| Author | Message | ||
     Admin (Admin) (38.136.62.186) Rating: |
At the University of Maine in Orono a student went running through the crowd crying out, "Science disproves the existence of God. Science disproves the existence of God." I asked, 'What are you talking about?" He said, 'You know, evolution. Evolution is a proven fact. Evolution disproves the existence of God." Evolution as an explanation of the origin of life is not a proven fact; it is a philosophy, a theory. But evolution as a description of a certain natural process in nature has much evidence supporting it. There are many Christian scientists and professors who believe in evolution as an accurate account of how some animals adapt to radiation, climate and topography. But they do not accept it as an explanation of how life began. The book of Genesis seeks to answer two questions concerning the origin of the world. The first is, Who created? The answer is clear in the opening verse of the book "In the beginning God" (Gen 1:1)-not "In the beginning hydrogen," not "In the beginning randomness."Rather, in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The second question is, Why did God create? The Scriptures clearly reveal that God created human beings in his own image for the purpose of living in a deep love relationship with God and in deep love relationships with each other. The book of Genesis does not seek to answer the question of how God created. I do not know how God created. No one does. It is entirely possible that God used the process of evolution to some extent to create life. Science is concerned about the observation and classification of facts. Science deals with natural processes. Genesis says nothing about these. I am grateful that the authors of the books in the Bible refrain from forcing into the text their scientific prejudice. There is a story from The London Observer illustrates the frailty of our understanding. A family of mice lived in a grand piano. They enjoyed listening to the music that came from the great player who they never saw, but who they believed in, because they enjoyed the music that came from the piano. One day one of the little mice got especially brave. He climbed deep into the bowels of the piano. He made an astonishing discovery. The music did not come from a great player; rather, the music came from wires that reverberated back and forth. The little mouse returned to his family tremendously excited.He informed his family that there was no great player who made the piano music; rather, there were these little wires that reverberated back and forth. The family of mice abandoned their belief in a great piano player.Instead they had a totally mechanistic view. One day another one of the little mice got especially brave. He climbed even further up into the bowels of the piano. To his amazement he found that indeed the music did not come from the reverberating wires, but rather from little hammers that struck the wires. It was those hammers that really made the music. He returned to his family with a new description of the source of the music. The family of mice rejoiced that they were so educated that they understood that there was no great piano player but that the music came from little hammers that struck the wires. The family of mice did not believe that there was a player playing the piano. Instead they believed that their mechanistic understanding of the universe explained all of reality. But the fact is that the player continued to play his music. Modern science has done much to uncover the natural processes in the world. Daily we are learning more and more about how this world operates. But just because we understand how things work does not mean that there is not an intelligent mind behind the process. Albert Einstein expressed an awe and respect for the superior spirit or mind behind the universe. We should not make the mistake of getting so caught up with how things work that we ignore the Creator, the highly intelligent mind that is behind the intricate process. | ||
| Timothy Campen Junior Member Username: tcampen Post Number: 15 Registered: 09-2003 Rating: |
"Evolution as an explanation of the origin of life is not a proven fact." This is an inaccurate statement. The study of the origin of life is area of science called "abiogenesis." Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life, but rather the diversity of life on our planet. These are two very different areas of science. | ||
| Timothy Campen Junior Member Username: tcampen Post Number: 16 Registered: 09-2003 Rating: |
...but certainly related. | ||
| Hanson Street Junior Member Username: hansonstreet22 Post Number: 15 Registered: 03-2004 Rating: N/A |
just throwing something out for discussion but im pretty sure you cant say science disproves God because isn't it a scientific law of matter that matter can't be created or destroyed | ||
| Timothy Campen Advanced Member Username: tcampen Post Number: 295 Registered: 09-2003 Rating: |
Ultimately, the atomic (and subatomic) components of matter cannot be created nor destroyed - so far as we can tell. Certianly, this is a falsifiable theory, but it as stood the test of time thus far. I would certainly reject the notion that science disproves. Science is agnostic towards such questions, as it only deals with the natural, and not the supernatural. As I've said before, science tell us why it rains - religioun tells us why it had to rain on my wedding day. The two are very different questions, and neither is particularly good at answering the other. If your post is begging the question, "if matter cannot be created or destroyed, then it had to come from somewhere, and god is the most reasonable explanation," then that's a different issue. But here's a response to such a question. If god created matter, then who or what created god? What's good for the goose and all... There are some interesting ideas about how the universe came into existence, including all the matter, energy and time that exists within it, but such hypotheses are almost impossible to prove - just as trying to prove whether a god or gods exist. The reason science doesn't get into such matters is because God is defined as a supernatural being where the rules of our natural universe simply do not apply. Science is utterly useless to analyze such a thing. | ||
| Hanson Street Junior Member Username: hansonstreet22 Post Number: 19 Registered: 03-2004 Rating: N/A |
i agree i think on most everything you said there Tim... my answer to your question about "If god created matter, then who or what created god?" Obviously would be nobody because he claims that he is the beginning and the end (alpha and the omega actually i think). That's the whole point of his supreme power. That nothing would have to create him if he's always been here. I figured you knew i would say this so i'm not going to go in to depth ont his conversation. | ||
| Timothy Campen Advanced Member Username: tcampen Post Number: 299 Registered: 09-2003 Rating: N/A |
The same could be said of matter and energy. It always has been, but just keeps transforming. If we're going to have rules, they should be applied consistently. I realize some bible writers attribute an eternal nature to god, and that's fine - it may even be accurate - but that's a impossible assertion to independently test. If it is to be accepted, it must be done on faith. That's fine, so long as it is recognized as such. | ||
| Hanson Street Junior Member Username: hansonstreet22 Post Number: 22 Registered: 03-2004 Rating: N/A |
Ha, so basically we get nowhere int his conversation. I sort of saw this coming thats why i didnt want to go in depth. Either way you look at it; it requires faith. For me i just find it hard to believe that there is no supreme power that arranged our universe. For others maybe they believe that its ridiculous to believe in a supreme power that could do such a thing. Yes you could argue that matter has just always been here. Just like you could argue God has always been here. One thing i think about is based on something Cliffe said. (I cant quote him because it's not exactly the way he said it) But he said something similar to... if you're walking down a beach and you see little wavy marks in the sand. Logically your like hey look at those wavy marks.. i bet those were made by the water crashing onto the beach. Then you keep walking downa dn you see Bob loves Jill. I logically think to myself i bet somebody wrote that there and the waves didn't create that pattern in the sand. That's sort of how I look at the universe. It seems like somebody had to have put thought into it and create it for everythign to make such sense. | ||
| Dave Geisler Junior Member Username: daveg Post Number: 22 Registered: 12-2003 Rating: |
