Left Powerless Over Sin? No!

[skyblue888]

Igakusei, like I said, you have a right to state your position and so do we and Jones does as well or whoever else for that matter and let the reader make up his own mind.

Thank you for sharing yours.

sky

[JoeMo]

Igakusei,

I don't believe like you do in that I do consider the Bible to be an authoritative source based on experiences I have ( not based on circular logic that the Bible says it is authoritative - therefore it is). I love the way you let your mind do the talking instead of just quoting some dead guy that some people believe might be an authority.

Let me ask you (and some of the other non Adventist/Christian folks following this) - does it offend or frustrate you when I quote scripture? You can be honest, most of us are freinds here.

[joeb]

I disagree with the entire premise of authoritative sources, as used in this thread. The only thing I know for sure is that I exist. I accept that my senses give me at least somewhat reliable information about reality, because there's really no way to learn anything at all unless assume at least that much. There is no shortage of sources in the world that claim to be authoritative, but without some sort of testable evidence I have no way of determining which one of them is true. I could flip a coin and just bet on one of them, but given the sheer number of sources competing for my trust that doesn't seem like a very smart move. So I evaluate them all critically, attempting as much as possible to apply a reasonable standard of proof to every claim I encounter.

sky and Jones appear to be the betting kind, even going so far as to declare that doubt and skepticism are incompatible with truth. But if I bet on the Shia God, I might end up in Sunni Hell. If I bet on Mormonism, I might end up in Shia Hell. If I bet on Adventism, I might end up in Catholic Hell. Repeat ad nauseum, for every one of the millions of combinations of incompatible religions.

Even if there IS a god out there who gave special knowledge to certain people, I'm not just going to take their word for it. There are a lot of people who claim special knowledge from their gods, and they certainly can't all be right. If there's a deity out there that has knowledge above and beyond that which human science has collected so far, I'm willing to trust what that deity says as tentatively authoritative but only if it can provide some evidence that it possesses advanced knowledge. So far, all such supernatural claims I've investigated rely on the same sorts of doublethink, emotional appeal, and other logical fallacies.

I care deeply that my beliefs accurately reflect reality, and you're going to have to do better than a hand-me-down copy of a copy of a copy of a book written by a brutish, bronze-aged culture, containing absolutely no compelling indications that it couldn't have been written by ordinary humans. The low level of skepticism necessary to accept the prophetic claims in the Bible would also accept the competing prophetic claims made by Muslims, Mormons, etc. Ellen White is no better, of course, making a number of claims that were common beliefs among the educated in her day but have long since been killed and buried. And the determined attempts by her followers to leave no rigor or logic unmangled in the service of denying this only cements in my mind further that you guys are nuts.

Igakusei,

I think you missed my point. To quote someone as an authoritative source to someone who does not accept that source as authoritative is an exercise in futility. It gets all involved in the conversation absolutely no where.

As to your point above that I bolded, all I can tell you is that if that is honestly your position, and I'm not calling you a liar as I don't know you, but all kinds of things are said on forums and to accept all of them as true is sort of foolish, the only way to know if the Bible is true to is to test what it says by experience as you'll never find out if God is real through any kind of science or Greek-style logic.

Anyone who is honestly searching for the truth about God with an open mind can simply talk to Him and ask Him to reveal Himself to them. If you ask it with an honest desire to know the truth about Him, He will answer your request. He doesn't answer people who are out to play games, but He will always honor the honest request.

That's how I came to know God is interested in me, wants to know me, and wants me to know Him as He truly is. He'll do the same for you if that is truly your desire. It may seem extremely weird for you to talk to what you may perceive to be the open sky or the ceiling of your house, or to empty space, but God will hear and answer. He's waiting to hear from you, personally. His heart yearns to hear from you just as He yearned to hear from me.

Be warned, though. Getting to personally know God is a life-changing experience. Your life will never be the same again.

[Igakusei]

I don't even know if that's true. cardw, MT, fccool, Igakusei,

Do you give more authority to scripture than you do to EGW or A.T Jones? Or are all three sources equally mythical to you? No offense or rebuke meant here - I'm genuinely curious.

In my search for truth, I have so far failed to detect any evidence that humans have ever had access to sources of knowledge outside humankind. So when I consider someone an authority on a subject, what I mean is that they are well-versed in all human knowledge on that subject and familiar with its strengths, weaknesses, applicability, and limitations.

