“Finding Truth” finds error and loves it with an unholy love

“Finding Truth,” I read your post and have a few thoughts for you, you said, “Thus began a period of time in which I began hunting for all the reasons to believe in and/or be skeptical of the Bible and Christianity.”

Your first big mistake was subjecting God to your limited and fallible understanding, rather than responding in faith to the testimony of the Holy Spirit in Scripture. You’re second huge error was being willing to attribute veracity to those who attack the Bible, they have Satan behind them, you should know there is a deceiver in the world actively hunting the truth to attack it. And then in an epic show of faithlessness towards God, you began, “hunting for all the reasons to … be skeptical of the Bible and Christianity.” Well, what did you think would happen to your faith? What you did would be comical if it wasn’t true. You in effect said, “Satan, come on in and attack my soul, the door’s wide open!!!”

Then you said, “I didn’t find their explanations of the Bible’s problems to be very convincing. They sounded more like the kinds of arguments one makes when trying to convince himself to have a second piece of pie. He wants the arguments to be true, so he readily accepts them. I wanted sound arguments that would actually show the skeptic’s accusations to be completely groundless. That’s just not what I found.”

I see, the brilliant responses of Christian apologists to Satan’s lies just weren’t good enough for you. “I wanted sound arguments that would actually show the skeptic’s accusations to be completely groundless.” You sound like a spoiled child by saying that. What you are in effect saying, is that if Christians couldn’t prove by the legal standard of proof beyond a shadow of a doubt that every attack of Satan was absolutely, unquestionably, false, then you were going to doubt God. Well if you’ve studied philosophy at all, you should know that humans can’t prove anything “beyond the shadow of a doubt.” So in effect, you had already decided to reject God the moment you saw accusations against the Bible. Again, with that attitude, what did you think would happen to your faith?

And now your blogging this because you’ve just got to share it with the whole world, or anyone you can possibly reach. Here’s an idea, why don’t you put up links in your “About” section to the brilliant Christian apologists who have refuted all the alleged contradictions you site, you know, since your so keen to inform people of the “truth”?

Lastly, I want to say that I don’t intend to sound angry at you, but will certainly not lightly handle attacks on the Holy Word of God such as you have made.

Advertisements

17 responses to ““Finding Truth” finds error and loves it with an unholy love

  1. I would actually say he applied a biblical principal…. “The spiritual does not come first, the physical(natural) does, and then comes the spiritual.” – 1 corinthians 15:46

    So is he supposed ignore the reality of the physical and natural, and only look at the situation from the lenses of faith. NO, he is not supposed to do that. Even the bible says we shouldn’t do that.

    It just too bad that the bible contradicts itself in so many ways

  2. oh and nobody reasons from the perspective of “A shadow of a doubt.” Not even in the court of law.

    It’s “within a REASONABLE DOUBT.”

    Because anything is possible, Does not mean everything is Reasonable. It’s possible, that you are actually in the matrix, and these thought, words, images are being implanted into your mind. And you can’t prove or disprove that beyond a shadow of a doubt.

    But you can prove or disprove that within a REASONABLE DOUBT.

    • Actually, people will have different standards for what constitutes proof beyond a reasonable doubt, so can you make a proof for that standard? It depends on the presuppositions of the person you’re talking to.

      But essentially you made my case for me, thanks. And thanks for stopping by to comment, perhaps in the future I’ll post a response to one of your blogs.

  3. Here’s a thought – you write “Your first big mistake was subjecting God to your limited and fallible understanding, rather than responding in faith to the testimony of the Holy Spirit in Scripture.” But isn’t that what everyone does, including believers? When we go to church, isn’t the Sunday school teacher, the preacher, and everyone who talks of God trying to understand him with their own, fallible understanding? I mean, that’s why we have so many different churches, isn’t it? One group understands God one way, one group another.

    When you say we should ‘respond in faith’ – do you mean just believe it without thinking about it at all?

    And you sound so angry – like those Muslims burning down embassies because someone ‘attacked’ their beliefs. There are billions of people in the world who are just as sure that their religion – or lack of one – is true and Christianity isn’t – and they all have their apologists too.

    • Thanks so much for your thoughtful comment. Of course people are trying to understand God with their limited intellect, what I was saying is that autonomous reasoning should not be the final court of appeals when making a decision about God.

      I am not suggesting people should believe in God without thinking at all, but when they hear the word of God, the Holy Spirit testifies to them of its veracity, and they should believe that testimony regardless of criticisms some make of the Bible.

      I don’t sound angry at all, sarcastic would have been a better word for me to use.

      • Well, I’m glad you’re not angry – I guess sarcasm can be hard to catch when written instead of spoken – haha.

        Your response raises an interesting issue. You say that when people hear the word of God, that the Spirit testifies of its veracity. But what if the Holy Spirit doesn’t do this? For example, no Muslims feel any particular impress of the Spirit when they hear the Bible. Does the Spirit choose who to enlighten? And if so, does this mean that God has pre-determined that some will remain blind to the gospel?

        If someone understand the logic of the criticisms of the Bible, but doesn’t understand the logic of the scriptures, and the Spirit fails to enlighten him, is he at fault?

  4. Hi, philosophical11

    Two points

    1. Where does “Finding Truth” ever state that he is trying to prove “beyond the shadow of a doubt”? I suggest you read some more of his articles, so you don’t run the risk of making straw man. You may find yourself accusing somebody unfairly.

    2. You may be doing this with very genuine and well-meaning intensions. However, you seem to be expressing in this article that there are unseen agents, which people are now “open to” because they don’t hold the same position as you. This is a highly effective way of controlling people through fear.

