Is anyone having trouble believing...?

[M.Talkingsworth]

Hi Pereynol,

First let me apologize for an apparent misunderstanding. The comment,

First, "having faith" is an indispensible component of nearly everything we might conclude concerning ultimate reality. Second, demanding that we need "definite answers" to things we can only wonder about given our all too human cognitive limitations, is a recipe for discontent. Third, the comparison to cats licking themselves, while clever, is not a little harsh.

Was supposed to be funny in a self-depreciating way. I was saying that I'm only a little smarter than my cats. This was not intended to insult anyone. I am sorry.

I didn't think I was getting too outlandish. But if terms like "ontological" and "epistemological" are not known to you at this point, then I'd suggest that you really ought to do some more research into the soteriological positions we've been discussing. After all, it will take some work to wade through the options, and there's really no shortcut if you're committed to the task.

I don't think that you were getting too outlandish, I just don't know what some of the terms mean. I tried to look them up online but was unsuccessful.

Evangelism is, among other things, communication. As such, it needn't be reduced to a "wild goose chase" merely because of the possibility that some may be saved apart from it.
Evangelism, like any form of communication, wouldn't be rendered extraneous if its proclamation weren't conterminous with the scope of God's mercy, would it? If you could know something true about God's love for you, even if you didn't need to know it, strictly speaking, in order to be "saved," wouldn't you nevertheless find that knowledge at least remotely worthwhile? Especially if you were looking for God? Why would you think announcing the story of Jesus "a wild goose chase" if the possible scope of God's mercy wasn't coterminous with its proclamation?

I think that evangelism as communication would still be valid, but evangelism for the purpose of saving people would not be valid. Perhaps it never was and this is a human idea read into the scriptures. I'm not sure. I have always thought that the Bible taught that the reason for evangelism was becuase Jesus was the only way. Perhaps I am wrong. Do you think I am off here?




I really pared alot of things out here because I am on break at work and have limited time. I think you brought up many relevant points, but I think it would be best to work through this one at the time. The Bible's ambiguity is a problem for me, but we can address that later, if I don't drive you crazy first!

Thanks,

Matt

[M.Talkingsworth]

I note here that you have particular notions of what "inspiration" might mean for a text, as well as what you expect an inspired text to look like, and, in turn, what you think might disqualify a text from being inspired. I want to distinguish your objective expectations about inspired texts from the subjective effect that the perceived failure of these texts to meet your expectations has had upon you for the purposes of our discussion.

Expectations of an inspired text:

1) Never wrong

2) Very low level of ambiguity. Perhaps only as much ambiguity which would be generated by the use of cultural idiom of the writers.

3) Relevant to all people at all times

I am out of time i'll send more later

[Amazing Rando]

Expectations of an inspired text:

1) Never wrong

Why do you assume an inspired text would never be wrong? I believe God can and does inspire us even through our human frailties, and that Scripture is just as much a set of human writings as it is a set of divine writings. This kind of view takes the analogy of the incarnation (Jesus being fully God and fully human simultaneously), and applies it to Scripture as well. It's not as neat and pretty as the ol' tried and true "inerrant, inspired, infallible" view of Scripture, but I think it better accounts for the observable reality that we can discern in Scripture as well as the theological claims Scripture makes about God. In my view inspiration is just a heck of a lot more subtle and, well, mysterious than that.

Incidently, the three criteria you listed in your post:

1) Never wrong

2) Very low level of ambiguity. Perhaps only as much ambiguity which would be generated by the use of cultural idiom of the writers.

3) Relevant to all people at all times

are precisely what Muslims believe about the Qur'an. Not that that's the sole basis for questioning it, just that most Christian doctrines of Scripture don't posit the inerrant book dictated directly from heaven in the same way Muslims hold that Mohammed received the Qur'an, or Mormons believe that Joseph Smith received the Book of Mormon. Traditional Christian incarnational understandings of Scripture are a lot more nuanced and messy.