I thought I would weigh in on some of the things that are being discussed and give you a few Bible verses that pertain to this. We are given by God the light of creation: Rom 1:19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God himself has made it plain to them. Rom 1:20 For since the creation of the world his invisible attributes-his eternal power and divine nature-have been understood and observed by what he made, so that people are without excuse. As HS has pointed out creation screams for a Creator. The other thing that we share and that God has woven into us is the light of conscience: Rom 2:14 When outsiders who have never heard of God's law follow it more or less by instinct, they confirm its truth by their obedience. Rom 2:15 They show that God's law is not something alien, imposed on us from without, but woven into the very fabric of our creation. There is something deep within them that echoes God's yes and no, right and wrong So that when we exercise the light of creation and the light of conscience and TRULY desire to know God (On his terms not ours...He is not a magic genie) He will make Himself known and has in the incarnation of Jesus Christ. I am not preaching to anyone just giving some general points to ponder... | ||
| Timothy Campen Advanced Member Username: tcampen Post Number: 300 Registered: 09-2003 Rating: |
{Ha, so basically we get nowhere int his conversation. I sort of saw this coming thats why i didnt want to go in depth. Either way you look at it; it requires faith.} Comparing scientific hypotheses for the origin of the universe to the belief in an eternal and omnipotent god are not exactly comparible. The scientific hypothesis have some testible basis or supporting mathmatical theory. A supernatural explaination for the origin of the universe has absolutely no means of objective testing. As such, claiming a particular type of god created the universe is no more credible that saying a giant, eternal, really powerful turtle fairy is responsible for creating the universe. Neither supernatural concepts can be tested in any manner, unlike the scientific hypotheses, which at least have some degree of testing to which they can be subject to. It's apple and oranges, really. | ||
| Timothy Campen Advanced Member Username: tcampen Post Number: 301 Registered: 09-2003 Rating: N/A |
{Then you keep walking downa dn you see Bob loves Jill.} This is Cliffe's reissue of the old "Watchmaker" argument. There are a number of flaws with the analogy. First of all, it relies on the argument, "I don't understand how this thing could exist without being created by a more intellegent being," as some kind of proof of something. Lack of knowledge is never proof, other than proof one doesn't know something. Second, there are plenty of perfectly natural explanations for our natural universe. The laws of physics and chemical reactions explain the complexity we see in the universe without the need for a supernatural entity. From solar systems to biological complexity, objective, testible, repeatable, and falsifiable natural theories explain how we got what we got. The theories aren't perfect, require continual refinement, and can't answer everthing, no. But we have come a long way. If we'd continued to be satisfied accepting earthquakes, lightening, and sunlight (for example) as purely supernatural occurances, we never would have made it out of caves. Similarly, throwing up ones hands and proclaiming, "I can't personally comprehend how this natural thing could have come about naturally, therefore it couldn't have," is contrary to the concept of gaining knowledge and advancing humanity. That is not to say science can answer everything, just that it is a superior methodology to understanding the nuts and bolts of our natural world than any other. Religion gives meaning to knowledge and experience in a way science cannot. Science is more about the "how" of our world, and religion more about the "why." Both are important and indispensible, and really shouldn't provide any confict with eachother if understood in their proper contexts. | ||
| Timothy Campen Advanced Member Username: tcampen Post Number: 302 Registered: 09-2003 Rating: N/A |
[So that when we exercise the light of creation and the light of conscience and TRULY desire to know God (On his terms not ours...He is not a magic genie) He will make Himself known and has in the incarnation of Jesus Christ. I am not preaching to anyone just giving some general points to ponder...] No argument there, Dave, but I think those quotes have infinitely more to do with getting one's heart right with god, rather than worrying about whether some scientific theory clashes with some religious dogma. I find it hard to believe God really has a problem with knowing the truth about our natural world. | ||
| Dave Geisler Junior Member Username: daveg Post Number: 23 Registered: 12-2003 Rating: N/A |
"That is not to say science can answer everything, just that it is a superior methodology to understanding the nuts and bolts of our natural world than any other. Religion gives meaning to knowledge and experience in a way science cannot. Science is more about the "how" of our world, and religion more about the "why." Both are important and indispensible, and really shouldn't provide any confict with eachother if understood in their proper contexts" I like this statement but I do not fully agree. There are multiple religions out there, in fact, I could make one up right now if I so choose. If your "religion" is how you define your relationship to the ultimate Creator and thus gives meaning to ones perception of this world, then aren't you making God in your image if you aren't on the same page as the God that actually makes Himself known? As with testing religions; there are viable ways to test each religion and thus draw conclusion to the eternal search for God. If all religions are correct and just another way to God...then do people that worship satan go to be with the Creator? What about atheist...who do they go to be with? "No argument there, Dave, but I think those quotes have infinitely more to do with getting one's heart right with god, rather than worrying about whether some scientific theory clashes with some religious dogma" It is all about heart but the quotes also have to do with the God of the Bible in the sense that He has given us opportunity to know, love and be in relationship with Him...And those that choose not to, well He honors their decision too. | ||
| jasonjvalentine Advanced Member Username: jasonjvalentine Post Number: 427 Registered: 08-2003 Rating: N/A |
"Religion gives meaning to knowledge and experience in a way science cannot. " Trouble is it is a man made meaning within an already decided meaning, and mans making things are less than perfect, hanse all religions are bogus and fall short of the true meanings of the aspects of life and death. Which is why I have elected to believe in the truth and denounce all religion. As Christ said Himself while talking to God thy word is truth. meaning Gods word is true, and not just because I believe so but because I have submitted to the authority of truth realizing the falsehood in mans vain attempts of definining the meaning of life by way of religion. In short with science aside there is still a difference between accepting the true meanings of things vs religion. the one thing that clearly demonstrates that Gods word (the bible) is true is the results surrounding it. Including those who attempt to argue it as not being what it says it is. | ||
| Timothy Campen Advanced Member Username: tcampen Post Number: 306 Registered: 09-2003 Rating: |
"I like this statement but I do not fully agree. There are multiple religions out there, in fact, I could make one up right now if I so choose. If your "religion" is how you define your relationship to the ultimate Creator and thus gives meaning to ones perception of this world, then aren't you making God in your image if you aren't on the same page as the God that actually makes Himself known? " Dave, Despite claims to the contrary, we all choose what we want to believe. Within those who consider themselves christian, there is considerable variation on who god is, god's will, the method of salvation, etc. If your premise were true, only a tiny group of christians (as in a few dozen at best) would have it right about God, and everyone else on earth is "inventing" their own god to various degrees. I find this to be a presumptious position. Nobody claims to have the second best faith, if you think about it - notwithstanding the great variety of faiths in the world, even within christianity. | ||
| Timothy Campen Advanced Member Username: tcampen Post Number: 307 Registered: 09-2003 Rating: N/A |
"Trouble is it is a man made meaning within an already decided meaning..." And that includes you, dispite protests to the contrary. I believe true honesty requires recognizing this reality, and I've provided much evidence in support of my position. | ||
| jasonjvalentine Advanced Member Username: jasonjvalentine Post Number: 428 Registered: 08-2003 Rating: |
I did not make up the bible so don't blame it on me. Nor did I produce the results surrounding it's proclomations. Again not I. You have provided your beliefs and oppinions not evidence supporting your denial of the bible. It is just that you are convinced of your beliefs or else you wouldn't believe in them. So you think of them as evidence. But my beliefs have not made the bible up, nor the fullfilled promisseswithin them. I am still waiting for a false prophecy. | ||
| Ryan Archer Member Username: theleastofthese Post Number: 33 Registered: 01-2004 Rating: |
"You have provided your beliefs and oppinions not evidence supporting your denial of the bible. It is just that you are convinced of your beliefs or else you wouldn't believe in them. So you think of them as evidence. " WELL-SAID!!! EXACTLY! | ||
