Adam G Vigansky, what you are describing is a departure from fundamentalist views (of the Bible). If being a biblical fundamentalist is what you equate being a Christian too, then I suppose your statement that you left the Christian faith, to you would seem sufficient. But for a person such as myself, who is prophetic yet not prone to Biblical fundamentalism, it appears to me you just are disoriented after you discovered the limitations of the Bible. If you from that point conclude you have no basis for belief, you are now binary in thinking. You have chosen the all or nothing response, which would be typical of a fundamentalist discovering the Bible is not all it is cracked up to be. But this logical fallacy of excluding the middle has inherent assumptions that there is nothing left to consider. Yet there is. Why is it that fundamentalist are so susceptible to a loss of faith when faced with the argument of those exposing the limits of the Biblical canon? Yet somebody like myself can in turn expose the ridiculous fallacies of logic the so called skeptics employ to support their lack of beliefs. I have never met any skeptic who mustered a truly rational and logical argument for it. Skeptics operate on assumption sets just like fundamentalist and are as easily rattled from their own assumptions as the fundamentalist is from his. Why? Because they dont hold up to real reason and logic. Here is a list of a few middles to consider and not be excluded before attempting to conclude anything. 1) The inherent fallacies of the Skeptics own assumption sets. 2) Mystical roots of faith, prophetic protocols, parapsychology. 3) Prophetic predictions vis a vis established and known contemporary historical events, that is evidence of God through observation of providence in human events. 4) Testimonies of those who are auto-religious Christians about their experiences leading to their identification of Jesus as relevant to them. Those who had no human persuasions to turn to Jesus, Paul is an example, and there are many contemporary to us who also testify. 5) Philosophic reasoning toward God, Adam, there is a great deal of stuff to consider that supplies a preponderance of evidences that neither requires a predisposition concerning God, nor fundamentalist assumptions concerning the Bible. Adam, I am a very intelligent man, yet there is a whole universe of things actual and intangible that I dont know about. So reason with me: Are you suggesting that based on your lack of Biblical foundation, your are so omniscient about all possibilities and the conceivable data of everything, that you can safely conclude you have sufficient basis to eliminate any possibility of God? Adam, you cant logically support an argument from ignorance, and no skeptic can claim any conclusion eliminating God is anything but a personal admission of their own personal ignorance of all that can and might be considered. Peace to you.
Posted on: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 07:33:08 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015