← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Angler
Thread ID: 11750 | Posts: 14 | Started: 2004-01-05
2004-01-05 19:01 | User Profile
As someone who was brought up Christian but has recently (within the last year or so) begun to have serious doubts about his faith, I've been reading quite a lot of material written on the topic by everyone from atheists to ultra-fundamentalist Christians. Up until now, I've been sorely disappointed with every Christian apologetics site I've visited, with their circular arguments ("The Bible must be inerrant because it says this-and-that in the Bible") and their classic cop-outs (e.g., "The Lord works in mysterious ways," or "Who are you to question God?" -- the answer being that I'm not questioning God, I'm questioning human beings who claim to have received revelations from God). But today I found a far better website that comes close to making up for the silliness found on all the rest:
[url]http://www.christian-thinktank.com/[/url]
The guy who owns that site not only has a brain, he actually uses it to honestly address the toughest questions posed by skeptics. His willingness to admit that Christian doctrine DOES pose serious and still-unresolved logical and moral difficulties is very refreshing, and he follows up on that admission with admirable efforts to resolve those apparent problems. While the above site can hardly claim to have all the answers, and although a few of the arguments its owner uses are somewhat specious, there are some true gems in there. It represents a truly admirable effort -- by far the best I've seen by any Christian author, past or present. I recommend it highly to others who might also be wrestling with issues regarding faith.
2004-01-06 02:02 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angler]As someone who was brought up Christian but has recently (within the last year or so) begun to have serious doubts about his faith, I've been reading quite a lot of material written on the topic by everyone from atheists to ultra-fundamentalist Christians. Up until now, I've been sorely disappointed with every Christian apologetics site I've visited, with their circular arguments ("The Bible must be inerrant because it says this-and-that in the Bible") and their classic cop-outs (e.g., "The Lord works in mysterious ways," or "Who are you to question God?" -- the answer being that I'm not questioning God, I'm questioning human beings who claim to have received revelations from God). But today I found a far better website that comes close to making up for the silliness found on all the rest[/QUOTE]
You might do yourself a favor by realizing that not everything is contained or explained in the Bible. After all, do you think that the Apostles wrote every detail of what they taught to their disciples and early Christians? Of course they didn't. This has been passed down by the Tradition of the Church and recorded in the writings of the Church Fathers.
I would highly recommend trying this site:
Tons of info here [url]http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/[/url]
Maybe it would help if you could tell us what issue is it that has you bothered?
-
2004-01-07 14:40 | User Profile
[QUOTE=wild_bill]You might do yourself a favor by realizing that not everything is contained or explained in the Bible. After all, do you think that the Apostles wrote every detail of what they taught to their disciples and early Christians? Of course they didn't. This has been passed down by the Tradition of the Church and recorded in the writings of the Church Fathers.
I would highly recommend trying this site:
Tons of info here [url]http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/[/url]
Maybe it would help if you could tell us what issue is it that has you bothered?
-[/QUOTE]
Hi! I am new to the board and i am simply stunned to find this post.. I have been going round and round for one and one half years with Doctrine. (came back to the Lord 3 years ago, had a radical lifechanging experience, that came about quietly but lasted)
Having been through alot of doctrine, and having read and considered many many heresies..(gnosticism, OSAS, Calvinism, messianic Judaism)have been massivley confused. I have been searching because IF we are in the last days, then deception will be rampant..
I find myself returning again and again to read the eastern orthodoxy sites. The wisdom of many of the church fathers simply blows me away. I have been searching through the ante-nicene fathers, and they appear to say the opposite of what i have always heard from Dispensational OSAS fundies.
The transubstantiation issue is a huge one. As well as the other sacraments. But the ante-nicene fathers appear to back much of it up..(still investigating)
I guess the reason i have not gotten down to the point of considering joining, is that the prospect is kind of frightening. It is a radical departure from what i have believed, and had drummed into my head as a protestants that not only the RCC and Eastern Orthodox are cursed for treading the son of God underfoot in the Eucharrist, etc...(plus there is the issue of Icons, and all the problems associated with that.)
It would be great to talk to someone about this. Any advice?
Your sister in Christ, Dagmar
2004-01-07 17:04 | User Profile
Angler, I had began to think that you consider any defense of Christianity to be, by definition, invalid.
Anyway, everything I looked at included a Politically Correct disregard for the Truth.
For example:
Question: "None of the disciples or apostles were women--a bit unfair, aint it?!"
