Christians only answer, please - faith priorities question

[bluequill]

Hey, everyone! Sorry for 'invading your home turf', and feel free to either move this or lash me with a wet noodle, whichever is most entertaining. I wanted to start this here because it's a question just for Christians. Long story short: I was a Christian, and I honestly believed, when I was one, that Jesus was everything to me and that I could never leave my faith. I started asking questions. I compared OT theology to NT theology. I read all of the history I could get my hands on, and all the science I could find (and admittedly understand) from both the skeptic side and the 'faith side', as I wanted balance. I wound up with more questions than answers, though, and finally came to the reluctant point of having to admit to myself that I no longer believed in God. It hurt at the time. Part of me still misses it, honestly.

For the following, please try your best to put yourself in my shoes. Please understand that I am not slamming anyone's faith, and that I genuinely desire to know.

My questions to you:

- If I found the portrayal of the moral character of God in the Old Testament incredibly inconsistent with His portrayal in the New Testament, and that bothered me but I wanted to maintain my faith in God as well as my faith in Christ... how could I reconcile the two, or choose one in favour of the other as the 'standard' for how God's character can be known?

and....

- Assuming the Bible is the Word of God, and that it's true (even giving a liberal allowance for truth to take on many forms, including being hidden in parable, story, moral lesson, etc rather than in literal history).... the Bible still seems to explain the earth's creation and the development of life on earth afterwards.... but this story, although 'God given', seems very different from our current understanding of how the planet actually came into being and how life on it developed, from a scientific standpoint of, say, natural selection and evolution.

Which do you hold as true? Possibly some mixture? Would you say that as a Christian, you are comfortable with the apparent differences? Does it ever factor into your faith, at all? -- if, for example, we did in fact evolve as modern science suggests we did... would it also bother you that Jesus' family, and therefore Jesus Himself, was a part of that process?


I'll leave it at those two, since they're longer. What I am trying to do here is sort out how people who are Christian right now address these issues, as they're a couple of the issues I found myself getting hung up on. I appreciate your perspectives. Thanks!

[mitchellmckain]

Hey, everyone! Sorry for 'invading your home turf', and feel free to either move this or lash me with a wet noodle, whichever is most entertaining. I wanted to start this here because it's a question just for Christians. Long story short: I was a Christian, and I honestly believed, when I was one, that Jesus was everything to me and that I could never leave my faith. I started asking questions. I compared OT theology to NT theology. I read all of the history I could get my hands on, and all the science I could find (and admittedly understand) from both the skeptic side and the 'faith side', as I wanted balance. I wound up with more questions than answers, though, and finally came to the reluctant point of having to admit to myself that I no longer believed in God. It hurt at the time. Part of me still misses it, honestly.

For the following, please try your best to put yourself in my shoes. Please understand that I am not slamming anyone's faith, and that I genuinely desire to know.

This section of the forum hasn't been very active, so it is not like you are interrupting anything. But I do encourage you to continue treading lightly here.

- If I found the portrayal of the moral character of God in the Old Testament incredibly inconsistent with His portrayal in the New Testament, and that bothered me but I wanted to maintain my faith in God as well as my faith in Christ... how could I reconcile the two, or choose one in favour of the other as the 'standard' for how God's character can be known?

Interestingly enough and perhaps even ironically I think the difficulty here arises from an absolutist approach to morality. In other words, with paradoxes like this you sometimes have to hunt out the other assumptions behind the contradiction. In this case there seems to be many.
1. God's moral character is unchanging.
2. The OT and the NT are to be taken as authoritative in regards to Christianity.
3. What is right and moral can be expressed as universal and absolute rules that hold regardless of circumstances.
4. The moral behavior that God expects from human beings is absolute and unchanging.
5. God is subject to the same moral standards as we are.

Traditional Christianity certainly stand by the first two of these assertions but the other three, which are all expressions of this idea of absolute morality, have various problems. For "christians" who have remade Christianity into a legalistic religion it is no surprise that they have adopted 3 and 4, and thus they are left with dropping 5 in order to avoid a contradiction. They are quite content to adopt the position of divine relativism that what is moral and good is whatever God says it is. I feel that this makes assertions that God is good to only mean that God says He is good and the prisons are full of people that say the same thing of themselves. Thus it is predictable that atheists pounce on this rejection of number 5 as a means to attack Christianity. But lets take a closer look at these.

