Leaving Chrisitianity

[shunyadragon]

I can buy that. I often wonder why people stopped adding to the Bible anything written after around 100 AD or so. If there is a god, I can see him continuing to reveal himself through other religious traditions.

When scripture of most religions evolves, like the Bible. eventually it goes to an accepted fixed form that is written. The Gospels most likely evolved up through at least ~200-250 AD.

Are those the only two options?

I am giving my two options from the perspective of the evidence. It is based on my assumptions that if God exists:

(1) God has a universal relationship through revelation with all of humanity through out human history as well as the many worlds of our physical existence.

(2) The harmony of science and religion and consistency and reliability of human rational abilities to understand our physical existence through academic science and history makes the claims of individual ancient religions questionable. In this assumption humans are still considered fallible and lack perfect understanding, but nonetheless I believe I can assume humans are reliable and consistent based on the evidence and history.

Just because the end result is similar to agnosticism/atheism doesn't mean it can't be true.

Yes it could possibly be true, but I believe it still represent a contradiction concerning beliefs that God exists, and what is God's relationship with Humanity and Creation. This view of Deism was prevalent among many of the founding fathers of the USA, and continues today in some of the followers of Unitarian Universalism.

The Baha'i Faith Revelation describes an apophatic God, that cannot be defined from the human perspective as with doctrines like the Trinity, and is known only through Revelation of God's Law and the revealed attributes of God, such as love, justice and compassion, and pray and medtation.

[fm93]

The essay pretty much covers that.

I guess I'm not seeing the connection between the essay's broader point and the answer.

Perhaps what you're suggesting is that through God's middle knowledge, the people who'd be given deceiving revelations from malevolent spirits were those whom God knew wouldn't have ever responded to true revelation?

[37818]

stfoskey15,

What if you could really know from God yourself?

Jesus is cited to have made the following claim, ". . . If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, . . . " -- John 7:17.

The criteria being 1) willing to do what God's will is. And 2) knowing what that will is.

One cannot do what one does not know to do. And there are false ideas of what that is (Matthew 7:21-22).

The Apostle Paul wrote, ". . . The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: . . ." -- Romans 8:16.
The Apostle John wrote, ". . . He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: . . ." -- 1 John 5:10.

Furthermore it is God who makes Christians Christians - not really what any acts professing Christians do or think they can do in order to be a Christian (John 1:12-13; 1 John 5:1).

[Doug Shaver]

What if you could really know from God yourself?

He could inform me in such a way that I would know, without having to trust any human messenger, that he was the source of the information.

Jesus is cited to have made the following claim

A man said that Jesus made that claim.

[37818]

He could inform me in such a way that I would know, without having to trust any human messenger, that he was the source of the information.

Tell me what you understand 1 John 5:9 to mean?

A man said that Jesus made that claim.

The writer of the gospel account ascribed to be John was a man.

[Doug Shaver]

Tell me what you understand 1 John 5:9 to mean?

Its meaning is irrelevant to my point. You seem to be hoping to change the subject.

The writer of the gospel account ascribed to be John was a man.

Yes. That was my point.

[shunyadragon]

Yes. That was my point.

. . . or maybe more than one man.

[KingsGambit]

Are intellectual propositions irrelevant to Christianity?

No, of course not. I said "far more than", not "excluding".

[KingsGambit]

I can buy that. I often wonder why people stopped adding to the Bible anything written after around 100 AD or so. If there is a god, I can see him continuing to reveal himself through other religious traditions.

The criteria for allowing books to the Bible was connections to the first generation of apostles, who personally met Jesus (for the purposes of this discussion I'll say Paul met Jesus because that is what Christians believe). This makes sense; to have a historical bedrock to build on. Nothing in Christianity precludes future revelation or divine intervention in other ways; indeed, there is strong evidence of miracles continuing to this day (Craig Keener's Miracles). The Bible is not the only revelation of God that we have. In fact, Christianity teaches that the person of Jesus (and not the Bible) is the ultimate revelation of God.

[37818]

Its meaning is irrelevant to my point. You seem to be hoping to change the subject.

OK, if that is what you think.

Yes. That was my point.

The whole of the holy writings are that God used men to write His words.

". . . For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake [as they were] moved by the Holy Spirit. . . ." -- 2 Peter 1:21.

That was my point to you, which you did not want to consider.

[stfoskey15]

stfoskey15,
What if you could really know from God yourself?

But I still don't see how one knows. How can one know that the Spirit bears witness, for example?

The criteria for allowing books to the Bible was connections to the first generation of apostles, who personally met Jesus (for the purposes of this discussion I'll say Paul met Jesus because that is what Christians believe). This makes sense; to have a historical bedrock to build on. Nothing in Christianity precludes future revelation or divine intervention in other ways; indeed, there is strong evidence of miracles continuing to this day (Craig Keener's Miracles). The Bible is not the only revelation of God that we have. In fact, Christianity teaches that the person of Jesus (and not the Bible) is the ultimate revelation of God.

Isn't the person of Jesus revealed in the Bible? How else could he be revealed?
As for miracles continuing up to the present, I'm pretty skeptical, but I'll maybe try reading his book. Maybe they should do a scientific study and pray for sick people in the name of different gods and see which god heals more people.

[JonathanL]

Maybe they should do a scientific study and pray for sick people in the name of different gods and see which god heals more people.

That sounds like a positively stupid idea.

[lilpixieofterror]

That sounds like a positively stupid idea.

I think I recall somebody saying something about not testing God with silly test, such as that.

[Doug Shaver]

". . . For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake [as they were] moved by the Holy Spirit. . . ." -- 2 Peter 1:21.

That was my point to you, which you did not want to consider.

Your point does not contradict what I said. I have only the word of whoever wrote II Peter that the prophets were moved by the Holy Spirit. It's still only some man, or some men, who say that God has told us anything.

[Doug Shaver]

I think I recall somebody saying something about not testing God with silly test, such as that.

What made Elijah's faceoff with the prophets of Baal not silly?