Answer:> This, of course, is a New Testament question, and one that is surprisingly easy to answer.
As we saw in the syllabus, there is not ONE title of early Christian leadership (i.e. apostle, elder, bishop, presbyter, deacon, "fellow-worker", "hard worker", patron) that is NOT ascribed to a female before the 4th century A.D.
the NT calls a woman an 'apostle' and this reference is confirmed in the Church Fathers. we have several archeological finds, identifying women as bishops/elders the NT calls a woman a 'deaconess' as do church councils and pagan documents Paul calls several women 'patrons' and 'fellow-workers' and 'hard workers' in his epistles.
This is in addition to the data (both NT and archeological) that women 'ran' house-churches in the major cities of Christian expansion.
Now, it IS true that none of the Twelve were women (although there were some very important and highly-praised women disciples that traveled with the group). But this is commonly understood to be a deliberate re-enactment of the Twelve Sons of Israel (a typology kinda thing), and not a general prescription for leadership. (Indeed, one of the Twelve was the traitor!)
We saw in the detail that women did travel with Jesus--even into the hostile wilderness, did sit rabbinic-style 'at the feet of Jesus' for instruction, did perform patronage services, did bear witnesss, did evangelism, and were used by Matthew as examples of what TRUE discipleship was meant to look like!
Given their ample and aggressive service in the early church, the fact that they were not part of an OT fulfillment motif around the twelve sons of Israel probably is NOT that significant...
[But, what IS significant, is that they WERE singled out in the Joel prophecy cited by Peter in Acts 2--they were to be co-prophets and co-teachers with men in the New Covenant Kingdom!]
Liar, liar pants on fire. The assertion here is that women and men serve identical functions in the church and that it is only coincidental that The Twelve were men. Or, if there were some reason for them to all be men, it has nothing to do with the roles of women and men in the church, or "sexist" bias.
Jesus doesn't say why he chose only men. But, if we are to use Jesus as an example, then men should take the leadersip roles. We don't need to assume this because the Bible is explicit about the different roles of men and women.
For example, the claim is made "There is not ONE title of early Christian leadership." Paul says Deacons "are to be men."
The liberal apologist might have in mind where Paul calls Phoebe a deaconess. Deacon means servant. All Christian women should be servants, but that doesn't mean they should hold the office of servant (which is explicitly limited to men). Phoebe nor any woman wrote a single word in the Bible nor is there the slighest bit of evidence that Phoebe or any woman ever held any sort of leadership position (which the NT also explicitly forbids). There is no record of any deeds done by Phoebe, other than the term "help."
The author who wrote those apologetics compounds his dishonesty in his choice of words in the question he posed to answer. The question suggests that if Jesus did pick His apostles because they are men then it is unfair. On the contrary, there is nothing unfair about it, just Politically Incorrect about it.
2004-01-07 19:17 | User Profile
Angler...i meant to ask if you had read any of Francis Schaeffer's work? Some of his work is helpful..
There is a huge problem with the incompleteness of even simple logical systems. (you have heard of Godel right?) Even if one could axiomatize the universe, many of the questions could not be proved or disproved.
The problem is in orders of logic...you may have already wrestled with this, and if so i apologize.. Take for example the difference between A language, and the grammer used on the language. One is a system, the other defines rules on the system, which is a different level or order of logic.
You cannot take a finite system of logic and expect to be able to answer questions about the infinite.
(i know this may be sloppily written but hope you get the idea)
We are inside the system(universe) and you are trying to use something that makes sense within the system, to answer questions about the Being who is outside the system...it is not really possible, they require different orders of logic .
2004-01-07 19:33 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Dagmar]Angler...i meant to ask if you had read any of Francis Schaeffer's work? Some of his work is helpful..[/QUOTE]
Francis Schaeffer is of course, excellent and I would highly recommend him. Funny you mention him because he came to mind when I read where you mentioned your attraction to the Orthodox Church in another thread. I immediately thought of his son Frank's conversion to the Orthodox church and the small hubbub that stirred up.
2004-01-07 21:10 | User Profile
[quote=Happy Hacker]Angler, I had began to think that you consider any defense of Christianity to be, by definition, invalid. If I were constrained by some ingrained hostility to Christianity, then I wouldn't have been a practicing Catholic for over 30 years (going to Church weekly for most of that time, as well as praying a great deal, going to Confession, etc.). I was never just going through the motions -- my faith played a pretty large role in my life. Trust me: I don't enjoy the tremendous anxiety that arises from suddenly suspecting that everything I've believed for most of my life is wrong. However, I simply refuse to lie to myself. If something in the Bible or in Church doctrine doesn't make any sense to me, I can't just mentally sweep it under the rug.
