Truth claims? Christians..

[CU Alumnus]

I can highly recommend this book:

Very interesting read but a bit of a mind-blower in some ways. The authors take a lot of the arguments against the existence of God and turns them on their head.

 

[GoTigerz86]

I can highly recommend this book:

Very interesting read but a bit of a mind-blower in some ways. The authors take a lot of the arguments against the existence of God and turns them on their head.

This is a very good book to get introduced to apologetics. A few others I would recommend are:

On Guard by William Lane Craig
The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus by Michael Licona/Gary Habermas
The Reason For God by Timothy Keller

There are several excellent websites with apologetic information as well.

Reasonable Faith
Apologetics 315

 

[blythewood tigers]

I can highly recommend this book:

Very interesting read but a bit of a mind-blower in some ways. The authors take a lot of the arguments against the existence of God and turns them on their head.

Although I could personally care less, I have always found it interesting (a good topic for conversation) when people (like the Author) speak of the "truth" when it literally involves everything. When the truth is, in the grand scheme of things, its a proven fact we (collective human knowledge) know next to nothing.

As an example, nobody ITT (or the author) could tell me everything there is to know about a very "simple" object like a pencil. But yet, the author can tell me in a book who or what they think allowed the pencil to even exist, let alone the object they know nothing about? No offense to any religious people, but this type of logic is clinically insane.

 

[CU Alumnus]

Although I could personally care less, I have always found it interesting (a good topic for conversation) when people (like the Author) speak of the "truth" when it literally involves everything. When the truth is, in the grand scheme of things, its a proven fact we (collective human knowledge) know next to nothing.

As an example, nobody ITT (or the author) could tell me everything there is to know about a very "simple" object like a pencil. But yet, the author can tell me in a book who or what they think allowed the pencil to even exist, let alone the object they know nothing about? No offense to any religious people, but this type of logic is clinically insane.

Have you actually read the book?

 

[DieHard4Clemson]

That reminds me of a similar argument.

Although I could personally care less, I have always found it interesting (a good topic for conversation) when people (like the Author) speak of the "truth" when it literally involves everything. When the truth is, in the grand scheme of things, its a proven fact we (collective human knowledge) know next to nothing.

As an example, nobody ITT (or the author) could tell me everything there is to know about a very "simple" object like a pencil. But yet, the author can tell me in a book who or what they think allowed the pencil to even exist, let alone the object they know nothing about? No offense to any religious people, but this type of logic is clinically insane.

Christianity only claims to know what’s been revealed to mankind by God and Jesus.

 

[blythewood tigers]

Have you actually read the book?

Nope, know of the author though.

 

[husspuppy]

I agree all sins are equal. Think some is missing the point. You can do good works that will bring glory to God or you can choose to do evil things. I believe Rev. Billy Graham was a good man. I believe Charles Manson was a bad man. They are a difference.

I hear you. However, I would argue that Judas committed the most heinous sin ever, yet God was glorified because of what Christ accomplished and prophecy was fulfilled (Acts 1). Just saying God draws straight lines with crooked sticks, and believers, like Billy Graham, are not the only ones that bring God glory.
There is a difference, but we walk a fine line of limiting God in our minds.

 

[blythewood tigers]

That reminds me of a similar argument.

View embedded media

Christianity only claims to know what’s been revealed to mankind by God and Jesus.

Yep, but again, think of the logic involved. It is like giving someone directions in reverse but exponentially more severe/complicated. In other words, your given the "destination" (Heaven/God in religious terms) but you have to figure literally everything else out.

You (rhetorically speaking or the author) can tell me who or what created everything, but you can't tell me anything about what was created. How is this even remotely logical?

 

[tigers_and_valves]

That reminds me of a similar argument.

View embedded media

Christianity only claims to know what’s been revealed to mankind by God and Jesus.

lol we are one step closer to knowing tooth fairy as well then. In fact this guy has it backwards. There is no question where science was once the authority, but now that authority has been conceited to the church.

