Barriers to belief

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Believing something simply because all other people do and for no other reason is just 'following the crowd'.

Where did I make this claim about myself?

Originally posted by FMF
Where did I make this claim about myself?

I asked you, "So when you were a Christian and someone asked you why you found the Bible compelling, you would say because it claims stuff about itself?"

You replied, "I used to believe - like all Christians do - that the Bible was divinely inspired.The Christians around me agreed."

So it seems from your response that the only reason you believed the Bible was divinely inspired was because other Christians agreed with you. If that is incorrect feel free to tell me what the real reason was.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
I asked you, "So when you were a Christian and someone asked you why you found the Bible compelling, you would say because it claims stuff about itself?"

You replied, "I used to believe - like all Christians do - that the Bible was divinely inspired.The Christians around me agreed."

So it seems from your response that the only reason you believed ...[text shortened]... Christians agreed with you. If that is incorrect feel free to tell me what the real reason was.

The only reason I believed the Bible was divinely inspired was because other Christians agreed with me?? I said absolutely nothing of the sort. What about the rest of what I wrote? Why are you filtering it out/ignoring it?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
So it seems from your response that the only reason you believed the Bible was divinely inspired was because other Christians agreed with you. If that is incorrect feel free to tell me what the real reason was.

Of course it is incorrect. And you know full well it is. Just go back and read everything I wrote. It's only a couple of pages back.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
I guess then you are not here to set an example to others? If you read page 14 of this thread you will notice that I have given the reasons why I think it is reasonable to believe the Bible is divinely inspired. Now would you care to give me yours? Or do you have none?

Yes you are correct, I am not here in this forum to set an example to others.

I could, if I believed you which I don't, accept your claim that you believe the Bible is divinely inspired, but importantly, I do not accept that as evidence that you are a Christian. In fact this is something you still need to demonstrate as frankly I don't think you are one.

Finally I repeat my point which you avoided:
It is you who have brought up 1 Peter 3:15 and therefore you who should set the example for others to follow.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
I have asked him what evidence specifically would qualify in his eyes as reasonable evidence that the Bible is divinely inspired.

Why do you want to know this? You have given your evidence but who is to say that is sufficient of not? In fact isn't "evidence" counter intuitive to faith? The more you seek evidence the more it implies to me that you, Fetchmyjunk, actually know nothing of the reality about which you are talking.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
The biblical term for defense is apologia in the original language. While it may sound very similar to the English word apology, this is not the meaning of the Greek word. Apologia simply means defense, and this is the meaning in 1 Peter 3:15. From apologia, we get the term Apologetics – the branch of Christian theology that deals with the defense and es ...[text shortened]... ense-for-the-hope-that-is-in-you-1-peter-315/

I take it then you see no need for apologetics?

No, what you can take is this:

I don't believe you are a Christian, I believe you are a non-Christian troll. As you come across as a juvenile, I wonder if you are a 1st or 2nd year theology student. I see nothing in you of Christ. I see nothing in you of concern for the lost. A Christian would want help FMF regain his faith not look for reasons to prove to him that whatever faith he once had was completely false.

I'm calling you out as being fake and a liar. I trust my perspective and opinion of you is clear and unequivocal?

Originally posted by divegeester
Yes you are correct, I am not here in this forum to set an example to others.

I could, if I believed you which I don't, accept your claim that you believe the Bible is divinely inspired, but importantly, I do not accept that as evidence that you are a Christian. In fact this is something you still need to demonstrate as frankly I don't think you are ...[text shortened]... e brought up 1 Peter 3:15 and therefore you who should set the example for others to follow.[/i]

So you are basically saying that I should set and example to others but you won't? Hypocritical much?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
If you read page 14 of this thread you will notice that I have given the reasons why I think it is reasonable to believe the Bible is divinely inspired.

Compare these:

Quoted by Fetchmyjunk: [page 14] "The Bible contains 66 books written over 1,500 years by 40 different writers but it tells one "big story" of God's plan of salvation that culminated in Jesus Christ. The "evidence" that all this was true and real seemed to me to be on every page of the Bible and seemed to be substantiated by every waking moment, every event and every interaction. “There is indeed a wide variety of human authors and themes (in the Bible). Yet behind these…there lies a single divine author with a single unifying theme."

FMF: [page 37] "I used to sincerely believe that the Bible was God speaking directly to me through true historical stories of his relationship with his chosen people, recorded by those people to whom he had revealed Himself, and that the New Testament clearly showed us that He sent his son to die for us and save the world. I used to derive great comfort and fellowship from the fact that other Christians also "knew" this to be "true" and acted upon it. The "evidence" that all this was true and real seemed to me to be on every page of the Bible and seemed to be substantiated by every waking moment, every event and every interaction."

What's the big difference [aside from the fact that I took the time to write my own personal testimony, while you just copy pasted what someone else said] between these two perceptions of the Bible?

Originally posted by divegeester
No, what you can take is this:

I don't believe you are a Christian, I believe you are a non-Christian troll. As you come across as a juvenile, I wonder if you are a 1st or 2nd year theology student. I see nothing in you of Christ. I see nothing in you of concern for the lost. A Christian would want help FMF regain his faith not look for reasons to pro ...[text shortened]... ut as being fake and a liar. I trust my perspective and opinion of you is clear and unequivocal?

Actually I have never studied theology so you are wrong on every count. So do you think you are helping FMF regain his faith by telling him the faith that he used to have (and has already rejected) was the real thing?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
So do you think you are helping FMF regain his faith by telling him the faith that he used to have (and has already rejected) was the real thing?

Well, as far as I experienced and perceived my faith in the past, it was "the real thing". All divegeester has done has taken me at my word that my faith in the past was genuine and felt real. What else can he say if he believes that am telling the truth about myself?

Originally posted by FMF
Well, as far as I experienced and perceived my faith in the past, it [b]was "the real thing". All divegeester has done has taken me at my word that my faith in the past was genuine and felt real. What else can he say if he believes that am telling the truth about myself?[/b]

So you claiming that you believed the Bible was true because it said so and you claiming your faith was real because you thought it was real is not circular reasoning? And if what you are claiming was true, do you still believe you can arrive at the truth using circular reasoning?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
So you claiming that you believed the Bible was true because it said so and you claiming your faith was real because you thought it was real is not circular reasoning? So if it was true can you arrive at truth using circular reasoning?

I basically believed the Bible was self-evidently true ~ as you essentially do if you stand by your copy paste quote on page 14 ~ but now, as a non-Christian, I am, of course, fully aware of how much the Bible - as supposed "evidence" - relies entirely on circular logic. My realization now, that this is so, has no bearing whatsoever on how sincere and genuine my belief was (in the stuff you said about the reason for your own faith in the Bible on page 14) back when I was a committed Christian.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
So you claiming that you believed the Bible was true because it said so and you claiming your faith was real because you thought it was real is not circular reasoning?

Where have I claimed that it "is not circular reasoning"? In which post are you saying I was "claiming" this?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
By 'all the other people' in obviously mean 'the other people that had the same faith as you had'.

So how would you describe or define Christian fellowship?