Number 3 completely ignores the essential message of the gospel in opposition to all legalistic religion. God's desire for us is not about a bunch of laws and rules that we can twist around our little fingers, not only to take advantage of loopholes through which we can abuse other people but which we can even twist around into weapon of abuse itself. Yes there is right and wrong, good and evil, but the law and the rules only express this when you understand their intent. This was explained by Jesus in Matt 22:36-40

"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

In other words, all the laws of the OT were given for a reason, and it is the reasons which are paramount and not the laws themselves. Morality is not found in sterile rules without consideration of intention and motivation.

Number 4 is very unlikely in the context of Christian teachings which say both that nobody is worthy and that nobody is so bad that God will not come down to where he is at in order to teach and lift him up. In other words, if God seeks our moral improvement, His objective is incremental improvements rather than instant perfection. Furthermore it is extremely naive to think that ones circumstances (like the social norms) are completely irrelevant. Thus since I think it is abundantly obvious that the moral sensibilities of mankind have enormously improved in the course of history and thus that our circumstances have changed, it is just absurd to think that God's expectations have not likewise changed to reflect these improvements.

The antithesis of number 5, that God is not subject to the same moral restrictions as we are, even if rejected in principle as I do, when the above considerations regarding 3 and 4 are taken into account, nevertheless does have some kind of truth to it. It is a simple fact of life that right and wrong does to some degree depend on the position of the person we are talking about because of the powers and privelidges that go along with responsibilities. What is right for a teacher in a classroom is NOT the same as what is right for a student in that classroom, because they have different roles and responsibilites. What is right for a policeman is NOT completely the same as what is right for a doctor which is NOT completely the same as what is right for a lawyer which is NOT completely the same as what is right for an engineer, etc... They have different responsibilities and should act within the licence that is given to them according to their expertise.

So in other words, although I reject this idea that good means something completely different when applied God, I can see where His circumstances, powers and responsibilities do make a substantial effective difference when it comes to judging what is moral behavior in His specific circumstances. Back to our examples, in the same way that a policeman may have to overlook the well being of perpetrator in order to protect an innocent bystander, and the way that a doctor may have to inflict pain in order to save our life, and the way a lawyer may have to overlook the reputations of a witness in order to protect the interest of his client, etc... so also may God have to overlook our comfort and physical well being in order to promote our eternal spiritual well being, just as God may also have to overlook the physical well being of individuals and even entire nations in order to safeguard the future of mankind as a whole.

Assuming the Bible is the Word of God, and that it's true (even giving a liberal allowance for truth to take on many forms, including being hidden in parable, story, moral lesson, etc rather than in literal history).... the Bible still seems to explain the earth's creation and the development of life on earth afterwards.... but this story, although 'God given', seems very different from our current understanding of how the planet actually came into being and how life on it developed, from a scientific standpoint of, say, natural selection and evolution.

The Bible is not a scientific explanation. Expanations can work on many dimension. Just consider where your computer came from. There are so many answers to this question depending on exactly what kind of explanation you looking for: it was a present for my birthday, it came from the store, it came from such and such a place that assembled it, it came from the work of many many people who were involved in the design and production of all your computer's various parts (and of which likely depended on tools and resources provided by even more people), it came from these blueprints and specifications, it came from these materials, or it came from an historical process of technological development. All of these answers are true, and this I think is a far far far simpler question that the one you talking about. An expectation for simple and singular answers to difficult questions is the expectations of the mentally challenged and the willfuly ignorant.

Which do you hold as true? Possibly some mixture?

Both have their appropriate applicability and even together they are quite far from a complete explanation.

Would you say that as a Christian, you are comfortable with the apparent differences? Does it ever factor into your faith, at all?

Absolutely. Otherwise I could never be a Christian, because I am a scientist first. I could not believe in something that was not consistent with my experiences of reality and science is a fundamental part of my perceptive process to tell me what that reality is.

if, for example, we did in fact evolve as modern science suggests we did...

There is no "if" as far as I am concerned. It is a fact.

would it also bother you that Jesus' family, and therefore Jesus Himself, was a part of that process?

Huh? Do you mean to ask whether it bothers me that Jesus' DNA was 97.5% the same as that of a chimpanzee because that DNA was a biological inheritance passed on to Him from some common ancestor (with the chimpanzee) for the growth and development of His body? No. Not at all. Why should it? In fact perhaps we should ready ourselves for the possibilty that He might even return in the form of a chimpanzee just to challenge the limits of our prejudices.

[mikedsjr]

Mitch, are u implying in ur post that God is subject to good? Just verifying.

[mitchellmckain]

Mitch, are u implying in ur post that God is subject to good? Just verifying.