 

[BionicTiger]

Although I could personally care less, I have always found it interesting (a good topic for conversation) when people (like the Author) speak of the "truth" when it literally involves everything. When the truth is, in the grand scheme of things, its a proven fact we (collective human knowledge) know next to nothing.

As an example, nobody ITT (or the author) could tell me everything there is to know about a very "simple" object like a pencil. But yet, the author can tell me in a book who or what they think allowed the pencil to even exist, let alone the object they know nothing about? No offense to any religious people, but this type of logic is clinically insane.

Irony abounds...

 

[ChicagoTiger85]

I wish I was naive enough to believe in a book of hokum that promised me everlasting life in a paradise. Hate to burst the bubble, but once you die you’re worm food. Nothing more.

LOL. We got one.

 

[ChicagoTiger85]

This is a very good book to get introduced to apologetics. A few others I would recommend are:

On Guard by William Lane Craig
The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus by Michael Licona/Gary Habermas
The Reason For God by Timothy Keller

There are several excellent websites with apologetic information as well.

Reasonable Faith
Apologetics 315

For those who want some very theologically and philosophically thick arguments, there's also David Bentley Hart. He's not primarily an apologist, but all Christian theologians have a little apologist in them because they believe Christianity is more compelling and truthful than other ways of thinking.

https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/atheist-delusions-david-bentley-hart/1123645917?ean=9780300164299

https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/th...vid-bentley-hart/1122992913?ean=9780802829214

https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/th...vid-bentley-hart/1125545439?ean=9780300209358


Hart also wrote a history of Christianity which I'm sure is good (@Larry_Williams): https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/th...vid-bentley-hart/1124304151?ean=9781623654160

 

[UNSWERVINGLY]

Good stuff @Essolover4. Thanks for sharing!

 

[ChicagoTiger85]

Although I could personally care less, I have always found it interesting (a good topic for conversation) when people (like the Author) speak of the "truth" when it literally involves everything. When the truth is, in the grand scheme of things, its a proven fact we (collective human knowledge) know next to nothing.

As an example, nobody ITT (or the author) could tell me everything there is to know about a very "simple" object like a pencil. But yet, the author can tell me in a book who or what they think allowed the pencil to even exist, let alone the object they know nothing about? No offense to any religious people, but this type of logic is clinically insane.

I don't really follow you. Aren't you talking about two separate things? On the one hand, you seem to be saying that the only way of talking about "truth" is in reference to a kind of factual-scientific truth which can never be all-encompassing because it's based on inductive reasoning that's always incomplete. Nobody thinks they'll ever know all there is to know scientifically, so that's not what's being claimed.

Instead, what's being claimed is a knowledge of certain things that would allow the facts we can discover to be true. There's no reason why you'd have to know every little factual detail before you could make more general claims about the way things. In fact, you need to start from certain assumptions- including what kinds of things we're going to investigate and pay attention to when counting facts- to even begin investigating the world. You need certain first principles, or "metaphysics," to do empirical science, and a certain kind of metaphysics might tell us why we even care about doing science.

This might be helpful: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/metaphysics/

 

[dbjork6317]

I preferred the thread about potato chips.

What are you talking about? This thread is full of potatoes.

 

[CU Alumnus]

Nope,

I could tell.

 

[CU Alumnus]

I don't really follow you. Aren't you talking about two separate things? On the one hand, you seem to be saying that the only way of talking about "truth" is in reference to a kind of factual-scientific truth which can never be all-encompassing because it's based on inductive reasoning that's always incomplete. Nobody thinks they'll ever know all there is to know scientifically, so that's not what's being claimed.

Instead, what's being claimed is a knowledge of certain things that would allow the facts we can discover to be true. There's no reason why you'd have to know every little factual detail before you could make more general claims about the way things. In fact, you need to start from certain assumptions- including what kinds of things we're going to investigate and pay attention to when counting facts- to even begin investigating the world. You need certain first principles, or "metaphysics," to do empirical science, and a certain kind of metaphysics might tell us why we even care about doing science.

