• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

How good is science as a religion?

joelr

Well-Known Member
Nope, it's YHWH, as Elohim came later.


In the early Deuteronomy it was EL who gave Israel to Yahweh. El was the supreme Canaanite deity and the Israelites came from Canaan.

Specific deities known as 'El or 'Il include the supreme god of the ancient Canaanite religion[

According to The Oxford Companion to World Mythology,

It seems almost certain that the God of the Jews evolved gradually from the Canaanite El, who was in all likelihood the "God of Abraham" ... If El was the high God of Abraham—Elohim, the prototype of Yahveh—Asherah was his wife, and there are archaeological indications that she was perceived as such before she was in effect "divorced" in the context of emerging Judaism of the 7th century BCE. (See 2 Kings 23:15.)[43]


an early version of Deuteronomy 32: 8-9 calls the highest God Elyon another name for the canaanite God El

"When Elyon gave the nations as an inheritance, when he separated the sons of man, he set the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God (bny 'l[hym]). For Yahweh's portion was his people; Jacob was the lot of his inheritance".


Ashera was also a Canaanite goddess who was the consort of Yahweh for a time. When the OT was canonized around 500BC she was left out as the theology had changed.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
In the early Deuteronomy it was EL who gave Israel to Yahweh. El was the supreme Canaanite deity and the Israelites came from Canaan.
The "Cult of YHWH" significantly predates the writing of Deuteronomy.
 

Five Solas

Active Member
OK, but know he is not a believer, and does not support a divine Jesus or the biblical mythology about his life.
Hi,

I understand that. My argumentation with him is, therefore, not directly religious, rather more academic, so to speak. I pointed out to him that even within the field of scholarship his views are regarded as radical and fringe. Even hardened skeptics disagree. Only a handful of scholars entertain that line of reasoning.

Those who do not believe - i.e. do not have saving faith - can not understand the things of God. They will try every excuse under the sun.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Hi,

I understand that. My argumentation with him is, therefore, not directly religious, rather more academic, so to speak. I pointed out to him that even within the field of scholarship his views are regarded as radical and fringe. Even hardened skeptics disagree. Only a handful of scholars entertain that line of reasoning.
Ehrman interview. Interesting:

Those who do not believe - i.e. do not have saving faith - can not understand the things of God. They will try every excuse under the sun.
So the only ones who "understand the things of God" are those who already believe?! One can't understand the doctrine till one already believes in it?

How did the faithful come to believe, if they couldn't evaluate the belief till they'd already accepted it? If not based on facts, evidence or analysis, their faith sounds like it was a product of emotion or intellectual laziness.

"...every excuse under the sun?" Excuse for what, for not believing in something poorly evidenced; something you say can't be understood?
This demands no excuse. It's the epistemic default. It's believers who have claims to excuse; claims you're saying cannot be understood without previous acceptance.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I love how you first say "no" when accused of not understand what peer review is all about, only to then proceed in demonstrating that you still have no clue what peer review is all about............
Apparently he believes all knowledge is emotional, a gut feeling, and that facts, reason and analysis count for nothing real.:shrug:
 

cladking

Well-Known Member
Apparently he believes all knowledge is emotional, a gut feeling, and that facts, reason and analysis count for nothing real.:shrug:

Believers have nothing except semantical arguments and strawmen. They have tactics rather than reason.

All true knowledge is experiential. We can act on experiential knowledge but the rest of the time we act on our beliefs. We see our beliefs and become our beliefs.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Believers have nothing except semantical arguments and strawmen. They have tactics rather than reason.

All true knowledge is experiential. We can act on experiential knowledge but the rest of the time we act on our beliefs. We see our beliefs and become our beliefs.
How many "trues" are there? Personal experience only, seems to lead to a great many, widely divergent truths.
 

Five Solas

Active Member
I am a Christian and the views I express are biblical.

So the only ones who "understand the things of God" are those who already believe?! One can't understand the doctrine till one already believes in it?

How did the faithful come to believe, if they couldn't evaluate the belief till they'd already accepted it? If not based on facts, evidence or analysis, their faith sounds like it was a product of emotion or intellectual laziness.