| Hanson Street Junior Member Username: hansonstreet22 Post Number: 24 Registered: 03-2004 Rating: |
"As such, claiming a particular type of god created the universe is no more credible that saying a giant, eternal, really powerful turtle fairy is responsible for creating the universe." Uh, i completely disagree with that. It is a lot more credible, one because a real person came on the Earth and did a pretty good job explaining why there is such a God. He showed miracles in which hundreds of people believe in him afterwords. Next to that, there are very reasonable arguments you can make for the religion of Christianity. (prophesies that were fulfilled, the moral behavior taught in it, the archaeolical evidence, the psycological evidence, some logical possibilites that it explains happened... God creating the universe is a logical possiblity, etc) Just as you could say there are arguments for other beliefs... true i believe that there are. I would ask you if you could tell me any reasonable or "credible" (that means believeable)arguments that a giant, really powerful, turtle fairy that is responsible for creating the universe. YOu're saying that claim is just as believable or as you said it "credible" as the Christian God. YOu must be missing out on all the evidence that surrounds it as Jason pointed out. YOu can choose to believe it with the evidence that is given or you can choose not to. Apparently it must be a pretty "credible" belief if so many people tend to follow it. I don't believe this giant, eternal, all powerful turtle fairy is just as credible as the God I believe in. Im so amazed that you could actually say this. Is there any sort of evidence pointing to the turtle fairy being hte creator of the universe? No. Is there any sort of evidence pointing that the Christian God created the universe? yes. Therefore you can't say "As such, claiming a particular type of god created the universe is no more credible that saying a giant, eternal, really powerful turtle fairy is responsible for creating the universe." I compare it to this. (This is a made up story) John is convicted for killing Jill. In John's room there is a knife with Jill's blood on it. (Yes, i can't assume that John did it, because it may be a set up) Yet the probability that John killed Jill is much greater than a giant turtle outside being the one who killed Jill. Which is more credible there? That John is the killer or that the turtle is the killer? I think it's definitely more credible to believe that John is the one. I can't prove to you that he is for a fact. But evidence points to a possibility. No evidence whatsoever points to the giant turtle outside being the one who killed Jill. | ||
| Timothy Campen Advanced Member Username: tcampen Post Number: 308 Registered: 09-2003 Rating: N/A |
"I did not make up the bible so don't blame it on me." Most certainly you did not make up the bible. But you DID choose what interpretation of it to follow. The fact that a vast majority of christians have a different interpretation of the bible than you in both minor and material ways is compelling evidence in support of this. | ||
| Timothy Campen Advanced Member Username: tcampen Post Number: 309 Registered: 09-2003 Rating: |
[Uh, i completely disagree with that. It is a lot more credible, one because a real person came on the Earth and did a pretty good job explaining why there is such a God. He showed miracles in which hundreds of people believe in him afterwords.] I recognize the teachings of Jesus had a profound effect on people after his crucifixion. But devotion and a willingness to die are not evidence of supernatural miracles having actually occured. Such devotion is evidence of strong devotion, and, perhaps, belief in such supernatural acts. As I have said in previous posts (perhaps on another thread), there are countless examples of people devoted to an idea and willing to die for that idea without witnessing a single supernatural event, or even for an idea itself, which has nothing to do with the supernatural whatsoever. (i.e. willing to die for freedom, for example.) {Next to that, there are very reasonable arguments you can make for the religion of Christianity. - prophesies that were fulfilled] Ask any observant Jew, Jesus - even accepting the Gospels at face value - did not fulfill the prophecy of the messiah. There are no contemporaries of the time that corroborate any of the claims about Jesus in the Gospels - not one. And as you corrctly point out, the Gospels references thousands of people witnessing the most amazing feats (supernatural or otherwise) that have ever been witnessed. Miraculously feeding more than 5,000 people, bringing dead people back to life, instantly healing termininally ill people, etc. Considering Jesus is alleged to have performed the most amazing works in the history of the world, it is curious virtually nobody thought to write about it. (References of Jesus by Josephus are considered by virtually all scholars to be embelleshments by later people.) If Paul never once refers to a single miracle Jesus is alleged to have performed prior to the crucifixion. This is inexplicable if such things really occured. (I don't buy the argument that everyone at that time already knew about the miracles so there was no reason to talk about them - that makes no sense in context of Paul's writings and his audience.) [the moral behavior taught in it] Love your neighbor? Turn the other cheek? Forgive your tresspassers? Treat others as they would have you treat them? The Buddha proclaimed this same morality 500 years earlier. I recognize Jesus' teachings were unique in many ways, but that is only evidence of uniqueness, not of anything supernatural whatsoever. [the archaeolical evidence] Name one archaeological piece of evidence that proves one supernatural event. Archaeolical evidence that suppports the existence of real people, places, and natural events are in no way supportive of supernatural claims mixed in with some occounts of past events. For example, alien abduction claims are all set in verifiable places with verifiable people and things and time frames, and even consistent stories from different people. Do you find credibibility in the abduction part of the story simply because all the surrounding facts are verifiable and true? [the psycological evidence] Willingness to die? I covered that. Furthermore, it is inexplicable why the disciples were willing to die after Jesus came back to life, but not willing to die after seeing countless others come to life (and countless other miracles) prior to the crucifixion. People have been shown to be willing to die because some guy says a spaceship is behind a comet approaching Earth. You believe that too? [some logical possibilites that it explains happened] Logic is inapplicable to anything supernatural, period. Unless you can demonstrate otherwise. [... God creating the universe is a logical possiblity, etc)] God creating the universe IS a possibility, but saying logic can make any particlar concept more likely than another is inacurate. Logic does not apply to the supernatural, because, by definition of what it is, the supernatural transcends logic. But I appreciate the points you make, even if I disagree. | ||
| Timothy Campen Advanced Member Username: tcampen Post Number: 310 Registered: 09-2003 Rating: |
[I compare it to this. (This is a made up story) John is convicted for killing Jill. In John's room there is a knife with Jill's blood on it. (Yes, i can't assume that John did it, because it may be a set up) Yet the probability that John killed Jill is much greater than a giant turtle outside being the one who killed Jill. Which is more credible there? That John is the killer or that the turtle is the killer? I think it's definitely more credible to believe that John is the one. I can't prove to you that he is for a fact. But evidence points to a possibility. No evidence whatsoever points to the giant turtle outside being the one who killed Jill.] You've mixed the natural with the supernatural here, which is why the analogy is flawed. Using logic and deductive reasoning, we can analyze and make predictions about our natural world. We can assign odds, if you will, to natural events with cause and effect, but we absolutely cannot with regard to supernatural events. Nothing supernatural can be tested, repeated, falsified or quantified in any way using any objective methodology. In contrast, Jim's room, Jill's blood, Jill's dead body plus the time and cause of dead, Jim's whereabouts at the time of Jill's death, etc., can all be determined using objective methodologies. We can assign a probability to Jim killing Jill based on evidence that is subject to real testing. If we were to throw in one supernatural claim as being part of this crime scene, how would you go about testing the veracity of such a claim, as you would test the DNA on knife to determine it was Jill's blood? Just curious. | ||
| Hanson Street Junior Member Username: hansonstreet22 Post Number: 25 Registered: 03-2004 Rating: |
"But devotion and a willingness to die are not evidence of supernatural miracles having actually occured. " Uh, yes they are. They dying for somehting they saw is evidence that there possibly was somethign supernatural. | ||