I am certainly saying that the statement "God is good" is a meaningful statement - meaning more than "God says He is good". This implies that "good" has a meaning apart from the decisions of God - that good is NOT just whatever He says only because He says it. It means that God does things and says things because they are good and not that things are good just because God does them or says them. It means that God acts out of superior knowledge of what is right and that by His choice His decisions are bound by what is moral and good. This means that morality has substance that is not arbitrary but is a consequence of neccessary truths to be found in the necessary knowledge of God (like matters of logical consistency according to His superior understanding of this).

[mikedsjr]

Ok. So I really did hear you spout off heretical teachings. You are saying there is a higher power than God. So u worship good. Not God. Doesn't suprise me that u do that.

[mitchellmckain]

Ok. So I really did hear you spout off heretical teachings. You are saying there is a higher power than God. So u worship good. Not God. Doesn't suprise me that u do that.

1. I really could care less what you think is heretical. I have absolutely NO intention of being any part of this gnostic legalistic religion that you have transformed christiainity into, in your own mind and life. When I hear you say the word "heretical" I hear the word "radical" and a "radical Christian" is most definitely what I want to be. I don't want the same old christianity - the religion of repetition of sterile dogmas, dead ceremonies and power manipulations - that is a graveyard of dead bodies and ashes. I want a relationship with the living God who brings new life and meaning to all that He touches.

2. "Good" is not a power. "Good" is an adjective.

3. I do not worship "good". I worship God, because God is good.

4. Those who claim to worship some god regardless of whether that god is good or not, don't really know who they are worshipping. You have to ask why they are worshipping this god? Is it because this god is powerful? The god of this world has power in this world. Is it because this god threatens you if you dare to disobey him? Sounds like the god of this world. Is it because this god promises you rewards if you serve him? The god of this world most certainly does that (Matt 4:9).

5. If you can say that the fact that I worship God because He is good, means that I worship "good", then I can say that the fact that you worship some god because of its power, means that you worship power. And if it is not power that you care about but just these threats and promises this god has made to you, so that all you really care about is what happens to you -- what you get out of it, then perhaps what you really worship is yourself.

6. So what is the God of the Bible? Is God good or is God power? Well one of the things that the Bible says quite clearly in regards to this is that, "God is love". I certainly think this defines God better than anything else because this is what God chooses to value and to seek after. But there is some abiguity because love is directed to an object. Thus when we say that, "God is love", we must ask the love of what? For after all people love all sorts of things. There are those who love money and those who love power. But what does God love? Shall we turn to the Bible? Psalms 33:5 "He loves righteousness and justice", and Heb 1:9 speaking to God "You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness". Yes what God loves is goodness - naturally - after all what else can you expect if God is good.

7. Now I think it is quite true that God loves us, and yet it is also true that there is much that we do that God does not love at all. In Genesis 6, when God sees the evil that human beings do constantly both in their thoughts and actions, He was sorry that He had made us at all. But since it is the misery that we create for ourselves and each other that God does not love, we can see that this does not mean that God does not love us, but that God does not like these things because He loves us. God love us for what we can be. When He created us He said that it was very good, because He sees the possibilites for goodness within us, and not just the ordinary goodness of the rest of creation but goodness that is much greater than that.

8. So if we love God what should we do? Should we not seek after that which God loves and values above all other things? If we truly love God then should we not love what God loves and love those whom God loves? Jesus certainly made it clear that this is so. Matt 25:35-40 "For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.' Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?' The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me." Can we not sum up all the things that this passage describes with the word "goodness"? Goodness, righteousness and justice these are things that God looks for in us.

9. Jesus said, "Seek ye first the kingdom of God and His righteousness and all these other things will be added unto you." Now some people like to focus on the first part thinking that seeking after the kingdom means all the things that their religion tells them to do. But take a look at Isaiha 1:11-17 and you will see what God has to say about this: He says that he has had enough of offerings and does not delight in them, and that he is weary of ceremonies and prayers, for what He really wants is for us to remove the evil of our doings , to learn to do good, seek justive, correct oppression, defend the fatherless and plead for the widow. So what He really wants is for us to seek after His righteousness and that is where we will find His kingdom.

[mitchellmckain]

But in any case mike. Do you not think it is time for you to go back to the topic of this discussion and give your own answer to the questions in the OP, if you can.

[mikedsjr]

3. I do not worship "good". I worship God, because God is good.

You just repackaged my claim. So we both agree.