"...every excuse under the sun?" Excuse for what, for not believing in something poorly evidenced; something you say can't be understood?
This demands no excuse. It's the epistemic default. It's believers who have claims to excuse; claims you're saying cannot be understood without previous acceptance.

If you do not believe in God you do not believe the Scriptures either. It is a fact. That is the way it is. That is the reality.

Christians believe in God.
Non-Christians do not believe in God.
Fact.
Then we change more and more = Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect. Rom 12:2

So the only ones who "understand the things of God" are those who already believe?!

Yes.
Why? Because all Christians are born again. That simply means we had been changed by God from a non-believer into a believer.

Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come. “ Cor 5:17

Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Romans 12:2

For everyone who has been born of God overcomes the world. And this is the victory that has overcome the world—our faith. 1 Jn 5:4

Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God, and everyone who loves the Father loves whoever has been born of him.1 Jn 5:1

One can't understand the doctrine till one already believes in it?

Yes.
Christian doctrine is simply an exposition of biblical teaching – nothing more. Anyone can understand the words (read the Bible) but the words have no deeper meaning without one first believing in God.

Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, Rom 12:2


How did the faithful come to believe,

By amazing grace. They were given faith by God. Grace means you do not earn it or deserve it - its a frre gift. The moment of salvation is the moment of first coming to faith. I.e. by believing God (the person) - and in God (what He has done).


if they couldn't evaluate the belief till they'd already accepted it?

You must have heard that Christians are not saved by their deeds – good. We cannot do anything to be saved.

Get this right ---- We are saved by faith alone. I.e. we are saved by believing in God. We cannot do anything to start believing. No deeds. No intellectual understanding. No logical reasoning. Those are all deeds. Our intellect does not generate saving faith in God. It does not work that way.


God gives faith. Faith first – then understanding – then intellectual pursuit with a clear understanding of the things of God.

If not based on facts, evidence or analysis, their faith sounds like it was a product of emotion or intellectual laziness.

No one comes to faith in God based of the evidence because those who do not believe the evidence simply do not believe. Look at this board!! Skeptics do not accept the biblical message, history and evidence. They simply do not.

If God does not change people, they cannot come to faith in Him. God works faith in people. Then they become Christians. It is not a decision...

Faith first…

"...every excuse under the sun?" Excuse for what, for not believing in something poorly evidenced; something you say can't be understood?

Oh, the evidence is excellent and sufficient and can be understood by those with saving faith. It is that simple. It is not believed and, therefore, neither understood. It is just the way it is.

This demands no excuse. It's the epistemic default. It's believers who have claims to excuse; claims you're saying cannot be understood without previous acceptance.

As I have said, the evidence is there but is not believed. Strange that only Christians believe it, isn’t it? Does that not tell you something?

So, claiming intellectual pursuit with the aim to understand God or come to faith in Him will not make anyone a Christian. If it does happen, it is still because God generated faith because many intellectuals study Scripture in detail and never come to faith whilst many come to faith without first studying Scripture in detail to first convince themselves of the facts.
 

cladking

Well-Known Member
How many "trues" are there? Personal experience only, seems to lead to a great many, widely divergent truths.

There is one truth and an infinite number of perspectives of it. Every perspective provides only a glimpse.

One can have an experience without gaining any experiential knowledge.

You seem to believe that every scientists sees and describes the same truth but the reality is every model is different. There are no two humans exactly alike. Scientists are so successful not because of the truth that believers in science thinks gives them an inside track on understanding reality but because every model ultimately reflects experiment and experiment reflects reality. Scientists are successful because they don't believe in science.

Believers in science are doing it wrong and as such "science" is the most dangerous religion that has ever existed.
 

cladking

Well-Known Member
Oh, my word...

I was really referring to believers in science but it's mostly true for all believers.

Everybody always makes sense in terms of his premises and people choose these beliefs and usually don't want to share them because they are often attacked. People usually don't like having their core beliefs addressed by others so rather than engaging in real debate they create semantical arguments and twist those of their opponent. They engage in tactics rather than simply trying to defend core beliefs.