| Hanson Street Member Username: hansonstreet22 Post Number: 26 Registered: 03-2004 Rating: |
so basically if i conclude what you said about the turtle fairy ... i could say that you believe a supernatural turtle fairy is just as possible as the Christian God. I laugh because that is pathetic. There is evidence that points to it as i pointed out. Whether you believe the evidence or not, is the question. Saying that a supernatural turtle fairy is equally credible to the God i believe in i would say that i can't argue with you anymore. Because if you think those are equally credible due to all the evidence i pointed out, i would say your just being one-sided and not even considering any of the evidence. Obviously you couldn't consider anything the Christian belief has shown as any evidence whatsoever. None... because if we had any evidence whatsoever then you would have to believe the Christian God is more credible than a turtle fairy. "it is curious virtually nobody thought to write about it." ... if uh nobody thought to write about it, then uh how do you know about it now? "You've mixed the natural with the supernatural here, which is why the analogy is flawed." No, i haven't. I was just making a comparison to your statement. I was referring your statement to that statement. Not mixing any supernatural with natural at all. didn't you say this "I believe the whole is in fact god, whatever that whole entails. I believe that something spiritual about us probably does survive our physical deaths, but I wouldn't presume to know what that is. "- Tim ... and if you think you can't compare logic with supernatural then how could you come to that conclusion above. Just blindly? With no logical evidence at all? I mean like you cant define supernatural with logic by its definition. So what could make you come to that belief. To be consistant, that means you have to believe that no logic could be involved for you to believe in "the whole in fact being god"... you would jsut have to guess that with no evidence. Then according to you its fair for me to say a turtle fairy God with supernatural power is just as credible as that belief. But i wouldnt say that... because i dont think it's right nor is it fair. | ||
| Ryan Archer Member Username: theleastofthese Post Number: 34 Registered: 01-2004 Rating: |
Hanson Street you have finally called Timothy on what I am confronting him on (though it's been days and no response): trying to fortify his OPINIONS (not evidence, since he has none) using logic, reasoning, and objectivity and then saying elsewhere that you cannot use any of those things when it comes to God. Timothy, I am still waiting for you to justify your superfluous use of contradiction vis-a-vis the above. It seems pretty plain to me and likely to everyone else on here, that you are not sincere in your wanting to find out about who God really is. You flip flop constantly, condemning everything dealing with Jesus and the Bible by employing logic, reasoning, and objectivity...and then, at the same time (and you do this in post after post) you say that logic, reasoning, and objectivity are useless when trying to understand Jesus or the Bible, etc. I could cut and paste probably at least a dozen times that you have done this. Your arguments make no sense as a result. As far as "But devotion and a willingness to die are not evidence of supernatural miracles having actually occured. "..... I wholeheartedly disagree - the Disciples had no reason to say Jesus was risen..."Uh yeah, He's risen, please go ahead and beat the living crap out of me and then crucify me upside down, OK? Life is just more fun this way..."~Peter No one just voluntarily dies for an idea, for a concept, it has to be real. Would you invite crucifixion on yourself and beatings so that you could espouse a certain "idea"? No one would. That is literally insane. These guys knew that Jesus was risen though - they had seen Him, and spent time with Him, along with about 500 other people. THAT is why they risked their lives and even let themselves suffer intense punishment and even death for Him - because they knew that EVERYTHING He had said was true and it was truly better to die anyway. Because then you get to be with the One who loves you, forever. If you found the most AMAZING, wholly SATISFYING in every way thing ever, wouldn't you tell others? Especially if it were FREE and ANYONE could have it? Of course you would, and so did they, and so do I. | ||
| Timothy Campen Advanced Member Username: tcampen Post Number: 313 Registered: 09-2003 Rating: |
"... and if you think you can't compare logic with supernatural then how could you come to that conclusion above." It's called "faith." I don't need faith for the things I know. "To be consistant, that means you have to believe that no logic could be involved for you to believe in "the whole in fact being god"... you would jsut have to guess that with no evidence. Then according to you its fair for me to say a turtle fairy God with supernatural power is just as credible as that belief. But i wouldnt say that... because i dont think it's right nor is it fair." To answer you and Ryan, there is a difference in analyzing the thing itself and evaluating the means of analysis. There is nothing wrong with using logical analysis to see if logic can even apply to the question in the first place. If you really want to constrain God with logic, then go ahead. But intellectual honesty doesn't allow one to apply it only when its convenient. Logic will not allow free will and an omnipotent God. Logic will not allow the Trinity. Logic will not allow omnipotence but freedom from responsibility from anything. But all of these things can be accepted on faith, and I readily accept that. Thomas Jefferson viewed those who accepted the trinity as having abandoned reason itself - this being a man who studied the bible in English, Latin and Greek, and was no slouch. I agree with him in part and disagree in part. As far as reason goes, Jefferson was right. But faith is the basis of that which cannot be seen, tested, or proven objectively. It resonates within one's self in a deeply personal way that words fall short of fully describing. It makes sense of that which defies the rational mind. These intense desires to prove the existence of a particular God rationally and logically cause more harm than good, in my opinion. The need to be right at the expense of everyone else who differs shouldn't be as important as one's personal devotion to their faith. That's part of the point I've been trying to make. I recognize there is much in the NT that makes sense historically, and is verifiable. I recognize that the disciples were struck profoundly by the teachings of Jesus, and were often willing to die horrible deaths rather than renounce their faith. But I also recognize comparible events and human reactions in other parts of human history. And intellectual honesty does not allow me to be dismissive of others' experiences when the impact on them from their faith is just as profound. Please don't mistake my oposition to your position as being hostile to God, Jesus or Christianity. I am not attacking these things, but rahter challenging certain individual's interpretation and presentation of these things. It might be helpful to understand your belief about these things are separate from the objective truth of them. They may be similar, or may not, but you are presenting YOUR positions, not THE positions, just as I am presenting MY positions. Whether they square up with that ultimate reality remains to be seen, thus I remain as open minded as I reasonably can. peace. | ||
| Hanson Street Member Username: hansonstreet22 Post Number: 27 Registered: 03-2004 Rating: |
"Why? Other than having a deep desire to have something religious be correct at the expense of all other beliefs, why can't they all be off the mark? " Well i believe that only one is on the mark... what would make me believe that Christianity is "off the mark"? "Let's test it this way...is it possible to assign odds to the possibility Jesus' disciples believed Jesus was resurrected, and a sort of mythology was developed around the person - in otherwords, nothing supernatural really occured. While you may view the odds of such happening to be very small, you must recognize that it could happen, however bad the odds are. (I've actually seen numerical values assigned to do this.) " ... wait aer you saying that there are odds that it is mythology but they odds my be small? If they were small then wouldn't that mean the odds that it is infact true and isnt mythoulogy would be big? ... cause if thats what your saying and you claim to believe thigns on logic most of the time wouldn't believing in the thing with higher odds be more logical? And i have recognized that the odds may be small, hence m saying i can't prove what i believe yet i believe what i believe is based on logic. It seems more logical to me that they would have actually had to see Jesus resurrected when they were killed for what they claimed to hae seen. The odds (in my opinion) point to it being more logical that they actually did see Jesus. More than one of the disciples died for what they claimed to have seen. So even though there is possibility that they made this up, i find it highly unlikely. Plus according to the Bible Jesus appeared