This might be helpful: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/metaphysics/

In the book that he was posting about, the authors divide the question of God's existence into several categories. The first one is the philosophical argument. One of the points he makes is that there is only one truth. There cannot be separate truths about the same topic.

Simple example - Clemson's normal home jerseys are orange. That is truth. It cannot be disputed. If someone believes they are green that doesn't make it true. This is a very simplistic example of course. So the question of "is there a God" is the same way. There either is or there isn't. There is none of this "God may exist for you but not for me" stuff.

They get pretty deep. It can blow your mind and/or confuse the hell out of you on first reading.

I cannot remember the whole book now but he also goes into the cosmological argument and several others. I don't know that they ever really "proved" that God exists but they show that the existence of God is a reasonable conclusion of the evidence.

 

[blythewood tigers]

Irony abounds...

In both dimensions...

 

[VTiger15]

This is a very good book to get introduced to apologetics. A few others I would recommend are:

On Guard by William Lane Craig
The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus by Michael Licona/Gary Habermas
The Reason For God by Timothy Keller

There are several excellent websites with apologetic information as well.

Reasonable Faith
Apologetics 315

Very good materials. Tim Keller is one of my favorites. He has fantastic studies. And, again, Ravi is a brilliant mind and amazing apologetic. I could listen to him for hours.

 

[BionicTiger]

In both dimensions...

 

[blythewood tigers]

I could tell.

That's like claiming you are psychic. Are you sure you really need to waste your time asking people like me questions? And, it would also seem you really don't need to read books either, just say'in

 

[CU Alumnus]

That's like claiming you are psychic. Are you sure you really need to waste your time asking people like me questions? And, it would also seem you really don't need to read books either, just say'in

Not psychic, but you seemed to not know much about the book in question. My church did a study on it a few years ago. Unfortunately I think I loaned my copy out afterwards never to be seen again. But I have it on my Kindle. And I did read it.

Why wouldn't I want to ask you questions?

 

[Essolover4]

Good stuff @Essolover4. Thanks for sharing!

That’s actually the verse that led Ravi to the Lord. He was in a hospital after trying to commit suicide.

 

[blythewood tigers]

I don't really follow you. Aren't you talking about two separate things? On the one hand, you seem to be saying that the only way of talking about "truth" is in reference to a kind of factual-scientific truth which can never be all-encompassing because it's based on inductive reasoning that's always incomplete. Nobody thinks they'll ever know all there is to know scientifically, so that's not what's being claimed.

Instead, what's being claimed is a knowledge of certain things that would allow the facts we can discover to be true. There's no reason why you'd have to know every little factual detail before you could make more general claims about the way things. In fact, you need to start from certain assumptions- including what kinds of things we're going to investigate and pay attention to when counting facts- to even begin investigating the world. You need certain first principles, or "metaphysics," to do empirical science, and a certain kind of metaphysics might tell us why we even care about doing science.

This might be helpful: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/metaphysics/

I agree, there is no so-called "truth" to science, but that's not my point.

When the above author (or any for that matter) makes a claim of "truth", it is not based on the same proven "factual-scientific" truth that you and I believe in when we turn the key on in our car. We "believe" the wheel won't fall off (if properly maintained) because it has been "proven" through many rigorous tests and through many scientific methods of tensile strength for every imaginable material. The consensus is, it's the truth.

My point is, if someone is going to make a claim of "truth" to me, then it better be proven. In other words, the WHOLE worlds population believes that a car wheel won't fall off, the simple question is, why don't all of these same people believe this so-called truth about Christianity? Doesn't it seem as though one would be much more significant than the other, if it was "true"....

 

[matthewstigers]

Saw about Duplanits on NBC last night. Truly sad that he is calling on his followers for $54 million for a new jet. He lives in a 35,000 square foot plantation mansion tax free. The next story showed an eight year old boy helping an old lady up stairs in the rain. She gave him a hug and he ran back and jumped in his parents car. Who do you think did the Lord’s work, and honored God?

