Unbelieving Evidence.
When the scoffer comes to the Christian with scientific, philosophical, and historical evidence is he actually attacking the “root” of the Christian’s belief system...or is he really still agreeing with the Bibles view of things?
Should the Christian be surprised or shocked that the unbeliever can provide “evidences” that agree with his unbelief?
Not at all.
The Bible itself speaks of the unbelief of man. It began very near to the beginning of human history.
Adam and Eve followed Satan’s rebellion and chose not to believe the Lord.
God in His mercy restored Adam and Eve but we see that unbelief and rebellion continued on throughout some of their children, and children’s children, and so on.
The Bible speaks of whole cultures founded upon unbelief. God also shows, that in His timing, how He brings the gospel to a culture to change it and restore it, or else to allow it to continue in its rebellion to the point where it reaches a point [according to God’s view point] of no return and imminent judgement.
Like unbelievers of today, those who did not believe thousands of years ago did not hide in a cave, doing nothing.
They used God’s world, but refused to give thanks to God, and refused to acknowledge God [Romans 1]. These people knew the God who made them, and they suppressed this clear revelation in their sinful, rebellious hearts.
Why would they suppress this clear truth? Well...to acknowledge the Creator God would also be to acknowledge something about themselves. Something they were very unwilling to admit.
When Adam fell into sin he did so because he took Satan’s bait. We wanted to be like God.
He wanted to be a “little god”. He wanted to call the shots. He wanted to be the maker of his own destiny. He wanted to be the judge of what is good and what is evil.
Adam’s corruption has passed down to all his posterity. This corruption of man’s nature effects all mankind until the Lord gives a person a new heart. Even the Christian struggles [but is no longer in bondage in it] against the old nature, and will do so until he is glorified.
So why not confess the Creator God?
Then men would have to confess that they are less then what they think they are. They would have to acknowledge that they are corrupt, wicked, rebellious, helpless, willfully ignorant...things that a “little god” is very reluctant to admit.
Although they would not confess that God is the Creator and Governor of all, they did continue to use His world. They used logic, science and morality although they could not account for how these worked according to their professed, unbelieving systems of thought.
They wrote songs, they painted pictures, they built cities, cultures, nations. They told stories, wrote histories, worshiped idols.
Millions of unbelievers have been born, lived their whole lives against God, and have gone to their graves...and then to the pit...without acknowledging God.
When some “scholars” today find “evidence” of unbelief today it only shows what the Bible already proclaims.
The fool says in his heart “There is no God”.
The unbeliever today diligently searches for other men who also rebelled against the Almighty.
Does he think that finding ancient information about unbelieving, idolatrous religious views takes away from the truth of God’s revelation? Hardly.
Does he think because past cultures “existed” in rebellion that their very existence justifies their rebellious stance? The Romans and Greeks used logic, scientific study, and morality...even religion...but like unbelievers today they could not justify their systems of thought...although at least many of them tried.
Many scoffers today have assumed their unbelief for so long that whenever their beliefs are challenged or asked to be justified they answer like many religious professors, in “blind” faith.
They are good at name calling but very poor in really giving an answer for their unbelief.
But when you make yourself a "little god" you are the one who calls the shots...
ya see how it works, you don't have to justify your beliefs, you can just live however you like, do whatever you want...things you couldn't do "if" you acknowledged the Almighty.
But one day, every knee will bow and every tongue will confess Christ as Lord.
Many willfully, many others being forced to do so before they are forever cast away from God's eternal blessings.
To be your own "little god" isn't all its cracked up to be when your eternal kingdom will be the outer darkness.
posted by Dale Callahan at 3:18 PM
8 Comments:
Should the non-Christian be surprised or shocked that the believer can provide no "evidences" that his beliefs are true? No, the non-Christian is quite aware that the believer can only point to his leather-bound bible and assert that it is all true.
Since the believer cannot explain the existence of logic, scientific study, and morality except by resorting to illogical, unscientific and supernatural fantasy, why does he complain that others use these methods "without acknowledging" their magic story about their origin?
Ultimately what we have here is not a disagreement about logic or science. What we have here is a failure to understand the role of religious myth. By insisting that the biblical myths are historical events, the believer ends up designing ever more fantastic concepts for defending his belief, and growing ever more bellicose toward those who disagree. Those Christians who acknowledge the mythological nature of biblical stories can spend their time applying the message of those stories to their daily lives and their interactions with one another and the world.