to 500 different people also. Now that's a huge claim. "The bible makes stoning people to death mandatory for offenses no reasonable person could consider appropriate for the conduct." Where does it make stoning people to death mandatory for offenses? Jesus told the people about to stone mary magdalen something around ...He who has not sinned, cast the first stone. Then it said that all of them left and nobody threw a stone. I dont know, show me where it says that and then we can talk. "It is intellectually dishonest to claim that the odds of erroneous beliefs by the disciples about the resurrection are so small, that it makes the supernatural explanation more likely. This is a common logical falicy many people fall into, and I want to be sure we don't do that here. " Are yous aying its a fallacy to believe in the possiblity that the disciples did actually see Jesus ressurected because they died becasue they claimed to have seen him risen? Tell me how this is a fallacy... because i definitely think it is a possibility like you said there are odds for the other side... well on the contrary there are odds that they did actually see Jesus... so if there are odds that they did see Jesus (based on the fact that they died claiming to have seen him)... that doesnt prove his resurrection, all it is is evidence that he very well could have resurrected and leaves a very good possibility (in my opinion) that he in fact actually did resurrect. Can i prove that he did? NO, the only way i could prove that he did is if i went back in time and was alive when jesus was and then was still alive after jesus died and then somehow video taped it when he resurrected then i show it to you. Same to you, the only way you could disprove his resurrection would be to video tape his tomb and show that he didn't resurrect. If he didn't resurrect then that would mean, that his body was stolen from the tomb (probably by his disciples) from guards who were hired to guard the tomb with there life... and then do this somehow without letting the guards know about it becasue they fell asleep. Which is a possibility as well, but i find it more logical to believe that he did resurrect. Nobody could prove the disciples stole the body. Nobody could prove that he resurrected but there were a few eye witnesses who died for something they claimed to have seen... and for me thats enough evidence to believe in the resurrection. "The disciples' devotion is evidence of strong beliefs, yes, even a belief in a supernatural event - but it isn't really evidence of the event itself. " ... there devotion is evidence of their strong beliefs ... yes... but dying for claiming what they saw is evidence of the event of the resurrection itself. "I believe the Christian position, and the Muslim, and the Jewish, and the Buddhist, and the Hindu positions can all be equally correct." ... how? What makes you believe that? Faith alone with no logical reasoning? Did you just cose your eyes and randomly pick a religiona nd take faith in it blindly without logically believing looking into all of them? I dont think you did. "Work out your own salvation. Do not depend on others." -- Buddha … Again another contradiction in these religions further proving they can not be equally correct. "Peace comes from within. Do not seek it without." -- Buddha Holding on to anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one getting burned. --Buddha "It might be helpful to understand your belief about these things are separate from the objective truth of them." says who... You? And yes maybe all my interpretations of the text arent perfectly accurate. I believe they are mostly accurate and i'm unsure of any interpretation that i have made that is inaccurate and i ask you to point which one out to me? Please, I ask you to quote me when you say things like what i say is "separate from the objective truth" to quote me and quote the Bible and show the "separation". I believe it is unfair to say that what I have claimed is spearate from the objective truth without showing evidence of a separation. That is like me just saying ... Tim, your wrong because i say so. If i said Tim, i think your wrong and explained why that in my opinion is fair. Giving examples is a good way of proving a statement tim, not just saying things without evidence. Then again you have no logical basis for your belief it is 100 percent on faith. I also have faith for my belief but for me to know which faith i should endulge in i take a look at all the possibilities and find the most logical. Tim do I believe in Islam, Judaeism, Christianity, etc? What did you do just choose wone blindly and believe it with 100 percent faith and no logic ... because logic and supernatural can't be mixed together. I believe you looked at it and in your logical reasoning took faith in your belief. I believe that the reason you believe what you believe is based on experience and things you have learned ...and using your logical reasoning skills you endulged int he faith that you have. I have faith in what i believe based on waht i have experienced and based on what i have logically reasoned from reading the bible. It makes a lot of sense to me... logically it does. And yes it can make sense logically because it teaches morals which can be logically debated... can they not? "I am not attacking these things, but rahter challenging certain individual's interpretation and presentation of these things." When you challenge my interpretation, give an example of what i said in which you challenged... "And intellectual honesty does not allow me to be dismissive of others' experiences when the impact on them from their faith is just as profound. " I'm not asking you to believe because of the faith experience that i have had. I indeed have had one and it feels great... and yes other people of other religions claim to have one as well too so thats why i dont argue with this point... I ask you to believe because of the logic in it... Although you claim this " believe the Christian position, and the Muslim, and the Jewish, and the Buddhist, and the Hindu positions can all be equally correct" I completely disagree. They can not all be equally correct that just is not possible. I do believe that there are similarities in all of these that are correct. Jews don't believe in Jesus's resurrection and Christians do... HOw can they be equally correct? Muslims believe Muhammad is the only prophet... Jews and Christians disagree... how can they be equally correct? Some of the morals in all of the religions are the same... but not all of the morals. | ||
| jasonjvalentine Advanced Member Username: jasonjvalentine Post Number: 429 Registered: 08-2003 Rating: |
Tim said "But you DID choose what interpretation of it to follow." Tim I have chosen how to view the bible, but weather or not that is an interpretation or proper explanation is not decided by your faith. But by God alone. and personaly the bible speaks for itself. Weather one views it to be true or not, or properly equates the fundamentals does not make it ones singular interpretation for the value of the words is not decided by our faith alone and it is arogant of you to think upon those words as only subject to interpretation rather than understanding. you stand on your own two feet according to your choice as I mine, but both before a judgement regarding our faith and that be if it is true or false. A judgement that exists by the power of the great judge God. And as far as my satnd in the matter I will quote the bible itself. We know in part so we prophecy in part. I do not know all of the bible, nor do I understand it all. but that does not mean I do not get the general idea, and it's message regarding salvation before God. Which is clear when veiwing the declared words within proper context. and besides then how do you trust your view of denying Christs death being the only payment for your sin before God, when there are people who also deny Christs attonement but with a different perspective on the matter than you? Since you seem to think that differing perspectives can eleviate you from finding a proclaimed truth itself of actualy being reliable? That is on when you think it is true that Jesus was not the only payment for your sin based on the fact that others who claim He did do not see eye to eye on all topics. How is it that you choose it is ok to denounce Christ when also there is a plethera of differing views of people who also deny him? I placed my own two feet in Christ before God, and you call Him a liar. And view His death in vain. If you do not call Him a liar the you believe that he died for your sins, and God was satisfied with that death alone on your behalf. Like Christ said you are either for me or against me. No middle ground no neutral possition. | ||
| jasonjvalentine Advanced Member Username: jasonjvalentine Post Number: 430 Registered: 08-2003 Rating: |
So Tim how do you know it is raining out if no two rain drops are the same, and no two rain storms are ever alike? Becuase God gave you the senses to discern the general IDEA. yet you are far from all knowing. He also gave you the sense to know that Jesus is truth and died for your sins. One being the sense of accountability, or conviction. In fact the entire world has that sense even Ted Bundy. It's a matter of wether or not we follow them to the truth, just like as in it is raining or not we have a judgement that lies on all our thoughts and actions that belongs to God and it is either true or false. Or good and evil regardless of how we choose the two never change or mix. | ||