That doesn't place that person above criticism, however, because even the most learned scholars can arrive at the wrong conclusions or make basic mistakes of rigor. The very substantial success of the scientific method's ability to arrive at true and useful conclusions about reality is evidenced by modern man's ability to support a world population of billions, extend human lifespans out to 2-3 times that of an average human just a few centuries ago, unlock the secrets of the atom, build powerful computing devices (the number of things humans can do that computers can't is rapidly shrinking), physically explore our own solar system, and many others.

So on the one hand, we have a method of problem solving that has increased the amount of human knowledge by many orders of magnitude within only a tiny fraction of humanity's history. On the other, I've got people that claim to have access to a variety of divine, superhuman sources of knowledge, but upon investigation it doesn't seem to pan out. They always claim that their beliefs have extraordinary utility, but it quickly becomes apparent that they have invariably arrived at this conclusion before looking for evidence to support it, and that when the evidence is examined objectively it rarely supports their position.

So as a long answer to a short question, I think of the Bible and the writings of EGW and AT Jones as all being the product of humans, like me, who understood reality in ways that made sense to them (and often, were taught by their parents), and I don't really see any reason to give them any special weight. They can demonstrate expertise in no field of human knowledge, and dogmatic belief in their inerrant authority appears to offer few benefits and many drawbacks.

Does that help?

[skyblue888]

Igakusei, if you have not read the thread titled Individuality in Religion yet, I invite you to do so. That thread includes the debate Jones had with Senator Blair in 1888 before the Senate Committee over a Bill that was introduced and that would have curtailed our freedom to believe or not to believe, to worship or not to worship. If you read the whole you will come to the place where Jones is against any bill that would force an atheist to be a hypocrite. Please read it. I am sure you will appreciate the way he argued with the Senators. His arguments were so irrefutable that the bill was defeated.

sky

[Igakusei]

As to your point above that I bolded, all I can tell you is that if that is honestly your position, and I'm not calling you a liar as I don't know you, but all kinds of things are said on forums and to accept all of them as true is sort of foolish, the only way to know if the Bible is true to is to test what it says by experience as you'll never find out if God is real through any kind of science or Greek-style logic.

[skyblue888]

Igakusei,

I don't believe like you do in that I do consider the Bible to be an authoritative source based on experiences I have ( not based on circular logic that the Bible says it is authoritative - therefore it is). I love the way you let your mind do the talking instead of just quoting some dead guy that some people believe might be an authority.

Let me ask you (and some of the other non Adventist/Christian folks following this) - does it offend or frustrate you when I quote scripture? You can be honest, most of us are freinds here.

Then my dear brother you cannot quote the Scriptures as authoritative for the prophets and the apostles who wrote the Bible are dead waiting for the resurrection.

Your experience is not to be what decides if the Bible is an authority or not for multitudes profess to take the Bible as their authority and yet are deceived in their experiences.

You say you love the way Igakusei let his mind do the talking instead of quoting some dead guy. You just took the foundation from underneath your feet here for the Bible writers are all dead.

To let one's mind do the talking is the new and only safe authority?

Seems to be the new doctrine around here.

sky

[cardw]

Let me ask you (and some of the other non Adventist/Christian folks following this) - does it offend or frustrate you when I quote scripture? You can be honest, most of us are freinds here.

Quoting scripture itself doesn't offend me. I think when texts are used as proof because they are from the Bible is a waste of time as far as convincing me. That simply looks like an attempt at magic. e.g. there is power in the name of Jesus and his word.

Sometimes people quote some pretty offensive texts that label me as a pretty bad person because I disagree. That is offensive, but I generally don't complain because it doesn't hurt my feelings. I may point out that it's offensive simply to make a point.

I will read any scriptural quote that provides a point through deduction, but those are pretty rare.

I have used most of these arguments myself and I found that I ultimately could not defend Christianity. So, when I see them brought forward, I have worked through these many times and I know the dead ends.

[joeb]

What you are saying here is in direct contradiction to all of those who attempt to use prophecy to prove, Greek-style, that the Bible is of supernatural origin.

