeals to authority and consensus which changes with the spirit of the age.
Vinnie
2 Likes
There’s just one God. That’s just Occam’s Razor; logically a multiplicity of deities makes no sense.
Look for the claims of revelation, determine which is real, stick to it.
There are only two choices: other than YHWH-Elohim of the Old Testament, all other deity claimants boil down to being part of this universe, just more powerful than we are; it’s either one Who created out of nothing, or there really is no deity, just the universe.
I refuse to call them “conservatives” – they’ve abandoned almost all the old conservative principles and become radical reactionaries. I like to explain what conservative Christianity used to hold to and why we should get back to it.
1 Like
I know the truth, the majority of philosophers (scientists, biologists, medical experts, climate experts) are biased.
-says every conspiracy theorist on the planet
That would mean that all philosophers in India and ancient Greece are/were nonsensical.
There isn’t an ounce of sincerity in you is there? That is not at all accurate. I gave you a charged answer based on two examples where atheists philosophers are either misinformed or make grotesque mistakers in regards to God’s existence. I also pointed out the consensus is not as strong as you think since philosophy has specializations. You shouldn’t evaluate your pcp and tumor board’s recommendations for cancer treatment with the same weight. Not all philosophers who comment on God’s existence carry equal weight either. And note that my response was given to an extremely loaded question to begin with.
Vinnie
1 Like
You consider anthropomorphic and mythological deities credible on intellectual grounds?
Vinnie
I’m not vetting this but its from AI:
Approximately:
70% of philosophers of religion believe in God or lean towards theism, which is a much higher rate than for philosophers in general. According to a 2020 survey, 69.50% of philosophers of religion accepted or leaned towards theism, while 19.86% accepted or leaned towards atheism.
- Theism vs. atheism: This means that a significant majority of philosophers specializing in the philosophy of religion are theists, while a smaller percentage are atheists.
- General philosophers: This contrasts sharply with a 2009 survey of all professional philosophers, where about 72.8% were atheists, compared to the 14.6% who were theists, notes this Facebook post.
- Specialization matters: The data suggests that specialization in the philosophy of religion, rather than general philosophical views, is the strongest predictor of belief in God.
If it is even remotely accurate, based on your own shoddy debate tactics, God exists since most of the relevant experts who study philosophy of religion and not simply any philosophy field in general, believe in God. QED. Or maybe, since I have higher standards than you when it comes to seeking truth, maybe more theists are drawn to philosophy of religion.
At any rate, I stand by my comment that the overall consensus is due to echo-chambers and a lack of any real understanding of arguments for God’s existence or any real effort to read Aquinas/Aristotle and so on.
I don’t think that’s right. Deism just claims that God/gods are not currently active in the world precisely because they are removed from it off in their own ‘higher plane‘ of existence somewhere else. It’s gnostic heresy that makes the dualistic split between a good spiritual (supernatural) realm and an evil material realm. And I hope along with you that most thoughtful believers around here reject that.
That is how I understood Gary’s distinction between God governing the heavenly realms whereas the laws of physics govern the physical realms. I find this posits a mechanistic version of God that has striking similarities to the deism which developed after the scientific revolution.
Gnosticism is something altogether different and stems from the earliest centuries of Church history. I agree we should completely reject that. But deism and mechanistic images of God are equally objectionable on intellectual grounds to me as they are not consistent with Church tradition, Sacred Scripture, creation ex nihilo or classical metaphysical arguments for God’s existence.
Vinnie