[Pereynol of Sheer Dread]

Hi Pereynol,

First let me apologize for an apparent misunderstanding. The comment,

Was supposed to be funny in a self-depreciating way. I was saying that I'm only a little smarter than my cats. This was not intended to insult anyone. I am sorry.

Hey Matt,
I understood what you meant; I was just indulging some obscure humor as well---a little too obscure, I'm afraid. I get into trouble sometimes for that sort of thing; even my wife misses what I find funny because it's often so quirky. I just wanted to counter your attempt at self-depreciation because I know you're a smart guy. I meant that you were being too "harsh," as in too hard on yourself. You are certainly not alone in your struggle, and it's precisely your intelligence which contributes to your struggle, IMHO.

I think that certain common characteristics of the way conservative Christians tend to be educated sort of sets them up for a fall by engendering problematic expectations. I'm not saying that conservatism itself is flawed; rather I believe that the way we weight our controversies becomes problematic. I have heard it drummed into young minds more times than I care to count that, were some minute point of doctrine thrown into question, the whole faith would, by (false) implication, necessarily collapse. I have also seen atheistic or liberal alternative positions commonly presented as implausible, intellectually impoversihed, and completely untenable---with the attendant notion that if ever an atheistic or liberal point were to be argued plausibly, the faith, again, might just collapse.

So, the subtle message in some conservative (particularly fundamentalist) pedagogical quarters is one of naive triumphalism, and this is an unfortunately misleading and damaging (not to mention wrongheaded) way of doing things. I think the first thing to recognize is that all points of view may be argued plausibly, and, when Christians meet with plausibly argued alternatives to their positions, they should by no means feel overwhelmed or suppose that the faith is in jeopardy of being demolished. That is a misunderstanding, to say the least. Even the staunchest proponents of fundamentalism ought to take cognizance of this pedagogical difficulty and abandon the underlying rhetoric, IMHO. If there is indeed, as I think, a whole spectrum of plausibilities, the mere existence of such a spectrum needn't be taken to utterly relativize or discredit any one alternative. The possibilites are usually a lot more complex than that, and the fact that others can argue their positions plausibly shouldn't be all that alarming.

I don't think that you were getting too outlandish, I just don't know what some of the terms mean. I tried to look them up online but was unsuccessful.

I wasn't trying to be opaque, but I do think you could benefit from relaxing and settling yourself down for an extended research project here. There is lots of literature out there on this topic, and you could possibly be helped by becoming conversant with more of it. It'll take time, though, and your research shouldn't be conducted in fear or apprehension. But, I might add that you should find some folks you trust to help guide you in your research, preferably believers.

There's another misguided notion afoot within secular takes on education, and that's the idea that every point of view deserves "equal time," as if you, the reader, ought to immerse yourself fully into all vantage points, listening with equal sincerity to both angels and devils, as it were. But a minute's reflection ought to disuade this approach, I think. I wouldn't think everyone possessed of the critical faculties sufficient to evaluate these things evenly, and I would strongly suggest that you allow someone you respect to help guide you here. Sequence is also important. Many times, the ideas one imbibes first steers the mind in how it apprehends the information it gains later.

And if there's a ton of propaganda and rhetoric out there (which there indisputeably is), there's a much greater risk of deception, in my estimation. For instance, I just read a few books by Dawkins and listened to some Hitchens debates recently, but I'd never advise a "newbie" to do the same unprepared; the risk of deception would be too great. But after one gains some knowledge and guidance and sequential educational preparation, then one becomes better equipped to engage such things. Some people, however, perhaps ought never to be exposed to certain things, IMHO. It's just not everyone's calling.

I think that evangelism as communication would still be valid, but evangelism for the purpose of saving people would not be valid. Perhaps it never was and this is a human idea read into the scriptures. I'm not sure. I have always thought that the Bible taught that the reason for evangelism was becuase Jesus was the only way. Perhaps I am wrong. Do you think I am off here?