Regardless, I spent decades testing the Bible by experience, and the answers promised never came. We're told that if we seek we shall find, and ask that it will be given, but my experience led me to person after person who was earnestly seeking God and attempting to follow the Holy Spirit's guidance, yet arriving at totally different and contradictory understandings of the means to salvation. My experience also led me to many people who desperately, over long periods of time, besought God to change various aspects of their character to no avail. In response to these experiences, the reply from the religious is usually something about how they didn't try hard enough, or their hearts weren't pure enough, or that God's ways are mysterious, or they weren't ready for God's answer, or the Adventist Church wasn't ready for them, or some other platitude that quite transparently attempts to justify the obvious failure of the original promise. Perhaps there are indeed people out there who turned to God and found victory in whatever battle they were engaged in, but that has not been my experience. Collections of such anecdotes, especially given the pervasive presence of counterexamples, have led me to conclude that the Bible is not true by the very test you prescribe. Eventually, bending over backwards in order to protect the view of the Bible and God that I was taught as a child became more difficult than simply accepting the simple truth that the promise is not as true as its proponents suggest. I've read all the popular apologetics, and the more I saw Christians distorting context and logic in order to maintain their presupposed beliefs, the more I became convinced that Christianity wasn't any different in this regard than any other religion that claims to speak for a higher power.

That's the promise, and that's what I was faithfully taught, but it is not what I found. The more I searched, the the more earnestly I tried, the more clear the Bible's uninspired origins became to me. If you're genuinely curious to get inside the head of someone this has happened to, I strongly recommend the book "Why I Believed" by Kenneth Daniels. The Kindle edition is just 99 cents, and I've heard that he donates the profits to Doctors Without Borders. Seriously, please buy and read it. If 99 cents is too much, I'll even loan you mine. You aren't ever going to be able to connect with the experience of those like me if you don't take the time to understand it, and you can't understand me if you think I've never tried.

All I can say to the above, from reading your own words, is that you looked to people instead of to God. I didn't say, see what other people said. I said ask God and wait for Him to answer. He won't send you to another human being to know the truth about Himself. He will answer you Himself, and you will know it.

Of course there are all kinds of theories, all kinds of theologies, etc... about God. Most people are not really ready to surrender self to God and thus they get led about by the nose by the devil and he spreads all kinds of disinformation. That's how he gets so many honest people discouraged in their search for God. He gets them looking everywhere but where they need to look and focus on: God. He's the only one who tell you the truth about Himself.

If you're not interested in actually trying what I suggested, so be it. It's sad, to me, because if you won't try it you'll never know the truth.

I won't beat on you about it. I told you how to find the truth and repeating myself won't help, so at this I'll bow out of the discussion. I will pray for you though.

[Igakusei]

All I can say to the above, from reading your own words, is that you looked to people instead of to God. I didn't say, see what other people said. I said ask God and wait for Him to answer. He won't send you to another human being to know the truth about Himself. He will answer you Himself, and you will know it.

[joeb]

This is exactly what I was talking about. You simply assume that because I mentioned the experiences of others in addition to my own, that I was looking to other people instead of God. Like I said, I "just didn't do it right."

You assert that a promise is true, point to people who find success with it as evidence that it works, and assert that people who don't simply didn't do it right. I mean seriously, did I not just say this a few minutes ago??

It's amazing how condescending you can be with a smile on your face and the best intentions in your heart. To imply that I must simply not be interested in trying what you've suggested, as if it's really that easy and as if I didn't just tell you that I spent DECADES in frustrated anguish trying exactly what you and almost about every other Christian I've ever met in my life has told me…. After I just spent several paragraphs trying patiently to help you understand my position, to see things through my eyes so you can understand where I'm coming from, you just blow all that off with a condescending remark about poor, poor me, who won't even lift a finger to try such a simple suggestion? You know what? Edited by Gail

I'm truly sorry if I misread your post. The way I saw it you were talking about how you found people contradicting one another about God. I did not get from it that you had gone directly to Him and waited for His answer.

All I know from my experience, and everyone I have ever known who has asked God with an honest heart, is that God has answered them. That's not meant to be smug or condescending. That's what I know. It's also what I know about God. He wants you to know Him. That's who He is. For me to say anything different is to deny what I know about God. I just can't do that. If that offends you, I'm sorry. No offense was meant.

