> The thing about Christianity is that it does
>not conform to worldly reasoning practices, as
>faith never enters into the equation when reason
>and logic are used to exclusion. Doesn't mean
>reason and logic don't have their place, or that
>faith is blind.

I really hate this argument, because it strikes me as a huge cop out, and one not fitting of an otherwise scientific and logical person such as yourself.

If God created us, he gave us the tools of reason and logic for a purpose. I happen to believe that these tools are the best things we have to learn about ourselves and our surroundings. Reason and logic have built us everything we have today. They seem more inherintly trustworthy in that respect than anything else. To then take those tools and throw them away at the very moment when they would help you the most is insanity. Why give us tools that work *so well* for everything else and yet seemingly lead us astray on the most important issue ever?

> For whatever reason, God expects trust in Him
>to come first, and the explanation follows.
>First believe in him and trust him (faith) and
>then the explanations that reason and logic can
>confirm come afterward.

This is simple recursion. To believe, you must first believe. It's illogical and irrational, and in my mind, very dangerous. To have this be the foundation of everything you (general you) pattern your life after is repugnant to me.


>God doesn't tend to prove himself to a skeptic,
>but he does reveal himself to someone trusting
>in him, and the farther that trust extends, the
>more God substantiates later.

Again, recursion. Again, why give us these powerful tools of understanding then "punish" those who use them rigorously and honestly?

>God holds up a little faith with a little
>justification, which paves the way for more
>faith and more justification, and so on. In
>such matters of faith, belief comes before the
>evidence, instead of the other way around. It
>is thus that the faith becomes founded: if
>twenty leaps of faith are made that are later
>substantiated, is it not rational to make a
>twenty first leap of faith to trust that
>something seemingly awry is not?

Sure. But how has God "substantiated" your belief in him? I know you'll agree with me that God doesn't come down from on high and give you a sandwich when you're hungry just because you believe in him. But maybe he has someone walk by with a jug of water right when you're most thirsty? Is that the kind of substantiation you're talking about?

If it is, then I have a much better explanation for that. It's called coincidence, and selective remembering. You remember the time the guy wandered by with a jug of water when you were most thirsty, but forget all the times you were really thirsty and nobody showed up and you had to make do for yourself.

I have a friend out here who is Christian who I have occaisionally gotten into debates with on this subject. He said much the same things you said in this post--his faith in God is strengthened by all the things he sees in his life, all the little ways things just seem to "work out" for him.

I counter that with my own story. I've never really been a Christian. Never really had faith in God. Yet, I've lived what a lot of people would call a "blessed" life. Everything big in my life has always seemed to just present itself to me at the right time. I went to college and majored in English. Before I even had to start thinking about how I was going to make a living with a stupid English degree, I fell into my first job at the USGS working with computers. Just when things were going bad there, out of the blue my friend called and started the chain of events that moved me out to Colorado. I got laid off last year. Just at the very moment my funds were running out and I was trying to figure out how I was going to live another month, I got a job.

Now I can anticipate your answer. You're going to say that God is working in my life even though I don't accept him. But then you have to wonder, why is someone who is faithful to God like Darien washing dishes for minimum wage because he couldn't find a job he really liked that paid well while some heathen like me makes $30 an hour for surfing the web all day? To me, that really seems to negate the whole "God is working in my life to help me" thing, if he'll lend more help to someone who refuses to even acknowledge his contribution than he will to someone who already believes in him. Sort of takes all the incentive out of believing in him, too.

> When it comes to the nitpicking issues that you
>raise, I'm always torn between whether or not to
>discuss them or not, even in conjunction with
>the bigger picture. I have thoughts about the
>nitpicks you raise. The thing is, issues about
>apparent biblical contradictions are closer to
>the twenty first leap of faith than the first.

And I say you've got it backwards. You say below that the *first* step is to find if the Bible is the unerring Word of God. So saying here that it's the 21st step is a little strange. Besides, how *else* do you expect me, a logical and rational being, to find out if the Bible is the unerring Word of God other than to approach it as I would *everything else* in this world, which is logically and rationally? So when I find these small details, I say "Ah-ha. A contradiction. Logically, then, this can't all be the inspired Word of God if parts of it contradict other parts. Guess I can stop reading now."

Sure, the Bible instructs me to read it another way. But then we're back at recursion. In order to believe in the Bible, I must first believe it when it says I have to read it this certain way in order to believe it.

> The first step is to establish whether or not
>the Bible is the unerring Word of God, Truth
>with a capital T. If it is not, the nitpicks
>you raise are moot; if it is, then maybe then,
>or a few leaps of faith further down the chain
>of prerequisites, one gets to where it makes
>sense to resolve those matters -- first, as with
>all steps, with the faith that somehow it makes
>sense, then seeking or awaiting the answer with
>prayer, patience, and continued faith.

Uh, no. Like I said above, if the nitpicks do show that the Bible contradicts itself, I can stop reading, because I've discovered that it is *not* the unerring Word of God.

> Because taking that path, instead of the
>reverse, has you approach the matter of those
>apparent contradictions from a decidedly
>different perspective.

Right. So what you're saying is that you get to re-inforce your belief if you first believe. More circular reasoning.

> Hopefully I've illustrated how different the
>issue of apparent biblical contradictions looks
>from the perspective of one who is already sold
>on its divine authorship.

Sure it does. But my ENTIRE POINT is that the logical, rational way to determine if it is INDEED divinely inspired is to look at the small things. Because if the small things don't fit, it doesn't matter what else fits or doesn't fit.

> There's more to it than that, though. In
>reading the Bible with an open mind and heart,
>the Holy Spirit works in one to reveal Himself
>to the individual. "Faith cometh by hearing,
>and hearing by the word of God," so says a verse
>in Romans.

So what does the Holy Spirit do, exactly? How do you know it's working within you? And again, you're using a passage from the Bible to justify the path of reasoning that lead you to believe the Bible was divinely inspired.


>Faith, you see, is not a step one has to make
>all on one's own, and if it were I'd give more
>weight to the thought that learning by faith is
>an irrational course. But Hebrews says that
>Jesus is "the author and finisher of [our]
>faith." Essentially, the fact that I *have*
>faith in God is because God himself inspired
>that faith within me.

Again, a passage from the Bible to justify the Bible. Again, circular reasoning. You only believe that God gave you faith because the Bible told you he did. And you only believe what the Bible says because of that faith. It's a big circle, round and round.

>Why did he do that for me and not others? I
>hesitate to speak for God, but I believe it is
>because I believed.

So then why does he help me? Probably you'll say he's not helping me. Satan's probably helping me, to lead me astray. In that case, I say that God's pretty feeble if he won't give Darien a leg-up *and* won't stop Satan from helping me out and reinforcing my non-belief in him.


>God respects our free will

God negates our free will, but we won't have that stupid discussion again, I promise. ;-)

> It's all a matter of perspective. If you don't
>believe in God, the path of faith does not make
>sense. And if you start down that path of faith
>even so, it does.

It's all a matter of circular logic. If you don't have faith, faith doesn't make sense. I can't think of anything quite as wrong-headed, honestly.

Disclaimer: We "fight" like this all the time. I'm still your friend. Don't get upset with me. ;-)

-- Dave