4. Those who claim to worship some god regardless of whether that god is good or not, don't really know who they are worshipping. You have to ask why they are worshipping this god? Is it because this god is powerful? The god of this world has power in this world. Is it because this god threatens you if you dare to disobey him? Sounds like the god of this world. Is it because this god promises you rewards if you serve him? The god of this world most certainly does that (Matt 4:9).

Matthew 4:9 does not say Satan has the ability to give all these things to Jesus. What it says is that Satan offered it all to Him for God to worship him. And you know God ain't worshiping anybody, but Himself.

5. If you can say that the fact that I worship God because He is good, means that I worship "good", then I can say that the fact that you worship some god because of its power, means that you worship power. And if it is not power that you care about but just these threats and promises this god has made to you, so that all you really care about is what happens to you -- what you get out of it, then perhaps what you really worship is yourself.

No I worship God because He saved me from my sins. I realized that I am a sinner. I realized that because I am a sinner that God has every right to throw me into the pits of hell. And knowing what Christ did, I repented of my sins and received that sacrifice for my sins that I had no ability to do in my own power to pay and the rising from the grave for victory over sin and death. That is why I worship God. Anyone who says anything different than that is worshiping a false god.

6. So what is the God of the Bible? Is God good or is God power? Well one of the things that the Bible says quite clearly in regards to this is that, "God is love". I certainly think this defines God better than anything else because this is what God chooses to value and to seek after. But there is some abiguity because love is directed to an object. Thus when we say that, "God is love", we must ask the love of what? For after all people love all sorts of things. There are those who love money and those who love power. But what does God love? Shall we turn to the Bible? Psalms 33:5 "He loves righteousness and justice", and Heb 1:9 speaking to God "You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness". Yes what God loves is goodness - naturally - after all what else can you expect if God is good.

Let's tackle love. In 1 John 4:8-9 it clearly says God is love. But what does that mean? let's find out, since you are so petrified to type it.

Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love. In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him.

Trinity talk going on here. God showed He is love by sending His Son to die on the cross for the sins of those who repent and believe on His name. The Son who is fully God and fully man is the one you purport is being tempted by the god of this world and certainly satan is the god of those who reject Christ. But satan has no power over God. Tempted God may have been, but we aren't talking about temptation as if Jesus thought a couple of times about giving in. Being fully God on earth as well, He couldn't be tempted to sin.

You gave the verse that God loves righteousness and justice and also He hates wickedness. He doesn't love man's righteousness and justice. For as in Romans 3 it says there is not a man who is good. No one does good apart from the Holy Spirit in them. God loves His righteousness and His Justice because He loves to exalt Himself. The only way man can love the proper righteousness and the proper goodness is by repenting and believe in Jesus, the God-man. There is no other way. If you don't do it like this, then God will send them to hell.

[mikedsjr]

My questions to you:

- If I found the portrayal of the moral character of God in the Old Testament incredibly inconsistent with His portrayal in the New Testament, and that bothered me but I wanted to maintain my faith in God as well as my faith in Christ... how could I reconcile the two, or choose one in favour of the other as the 'standard' for how God's character can be known?

Unfortunately, the reason of inconsistency is due to poor preaching. I can certainly relate to having issues regarding how people preach the gospel. The Old Testament and New Testament are divided along a focus. The focus of the Old Testament is focused on Israel, God's chosen people and the coming of the Savior and the sacrifice He must fulfill to be the Savior of Israel. The New Testament is focused on the Savior coming and fulfilling His sacrifice on the cross and rising for Israel's salvation. Romans helps us to realize that Israel is not the actual jewish people, but it is the spiritual Israel of people from all walks of life who have put their faith and trust in Christ.

There is not a difference in the Old Testament God and the New Testament God. They are both the same. But what you have is many people focusing only on the love and goodness of God in order to make God different than what scripture in the New Testament states. Despite the fact that there isn't groups of people being destroyed in the New Testament, the NT does say that all those who reject Christ will see a wrath greater than what happened physically to the people in the Old Testament.

The NT message is YOU are a sinner. You are not good. You can not be with God, except you REPENT and BELIEVE in CHRIST. Otherwise you will go to the everlasting fire for eternity.

and....

- Assuming the Bible is the Word of God, and that it's true (even giving a liberal allowance for truth to take on many forms, including being hidden in parable, story, moral lesson, etc rather than in literal history).... the Bible still seems to explain the earth's creation and the development of life on earth afterwards.... but this story, although 'God given', seems very different from our current understanding of how the planet actually came into being and how life on it developed, from a scientific standpoint of, say, natural selection and evolution.