| Dave Geisler Junior Member Username: daveg Post Number: 24 Registered: 12-2003 Rating: |
"Weather one views it to be true or not, or properly equates the fundamentals does not make it ones singular interpretation for the value of the words is not decided by our faith alone and it is arogant of you to think upon those words as only subject to interpretation rather than understanding." An excellent and profound Truth...Tim's arguement is the basis for a society that views truth only as it is relevant to them. This is crumbling the foundation of Truth itself...because if there is no such thing as a truth, then what is true for me and works for me is okay and should not be up for debate...hogwash. When I built my home I wanted the floor to be true...not how my interpretation was or how the contractors interpretation was because both of us were flawed...and as such his interpretation of truth and my interpretation of truth were off kilter. But the floor was trued because there is a definition of truth (level) and the floor is straight so I don't fall side to side when walking in my interpretation of the truth...good thing we got the floor to be true. Scripture is not true because I or anyone else on this board believes it to be true...It is totally true apart from any man. Jesus said you will know the truth and the truth will set you free (John 8:32) and went on to say...So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed (John 8:36) HIS WORD IS TRUE, whether I believe it or not that is my choice nonetheless if I choose to not believe and then I own my own condemnation (John 3:18) This is not a narrow minded or biggeted point of veiw because God desires all to know Him but unfortunately it breaks my heart to say there will be many that are pridefully and stubbornly condemning themselves to an eternity without God. DOn't make that mistake. If truth then is found in the person of Jesus then no matter how I intepret it doesn't change the fact that He is still the truth. I guess if I was struggling with God's word I would first look at my heart and see if I was coming to Him in my own self-righteous pride or if I was coming to Him in humility desiring to know Him... When pride comes, then comes disgrace, but with humility comes wisdom. (Prov 11:2) | ||
| Hanson Street Member Username: hansonstreet22 Post Number: 28 Registered: 03-2004 Rating: |
"because if there is no such thing as a truth, then what is true for me and works for me is okay and should not be up for debate...hogwash. " hog wash haha nice use of words there i like it... yes i agree with you on that | ||
| Timothy Campen Advanced Member Username: tcampen Post Number: 314 Registered: 09-2003 Rating: |
tcampen:"It is intellectually dishonest to claim that the odds of erroneous beliefs by the disciples about the resurrection are so small, that it makes the supernatural explanation more likely. This is a common logical falicy many people fall into, and I want to be sure we don't do that here. " Hanson: "Are yous aying its a fallacy to believe in the possiblity that the disciples did actually see Jesus ressurected because they died becasue they claimed to have seen him risen?" ANSWER: NO NO NO NO NO NO NO. Please read what I posted. I said no quantifiable probability could be assigned to Jesus actually being ressurected. As such, comparing a low probability of one explanation of events to another explanation that can have no probability assigned to it is a meaningless proposition. ""It might be helpful to understand your belief about these things are separate from the objective truth of them." says who... You?" I am quite familiar with each or your quotes of the Buddha, and I find there to be elements of truth in them all. Again, if it is reasonable to believe a God can do things beyond human comprehention, and accept things about God that defy human reason and logic, then why are you so opposed to my propositions based on the exact same premise? That's what I'm talking about. "I'm not asking you to believe because of the faith experience that i have had. I indeed have had one and it feels great... and yes other people of other religions claim to have one as well too so thats why i dont argue with this point... I ask you to believe because of the logic in it..." And my point is that relying on the logic of any religious belief, including Christianity, will not produce the results you think it will. The trinity defies logic, the problem of evil defies logic, the theology of free will with an omnipotent being defies logic - I can go on, but I think you get the point. Faith bridges the gap of what may be illogical, but can still be accepted on faith. That is the whole point of faith. "Jews don't believe in Jesus's resurrection and Christians do... HOw can they be equally correct? Muslims believe Muhammad is the only prophet... Jews and Christians disagree... how can they be equally correct? " How can the trinity be reconciled logically? It cannot. But it is still accepted on faith. If a God can do all these these that are absolutely contrary to logic and reason, then why can't a god make multiple faiths viable paths to it? Why are you trying to limit god's abilities? "Some of the morals in all of the religions are the same... but not all of the morals." No argument there. | ||
| Timothy Campen Advanced Member Username: tcampen Post Number: 315 Registered: 09-2003 Rating: |
"An excellent and profound Truth...Tim's arguement is the basis for a society that views truth only as it is relevant to them. This is crumbling the foundation of Truth itself...because if there is no such thing as a truth, then what is true for me and works for me is okay and should not be up for debate...hogwash." Not not point at all. I believe in truth, objective, verifiable truth, moral truth, and even absolutes. I reject the assertion the is no real truth. What I do reject, however, are claims of truth that are based on subjective, religious rationales. Anyone who claims there is only one objective, reasonable christian view of God and Jesus, is necessarily saying the thousands of other christians sects and independent churches that differ in both minute and material ways are wrong. Who's right? The catholics, calvinists, lutherians, seventh day adventists, jehovah's witnesses, baptists, charismatics, latter day saints? Who on this earth decides? Every sect and church claims to be right, and none claim to be second best in their interpretation of god and scriptures. They differ in moral issues, methods of salvation, and degree of biblical literism. So before you point the finger at others' "views truth only as it is relevant to them," consider your own house of christianity as being a poster child for the very condition you seem to condemn. Furthermore, I do believe there is such thing as absolute morality that applies to all people. Not all morality is absolute, some is cultural, some is personal. But some is still absolute. So, before imputing falsehoods about me that are simple NOT true, take the time to ask me or look at my previous posts. I think we all know what happens when one "assumes." "When I built my home I wanted the floor to be true...not how my interpretation was or how the contractors interpretation was because both of us were flawed...and as such his interpretation of truth and my interpretation of truth were off kilter. But the floor was trued because there is a definition of truth (level) and the floor is straight so I don't fall side to side when walking in my interpretation of the truth...good thing we got the floor to be true." You are mixing the concept of measurements with spirituality. Whether a floor is level, a room is square, or a ceiling will support a particular amount of weight are determininations that can be made objectively, by anyone, yielding the same results that will not differ from any sincere, honest and competent person. One's religous views will still reveal the same truth. The same cannot be said of religious or spiritural concepts. Sprituality lacks the same objective qualities that the squareness of a room has. The two are not even remotely comparable. If you would like more specific examples and evidence of THIS truth, I'm happy to provide them to you. "If truth then is found in the person of Jesus then no matter how I intepret it doesn't change the fact that He is still the truth. I guess if I was struggling with God's word I would first look at my heart and see if I was coming to Him in my own self-righteous pride or if I was coming to Him in humility desiring to know Him..." If I told you I invited God into my heart and asked him about the bible, and God specifically told me it was not accurate as it was written, what would your response be? I suspect you may advocate a certain process for coming to the truth, but unless a very particular result occurs, then the process wasn't applied properly. I don't find this approach to be intellectually honest, personally. | ||
| Timothy Campen Advanced Member Username: tcampen Post Number: 316 Registered: 09-2003 Rating: |