The only defenses of Christianity that I take to be invalid are those that are illogical. Sadly, "illogical" is an apt description of most of them. For starters, any argument in support of the Christian faith that contains a premise starting with "The Bible says ..." is pure garbage. It's necessary to first prove that the Bible (or at least the verse(s) being referred to) is flawlessly accurate before Bible verses can be used to prove anything else. If the Bible had already been proved to be correct, then every literate person in the world would believe in it, just as every literate person worldwide believes in the same basic principles of math and science. Anyone who refused to acknowledge belief in the Bible when he knew it was true would have to be insane, given the threats the Bible directs at nonbelievers.
Of course, none of this means that the evidence for the Bible's accuracy will not be strengthened in the future -- new archaeological digs as well as continued improvements in translation and interpretation will always have the potential to provide new insights. In the meantime, I'll just have to continue looking for answers in the evidence that's currently available.
2004-01-07 21:43 | User Profile
[quote=Dagmar]Angler...i meant to ask if you had read any of Francis Schaeffer's work? Some of his work is helpful.. Hi Dagmar, and welcome to the board.
I'm afraid I'm not familiar with Schaeffer, but I appreciate the tip. Are there any specific titles that you would recommend?
I am familiar with Godel and the Incompleteness Theorem, so I do understand your point about that. In fact, thinking along the lines of the IT is precisely the reason why I know I could never be an atheist: it's impossible to disprove the existence of a Higher Power, since such a Power could very well transcend our universe.
On the other hand, you may or may not be aware that there's this guy named Chris Langan who believes that he can prove the existence of some God using mathematics, logic, and physics. His theory is called the Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe. Mr. Langan is a very interesting character in his own right: he bounces in bars for a living even though tests show that he has one of the highest IQs in the world! Here's his website:
[url]http://www.ctmu.net/[/url]
The press has even taken notice of him: [url]http://www.ctmu.org/CTMU/Press/index.html[/url]
I haven't gotten into his paper too much yet, but what I've read has been very interesting (and tough reading). It will be interesting to see how he deals with Godel's IT in the course of his proof. Perhaps there's room for skepticism at this point, but I know better than to underestimate someone as brilliant as Langan evidently is.
2004-01-07 22:11 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angler]Hi Dagmar, and welcome to the board.
I'm afraid I'm not familiar with Schaeffer, but I appreciate the tip. Are there any specific titles that you would recommend?
I am familiar with Godel and the Incompleteness Theorem, so I do understand your point about that. In fact, thinking along the lines of the IT is precisely the reason why I know I could never be an atheist: it's impossible to disprove the existence of a Higher Power, since such a Power could very well transcend our universe.
On the other hand, you may or may not be aware that there's this guy named Chris Langan who believes that he can prove the existence of some God using mathematics, logic, and physics. His theory is called the Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe. Mr. Langan is a very interesting character in his own right: he bounces in bars for a living even though tests show that he has one of the highest IQs in the world! Here's his website:
[url]http://www.ctmu.net/[/url]
The press has even taken notice of him: [url]http://www.ctmu.org/CTMU/Press/index.html[/url]
I haven't gotten into his paper too much yet, but what I've read has been very interesting (and tough reading). It will be interesting to see how he deals with Godel's IT in the course of his proof. Perhaps there's room for skepticism at this point, but I know better than to underestimate someone as brilliant as Langan evidently is.[/QUOTE]
Hi Angler, thanks..
I do not claim to be a logician (differential geometry is my bag, or was) i do deeply admire Godel and know he was working on a "proof" of God.
(In fact my fiance' would probably strangle me if he knew i was stating things so sloppily)..i also cannot claim an astronomically high IQ..but i can get into some pretty decent trouble with what i have.
I think i saw this guy Langan on 20/20 or some news magazine...I would love to see him do it, it is always people outside academia that come up with the best solutions to problems/inventions/ scientific breakthroughs...ever notice that? It puts a twig up the establishment's nose.
Francis Schaeffer's book "The God Who is There" Is a nice book...granted if you are into hard core philosophy you may not like his soft approach. I also liked "He is there and He is not silent".