I think you should open yourself to the possibility that, though evangelism does indeed bring the saving knowledge of the gospel to those who embrace it, there may remain hope for those who never hear. It might help you to do a little research into soteriological inclusivism and explore the possibility.

I really pared alot of things out here because I am on break at work and have limited time. I think you brought up many relevant points, but I think it would be best to work through this one at the time. The Bible's ambiguity is a problem for me, but we can address that later, if I don't drive you crazy first!

Thanks,

Matt

You'll not drive me crazy, Matt. But I do believe that the Bible should be recognized as containing a diversity of texts from a diversity sociotemporal settings, and we don't always fully or easily comprehend how our own contemporary frames of reference and interpretive expectations might differ from those who lived at the times these texts were written. There are some naive conservative interpreters who tend to dismiss these potential difficuties as if "inspiration" somehow renders them moot---as if we don't need to delve very deeply into history or text criticism or social considerations---or any extensive scholarship to iron these things out. And these kinds of folks also tend to tacitly assume that every text or subtext is written to themselves as much as it was to those who lived at the time of writing, but this, again, is terribly naive. And I personally remark upon these difficulties as a pretty conservative Christian. But my aim just now isn't to convince you of my position, or even to reveal it, so much as to lead you to explore the spectrum of Christian options that are available to you that you seem to have overlooked.

I did want to hear more about your thoughts upon the "omnimax" solution to certain difficulties. I think I know where you're going with that, but I want to hear it from you before I make much of a response, lest I've missed your point.

[Abykale]

Well, there are many advocates of soteriological inclusivism who hold Jesus' atoning death ontologically necessary but not epistemologically so. And, coupled with the notion that the extent of evangelism and the extent of God's mercy aren't necessarily coterminous, this point of view may well carry some weight.

If you don't mind, I'd like to take a crack at "translating" for those who are a bit confused by the terminology (and to see if I understand correctly).

ontological -- having to do with what things are (in and of themselves, as opposed to how they are perceived)

epistemological -- having to do with knowledge and how we come by it.

So . . . I'm guessing what he's saying is, many believe that our salvation depends upon Christ's death affecting us in an objective way, but not necessarily on us knowing about it.

Am I right?

If so, an example of that sort of view would be RanRan's style of universalism, in which all are justified without regard to belief.

Another might be some version of Recapitulation -- Christ, by becoming incarnate and living through the stages of human life including death, in some way united all of humanity with divinity and reversed the effects of Adam's sin.

I think most versions of Christus Victor would also work that way. Christ's defeat of the Devil wouldn't change with whether or not you believe in it.

I think that evangelism as communication would still be valid, but evangelism for the purpose of saving people would not be valid. Perhaps it never was and this is a human idea read into the scriptures. I'm not sure. I have always thought that the Bible taught that the reason for evangelism was becuase Jesus was the only way. Perhaps I am wrong. Do you think I am off here?

Some would say you are.

If it helps you, here are some other reasons I can think of for evangelism:

- for the sake of God's glory. This would have been a big deal in the honor/shame culture in which Christianity originated -- recipients of grace were obligated to increase the honor of their patron by making his generosity known to all.

- to transform society and encourage people to live in a way pleasing to God. Consider the focus in the Gospels on God's Kingdom.

- to enable people to have a relationship with God and experience personal transformation. This aspect of the Christian life was emphasized by many of the Early Church Fathers.

- to give people hope, through the knowledge of God's love for them demonstrated through Christ's life and death, and through belief in the Resurrection.

- because some people value truth for its own sake and would like to know.


Also, something to consider when reading the Bible is that the word "salvation" doesn't necessarily have to refer to the final judgment 100% of the time. After all, the Old Testament uses the term a lot to refer to things God does in this life.

[Pereynol of Sheer Dread]

Expectations of an inspired text:

1) Never wrong

2) Very low level of ambiguity. Perhaps only as much ambiguity which would be generated by the use of cultural idiom of the writers.