We are homo omnisciencis and a defining characteristic of our species is that we reason in circles. We acquire language and thereby select from lists of beliefs. We use these beliefs to think and act. Even what we are able to see and experience is dependent on our beliefs so we are each different and each think differently. We don't see these differences so much because we tend to hang around like minded people and even more because we parse each others sentences to make sense to ourselves.

Obviously many beliefs are true or have a great deal of truth in them so these won't damage the results of thought much but other beliefs are false or mostly false and reasoning that proceeds from them is usually largely false. Since we are dependent on beliefs they aren't in themselves such a bad thing. The problem is that most people don't examine or identify their beliefs. Instead they take them as truth, givens, or as being axiomatic. They can't think in any other way.

Very few beliefs are obviously and patently false (in all probability) but some of those which are are highly destructive to the human spirit and to humanity. One of the worst ones is the widespread belief among ordinary people and scholars that humans were once primitive, barbaric, ignorant, and superstitious. This belief has obscured our history and our true nature while obviously being false and hackneyed. How could such people invent agriculture, cities, and religion? There are numerous such false beliefs underlying our "perfection". These beliefs are causing us to damage ourselves and our environment while wasting vast resources. They are causing us to act in ways that damage ourselves, the commonweal, and the human spirit.
 

Quintessence

Consults with Trees
Staff member
Premium Member
Well, I'm very late to this thread party so I won't write much of a response.

As someone who regularly and heavily incorporates sciences into their religious tradition it makes me very sad that so few English-speaking folks recognize how incredibly valuable the sciences are a as a foundation for religious traditions. I mean, this by itself, guys, is an astounding basis for weaving a deeply meaningful creation mythology:

What Is The Great Story?
 

cladking

Well-Known Member
Well, I'm very late to this thread party so I won't write much of a response.

As someone who regularly and heavily incorporates sciences into their religious tradition it makes me very sad that so few English-speaking folks recognize how incredibly valuable the sciences are a as a foundation for religious traditions. I mean, this by itself, guys, is an astounding basis for weaving a deeply meaningful creation mythology:

What Is The Great Story?

"When I say religion I do not mean merely a theology involving belief in a supernatural god or gods; nor do I mean merely a system of ethics, however exalted; nor only scientific knowledge, however extensive; nor just a practical social morality, however admirable or efficient. I mean an organized system of ideas and emotions which relate man to his destiny, beyond and above the practical affairs of every day, transcending the present and the existing systems of law and social structure."

Now more than ever before in human history we have the means of tying everything together into an integrated whole. But people are still locked into their own little parochial understandings of things. They still want to fight us against them. They still refuse to see the commonalities and interdependence of science and beliefs. They refuse to see that science sprang from religion and can't conceive of the simple fact that religion sprang from ancient science.

They can't see that reality is digital because it feels analog to our species.

Science is a powerful tool for understanding reality but it is a horrible religion.
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
Then please show me a historian who thinks otherwise?
The expert scholar on the Persian religion is Mary Boyce. She found that they had myths dating to at least 1700 BCE of a coming world savior, virgin born who would save humanity, the Revelation story, an uncreated God who was eternally at war with their devil and several other things not in Jewish theology but was in the NT. The Persians occupied Israel in 500BCE and allowed the Hebrew kings to return from exile.
This is from pg 29 of her book:

Historically, the unique features of Zoroastrianism, such as its monotheism,[5] messianism, belief in free will and judgement after death, conception of heaven, hell, angels, and demons, among other concepts, may have influenced other religious and philosophical systems, including the Abrahamic religions and Gnosticism,[6][7][8] Northern Buddhism,[7] and Greek philosophy

Every other aspect is from Greek Hellenism. And of course Judaism because that was the religion that they added it all to.