Which do you hold as true? Possibly some mixture? Would you say that as a Christian, you are comfortable with the apparent differences? Does it ever factor into your faith, at all? -- if, for example, we did in fact evolve as modern science suggests we did... would it also bother you that Jesus' family, and therefore Jesus Himself, was a part of that process?

There are allowances within scripture for differences on the matter of creation. Adam being created out of the dust of the ground and Eve being created by the rib of Adam by God, as scripture says, is not one of them. Jesus being born of a Virgin via the Holy Spirit, as scripture says, is not one of them. A Christian is being biblically wrong to say Man came from other animals, or even that Man is an animal. (notice I didn't say they are not a christian for saying that. They just are not being biblical). But they are absolutely teaching another gospel to say that Christ came from a man and a woman.

[mitchellmckain]

3. I do not worship "good". I worship God, because God is good.

You just repackaged my claim. So we both agree.

5. If you can say that the fact that I worship God because He is good, means that I worship "good", then I can say that the fact that you worship some god because of its power, means that you worship power. And if it is not power that you care about but just these threats and promises this god has made to you, so that all you really care about is what happens to you -- what you get out of it, then perhaps what you really worship is yourself.

No I worship God because He saved me from my sins. I realized that I am a sinner. I realized that because I am a sinner that God has every right to throw me into the pits of hell. And knowing what Christ did, I repented of my sins and received that sacrifice for my sins that I had no ability to do in my own power to pay and the rising from the grave for victory over sin and death. That is why I worship God. Anyone who says anything different than that is worshiping a false god.

So then you just repackaged my suggestion and agreed that you worship this god of yours because of what you think he can do for you and since you use this logic of yours on me, we can also use the same logic that this means that what you really worship is yourself. Lets take this logic of yours just a little bit further. I suggest that this god that you worship is in fact just an extension of your own ego -- a fabrication of your own mind to condemn those who challenge your view of reality and to convince yourself that you are ok and that you don't have to worry about where you are going. I always found this Reformed Calvinistic theology rather incomprehensible, but this makes some sense of it -- "eternal security" is what it is all about - convincing yourself that you don't have to worry - that god and the whole world is in your pocket.

No I am not your sort of Christian. I love God, because God is worthy, because God is good, because His love is greater than anything else. I do not worship God because of what He can do for me. What is there of myself that is of merit? Nothing. Therefore I walk into the jaws of the lion, surrendering all my desires to His will, knowing that whether He saves me or destroys me, that what He wills is far better than anything I could desire. I know that it is highly unlikely that I can do anything of service to Him, but trying is worth more doing anything else. That I believe is a righteousness based on faith - a righteousness that is devoid of self-righteousness because it is entirely based on a faith in the worth of God alone. This is my faith not because it affords me one drop of merit, but simply because I see no other faith worth having.

4. Those who claim to worship some god regardless of whether that god is good or not, don't really know who they are worshipping. You have to ask why they are worshipping this god? Is it because this god is powerful? The god of this world has power in this world. Is it because this god threatens you if you dare to disobey him? Sounds like the god of this world. Is it because this god promises you rewards if you serve him? The god of this world most certainly does that (Matt 4:9).

Matthew 4:9 does not say Satan has the ability to give all these things to Jesus. What it says is that Satan offered it all to Him for God to worship him. And you know God ain't worshiping anybody, but Himself.

Yes and here is the evidence that my above suggestion is a bullseye. You have a self-centered god because this justifies and confirms your worship of your own self. And again who does this god sound like?

No the God that I know does NOT worship Himself. The God I know is completely other centered - wholly focused on the love and service of others. Now God did become man in Jesus and as such He certainly did worship the Father, putting His love and dedication to God above any concern for Himself. But this only shows that the character of God is other-centered and not self-absorbed, ready to sacrifice Himself for the sake of those whom He loves. And for whom does God sacrifice? Who is it that He loves? He loves us. John 3:16

[bluequill]

Thanks for your comments so far, everyone. I've read them, and I'm thinking about them. I might post a response in a while about the answers I've gotten, but just want to say for now that they're appreciated.

One more question, for the time being, since it relates to faith, also...

How much weight or value do you, as a Christian, place on there being 'evidence' or 'proof' of what you believe? What kinds of evidence/proof do you look for, seek out, or consider valid, if any? Do you even need/want evidence or proof of what you believe, or would you rather just believe it?