[M. T. Cross]

JoeMo, earlier Igakusei, asked, Who is this A.T. Jones that we should listen to him? Well I could ask, Who is this Igakusei? Who is this Cardw? Who is this JoeMoe what we should listen to them to the exclusion of A.T. Jones or any one else for that matter? A.T. Jones, like anyone here, has a right to be heard even if he is no longer here. His works follow him and his message is appropriate for this time.

sky

Actually Sky that was me that asked. I asked what his credentials where, that his books writings should be taken seriously.

Its one thing to take someone seriously because they make sense, but once someone has their work published and asks for money for it, they need to have some kind of credentials to back up their claims IMO.

[M. T. Cross]

I don't even know if that's true. cardw, MT, fccool, Igakusei,

Do you give more authority to scripture than you do to EGW or A.T Jones? Or are all three sources equally mythical to you? No offense or rebuke meant here - I'm genuinely curious.

I give more scriptual authority to the Bible, because well, its scripture. I think it has big exaggerated stories just like all other lore, but there are lessons that can be learned from it.

EGW...... well as I have stated before, she gives me the creeps. I think also she became the poster child for a group of men that needed one, and they created a bunch of false stories about her to make her seem much more than she was. In the end I think she was simply a tool, not of any God, but of people with an agenda.

A.T. Jones. I looked him up. Just another dude with some opinions and some theories. I give more authority to you, Bravus, Card, fcool, Stan, Woody, Naomi, Gail, Ig, and some other people here than I do to him.

[M. T. Cross]

Igakusei,

Let me ask you (and some of the other non Adventist/Christian folks following this) - does it offend or frustrate you when I quote scripture? You can be honest, most of us are freinds here.

Nope. I expect it. This is the basis of your beliefs. You know its going to have limited mileage with me and even less with the Ig, Card and fcool. You also don't shove it down our throat every post. You share YOUR thoughts more than quotes. Thats a more honest discussion IMO.

[Igakusei]

All I know from my experience, and everyone I have ever known who has asked God with an honest heart, is that God has answered them. That's not meant to be smug or condescending. That's what I know. It's also what I know about God. He wants you to know Him. That's who He is. For me to say anything different is to deny what I know about God. I just can't do that. If that offends you, I'm sorry. No offense was meant.

[Gerr]

Originally Posted By: Gerry Cabalo

Surely, you must have taken a course in the Social or Political "Science" category?

Yes, and I have never taken a course in salvation science. What is your point?

That as the word "science" is used, it does not always refer to "facts" that are verifiable by observation & experimentation. That there IS a science of salvation as well as Skyblue was pointing out. In some ways it is verifiable

by observation and experimentation.

[Igakusei]

I'm truly sorry if I misread your post. The way I saw it you were talking about how you found people contradicting one another about God. I did not get from it that you had gone directly to Him and waited for His answer.

My point in bringing them up was that I myself am far from the only person I've encountered who gets different results from going directly to God. Something I almost always try to do is get inside other people's shoes and try to understand how their experiences have shaped their worldview, and in this pursuit I found many like myself who sought God in great earnest and did not find, and I also found many others who sought God in great earnest and came away from the experience with incompatible answers to the questions they asked.

That all you got out of the exchange was that I looked at other people for answers indicates to me that you're not interested in getting inside my shoes and understanding how my experiences have shaped my worldview, because you don't seem to care. Yours is correct, I'm either lying or extremely stupid or something, and you'll pray for me because clearly my prayers didn't do the trick. The fact that you were surprised this behavior is offensive to others really nails it for me that you haven't the first tiny inkling of what it's like to be someone like me.

[cardw]

Surely, you must have taken a course in the Social or Political "Science" category?

Originally Posted By: cardw

Yes, and I have never taken a course in salvation science. What is your point?

That as the word "science" is used, it does not always refer to "facts" that are verifiable by observation & experimentation. That there IS a science of salvation as well as Skyblue was pointing out. In some ways it is verifiable

by observation and experimentation.

Salvation is not verifiable by observation and experimentation because none of us can see heaven. So far, none of you have presented any evidence that the god of the Bible exists. No one has been able to prove that the bad behavior of people is because of sin because no one can identify sin.

If you can't observe something, you can't experiment.

This is just more double think.

[John317]

Salvation is not verifiable by observation and experimentation because none of us can see heaven.

Neither is love verifiable by observation and experimentation. Sex and sexuality are verifiable, but not true love. You can only see the results of love. So also people can see the results of salvation. The results are obvious when a person is truly "saved."