Again, from Britannica because I'm not typing out books,

Hellenistic religion
-the seasonal drama was homologized to a soteriology (salvation concept) concerning the destiny, fortune, and salvation of the individual after death.
-his led to a change from concern for a religion of national prosperity to one for individual salvation, from focus on a particular ethnic group to concern for every human. The prophet or saviour replaced the priest and king as the chief religious figure.
-his process was carried further through the identification of the experiences of the soul that was to be saved with the vicissitudes of a divine but fallen soul, which had to be redeemed by cultic activity and divine intervention. This view is illustrated in the concept of the paradoxical figure of the saved saviour, salvator salvandus.
-Other deities, who had previously been associated with national destiny (e.g., Zeus, Yahweh, and Isis), were raised to the status of transcendent, supreme
-The temples and cult institutions of the various Hellenistic religions were repositories of the knowledge and techniques necessary for salvation and were the agents of the public worship of a particular deity. In addition, they served an important sociological role. In the new, cosmopolitan ideology that followed Alexander’s conquests, the old nationalistic and ethnic boundaries had broken down and the problem of religious and social identity had become acute.


-Most of these groups had regular meetings for a communal meal that served the dual role of sacramental participation (referring to the use of material elements believed to convey spiritual benefits among the members and with their deity)
-Hellenistic philosophy (Stoicism, Cynicism, Neo-Aristotelianism, Neo-Pythagoreanism, and Neoplatonism) provided key formulations for Jewish, Christian, and Muslim philosophy, theology, and mysticism through the 18th century
- The basic forms of worship of both the Jewish and Christian communities were heavily influenced in their formative period by Hellenistic practices, and this remains fundamentally unchanged to the present time. Finally, the central religious literature of both traditions—the Jewish Talmud (an authoritative compendium of law, lore, and interpretation), the New Testament, and the later patristic literature of the early Church Fathers—are characteristic Hellenistic documents both in form and content.
-Other traditions even more radically reinterpreted the ancient figures. The cosmic or seasonal drama was interiorized to refer to the divine soul within man that must be liberated.
-Each persisted in its native land with little perceptible change save for its becoming linked to nationalistic or messianic movements (centring on a deliverer figure)
-and apocalyptic traditions (referring to a belief in the dramatic intervention of a god in human and natural events)
- Particularly noticeable was the success of a variety of prophets, magicians, and healers—e.g., John the Baptist, Jesus, Simon Magus, Apollonius of Tyana, Alexander the Paphlagonian, and the cult of the healer Asclepius—whose preaching corresponded to the activities of various G

Wow, that pretty much covers everything in Christianity.
I already posted the Sanders, Wright and Hundley passages showing basically the same information except they included souls that can get to heaven by being redeemed was a Greek invention and adopted by the Hebrews.



and again from worldhistory:

whttps://www.worldhistory.org/article/94/the-hellenistic-world-the-world-of-alexander-the-g/

Hellenistic thought is evident in the narratives which make up the books of the Bible as the Hebrew Scriptures were revised and canonized during the Second Temple Period (c.515 BCE-70 CE), the latter part of which was during the Hellenic Period of the region. The gospels and epistles of the Christian New Testament were written in Greek and draw on Greek philosophy and religion as, for example, in the first chapter of the Gospel of John in which the word becomes flesh, a Platonic concept.


Now please. can you come back with some actual facts or are all your beliefs based on fantasy and imagination? so how exactly are all these scholars writing "nonsense"??????????
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
If you do not believe in God you do not believe the Scriptures either. It is a fact. That is the way it is. That is the reality.

Christians believe in God.
Non-Christians do not believe in God.
Fact.
Then we change more and more = Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect. Rom 12:2


Actually it's an opinion. Because over 1 billion Muslims believe the same about you not believing in the true words of God in the Quran. That is also an opinion. Neither of you have facts to back it up, just ancient stories.

Oh look I can post scripture also, wow it must be true because it says so. - And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah, and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah. That is their saying with their mouths. They imitate the saying of those who disbelieved of old. Allah (Himself) fighteth against them. How perverse are they!
REPENTANCE 30

Hijacking "God" to be only Yahweh is ridiculous. In scripture Yahweh is no different than any other ancient deity since the Sumerians.
OT Hebrew Professor Francesca Stavrakopoulou details this in her latest book showing the actions, words, deeds and theology of Yahweh in the OT is the same old stuff as Mesopotamians and so on. She gives examples of the first author Edheduanna writing about Inana.

Christian theologians (way after Biblical times) shaped who the modern Yahweh is and they all used Greek theology for that as well. Mostly Platonic ideas.

