Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
One of the rules of evangelization (I used to hear) was that in defense of the faith, a Christian was to use "scripture to defend scripture." It made all the sense in the world to me while I was in the fog but looking back, it makes not one lick of sense. I see it on CD quite often. A question is asked about the validity of a particular bible story or biblical passage and then the believer turns around and uses the same book that is being questioned to prove the truth of the story/passage.
Years ago I used to do the same thing and an atheist used to keep telling me, "you cannot use the bible to prove the bible." I never really paid attention to what he was saying because I was so committed to the idea that using scripture to prove scripture was the way to go. Now I realize that what he was essentially saying is that such a tactic amounts to nothing more than circular argument.
Imagine sitting with someone, obsessed with Snow White, and trying to tell them Snow White does not exist and they keep telling you, "Well you might not believe it, but according to page 15 in the story, it says Snow White met a witch in the forest so she must have existed." Imagine being told that Darth Vader existed just because a fantasy movie brought him to life?
How do you deal with the circular argument presented by believers completely ignoring the idea of empirical evidence?
Regards,
DeGuire
Again, another shining example of someone who just didn't get it.
I have NEVER....I mean NEVER....heard another believer say they would use scripture to DEFEND scripture. What I have heard (repeatedly) is using scripture to interpret scripture....as in weighing all scripture against the whole bible and not pulling things out of context to suit your own agenda.
So we don't use the bible to prove the bible but rather use the bible to interpret the bible.
Now I may tell you that a biblical truth or verse are why I believe what I believe, but that's using the bible to prove my beliefs....not the bible itself.
Heh, as an ex-atheist, born and raised, I find Christianity to make so much more sense to me in the grand scheme of things. I think it takes more faith to be an atheist than it does to be a Christian or other theist.
Again, another shining example of someone who just didn't get it.
I have NEVER....I mean NEVER....heard another believer say they would use scripture to DEFEND scripture. What I have heard (repeatedly) is using scripture to interpret scripture....as in weighing all scripture against the whole bible and not pulling things out of context to suit your own agenda.
So we don't use the bible to prove the bible but rather use the bible to interpret the bible.
Now I may tell you that a biblical truth or verse are why I believe what I believe, but that's using the bible to prove my beliefs....not the bible itself.
Ok, you never hearing it does not mean it has never been said. Forget hearing it. You moderate a few of these forums. Watch it in effect then.
Location: In the North Idaho woods, still surrounded by terriers
2,179 posts, read 6,997,981 times
Reputation: 1012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alpha8207
Again, another shining example of someone who just didn't get it.
I have NEVER....I mean NEVER....heard another believer say they would use scripture to DEFEND scripture. What I have heard (repeatedly) is using scripture to interpret scripture....as in weighing all scripture against the whole bible and not pulling things out of context to suit your own agenda.
So we don't use the bible to prove the bible but rather use the bible to interpret the bible.
Now I may tell you that a biblical truth or verse are why I believe what I believe, but that's using the bible to prove my beliefs....not the bible itself.
Maybe it depends on the Christian, Alpha. I see many, many posts that ask for proof about something regarding the Bible and the answers that come back are usually Scripture...using Scripture as proof or as a defense for a certain statement. Possibly this whole thread has to do with interpretation.
Heh, as an ex-atheist, born and raised, I find Christianity to make so much more sense to me in the grand scheme of things. I think it takes more faith to be an atheist than it does to be a Christian or other theist.
Why? An atheist by definition only believes there is no deity. You have to believe 66 books (or more) of some incredulous stuff. That takes a lot more faith in my estimation.
Heh, as an ex-atheist, born and raised, I find Christianity to make so much more sense to me in the grand scheme of things. I think it takes more faith to be an atheist than it does to be a Christian or other theist.
Maybe it depends on the Christian, Alpha. I see many, many posts that ask for proof about something regarding the Bible and the answers that come back are usually Scripture...using Scripture as proof or as a defense for a certain statement. Possibly this whole thread has to do with interpretation.
Maybe it depends on the Christian, Alpha. I see many, many posts that ask for proof about something regarding the Bible and the answers that come back are usually Scripture...using Scripture as proof or as a defense for a certain statement. Possibly this whole thread has to do with interpretation.
Well wait now, esselcue, that's different than what the OP asserted.
Let me see if I can put the difference into words:
Per the OP: Believers use (and apparently in his former circles were instructed to use) the Bible to defend the Bible in evangelization. Apparently in the OPs former 'Christian' circles, defending the Bible was part of the evangelization process.
Per what I posted: I have never set down to evangelize by trying to prove or defend the Bible. I have also NEVER heard that method used. I have tried to share scripture with someone in that context but if they choose not to believe the Word then that's certainly their prerogative.
So, in simpler terms:
OP: Evangelism = defending the Word
Alpha: Evangelism = sharing the Word
If you can't prove there is no god ( and you can't) then your basing your beliefs on faith that no one has proven to you that there is a God.
Saying atheism requires no faith is a very strange statement....unless you hold some verifiable proof that there is no god and I'm sure your 'faithless' compatriots would love you to share it if you've got it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.