    Hope your week goes well.

    • Hi Ryan, thanks so much for stopping by and sharing your thoughts. I explain my use of “beyond the shadow of a doubt” in the blog post. And I’m sure I will get the chance to read more of his articles, and probably post future responses as well.

      By unseen agents I take it you are referring to my mention of Satan. I do not think my mention of that has the power to control anyone, but it does serve as a warning.

      I hope you also have an excellent week.

  5. I have no idea why you followed my blog, but thanks for linking to Finding Truth’s excellent deconversion series.

    Oh, and if you want to actually be effective in arguing against his position that apologists’ arguments are weak, you might want to try actually linking to these “brilliant apologists” yourself, instead of just vaguely saying that they exist.

    • I followed your blog because you are an Atheist and I will probably be posting responses to your posts in the future. And “Finding Truth’s” series is a conversion series, not a deconversion series.

      Really there is no argument taking place because during his account, while he links to those attacking the Bible, he doesn’t like to the supposed apologists he read. He just insults them – vaguely. So my response is necessarily as vague as his post. And the onus is on him to post these alleged apologists he consulted.

      • Well, ok, but don’t expect your vague replies to convince anyone of anything. I would link to the page where he does actually link to the apologetics he’s read, but looks like that’s already been pointed out.

  6. Hi there — thanks for taking the time to respond to my post.

    Someone close to me actually took a position very similar to yours when I first started talking about my growing doubts. It’s a point of view that I don’t understand very well. When I was a Christian and tried to convert others, I knew they needed to be open to the possibility that their beliefs were wrong. If they weren’t open to that, then there was no chance of converting them. So if people of other faiths took the same position that you do, they could never be converted to Christianity, since they would never consider any arguments against their beliefs. And why should you expect them to be open to other possibilities if you’re unwilling to do the same?

    Furthermore, as M. Rodriguez pointed out, your position also seems to be at odds with the Bible:

    Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world. — 1 John 4:1

    Do not despise prophecies, but test everything; hold fast what is good. — 1 Thess 5:20-21

    And if you say in your heart, ‘How may we know the word that the Lord has not spoken?’— when a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word that the Lord has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously. You need not be afraid of him. — Deut 18:21-22

    Finally, you ask why I didn’t link to the apologists themselves, but I do link to the different apologists’ books that I’ve read on the Books I’ve Read link. I also spent a lot of time in sites like AnswersInGenesis and ApologeticsPress.

    Thanks again for your interest. Have a great weekend! 🙂

    • You know Nate, most religious people are atheistic on one level or another – they believe in one God or perhaps several, but they don’t believe certain other gods exist. Christians believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, but they don’t believe in hundreds of other gods – Amun Ra, Zeus, Rama, Gu Lin, etc. They don’t apply the same level of evidence to their own god as they do to others.

      For example, when I posted a story on my blog about how a crying statue of Mary in India was really caused by a broken sewer line running near the statue (that holy water everyone had been collecting was anything but), many Protestants posted about how the Catholics lead people astray with false gods and lies, how they prey on the ignorant and weak. But no one seems to think their own religion does the same thing. It’s like saying ‘my god rides on a flying purple elephant – but who could believe the stories about your god?’

      So when Christians say that you need to trust the apologists or take the scriptures at face value, they are asking you to do something that they don’t do themselves – they don’t trust Muslim apologists or take Sumerian scriptures at face value – they’ve decided that God is not there. But if you decide God is not in what they are doing, you’re accused of resisting God, being angry at God or foolishly relying on your own intellect.

      Ask them why they resit the Prophet Muhammad, or why are they angry at Zeus?

      • Hi again American Secularist, nice to hear from you. You asked me, what if the Holy Spirit doesn’t testify to the veracity of Scripture for someone. My response is that He does:

        John 15:26 “But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of Me.

        You said Muslim’s don’t feel any impress of the Spirit when they hear the Bible. How do you know? Because they deny it? If so, they are lying. How do I know? Because I know God.

        Also, criticisms of the Bible are not logical.

        Your comment to Nate in effect accuses Christians of using a double standard. C. S. Lewis once made a comment to the effect that Christians don’t differ with everything in other religious beliefs about God, they only differ where Christianity differs from the other faith. In other words, other people can see that a God exists, and so can we, but Christians are blessed to know who God actually is. The primary way we know is from the Holy Spirit’s testimony when we read the Bible, but there are also many arguments from philosophy, history and science that support the Bible. Let me offer you one from fulfilled prophecy in history if you are interested:

        https://philosophical11.wordpress.com/2012/09/12/miraculous-bible-prophecy-fulfillments/

      • Hi AmSec,

        Thanks for the comment. I totally agree with you — it’s a huge double standard. I hope as time goes by more and more people will begin to realize it.

  7. Hi FT, nice to meet you. I am not open to other possibilities as you call it. How do I expect them to be converted? By the power of the Holy Spirit as He testifies to the truth of Christ.

    My position seems to be at odds with the Bible. Really?? I’m trying not to laugh or be too sarcastic with you. Obviously those passages refer to testing things within the faith, not doubting the veracity of Christianity.

    I am not satisfied with your response that you put links to those apologists in the books you’ve read section. They should be in your About section, right next to the links you have attacking Holy Scripture. You present your whole series as some kind of “balanced inquiry for truth,” but then you link everyone to attacks without linking to these apologists you allegedly consulted.

    I on the other hand am not claiming that I painstakingly consulted all the secular material I could before accepting Christ, which is why you will not find Atheist links on my blog. I’m here to preach Christ, but if you’re going to claim to live in some “balanced treatment” bubble, then balance the treatment.