DL,
"By insisting that the biblical myths are historical events, the believer ends up designing ever more fantastic concepts for defending his belief, and growing ever more bellicose toward those who disagree."
I think that this would be more accurate if it read: "By insisting that the Bible is a myth, the unbeliever ends up designing ever more fantastic concepts(although this is nothing new, as Dale has pointed out) for defending his beliefs and growing ever more bellicose towards Christians who are uncompromising."
What would drive you to take a message from a book (or for you to suggest that others should) that you don't believe and apply it to your daily life and interactions? It appears to me, after following this blog conversation, that you are the bellicose one and that Dale has been the one making strong defense against your onslaught.
As I have said earlier, no one [believer or non believer] proves their ulitmate presuppositions...but they prove everything by these ultimate presuppositions.
This has been missed over and over again by DL.
The believer can provide "no" evidence...is that the case?
Rather DL dismisses any evidence that the Christian provides. The Christian's scholars and historians are not really scholars and historians...see how easy it is for the unbeliever...evidence vanishes in a single change of a definition.
And do note when the unbeliever is challenge on the level of his ultimate presuppositions...being asked to give an account for it...HE IS TOTALLY SILENT!!!!!
THAT IS THE GREATEST EVIDENCE THERE IS!
What I was referring to is an understanding of the role of myth in human society. Long before the bible was written, ancient peoples had myths "...intended to explain the universal and local beginnings ("creation myths" and "founding myths"), natural phenomena, inexplicable cultural conventions, and anything else for which no simple explanation presents itself." (Wikipedia)
Myths reveal fundamental truths and insights about human nature or the viewpoints and beliefs of the country, time period, culture, and/or religion which gave birth to them. Those who understand the role of myth use them to underscore and illustrate their insights and beliefs. They do not have to be historically or scientifically true to fulfill this role. All too often, the attempt to defend the historicity of myth obscures the truths it conveys.
The idea that there are or should be "ultimate presuppositions" is a construct of certain schools of Christian apologetics. There must first be a reasonable defense of the assertion that "ultimate presuppositions" signifies anything other than a tactic to attack unbelievers.
"There must first be a reasonable defense of the assertion that "ultimate presuppositions" signifies anything other than a tactic to attack unbelievers."
You silence is a very reasonable defense.
I have ultimate presuppositons that I do not prove but use and you do the exact same thing.
I am at least willing to show how my beliefs are the foundation for logic, science and morality...and you seem to pushing off explaining your beliefs with a very long pole, why?
You have yet to explain "...how my beliefs are the foundation for logic, science and morality." You have merely made assertions to that effect that are dependent upon accepting your underlying presuppositions - in effect circular reasoning.
Even if you had successfully made such an explanation, it wouldn't solve anything for you. If I agreed that logic, science flowed from God, that would only make it more incumbent upon you to use logic and science to explain your beliefs in a manner acceptable to that logic and science.
When it comes to ultimate beliefs, everyone argues in a circle...you have a hard time understanding that don't you DL?
I do believe in using logic and science, but I don't believe that either of them are essentially "naturalistic".
It is amazing that atheists use logic and science with their naturalistic presuppositions and low and behold they come to naturalistic conclusions...then they go a step further they begin thinking that logic and science are essentially "naturalistic"...then look over the fence and judge the Christian to be not using logic and science because the Christian refuses to submit to the god of naturalism.
Your worldview cannot begin to consistently uphold the things you hold so dear, oh dear.
You know, Dale, you fail to realize that "naturalism" is not only not a God, but not even a concept we non-Christians recognize. What you are calling "naturalism" is what we call scientific law and historical fact. You want to dispute our judgment on the basis that we insist on factual, rational reasons for believing anything - like most of the educated human race.
You however, insist that irrational ideas with no proveable basis are true and that those ideas that can be proven are bogus. It is a curious and illogical point of view, and one I'm quite sure you only utilize for religious discussions. I rather think you don't tell your children they should make decisions based on irrational assumptions.
I don't hold ideas "dear". I insist that ideas be rationally defensible and when they are not I reject them. If you had any rational arguments for your position, I would certainly consider them, but obviously you don't.
Post a Comment
<< Home