3) Relevant to all people at all times

I am out of time i'll send more later

What I'd like to press home at this point is very simple: It isn't necessary for us to have a flawless Bible for Christianity to be true. There are Christian believers who hold various positions as to this question.

One may affirm biblical inspiration or inerrancy, or one may deny it. Or, one may suspend judgment on the question and yet believe Christianity to be true. Recognizing this fact ought to take away some of the pressure you're currently feeling. Any one of the options I've mentioned becomes viable for a believer, but the truth of Christianity doesn't hinge upon our taking one option over against another. In other words, answering the question in the negative needn't be a faith-breaker. Nor does answering the question positively somehow become a prerequisite for faith.

This is a secondary issue that one may well consider at one's leisure post-conversion, IMHO. One might even change one's opinion, but that shouldn't, of itself, cause one inordinate turbulence, if one thinks about it.

However, the question is considered in a few different contexts. It is probably best considered as an intramural debate between believers----the resolution of which, though important, nevertheless remains inessential to faith, and therefore, non-threatening to faith.

Another context in which the question often arises is more troublesome, and I think that's what you're dealing with. And that is when someone has been taught to fear that, if inerrancy isn't true, then the whole faith would somehow be in danger of collapse. Then one encounters doubts via atheists or antogonists to the faith who basically have assumed the same thing. But, if one denies that the issue is a faith-breaker, then the pressure is off.

Christians are free to affirm, deny, or suspend this question according to their best judgment. One may viably become a conservative, but being so isn't necessary to faith. And there are a number of other questions that should be seen in the same light, IMHO. It simply isn't encumbent upon us to solve conclusively whatever embattled questions have been hyped-up in the culture as prerequsites to faith. The sooner one recognizes this fact, the better off one becomes, I'd say....

[M.Talkingsworth]

What I'd like to press home at this point is very simple: It isn't necessary for us to have a flawless Bible for Christianity to be true. There are Christian believers who hold various positions as to this question.

One may affirm biblical inspiration or inerrancy, or one may deny it. Or, one may suspend judgment on the question and yet believe Christianity to be true. Recognizing this fact ought to take away some of the pressure you're currently feeling. Any one of the options I've mentioned becomes viable for a believer, but the truth of Christianity doesn't hinge upon our taking one option over against another. In other words, answering the question in the negative needn't be a faith-breaker. Nor does answering the question positively somehow become a prerequisite for faith.

This is a secondary issue that one may well consider at one's leisure post-conversion, IMHO. One might even change one's opinion, but that shouldn't, of itself, cause one inordinate turbulence, if one thinks about it.

However, the question is considered in a few different contexts. It is probably best considered as an intramural debate between believers----the resolution of which, though important, nevertheless remains inessential to faith, and therefore, non-threatening to faith.

Another context in which the question often arises is more troublesome, and I think that's what you're dealing with. And that is when someone has been taught to fear that, if inerrancy isn't true, then the whole faith would somehow be in danger of collapse. Then one encounters doubts via atheists or antogonists to the faith who basically have assumed the same thing. But, if one denies that the issue is a faith-breaker, then the pressure is off.

Christians are free to affirm, deny, or suspend this question according to their best judgment. One may viably become a conservative, but being so isn't necessary to faith. And there are a number of other questions that should be seen in the same light, IMHO. It simply isn't encumbent upon us to solve conclusively whatever embattled questions have been hyped-up in the culture as prerequsites to faith. The sooner one recognizes this fact, the better off one becomes, I'd say....

LPOSDread,

I know that inerrancy is not necessary for Christianity to be true. I was raised in an environment which was pretty liberal about biblical inerrancy. The problem I run into with Biblical errancy is that I am not sure what to use as a standard for interaction with God. If the Bible is not 100% reliable then ambiguity enters the picture when trying to learn about God. I begin to wonder which passages are trustworthy and which are not and what is the standard they should be measured against. I feel that without a standard, reliable information source about God then all my faith is based on is what I think God is, that is, my imagination.