This Pastor does historical lectures on Christianity, here he goes over the main theologians and what they took from Plato and other Greek philosophy


59:32 - Pastor - "In some sense the triumph of Christianity is the taking of Greco-Roman philosophy and delivering it to the masses, even though they (the masses) were unaware of it....."

Yes.
Why? Because all Christians are born again. That simply means we had been changed by God from a non-believer into a believer.

Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come. “ Cor 5:17

Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Romans 12:2

For everyone who has been born of God overcomes the world. And this is the victory that has overcome the world—our faith. 1 Jn 5:4

Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God, and everyone who loves the Father loves whoever has been born of him.1 Jn 5:1


Again, opinion based on fantasy. I also was a believer, I was convinced by a story and by people, same as you. Then I tried to justify my beliefs with facts and they do not exist.





Yes.
Christian doctrine is simply an exposition of biblical teaching – nothing more. Anyone can understand the words (read the Bible) but the words have no deeper meaning without one first believing in God.

Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, Rom 12:2


That is a lame apologetic. The difference is when you believe in that God you think the words are divine. Then when you see that is a bunch of BS you understand they are myths written by people.


By amazing grace. They were given faith by God. Grace means you do not earn it or deserve it - its a frre gift. The moment of salvation is the moment of first coming to faith. I.e. by believing God (the person) - and in God (what He has done).

Salvation is a Greek mythology. Faith is the excuse every religion and cult uses and it isn't a path to truth. Clearly faith leads to false beliefs because it's used in every religion ever.
I can take any position on faith, race supremecy, gender, whatever.



You must have heard that Christians are not saved by their deeds – good. We cannot do anything to be saved.

Get this right ---- We are saved by faith alone. I.e. we are saved by believing in God. We cannot do anything to start believing. No deeds. No intellectual understanding. No logical reasoning. Those are all deeds. Our intellect does not generate saving faith in God. It does not work that way.


God gives faith. Faith first – then understanding – then intellectual pursuit with a clear understanding of the things of God.

Great because I had faith. It's an excuse to believe a story people are selling. There is no magic understanding, you just think the stories are true.


No one comes to faith in God based of the evidence because those who do not believe the evidence simply do not believe. Look at this board!! Skeptics do not accept the biblical message, history and evidence. They simply do not.

If God does not change people, they cannot come to faith in Him. God works faith in people. Then they become Christians. It is not a decision...

Faith first…

Then why can't you give any evidence? There are billions in Islam and Hinduism because "faith first". So that is clearly a fail.



Oh, the evidence is excellent and sufficient and can be understood by those with saving faith. It is that simple. It is not believed and, therefore, neither understood. It is just the way it is.

Then why haven't you been able to provide one single shred of evidence beyond "just have faith"?



As I have said, the evidence is there but is not believed. Strange that only Christians believe it, isn’t it? Does that not tell you something?

So, claiming intellectual pursuit with the aim to understand God or come to faith in Him will not make anyone a Christian. If it does happen, it is still because God generated faith because many intellectuals study Scripture in detail and never come to faith whilst many come to faith without first studying Scripture in detail to first convince themselves of the facts.


Not only do ONLY Christians believe it but there are many many deconversions. Bart Ehrman the historian is one. He was a fundamentalist Christian. So even Christians are not believing it. But yes it does tell us something. That you use massive confirmation and cognitive bias. One great example is "just have faith", a easily demonstrated flawed position.
Next is every apologetic that is pseudo-science and can easily be shown to be nonsense.

This entire answer above is a strawman. What happens is the same in every religion. People set sold a story and they buy into it.
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
The "Cult of YHWH" significantly predates the writing of Deuteronomy.


Yes there was a cult but it looks like there was a supreme deity El who ruled over the national Gods like Yahweh. Yahweh wasn't "God" as modern theology says. That was developed over a long time, he was a warrior deity at first.
Genesis is written around 6 BCE but early cults may have had different ideas as to who was supreme.
 

Five Solas

Active Member
I was really referring to believers in science but it's mostly true for all believers.