2004-01-07 23:47 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Dagmar]Hi! I am new to the board and i am simply stunned to find this post.. I have been going round and round for one and one half years with Doctrine. (came back to the Lord 3 years ago, had a radical lifechanging experience, that came about quietly but lasted)
It would be great to talk to someone about this. Any advice?
Your sister in Christ, Dagmar[/QUOTE]
Christ be with you, Dagmar.
Your story sounds a lot like mine. And I would highly recommend going to an Orthodox parish, attending Liturgy, and talking to the Priest. I had been in many churches and for one reason or another none seemed satisfactory. I attended an Orthodox parish with my family and within 10 minutes my wife and I looked at each other and agree this was the place for us. Since many Orthodox parishes seldom get people who just walk in off the street, the Reader and Sub-Deacon agreed that whatever route we went to arrive at their church, it was God who guided us there. All the people were very nice to us without being overbearing at all and seemed really glad that we joined their parish.
I have heard occasional reports that some very conservative parishes are skeptical of inquirers at first, especially if they don't have some Slavic heritage, but these seem to be the exception.
The issues you mentioned are the usual ones that many people considering Orthodoxy might have and that's why I recommend you speak with a Priest. The Orthodox are different, I think, in that they don't get hung up over small things or argue endlessly some particular word in the Scriptures. Most issues that are still being argued today by other branches of Christianity, have been long settled in the Orthodox Church. This in itself is a relief to me.
The most striking thing about the Orthodox Liturgy is that it is sang in back and forth exchanges between the Priest and the church members and choir. It culminates in Holy Communion.
Try this site and scroll down to the Orthodox Church of America and listen to some of then streaming audio files to get an idea of what an Orthodox Liturgy sounds like. Its a really beautiful service.
[url]http://www.byzantines.net/realaudio/index.htm[/url]
-
2004-01-08 00:15 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Happy Hacker] The liberal apologist might have in mind where Paul calls Phoebe a deaconess. Deacon means servant. All Christian women should be servants, but that doesn't mean they should hold the office of servant (which is explicitly limited to men). Phoebe nor any woman wrote a single word in the Bible nor is there the slighest bit of evidence that Phoebe or any woman ever held any sort of leadership position (which the NT also explicitly forbids). There is no record of any deeds done by Phoebe, other than the term "help." [/QUOTE]
Deaconesses in the early Church performed baptisms of women. Catecumens were baptized in the nude back then, so they had the Deaconess acting under the Bishop's authority when women were baptized. She also had some other duties which I can't recall. Eventually, the Church got away from nude baptisms and the position of Deaconess gradually faded out. Some have speculated the Deaconess may also have dealt with the women of the Church on some personal subjects, but that isn't known for sure. In the Orthodox Church, the wife of the Priest, the "Matuska" in the Slavic parishes or "Presbyteria" in Greek parishes, is usually a woman who is respected although she doesn't have an official position or Liturgical duties. Some woman will consult with their Matuska on sensitive matters.
-
2004-01-08 06:55 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Dagmar]I do not claim to be a logician (differential geometry is my bag, or was) i do deeply admire Godel and know he was working on a "proof" of God. Cool, there's another math geek on this site! :) Were you a math grad student or something? One of my degrees is actually in math, and I remember differential geometry being one of the tougher courses.
I think i saw this guy Langan on 20/20 or some news magazine...I would love to see him do it, it is always people outside academia that come up with the best solutions to problems/inventions/ scientific breakthroughs...ever notice that? It puts a twig up the establishment's nose. Hmmm ... I guess I never really thought about it that way, but there very well might be such a trend. There certainly are a lot of brilliant and creative individuals who don't fit into academia for a variety of reasons. Unfortunately, it takes a lot of money to do research in many areas, and funding is generally a necessity. Even something as basic as a subscription to a single scientific journal in one's area of research can be ludicrously expensive, and that tends to perpetuate the academic establishment's near-stranglehold on the exchange of cutting-edge knowledge. Fortunately, the rise of the internet and the increasing availability of free or cheap online journals has the potential to free things up a bit.
Francis Schaeffer's book "The God Who is There" Is a nice book...granted if you are into hard core philosophy you may not like his soft approach. I also liked "He is there and He is not silent".[/QUOTE]You know, that first title sounds sort of familiar ... I might have seen it while browsing on Amazon.com or something. Anyway, thanks again for the tip: I'll try to pick up at least one of those books and give it a read.