 

[CU Alumnus]

Saw about Duplanits on NBC last night. Truly sad that he is calling on his followers for $54 million for a new jet. He lives in a 35,000 square foot plantation mansion tax free. The next story showed an eight year old boy helping an old lady up stairs in the rain. She gave him a hug and he ran back and jumped in his parents car. Who do you think did the Lord’s work, and honored God?

Sadly I used to think Duplantis was one of the good ones. Maybe that's because I was at Clemson with a guy who was his spitting image, abeit a few years younger. Seriously - they looked alike, sounded alike.......if I were his dad I would have had some serious questions for his mom! (No, not really but you get my point).

But I'm not much on televangelists. Billy Graham was one of the few good ones. I'm not so much a fan of his son Franklin though (get too political for my tastes).

That said - does Duplantis live tax-free? I know churches are tax exempt but preachers have to pay taxes.

That said - most of them are pretty darn good at getting every deduction they can without breaking the law (though many will bend the law until it screams.....). Maybe Duplantis found a tax out for his house.

This one is still my favorite - mainly because of his name. Creflo Dollar? Damn dude's not even trying to hide it. That takes some stones.

https://www.cnn.com/2015/03/16/opinions/posner-creflo-dollar-gulfstream/index.html

 

[ChicagoTiger85]

I agree, there is no so-called "truth" to science, but that's not my point.

When the above author (or any for that matter) makes a claim of "truth", it is not based on the same proven "factual-scientific" truth that you and I believe in when we turn the key on in our car. We "believe" the wheel won't fall off (if properly maintained) because it has been "proven" through many rigorous tests and through many scientific methods of tensile strength for every imaginable material. The consensus is, it's the truth.

My point is, if someone is going to make a claim of "truth" to me, then it better be proven. In other words, the WHOLE worlds population believes that a car wheel won't fall off, the simple question is, why don't all of these same people believe this so-called truth about Christianity? Doesn't it seem as though one would be much more significant than the other, if it was "true"....

I guess I still don't really follow you. Most people don't believe their wheels won't fall off because of the science and engineering that went into the materials, they believe it because of experience. In fact, Hume would argue that we can't ever experience causation, so we only believe that something caused something else because of the custom of attributing events to the event that we observe happening immediately prior. Anyway, the point is that people don't think in terms of science. Science is a different level of thinking that tells us some useful things, but it doesn't tell us everything that's useful for our lives, and in fact it doesn't touch most of human things.

As far as the general reliability of beliefs, doesn't nearly everybody believe in things that science doesn't really touch on, or for which science can't give a very compelling account? For instance, science can tell us how a car works and how to make materials to make a car work better, but it can't tell us very much about why we'd want to drive a car, or even why we do science. Science can help us get at certain truths about what there is, but it can't even tell us why we'd care what there is or why we'd want to know the kinds of things about what there is that science can tell us. Nearly everybody agrees that we should investigate things scientifically, and nearly everybody thinks cars are a good way to get around. It's nearly impossible not to care about truth.

 

[ChicagoTiger85]

Sadly I used to think Duplantis was one of the good ones. Maybe that's because I was at Clemson with a guy who was his spitting image, abeit a few years younger. Seriously - they looked alike, sounded alike.......if I were his dad I would have had some serious questions for his mom! (No, not really but you get my point).

But I'm not much on televangelists. Billy Graham was one of the few good ones. I'm not so much a fan of his son Franklin though (get too political for my tastes).

That said - does Duplantis live tax-free? I know churches are tax exempt but preachers have to pay taxes.

That said - most of them are pretty darn good at getting every deduction they can without breaking the law (though many will bend the law until it screams.....). Maybe Duplantis found a tax out for his house.

This one is still my favorite - mainly because of his name. Creflo Dollar? Damn dude's not even trying to hide it. That takes some stones.

https://www.cnn.com/2015/03/16/opinions/posner-creflo-dollar-gulfstream/index.html

So you'd actually heard of this guy?

 

[CU Alumnus]

So you'd actually heard of this guy?

