Originally posted by npetreley:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Brother Bill:
[qb]You have to have a measure of faith to believe history books and you must have a measure of faith to believe the Bible.
It takes a "reasoning" kind of faith to believe the history books </font>[/QUOTE]Oh, the REASONING type of faith as opposed to the faith that leaves all reasoning at the door.
Why does God call us to reason with him, if he expects us to leave our minds on the shelf? Why does the scripture appeal to evidence of prophecies and the like to prove Jesus' claims to be the messiah. Why does Luke speak of the apostles seeking to persuade people to believe through reasonable arguments and presentations of evidence throughout the book of Acts?
Human reason is called for but your system doesn't really allow for it.
I'll tell you what DOES challenge our perception of reality today: That some "Guy" provided salvation for the whole world by hanging on a tree. And some people claim this "Guy" was born supernaturally from a virgin, and did things like manipulate the weather by saying "Peace, be still". And he yelled at a smelly dead guy in a cave, who then walked out of the cave alive. None of that is "reasonable" from a human perspective.
Don't you see that Christ's, virgin birth, calming the storm, raising Lazuras and the like are not meant to cause people to doubt Christ's testimony because of their absurdity, but quite the opposite, it was to show that He truly was the messiah. The evidence of the text and the human witnesses (like the ones you spoke of for Columbus) give crediablity to the claims of Christ.
BTW, what is the purpose of miraclous signs in Calvinism? If people believe through the effectual inward working of the Spirit what role did the signs and wonders play in the speading of the gospel? What was there purpose?
People who do not have a humanistic ax to grind can easily see the difference.
Nice to see you back Mumbo, have you seen Jumbo lately?
Originally posted by Brother Bill:
I personally believe there is much more evidence supporting the claims of the scripture than their is supporting the claims of most history books. Don't you?
I do now. But I didn't have a clue what kind of historical support there was when I first believed. And at that time, I was a hard-core anti-Christian naturalist atheist, and never would have accepted the information at face value.
You would have never "accepted" the information? OR You would have never "understood" the information?
As an atheist did you just not understand the gospel? Or did you understand it alright but just not want to accept it?
Originally posted by Brother Bill:
Also, there are people all over the world who believe ubsurd teachings. Buddists believe some "unreasonable" stuff. Why? Is it because the spirit of Budda revealed it to them? Of course not.
Buddhism is not very wacky. Except for Christianity, you have to start devling in to the bizarre cults to get to a point where things extend beyond the reach of common reason. You know -- stuff like Heaven's Gate, satanism, evolution, or the belief that the apostles are saved differently than the rest of us.
Ha Ha. The point is people can believe whatever they want to believe no matter how "unreasonable" someone outside that viewpoint may percieve it to be. I was raised hearing the gospel as truth; therefore, to me it was very reasonable. Now, for someone who didn't hear the message until they were older I'm sure it did seem unreasonable at first hearing, but that is exactly why God calls people to reason with Him and look at the evidence of the scripture and history. Its also why He sends messengers to persuade people with reasonable arguements supported by reasonable evidence.