Everybody always makes sense in terms of his premises and people choose these beliefs and usually don't want to share them because they are often attacked. People usually don't like having their core beliefs addressed by others so rather than engaging in real debate they create semantical arguments and twist those of their opponent. They engage in tactics rather than simply trying to defend core beliefs.

We are homo omnisciencis and a defining characteristic of our species is that we reason in circles. We acquire language and thereby select from lists of beliefs. We use these beliefs to think and act. Even what we are able to see and experience is dependent on our beliefs so we are each different and each think differently. We don't see these differences so much because we tend to hang around like minded people and even more because we parse each others sentences to make sense to ourselves.

Obviously many beliefs are true or have a great deal of truth in them so these won't damage the results of thought much but other beliefs are false or mostly false and reasoning that proceeds from them is usually largely false. Since we are dependent on beliefs they aren't in themselves such a bad thing. The problem is that most people don't examine or identify their beliefs. Instead they take them as truth, givens, or as being axiomatic. They can't think in any other way.

Very few beliefs are obviously and patently false (in all probability) but some of those which are are highly destructive to the human spirit and to humanity. One of the worst ones is the widespread belief among ordinary people and scholars that humans were once primitive, barbaric, ignorant, and superstitious. This belief has obscured our history and our true nature while obviously being false and hackneyed. How could such people invent agriculture, cities, and religion? There are numerous such false beliefs underlying our "perfection". These beliefs are causing us to damage ourselves and our environment while wasting vast resources. They are causing us to act in ways that damage ourselves, the commonweal, and the human spirit.

Thank you. This gives me a totally different perspective on your views. I think I mostly agree with what you said in this post.

I am, however, a devout Christian - orthodox Reformed - in line with the early Reformers. I hope you realize that anyone who describes himself as such knows what his/her beliefs are and why. I suppose I could also be described as a dogmatician. I know why I believe what I believe and I can make a biblical defense of the views I hold.

Saying that, I must sadly admit that modern individualism and big egos have infested the Christian church. That led to immense confusion and division to the extent that it has become almost impossible, for outsiders, to find the true Christian church. And people believe what they want to believe often making gods in their own image. As a whole, it would appear that the Christian church has become a 'collection' of seekers for the truth
 

Five Solas

Active Member
Actually it's an opinion.
No, that is what the Bible teaches and I share that stance.
Because over 1 billion Muslims believe the same
I am not a Muslim. Please discuss Islam with Muslims.
Christian theologians (way after Biblical times) shaped who the modern Yahweh is and they all used Greek theology for that as well.
Wrong. The Scriptures are the self-revelation of God. The Scriptures shaped the understanding we have of God.
Again, opinion based on fantasy.
Wrong again. The Bible is clear about being born again. In fact, what I said is based on the words of Jesus Himself
That is a lame apologetic.
Wrong again. It is true that Christian doctrine and dogmas are an exposition of biblical teaching – nothing more.
Salvation is a Greek mythology.
Wrong again. It was promised to Adam and Eve after they left paradise and the Scriptures are the history of salvation. You do not understand a thing, do you?
Then why can't you give any evidence?
Oh I can. The Bible teaches that no one comes to faith in God based of the evidence. Skeptics do not accept the biblical message, history, or evidence. They simply do not. Fact: Faith is a gift from God.
If God does not change people, they cannot come to faith in Him.
I also was a believer,
I doubt that.
Then why haven't you been able to provide one single shred of evidence beyond "just have faith"?
As I have stated clearly: the evidence is excellent and sufficient and can be understood by those with saving faith. It is that simple. It is not believed and, therefore, neither understood. It is just the way it is.

Bart Ehrman the historian is one. He was a fundamentalist Christian.
Good example. Intellectual pursuit with the aim to come to faith in Him will not make anyone a Christian. If it does happen that way. God gives faith - not the intellect. Many intellectuals study Scripture in detail and never come to faith whilst many come to faith without first studying Scripture in detail to first convince themselves of the facts. That is what we observe apart from
the Bible telling us so. We see that often.

This entire answer above is a strawman.
That would be the default stance of all non-believers. You cannot know the things of God because you do not believe in God. That is the fact of the matter...
 
Top