I understand that this is a totally subjective question. That's okay. I'm just looking for personal answers. I THINK I am going to see some of you say that it's important to know and study as much as possible because that enriches your faith, and that I'll see some of you say that faith on its own carries its own weight without there needing to be 'proof'.... and I think I might see some of you say that there are all KINDS of evidence/proof, and it really depends which sort I might consider valid.

That aside, I still wanted to ask, anyways. And I'll give my own answer, this time:

When I was a Christian, I wanted to know about the history of the Bible. I wanted to know about the people in it, the geography in it, the logical arguments, the historical claims, the philosophical arguments for this, that, and the other.... I was pretty intrigued by the academic side of faith. And sometimes I wonder if that was maybe my problem and the reason why I couldn't hold onto faith -- it had ceased to BE faith, for me. By nature, my head sometimes does get in the way of my heart. But now you at least know why I asked the question.

[mikedsjr]

How much weight or value do you, as a Christian, place on there being 'evidence' or 'proof' of what you believe? What kinds of evidence/proof do you look for, seek out, or consider valid, if any? Do you even need/want evidence or proof of what you believe, or would you rather just believe it?

I place a lot of weight in scripture as evidence. But scripture alone will never save anyone. It takes God drawing them to Christ. And what God draws to Christ will never be unsaved. When God opens the eyes of the person, that is all the proof one needs. The question should be, what does God open the eyes to? He opens a person's eyes to the their sins before God and that God is just to send them to hell because of theirs sins. He opens their eyes also to the fact that Christ, the God-man, came to be the perfect sacrifice on the cross and arose 3 days later for salvation. He also opens their eyes to repent and believe, as scripture says, and they will.

[mitchellmckain]

How much weight or value do you, as a Christian, place on there being 'evidence' or 'proof' of what you believe? What kinds of evidence/proof do you look for, seek out, or consider valid, if any? Do you even need/want evidence or proof of what you believe, or would you rather just believe it?

Lets be clear that looking for evidence for what you already believe is at most a pseudo-scientific activity. It certainly has its place, for it is the job of a politician and lawyer to do this to support his case on his side while it is the job of the opposing side to make their case.

Furthermore it is inevitable that what you believe will affect your perception of the world, it is only the careful restriction of perception to what can be objectively verified, such as measurements, that makes scientific inquiry possible. Now since it is unreasonable to completely restrict your perception and activities to science alone, because even scientists have life outside the laboratory, you basically have two options: you can accept the fundamentally subjective nature of human existence or you play a game of pretend that your life is conducted by the same standards as a scientific inquiry. It is all too often that I see atheists doing the latter.

But if we accept the subjective nature of human life, does this mean that mean that truth is inaccessible? No it does not. Consider the fact that life did just fine without science for 4 billion years accomplishing extraordinary things. You just have to accept the diversity of the answers that it finds. It tries things out and it just goes with whatever works. In this context the effect of belief on perception is no more an obstacle than any of the things that living things do, but actually a part of the way in which living things search for the truth. This basic approach to truth can be identified with pragmatism, where the effect of believing something is part of its truth value.

When I was a Christian, I wanted to know about the history of the Bible. I wanted to know about the people in it, the geography in it, the logical arguments, the historical claims, the philosophical arguments for this, that, and the other.... I was pretty intrigued by the academic side of faith. And sometimes I wonder if that was maybe my problem and the reason why I couldn't hold onto faith -- it had ceased to BE faith, for me. By nature, my head sometimes does get in the way of my heart. But now you at least know why I asked the question.

It is a difficult problem (if you want to call it that) but even so it is not an unsolvable problem. The path between two point does not have to be a straight line and most people when confronted with a cliff will take the rational path even if it is in the opposite direction, but that doesn't mean that you are not making progress in your own way.

The difference between me and both you and mikedsjr is that I started as scientist myself and completely immersed in a 100% secular point of view. I went looking to see if there was any value in any of this religious stuff and I found that there was. It is quite possible that this does cripple me in some respect from a Christian perspective and it has certainly taken great deal of time for me to find my way to place anywhere near mike on a rational path. But I also think it has its own rewards as well -- besides retaining an understanding of the methodology of science and critical thinking as a tools which I can use when needed, an analytical approach has a tendency of providing a theoretical framework which provides insights into questions which historical Christianity has never been very good at providing answers to.


P.S. Notice that the words in italics are "rational path" NOT "scientific path". No the path I took was not backed up every step of the way by objective evidence according to a scientific inquiry and yes there were all sorts of what you might call leaps of intuitive thinking or whatever.