So although biblical errancy does not necessarily falsify Christianity, it does leave me wondering on what I should base my faith.

In fact, once I accepted the idea of Biblical errancy, I quickly latched on to experience as a basis for faith. The difficulty with this is trying to interpret experience without something to guide the interpretation.

How do you tell which parts of the Bible are correct and which parts are erroneous?

matt

[Pereynol of Sheer Dread]

LPOSDread,

I know that inerrancy is not necessary for Christianity to be true. I was raised in an environment which was pretty liberal about biblical inerrancy. The problem I run into with Biblical errancy is that I am not sure what to use as a standard for interaction with God. If the Bible is not 100% reliable then ambiguity enters the picture when trying to learn about God. I begin to wonder which passages are trustworthy and which are not and what is the standard they should be measured against. I feel that without a standard, reliable information source about God then all my faith is based on is what I think God is, that is, my imagination.

I don't know that one is utterly thrown upon the mercy of one's own imagination if one abandons inerrancy. It depends upon how numerous and how substantive one perceives human "mistakes" to have been. Are the perceived errors very numerous? How severe is the resultant ambiguity? How does one define "error?" There are a number of answers to these questions, but I wouldn't suppose that the "error quotient" and the resultant ambiguity becomes so severe that one feels like one needs to throw out most of scripture and rely instead upon one's own "imaginiation." It's not that bad, is it?

Many perceived "errors" are very trivial. Others usually surround worldview or scientific misunderstandings---things like that. Others are said to involve sociocultural differences. But the comforting thing is that most central matters of New Testament doctrine appear fairly straightforward. I'd think one's own personal difficulties would be proportunate to just how much error one felt was there and what kind of issues were involved.

The "standard" comes into play given one's own evaluative criteria for detecting supposed errors. Usually, perceived errors surround certain concerns which are thought to become recurrent, and in which patterns may be recognized---e.g Bultmann's demythologizing concerns, or something on that order. Then one deals with perceived errors in a methodical way. All this would occur within the greater context of one's thinking---not in isolation or in haphazard fear, apart from any criteria of judgment. After all, one must have some criteria for detecting errors in the first place. Then, one will no doubt see that perceived errors can be categorized according to the criteria by which one detected them in the first place. And then, the relative importance, unimportance, or even utter triviality of "error categories" may be intelligently evaluated.

So although biblical errancy does not necessarily falsify Christianity, it does leave me wondering on what I should base my faith.

In fact, once I accepted the idea of Biblical errancy, I quickly latched on to experience as a basis for faith. The difficulty with this is trying to interpret experience without something to guide the interpretation.

How do you tell which parts of the Bible are correct and which parts are erroneous?

matt

Things are usually perceived as "correct" or "erroneous" in different senses, aren't they? If a gospel writer or OT writer is perceived to have gotten a number wrong or a pericope out of sequence, that's not too troublesome. If a writer spoke phenomenologically concerning natural events or demonstrated a possible lack of understanding in contrast to what we know (or think we know) from our modern scientific discoveries or theories, then that's not so difficult, either. If a biblical writer had a different ethical schema than we embrace with respect to sociocultural differences, even these things aren't so problematic, I'd wager, that we are somehow thrown totally upon our own imaginations as a result. But these questions become relative to the reader of the biblical text, in keeping with the reader's own perceptions and concerns.

However, there are usually certain perceived limits, patterns, and parameters in which the errors are thought to fall such that one needn't presume the general content (particularly the content of Christian doctrine) to have been thereby rendered entirely dubious. But, without such "pattern recognition" for where perceived errors are thought to fall, one could see that anxieties over these things may well become person-relative, that is, relative to the specific concerns of the reader who perceives errors, according to his own evaluative criteria.

