Re: A profound disturbance found in Yak butter.

I find this exchange rather interesting. Glenn, you ask for reasons why we
should consider the Scriptures objective evidence of the truth of Christianity.
Phil answers with what I consider to be the real proof of the truth of
Christianity: that if we seek God he will be found by us. He admits that he
can't offer objective proof, but based on his own experience -- when he trusts
in God, God comes through, and you accept his answer -- at least you claim it's
the most honest you have read on the list. I think you have to cut the rest of
us some slack: when you ask questions about evidence, we respond with arguments
about evidence. Yet I expect that most participants would agree with Phil's
answer (I certainly do, and I believe I have stated so on the list before -- if
I haven't I should be chastised)
In a way you are making the same error the YEC's do when they try to use
creationism for evangelistic purposes: they seem to believe that if they
present objective evidence for Christ, then the listener will automatically
believe. But remember that Jesus said no one can come unto him unless the
father draws him (Jn 6:44). It's not a matter of evidence, it's a matter of
having a relationship with Jesus Christ. If other religions make similar
claims, I can live with that -- I know what my experiuence teaches me.

--- glennmorton@entouch.net wrote:

---------------------------------

Phil, I find your answer to be absolutely the most honest answer I have gotten
to these questions on this list to date. You, at least, seem to see the
problem. So many others deny it exists. We may not agree on all the details,
but I deeply respect the forthrightness and brutal honesty of your opinion
here. Maybe that is because being in the oil industry where we bet
multimillions of dollars on someone's judgement of where oil is, I have come to
be brutally honest about success, failure, and our ability to know or not know
something. Few want to admit that we can't know something. And even fewer want
to acknowledge that we have a problem--it is easier to hide one's head than
acknowledge a problem. In the oil industry, hiding one's head costs anywhere
from $5 million to a billion dollars. I can't afford the luxury.

Phil wrote:

>>>
I think that this is the only epistemology that Scripture affirms. I think
that the picture given us all through the Bible is that God meets us
personally, speaks to us personally, and proves Himself to be in our lives
personally. There is never an equation or a scientific validation available to
prove the faith -- we either rely on God being there for us and then He really
shows up and meets us, or we have nothing. <<<<
 
GRM: agreed, but everyone (or at least every religious leader claims to have
had God show up for them). Shoot, even the great Ramanujan believed this:
"Ramanujan credited his understanding to his family Goddess, Namagiri, and
looked to her for inspiration in his work. He often said, "An equation for me
has no meaning, unless it represents a thought of God."
http://srinivasa-ramanujan.area51.ipupdater.com/
 
Phil continued:
 
>>>> Apologetics is the icing on the cake, but not the cake itself. The cake
is entirely the experience of interacting with God personally and discovering
that He really is there. My own faith is weak when I don't pray and I don't
have much experience of God meeting me and surprising me often. But when I
have been really sanctified in my heart and really sought Him with all my
heart, then He has always been there. That's the real reason I believe -- not
science or history or logic. And I am not so naive as to believe that other
religions don't have experience as one of their key arguments, too, and so I
have struggled to evaluate whether I am only fooling myself. But in the end I
must conclude that God really has interacted with me, and that other religions
may have real experiences (of some sort) too and that this does not contradict
Christianity. God really has done remarkable things in my life, in answering
prayers in fantastic ways, and in speaking to me directly and through other
people. He really has revealed Himself to me, despite the fact that I am a
bugger ball most of the time.<<<
 
As I said earlier tonight, I remain a Christian because I believe God has
interacted with me. But, I too could be fooling myself. Someone certainly is
fooling themselves. I find it incredible that so many have no doubt that it is
always the others who fool themselves but never us.
 
>>>>It is a dirty game we are playing, being forced to decide whether to
believe in Christ. Our souls depend on the outcome, and it seems we are given
so little to be able to play the game. Truthfully, it is not a fair game at
all. The Biblical perspective is that we really don't deserve to be granted a
fair game. We are not neutral a priori. We are enemies of God, not his
friends, unless (and only insofar as) He changes us. It is precisely because
of our sinfulness that the game seems dirty and unfair to us. It is not a
shortcoming in God or in the epistemology he makes available to us. We must
know that we are rotten in our sinfulness and therefore really don't deserve a
"fair shake" or nothing else makes sense. So that is my epistemology. I think
this is the only Biblical epistemology, and if we are looking for scientific or
historical proof to the neglect of actually seeking and experiencing the person
of God directly and immediately, as someone who doesn't deserve it, then we
will always be unhappy with the lack of clear proof. This is not a
Wittgensteinian game, because in that game God doesn't actually interact with
the participants.<<<<
 
I bow to your honesty in this. It is a dirty game and there is no other way to
say it. Why others can't acknowledge the problem, I really don't know. Maybe it
is too tender for them to consider the obvious as it is for a YEC to consider
that he might be wrong about science.
 
I really must say that when you commented: "It is a dirty game we are playing,
being forced to decide whether to believe in Christ. Our souls depend on the
outcome, and it seems we are given so little to be able to play the game. "
 
This is precisely the problem that has bugged me for so long, but you said it
better than I ever could have. My hat is off to you for being willing to be
honest in a way that few are!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
>>>>I can't explain adequately to my children why I take them to the doctor's
office to get a shot. Their lack of maturity prevents them from having a fair
epistemology to understand why I would do this to them. They are just
subjected to the shot and they cry and feel like it is unfair because I demand
that it should happen. How much less should we sinners be given a fair
epistemology in our dealings with God, when the Bible says that we are not
merely immature but truly enemies of God. Even as Christians, we have done
nothing to deserve a fair epistemology.<<<
 
I don't like this analogy because, like a child, when I had cancer, I knew that
the only cure was by doing something I didn't want to do. I complained and
didn't like it. Only infants can't understand why we give them shots but by 5
and above they can, they still don't like the pain.

Bill Hamilton
William E. Hamilton, Jr., Ph.D.
248.652.4148 (home) 248.821.8156 (mobile)
"...If God is for us, who is against us?" Rom 8:31

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Received on Sun May 28 21:50:17 2006