Atticus_Finch

Thank you for your welcome. I grew up in a Christian home and came to faith at a young age. However, I believe that all aspects of my "faith" are subject to inquiry and testing. I put "faith" in quotes because I find that my understanding of the term and how it is used by others often varies. I believe that the life, death and resurrection of Christ are historical facts. I have faith in the promises of God for the future. That faith is based on the evidence.

I believe that the bible, in its original form, is the inerrant word of God. I believe the current existing copies of the bible are largely accurate. I believe the OT canon is correct. I accept that there is valid debate with respect to the appropriateness of certain books in the NT cannon but because I find them consistent with the other canonical books I'm not to worried about that question from a pratical standpoint.

The bible should be taken literally where the language and context suggest that it should. Does that leave room for debate and possible equivication, yes. A literalist vs. allegorical dicothomy is therefore inappropriate. Portions of the scripture are obviously allegorical (i.e. Christ's parables) others are meant to be taken literally (i.e. the return of the Jews from captivity in Babylon and the resurrection of Christ from the dead)

I am a member of an Evangelical Presbyterian Church. It fits into the doctrinal category of "Reformed". However, my personal doctrine is not entirely consistent with the "Reformed" doctrine. One unfortunate aspect of the Christian Church is that it is peopled with people, who, even if actual sincere Christians, are still human and sinners.

Finally, a note with respect to the evidences upon which my faith is based. I am an attorney and trial lawyer. I work with the concept of evidence every day. I believe the evidence for the Christian faith is strong. I do not suppose that it is beyond question or reasoned disbelief. However, I find that many non-believers apply an incredibly high standard of proof to questions of religion which I can not imagine that they apply to other similar questions of life.

Finch

MOJO-JOJO

Originally posted by Atticus_Finch:
<strong>I am a member of an Evangelical Presbyterian Church. It fits into the doctrinal category of "Reformed". However, my personal doctrine is not entirely consistent with the "Reformed" doctrine. </strong>

I detected that your apologetics hinted of R.C. Sproul, whom I listened to for years. He IS good, but that is what keeps Ligonier Ministries in Busine$$ Especially the "First Cause" thing and "reasonable possibility that god exists"......I have that tape too, these are VERY R.C., but it remains anecdotal evidence at best.

<strong>Finally, a note with respect to the evidences upon which my faith is based. I am an attorney and trial lawyer. I work with the concept of evidence every day. I believe the evidence for the Christian faith is strong.</strong>

Yeah, another Josh McDowell apologetic too. His arguments have been demolished by many peer-reviewed essays on this site. Please read them. Also, spend about six months here diligently examining the evidence against the christian faith or any faith for that matter.....I believe you'll find it MUCH stronger. It only stands to reason of course, since you'll finally understand that they are all the construct of man.

Also, Philip Johnson and Chuck Colson wave the same legal credentials around, as if that makes their arguments any more sound, but their arguments and reasoning have been soundly refuted throughout this site.

<strong>I do not suppose that it is beyond question or reasoned disbelief. However, I find that many non-believers apply an incredibly high standard of proof to questions of religion which I can not imagine that they apply to other similar questions of life.

Finch</strong>

Oh I don't know, parts is parts as they say, it all has to fit and be cogent. The only real difference is that reason and clear logical thinking prevent us from elevating myth and unsupported hearsay to the level of reality. But if you want to call that a "high standard"...so be it.

[ March 21, 2002: Message edited by: MOJO-JOJO ]</p>

diana

I will start a string under "Existence of God(s)" regarding why atheists must, logically, accept the possibility that God exists.

Sure, if you'll accept the possibility that the IPU exists.

But where does that get us?

&lt;Off to read the thread. Welcome to the board, Atticus! I like your handle. TKAM is my all-time favorite novel.&gt;

d

Megatron

I will start a string under "Existence of God(s)" regarding why atheists must, logically, accept the possibility that God exists.

I don't deny the possibility of God's existence... I only deny its existence as defined by theistic dogma... in other words, the "God as defined by authority".

You will find that the case is similar with many others here.

AspenMama

This should be fun!

Pomp

Atticus_Finch,

I will start a string under "Existence of God(s)" regarding why atheists must, logically, accept the possibility that God exists.

Many of us are "weak atheists" who do not deny the possibility that some sort of god exists. We merely haven't seen any evidence that would lead us to that belief.

Mageth

I define myself as a strong atheist, and like most (AFAIK) I also don't go so far as to deny the (extremely remote) possibility of something we might refer to as "god." I simply lack a belief in any particular god.

These atheist/agnostic/theist categories are so damn confusing. If there was a god, she wouldn't have made it so confusing, would she? Ergo, there is no god!

Daggah

Atticus, if you believe the Bible is the "inerrant" word of god, does that mean you are a Young-Earther, or a Day-Ager? Do you believe in a global flood? What are your views on evolution?

Pomp

Mageth,

I define myself as a strong atheist, and like most (AFAIK) I also don't go so far as to deny the (extremely remote) possibility of something we might refer to as "god." I simply lack a belief in any particular god.

Sorry, didn't mean to misrepresent anyone.

These atheist/agnostic/theist categories are so damn confusing.

Tell me about it. Try explaining to family that you're both an agnostic and an atheist. It's fun watching the gears spin as they try to figure out what that means.

Atticus_Finch

Excellent question. I have been giving deep thought to this issue for some time. On the one hand, a young earth argument is easier from a biblical point of view. It does not require the twists and contortions of the text required by the day-ager or those who believe Genesis is mere allegory. On the other hand, in our society it certainly would be simpler to try to conform the bible to the popular science of the day. I call it the "popular science of the day" because although scientific knowledge seems very solid today, we have only to look back in history and see the many things we once firmly believed, based on science, were wrong. It would be supreme arrogance to assume that our children's children will not think we were ignorant simpletons.

My gut reaction, is to be a young earther. BUT, I believe that sincere, committed Christians who believe in the authority of scripture can believe in evolution and such.

I hope that answers your question.

Regards,

Finch