"So Tim how do you know it is raining out if no two rain drops are the same, and no two rain storms are ever alike?" JV, rain drops are so similar, as are storms, that objectively quantifying them is possible. We can measure rainfall, and do so everyday. Those tests can and are done by people of every faith, adn yields the same results. The methodology, when applied correctly, has proven to be so reliable in providing objective truth about the relative quantity of rainfall, that it is universially recognized as authoritative accross all continents, cultures, ages, genders, and religions. The same cannot be said to be true of ANYTHING religous. They aren't even on the same page. The variations among those claiming to be christain themselves is powerful evidence of this. I see you are making the same arguments about no two things being exactly the same as some kind of proof of the specific god you believe in, but I still don't follow it. I've asked you to point me to the source of this assertion, which you have never provided. If came up with it yourself, that may explain it. It makes sense to you. But the consistent behavior of physical things, even though those things may not be absolutely identical at the atomic level, means nothing in the context of physics, chemistry, biology, etc. I just don't get your points as establishing anything. They just seem to be purely conclusory remarks to me. | ||
| Timothy Campen Advanced Member Username: tcampen Post Number: 317 Registered: 09-2003 Rating: |
["because if there is no such thing as a truth, then what is true for me and works for me is okay and should not be up for debate...hogwash. " hog wash haha nice use of words there i like it... yes i agree with you on that ] I also agree. The idea of only subjective truth is silly. I recognize the existence of objective truth, but I also recognize more subjective forms of truth as well - the kind that may seem totally evident to the individual, but its nature produces a lack of consensus. This lack of consenses among reasonable, sincere and informed people is not proof that no ultimate truth of the subject actually exists, but it IS evidence such may be the case, and I am not aware of any objective evidence that better supports the alternative. | ||
| Timothy Campen Advanced Member Username: tcampen Post Number: 318 Registered: 09-2003 Rating: |
"When pride comes, then comes disgrace, but with humility comes wisdom. (Prov 11:2)" This is a truth, I recognize this as such. But is it only true because the statement appears in the bible, or is there truth about it that is independent of the bible? If the bible never contained this verse, and YOU spoke it, would it be any less true? The answer, I believe, is no. It is true for its own sake, as all objective truth is. | ||
| Ryan Archer Member Username: theleastofthese Post Number: 35 Registered: 01-2004 Rating: |
Alright, I cannot resist...this is benightedness... "Anyone who claims there is only one objective, reasonable christian view of God and Jesus, is necessarily saying the thousands of other christians sects and independent churches that differ in both minute and material ways are wrong. Who's right? The catholics, calvinists, lutherians, seventh day adventists, jehovah's witnesses, baptists, charismatics, latter day saints? Who on this earth decides? Every sect and church claims to be right, and none claim to be second best in their interpretation of god and scriptures. They differ in moral issues, methods of salvation, and degree of biblical literism. So before you point the finger at others' "views truth only as it is relevant to them," consider your own house of christianity as being a poster child for the very condition you seem to condemn." WHAT IS THE DEFINITION OF A CHRISTIAN is the (and I cannot stress the inflections of my wording enough - this medium cannot convey totally what I want) CORE DEFINITION which must be held above all else when talking about who is a CHRISTIAN. A CHRISTIAN, BY DEFINITION, IS ONE WHO FOLLOWS THE TEACHINGS OF CHRIST ALONE. WHICH MEANS THERE IS ONLY ONE WAY TO GOD AND THAT IS THROUGH HIM - THERE IS NO "INTERPRETATION" ON THAT ONE - HE IS QUITE CLEAR IN LAYING OUT ("the only way to the Father is through ME"). You CANNOT call the Mormons (church of latter-day saints) a Christian church - they do not believe that Jesus is really God, that He is just a human,...they believe they themselves are going to become God one day! They directly violate the teachings of Christ: Jesus was clear in allowing only MONOGAMY, while Joseph Smith preached POLYGAMY (both here and later), Jesus was also not a racist, while the mormons, until 1974 (or 8) would not allow blacks in ministry because they were the foot soldiers of Satan and are black because their fathers sinned. Jesus is very clear in stating that the Father is in HEAVEN, while Joseph Smith claimed he was from some far off PLANET named KOLOB. You CANNOT call Jehovah's Witnesses CHRISTIAN either - they do not follow Christ's Word, they profess that there is only enough room for 144,000 people to be saved, and those spots are already filled they say, and they think you have to chant God's name over and over at the end of Earth and this CLEARLY goes contrary to Jesus stating that the way to the FATHER is THROUGH HIM ALONE. They are saying that some, even the willing ones, will not make it to Heaven despite their faith while the Bible IS EXCRUCIATINGLY clear that God is not willing that ANY should perish but that all would accept His invitation to being with Him forever through His Son. Who else shall we eliminate from your little "list"? AH,the Seventh Day Adventists...WOW. Have you ever read their little pamphlets or known anyone that's attended their meetings? That whole story of the Bible is told in the constellations that they just made up and is from a Biblical reference that none of them can actually state...? Need we even venture in that? The main point is that their "salvation" is not in accepting Jesus as the Christ and accepting Him into your heart so that you may know and be with the Father either...so they are also disqualified. As for John Calvin - he taught a little thing he liked to call PREDESTINATION, which means that, according to him and not the Word, even if he did accept Jesus as the Bible says to, he could still not go to be with the Father when it was his time. THIS IS OBVIOUSLY DIRECTLY IN STAUNCH VIOLATION OF WHAT JESUS SAYS; that WHOSOEVER believes in Him will not die (as in, not being with God is considered death and being with Him is life), but live on, with the Father, forever. It is also in violation of God saying that He is not willing that ANY should perish... AS FOR THE REST OF THE ONES YOU LISTED; Catholics, Baptists, Lutherans, Charismatics, and even the Methodists, the Presbyterians, et al...THEY ALL BELIEVE THE SAME EXACT THING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And that is simply that JESUS CHRIST IS THE SON OF GOD and the ONLY way to the FATHER is THROUGH HIM. That Jesus is one's true salvation and nothing and no one else. (THANK GOD that we have a SURE way of knowing Him!) SO, again, NONE of these denominations believe any differently when it comes to principal requisite for being considered CHRISTIAN, and UNLESS A PARTICULAR DENOMINATION BELIEVES AND MAINTAINS THAT JESUS IS THE SON OF GOD AND THAT THE ONLY WAY TO GOD IS BY ACCEPTING JESUS THEN THEY ARE NOT CHRISTIAN - that is not my "interpretation" or "objective analysis" or "logical conclusion" - IT IS STATED IN THE BIBLE ITSELF!!! SO, again, the definition of CHRISTIAN is one who has accepted and follows CHRIST and for a denomination to be CHRISTIAN it must advocate that Jesus and JESUS ALONE is the way to God. THE BIBLE IS VERY CLEAR ON THIS. Lastly Tim, the stuff that those last groups differ on is the minors (except for Catholics who directly violate the Bible when they think that people have the authority to forgive sins instead of Jesus (they can forgive sins against each other, but if a man commits adultery he is still guilty before God and needs Jesus' forgiveness)); such as is speaking in tongues real, or HOW exactly did God create everything, or how to understand the book of Revelation, etc. FOR THE LAST TIME, THEY DO NOT DIFFER ON WHO IS THEIR SAVIOR AND WHO GETS THEM TO BE WITH THE FATHER - they ALL agree is it Jesus and Jesus alone. Amen. End of story. It's pretty simple when one actually looks at all the evidence. | ||
| Ryan Archer Member Username: theleastofthese Post Number: 36 Registered: 01-2004 Rating: |
AS FOR THIS: "When pride comes, then comes disgrace, but with humility comes wisdom. (Prov 11:2)" "This is a truth, I recognize this as such. But is it only true because the statement appears in the bible, or is there truth about it that is independent of the bible? If the bible never contained this verse, and YOU spoke it, would it be any less true? The answer, I believe, is no. It is true for its own sake, as all objective truth is" What makes it true is that God said it. I could say the sun is blue today, but that doesn't make it true just because I said it. Humans are not knowledgeable enough to effectively decide what is truth just because they want to or think they can. To know what is ultimately true can only truly be revealed by God. Any insight one receives is from God anyway, because everything, every gift, every oppurtunity, every THING is from God, we didn't create ANY of it on our own. | ||