2004-01-08 18:55 | User Profile
Texas Dissident, Hi there,I am sorry if i appeared rude..i was not ignoring you... I get a little confused talking to several people in this format..where the threads do not have a step-type heirarchy so you can tell what conversation is branching off, and in which direction...so please accept my apologies if it appeared i was ignoring what you said...(yes i am neurotic). I had heard Frank had gone to eastern orthodoxy, but i had read the books before i found this out..(it is pretty strange). I wonder if he wrote about his experience. You know i am not even sure i know what denom his dad was..
Thanks wild Bill, Appreciate it...maybe i could take this up on one of the other threads.. All i know is that i keep coming back to the orthodox websites to read more..this has been going on for about a year. I feel very drawn to it an do not know why.
I got a book by Brother Seraphim Rose on the afterlife,while browsing through the christian book section... which is how i found out about the orthodox church. It is like water on parched earth..i soak it in like a sponge...and cannot get enough.
Now my biggest problem is my "protestant" evangelical brainwashing, that tells me that these things are "damnable heresies"..part of the "Whore of babylon", yadda yadda yadda. I have avoided going to church, any church, because i have been trying to decide what was correct (hence the struggling with doctrine) doctrinally.
I also know that if we are in the last days, then CHOOSING WRONG could put me in the lake of fire, which is why i have been particularly paralyzed..i am frightened, having read the warnings in the Bible to not be decieved.
Angler, Well sort of a math geek, i am a weird ecclectic mix.. I started with an undergrad in physics, worked in Bio-research for a few years (big mistake) before going to grad school in physics. I was very interested in superstring theory and then gravitation theory. (.and thinking i could get where i wanted to go faster )switched into grad math.
So while i talk like a physicist because i believe the intuitive structure is most important, i can work with precision like a mathematician..
And yes, you noticed i am very anti-establishment. Differential Geometry can be difficult if you have a bad book and/or lousy teacher (i have got to run right now...maybe we can talk later)Actually it might be better for me to butt out so i don't get off topic.
One last comment though.. part of Faith itself is belief(the motivating part of faith is belief, if you see faith as belief and action, where the belief is the potential of action)..
and yes here is the tiresome timeworn rejoinder you may be sick of hearing...if we knew or could prove for a certainty that God did exist, wouldn't that make faith as we know it uneccessary? The motivating factor of all the good that is in civilization would have the foundation of motivating belief cut from under it..people would serve of necessity out of fear...wouldn't this in part undermine Grace?(part of grace loosely defined as God's gift to mankind allowing him to believe..because no one would come to Christ unless called, we do not have the ability to choose to believe it is a gift from God)
Okay maybe that was a dumb question.
2004-01-08 22:19 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Dagmar]
Thanks wild Bill, Appreciate it...maybe i could take this up on one of the other threads.. All i know is that i keep coming back to the orthodox websites to read more..this has been going on for about a year. I feel very drawn to it an do not know why.
I got a book by Brother Seraphim Rose on the afterlife,while browsing through the christian book section... which is how i found out about the orthodox church. It is like water on parched earth..i soak it in like a sponge...and cannot get enough.
Now my biggest problem is my "protestant" evangelical brainwashing, that tells me that these things are "damnable heresies"..part of the "Whore of babylon", yadda yadda yadda. I have avoided going to church, any church, because i have been trying to decide what was correct (hence the struggling with doctrine) doctrinally.
I also know that if we are in the last days, then CHOOSING WRONG could put me in the lake of fire, which is why i have been particularly paralyzed..i am frightened, having read the warnings in the Bible to not be decieved.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, I have that book. Its quite interesting. Another good one by Fr. Seraphim Rose is "Orthodoxy and the Religion of the Future." It deals with more practical matters of New Ageism and Christian heresies.
In my case of investigating Christianity, it got down to what were the true teachings of Christ and the Apostles. I knew virtually nothing about Orthodoxy. In the past, whenever I heard the term "Eastern Orthodox" I just always assumed it was merely some variant of Roman Catholicism. But as I kept investigating Christian history, I kept seeing references of this or that doctrine being maintained only by the "Orthodox Church." Then I find that the Orthodox Church is the one from which all others came. The more I investigated, the more I became convinced in its authenticity. Then I found an Orthodox parish nearby, went to it, and its been a most enriching and wonderful experience.
Also of all the versions of Christianity, I noticed the Jews seldom had anything good to say about it. The Orthodox Church doesn't pander to them, so naturally they denounce it as "anti-semitic." This only adds to its authenticity, IMHO.
-