So, I'd have to ask you, specifically, What are your concerns? What specific possible errors do you perceive, and how might they impact your life? What evaluative criteria do you personally use to detect error? Is the "error quotient" and the resultant ambiguity so severe that you fear the scriptural testimony entirely compromised? (Most Christians who recognize some human fallibility in the Bible wouldn't go so far as that!) If so, you should be able to supply details----not for me and this discussion so much as for your own sake. Although of course we can continue the discussion---and so can others here---but the main thing is for you to clarify and order your own thought processes about these matters....

[Glenn P]

Expectations of an inspired text:

Bear in mind that sometimes things fail to meet our expectations for the simple reasons that we have the wrong expectations. The list you present might in fact turn out to be a diagnosis of you, telling us where things went askew in your approach to Scripture, leading to disenchantment when your expectations were not met.

1) Never wrong

If you mean never wrong in what it teaches, OK. Do you allow that the Bible - or any text, actually - might be teaching something that is true, but clothed in language and forms of speech that derive from a culture that holds beliefs that are false? For example (and this is just a simple trivial example), a text might talk about the ends of the earth. We know what it means, but it is presented inlanguage it is literally false.

2) Very low level of ambiguity. Perhaps only as much ambiguity which would be generated by the use of cultural idiom of the writers.

Ambiguity need not be generated by cultural ambiguity. It may be generated by those who wish that the Scripture said something in particular as well. This is to say nothing of the fact that distances between culture in themselves generate a lot more than "low" levels of ambiguity!

3) Relevant to all people at all times

This appears to be an arbitrary criteria. Why can a text that has a specific relevance to one people in a certain time not be inspired. It seems this criteria deems that God cannot inspire a message specifically for them, which isn't a well supported claim. And even if the relevance of such a portion of Scripture is limited in this way, there is nothin to stop the same passage having great historical importance to people living later.

There is no deductive inference from inspiration to inerrancy if that's what you're getting at.

[infide]

Hi Matt -

LPOSDread,

I know that inerrancy is not necessary for Christianity to be true. I was raised in an environment which was pretty liberal about biblical inerrancy. The problem I run into with Biblical errancy is that I am not sure what to use as a standard for interaction with God. If the Bible is not 100% reliable then ambiguity enters the picture when trying to learn about God. I begin to wonder which passages are trustworthy and which are not and what is the standard they should be measured against. I feel that without a standard, reliable information source about God then all my faith is based on is what I think God is, that is, my imagination.

If I might comment - I think it might be a mistake to think that this polemic (that i hear from Conservative circles) is actually true. The standard, is, and always will be truth. Namely, the same reasons that you are most likely having your doubts and questions. And this will include the truths we observe in the natural world, in philosophy and, yes, in our own experiences (/ imaginations). There is nothing wrong with our ability to experience the divine reality. When Peter had a vision, teaching him to welcome Gentiles - there did not seem to be any issue with Peter believing it (and thereby disregarding traditional readings of the Scriptures).

On the contrary, the reason we gather together with other people and discuss our experiences of God - is to firstly, experience God in a different way, and secondly, to help prevent self-deception. Sure, there is some subjectivity and ambiguity in this process. We are talking about an invisible and transcendent reality, here. i dont think we should expect otherwise.

So although biblical errancy does not necessarily falsify Christianity, it does leave me wondering on what I should base my faith.

In fact, once I accepted the idea of Biblical errancy, I quickly latched on to experience as a basis for faith. The difficulty with this is trying to interpret experience without something to guide the interpretation.

How do you tell which parts of the Bible are correct and which parts are erroneous?

matt

Do they encourage the vision of God that Christ taught, and that I experience? Religious-tribalism is all out, including the current Christian-tribal-religion, usually called fundamentalist Christianity.

Peace,
JD

[Pereynol of Sheer Dread]

Matt,
I think there's a lot here for you to consider, and there's much more besides---other alternatives which nobody has yet covered or examined completely. If you're indeed serious, and if, as you said, you genuinely desire that Christianity be true, you owe it to yourself to do the hard work of thinking through the corpus of posibilities. This would include everything from inerrancy itself to the whole range of alterantives.