Duplantis? Yeah - back in the late 90s while at Clemson. Only because of how close of a resemblance he had to my friend. Mutual friend showed a video of him and we all laughed our asses off at how close the resemblance was in looks, mannerisms, the whole bit. I don't know how well known he was back then.

Never sent him any money though.

This story was the first I had heard of him in years. I have never heard of Copeland until this came out.

 

[appalachiatiger]

humans have the ability to over think a grain of sand.

 

[Essolover4]

Not all Christians are good. Newsflash.

I agree with this

Matthew 7:15 King James Version (KJV)
15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves

whats this post mean ? There are a ton of false prophets. Joel Osteen ,etc. (prosperity preachers in general). Why would anyone lump Ravi Z in that category? He’s as authentic as they come . He’s not buying any jets. He’s flying beside losers like me lol

 

[funkbott]

View embedded media

Just watch. @Larry_Williams i know you are reading a book about Christ/Christianity.

Isn't this the guy that got called out for sexting some woman other than his wife, and then proceeded to threaten suicide after getting busted for it?

 

[funkbott]

Although I could personally care less, I have always found it interesting (a good topic for conversation) when people (like the Author) speak of the "truth" when it literally involves everything. When the truth is, in the grand scheme of things, its a proven fact we (collective human knowledge) know next to nothing.

As an example, nobody ITT (or the author) could tell me everything there is to know about a very "simple" object like a pencil. But yet, the author can tell me in a book who or what they think allowed the pencil to even exist, let alone the object they know nothing about? No offense to any religious people, but this type of logic is clinically insane.

As MF DOOM says, "the more you know, the more you know that you don't know sh!t"

 

[Essolover4]

Isn't this the guy that got called out for sexting some woman other than his wife, and then proceeded to threaten suicide after getting busted for it?

Ummm No. This is not the guy. It’s amazing to me that people lump Ravi with all the other false prophets/preachers. Honest Question....did you listen?? You took the time to comment on it but did you actually listen ?

 

[StSimonsIslandTiger]

Isn't this the guy that got called out for sexting some woman other than his wife, and then proceeded to threaten suicide after getting busted for it?

no

 

[scartiger]

I agree with this
whats this post mean ? There are a ton of false prophets. Joel Osteen ,etc. (prosperity preachers in general). Why would anyone lump Ravi Z in that category? He’s as authentic as they come . He’s not buying any jets. He’s flying beside losers like me lol

Isn't this the guy that got called out for sexting some woman other than his wife, and then proceeded to threaten suicide after getting busted for it?

no

Don't know nothing about the man. Not judging him at all. But as @funkbott mentioned he settled out of court with the woman. Has been other things brought up about the Doctrine degree and his education that didn't add up. He may be a great man of God that will be between him and the Lord.

 

[tigerson]

Great message op, thanks for sharing. I’m not sure why this man is getting lumped in with the false prophets albeit this is the only message I’ve ever heard of his, but nothing I heard in this one screams false prophet to me.

 

[funkbott]

Ummm No. This is not the guy. It’s amazing to me that people lump Ravi with all the other false prophets/preachers. Honest Question....did you listen?? You took the time to comment on it but did you actually listen ?

It's also amazing the way some people are so quick to get defensive and jump to conclusions. I wasn't saying anything about the man, the video, or whatever it is he has to say. I was just asking if he is the same guy I was thinking of

And to answer your question, no, I didn't watch the video. It's 45 minutes long. But yes, I did take the time (about 15 seconds) to ask my question.

Anything else?

 

[Essolover4]

It's also amazing the way some people are so quick to get defensive and jump to conclusions. I wasn't saying anything about the man, the video, or whatever it is he has to say. I was just asking if he is the same guy I was thinking of

And to answer your question, no, I didn't watch the video. It's 45 minutes long. But yes, I did take the time (about 15 seconds) to ask my question.

Anything else?

No.... thats fair

 

[Flat Rock`s Finest]

LOL. We got one.

This is hilarious!!!