[cardw]

Originally Posted By: cardw

Salvation is not verifiable by observation and experimentation because none of us can see heaven.

Neither is love verifiable by observation and experimentation. Sex and sexuality are verifiable, but not true love. You can only see the results of love. So also people can see the results of salvation. The results are obvious when a person is truly "saved."

Well love is not a science either. What is your point?

[Gerr]

Salvation is not verifiable by observation and experimentation because none of us can see heaven.

Of course, it is verifiable and observable! When a person turns away from a life of drug addiction, crime, and hate, to a life of love, purity, and obedience, is that not something that can be observed?

Quote:

So far, none of you have presented any evidence that the god of the Bible exists.

And what evidence have you presented that proves there is no God? That you can't see Him? Have you seen gravity? Have you seen love? Hate?

Quote:

No one has been able to prove that the bad behavior of people is because of sin because no one can identify sin.

Like love or hate, you can't see sin. You can only see what their effects. What moves a man to shoot dozens of innocent children? What moves a man to dump the woman he pledged to love and protect?

Quote:

If you can't observe something, you can't experiment.

This is just more double think.

Here is an experiment that I challenge you to do for yourself to see whether this promise is verifiable or not.

1. For the sake of experimentation start with this premise for a change and really mean it. ESV | ýHeb 11:6 And without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him.

2. NIV84 | ýJn 7:17 If anyone chooses to do God’s will, he will find out whether my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own.

[Igakusei]

Gerry you must simply not be listening, because I've already addressed half of what you just said.

You can test, measure, and quantify the effects of gravity, but despite your assertions you cannot do the same with salvation. Your stories of lives turned around are anecdotes, to which I have seen many, many counterexamples. If I told you that I took a homeopathic remedy and my cold went away, or that my child developed autism after getting an MMR shot, would you consider that reliable evidence for my claims? But here you are, doing the exact same thing in defense of salvation that you would scoff at in your own field.

What is the one thing that every chiropractic, reiki, acupuncture, anti-vax, homeopathic, or other alt-med website in the world uses for evidence? Anecdotes. A bunch of anecdotes do not magically become data, and you know this. There's a reason that anecdotes aren't used in science, except perhaps as the step that precedes hypothesis formation. Never as direct evidence for a conclusion.

But that's how you're going to defend salvation as a science? Come on, you know how weak that is.

[Igakusei]

Joeb, I mentioned our exchange to an old friend of mine, and she repled with this:

Quote:

Yeah . . . I feel the same as you. I searched. I searched hard. I still remember the nights in bed, sobbing hysterically, tearing at myself and the sheets and even screaming for "loving Heavenly Father" to say something, anything.

And there was nothing. There was never anything.

That's not love. That's not a father. That's not a god at all.

This is an extremely common story, and I've seen it hundreds of times. There are many who seek and find no answers, but you just don't know any of them.

[Gerr]

As you can see, I was responding to Richard. The millions throughout history that have experienced salvation are no anecdotes. They testify to the veracity of His word. They reason the experiment doesn't hold true everytime like 2H + O = H2O is that there are a lot more variables in the equation than that for making water.

Chiropractic, etc., and salvation are apples & oranges, IMHO. You can even throw MDs in with them. You know as well as I do, that the vast majority of their pts will get well no matter what is done to them. And of course, the practitioners would naturally think that it was their skill and concoctions that made their pts well. Only a supernatural power can get rid of evil from the soul.

[Igakusei]

One thing I've seen happen again and again, in virtually all of my friends and acquaintances who have lost their faith, is that after going through the usual stages of grief and acceptance, they have the epiphany that if we can't count on God to fix our problems and those of others, then we're going to have to roll up our sleeves and do it ourselves. You seem to be asserting that God is the only thing that can lead people to become less selfish, more tolerant, overcome addictions, etc., but like Joeb you just ignore any counterexamples because your model of reality doesn't know how to accommodate them. You're asserting that salvation should qualify as a science, and yet you continue to defend unscientific approaches to studying it when challenged that it's unverifiable. How is what you just said any different from my asserting that millions of people in India have been cured of common illnesses after ingesting homeopathic remedies? For every person you show me that overcame some struggle after giving it to God, I'll show you someone else who overcame theirs only after giving up the idea that they can't solve their own problems without him. Your assertion that only God can help people overcome evil is demonstrably false.