If one reads say, The Chicago Statement (paying attention to article XIII and the attendant explanation later in the document), for example, one will recognize that inerrancy itslef is hardly so naive a position as it is portrayed to be by its detractors. And there's a book called Inerrancy, editied by Geisler, which isn't bad. See particularly the essays by Feinberg and Geisler himself. It also would be good to check out the earliest chapters of N. T. Wright's The New Testament and the People of God for approaches to scripture, methodological concerns, etc. Not to send you directly into Neo-Orthodoxy, but reading Barth is definitely instructive. There are so many options to explore across the whole spectrum, but I think Wright is particularly good.

But, if you really want to avail yourself of the path which gives Christianity the opportunity to present its best case, what you should refrain from doing is to go talk with atheists, agnostics, and other "sympathies with the devil," for the time being. Fueling scepticism in yourself will hardly allow you to assume the right posture of "faith seeking understanding;" rather, it will just be counterproductive. I'd advise staying away from the sceptics for the time-being and immersing yourself in a careful, systematic study of the alternatives until you genuinely grasp them in depth That way, even if you do walk away (which i pray you don't) you'll know what you're walking away from rather than being illicitly pulled away by what I believe to be a vague, rhetorical, and often inapplicable, amalgamation of misplaced sceptical objections to the faith.

[M.Talkingsworth]

Matt,
I think there's a lot here for you to consider, and there's much more besides---other alternatives which nobody has yet covered or examined completely. If you're indeed serious, and if, as you said, you genuinely desire that Christianity be true, you owe it to yourself to do the hard work of thinking through the corpus of posibilities. This would include everything from inerrancy itself to the whole range of alterantives.

If one reads say, The Chicago Statement (paying attention to article XIII and the attendant explanation later in the document), for example, one will recognize that inerrancy itslef is hardly so naive a position as it is portrayed to be by its detractors. And there's a book called Inerrancy, editied by Geisler, which isn't bad. See particularly the essays by Feinberg and Geisler himself. It also would be good to check out the earliest chapters of N. T. Wright's The New Testament and the People of God for approaches to scripture, methodological concerns, etc. Not to send you directly into Neo-Orthodoxy, but reading Barth is definitely instructive. There are so many options to explore across the whole spectrum, but I think Wright is particularly good.

But, if you really want to avail yourself of the path which gives Christianity the opportunity to present its best case, what you should refrain from doing is to go talk with atheists, agnostics, and other "sympathies with the devil," for the time being. Fueling scepticism in yourself will hardly allow you to assume the right posture of "faith seeking understanding;" rather, it will just be counterproductive. I'd advise staying away from the sceptics for the time-being and immersing yourself in a careful, systematic study of the alternatives until you genuinely grasp them in depth That way, even if you do walk away (which i pray you don't) you'll know what you're walking away from rather than being illicitly pulled away by what I believe to be a vague, rhetorical, and often inapplicable, amalgamation of misplaced sceptical objections to the faith.

That's a good idea. I think I'll do it. Thanks.

Cheers,

Matt

[M.Talkingsworth]

Hello all,

Thanks for being a part of this thread. If anyone has any suggested reading material, please share. I am going to take perenyol's suggestion to study up on this stuff before I make my final decision.

Thanks again,

Matt

[element771]

Hi Talkings,

I have to admit that I too have been having doubts as of late.

I used to have rock solid faith but I seemed to have lost it at the moment. All I can do is to tell you to hang in there.

I also wanted to also thank everyone for their suggested readings and support.

[M.Talkingsworth]

Hi Talkings,

I have to admit that I too have been having doubts as of late.

I used to have rock solid faith but I seemed to have lost it at the moment. All I can do is to tell you to hang in there.

I also wanted to also thank everyone for their suggested readings and support.

I recommend you follow your doubts and find out what the truth really is.

Cheers,

Matt