| Ryan Archer Member Username: theleastofthese Post Number: 37 Registered: 01-2004 Rating: |
Tim said, "These intense desires to prove the existence of a particular God rationally and logically cause more harm than good, in my opinion." SO THEN WHAT ARE YOU DOING TIM??? Every argument you do is based on logic and rationality! You use dead people like Thomas Jefferson to push your opinions of logic and the like! And WHAT are you talking about when you said, "If you really want to constrain God with logic, then go ahead." WHEN HAVE WE EVER DONE THAT? We always talk about FAITH and opening your heart up to Jesus... | ||
| Dave Geisler Junior Member Username: daveg Post Number: 25 Registered: 12-2003 Rating: |
As Ryan put it there are essentials in the Christian faith (The Trinity, Jesus as the only way, saved by faith not works) and secondary issues (Speaking in Tongues, Process for worship, Even Calvinism vs Open Salvation) which we can debate vigorously but need not divide over. Because society and especially the secular media claim that many groups are Christians, essentially they are not. "Furthermore, I do believe there is such thing as absolute morality that applies to all people. Not all morality is absolute, some is cultural, some is personal. But some is still absolute." If you believe that there is absolute morality then what is the measure of that absolute morality. Is it Jesus? Is it Buddah? Is it Allah? Is it God and if so how do we define who He is? How would we know this God? Tim, I applaud you for not being a blind devotee unto the Bible, there are too many Christians that don't even know what or why they believe. But don't delete certain passages of scripture and thus cut and paste your own Bible. "If I told you I invited God into my heart and asked him about the bible, and God specifically told me it was not accurate as it was written, what would your response be?" There are many today that say God speaks directly to them and they make prediction and prophecies and fool many people. We are to not be led away by these wolves in sheeps clothing for the Bible says that we are to check all things according to scripture. See, God doesn't contradict Himself. So I would ask you what specific part of the Bible was not accurate...Or is it all not accurate? I guess the question would be do you believe the Bible is the divine Word of God (written by men inspired of the Holy Spirit) or is it human in orgin? If the Bible is only human in orgin then it is no more important then any other book written from human orgins. Right? I think we all would like it if all roads led to heaven but when this statement is given much thought is it really viable? If all roads lead to heaven the Charles Manson and Mother Theresa are both headed in the right direction...I don't think so. | ||
| Timothy Campen Advanced Member Username: tcampen Post Number: 319 Registered: 09-2003 Rating: |
Ryan, You said, "FOR THE LAST TIME, THEY DO NOT DIFFER ON WHO IS THEIR SAVIOR AND WHO GETS THEM TO BE WITH THE FATHER - they ALL agree is it Jesus and Jesus alone. Amen. End of story." But you did so by showing how half the denominations I listed are NOT christian, which EXACTLY proves my point (You even went after Catholics). Just because not all christians adhere to the Nicean Creed doesn't make them any less Christian. That is God's call not YOURS. Joseph Smiths revelation may have more truth in it than you are willing to accept based on your beliefs. As for your saying, "this is benightedness," I would respond I am undeniably vindicated by your response. (By the way, I had to look that one up.) YOU proved my point better than I. THANK YOU! -t | ||
| Timothy Campen Advanced Member Username: tcampen Post Number: 320 Registered: 09-2003 Rating: |
"What makes it true is that God said it. I could say the sun is blue today, but that doesn't make it true just because I said it." God never said what color the sky is. Does God's silence make the sky being blue any less true? NO! God never said 2+2=4. Does the Bible's silence make this any less true? NO! A vast majority of truths in the world are not addressed by the Bible in any way. To do so requires tortured interpretation no halfway reasonable person would ever accept. Truth is because it is. You are correct that one saying something is true doesn't make it so. It is true for its own sake. THAT is my point. Thank you for helping to point that out in your own way. "Humans are not knowledgeable enough to effectively decide what is truth just because they want to or think they can. To know what is ultimately true can only truly be revealed by God." Please review my response above. God never revealed 2+4=4. So that is not true? WHAT? Perhaps you'd like to rethink that one. May your brain isn't "knowledgeable enough to effectively decide what is truth" when it comes to simple math, but some of ours are. "Any insight one receives is from God anyway, ecause everything, every gift, every oppurtunity, every THING is from God, we didn't create ANY of it on our own." That is a 100% theological and religous view. And you are 100% entitled to it. But please don't expect all reasonable, sincere and informed people to agree with you on it. I don't even dare respond because that is your subjective viewpoint and is beyond intellectual debate. | ||
| Timothy Campen Advanced Member Username: tcampen Post Number: 321 Registered: 09-2003 Rating: N/A |
"SO THEN WHAT ARE YOU DOING TIM??? Every argument you do is based on logic and rationality! You use dead people like Thomas Jefferson to push your opinions of logic and the like!" And you use dead people to prove everything you believe in. My dead people have been dead 200 years. Yours, 2,000. At least we have that in common. And I'm proving my point, thank you. Logic CAN be used to determine whether critical thinking even applies to the subject matter. That is wholly different than actually applying critical thinking the subject matter itself. Follow? "And WHAT are you talking about when you said, "If you really want to constrain God with logic, then go ahead." WHEN HAVE WE EVER DONE THAT? We always talk about FAITH and opening your heart up to Jesus..." In addition to that sentiment (which I recognize you and others making), the sentiment that only ONE religious belief can be right as necessarily excluding any contrary belief IS a logical argument. A very simple syllogism, in fact, but the premise is unsound to begin with. | ||
| Timothy Campen Advanced Member Username: tcampen Post Number: 322 Registered: 09-2003 Rating: |
"As Ryan put it there are essentials in the Christian faith (The Trinity, Jesus as the only way, saved by faith not works) and secondary issues (Speaking in Tongues, Process for worship, Even Calvinism vs Open Salvation) which we can debate vigorously but need not divide over. Because society and especially the secular media claim that many groups are Christians, essentially they are not." Dave, as much as I appreciate your speaking on behalf of God, those other christian sects that you and Ryan appear to so easily dismiss are claiming the exact same thing about you. Hey, I don't have a dog in that fight, but I think its important that the fight exists. "If you believe that there is absolute morality then what is the measure of that absolute morality. Is it Jesus? Is it Buddah? Is it Allah? Is it God and if so how do we define who He is? How would we know this God?" Truth is self evident. Just like the Declaration of Indepence announces how certain truths are self evident. Can you only understand that rape is wrong because it may say so in a text you believe inspired by God? Are you incapable of understanding the wrongness of rape independently from such texts? If you are so incapable, please let me know, and I'll be happy to walk you through it. However, I'm unclined to think you can, in fact, understand this concept. | ||
| Timothy Campen Advanced Member Username: tcampen Post Number: 323 Registered: 09-2003 Rating: N/A |
"So I would ask you what specific part of the Bible was not accurate..." Genesis for starters. The universe, the earth and all life as we know it today was not created in 6 days. It just wasn't. Will that do, or do you need more? | ||
| Timothy Campen Advanced Member Username: tcampen Post Number: 324 Registered: 09-2003 Rating: N/A |
"I guess the question would be do you believe the Bible is the divine Word of God (written by men inspired of the Holy Spirit) or is it human in orgin? If the Bible is only human in orgin then it is no more important then any other book written from human orgins. Right?" Jews geneally believe the Hebrew Scriptures to be divinely inspired, but not the NT. Christians generally believe the OT and the NT to be inspired but not the Qur'an. Muslims generally believe the much of the OT and NT to be inspired, along with the writings according to the Prophet Mohammed...etc. Well, you get the point. Whether any particular text is divinely inspired or purely the work of human hands and minds is a distinctly spiritual question - not a question that can be answered with science or logic. It is when we rely on methodologies like science and logic to answer spiritual and religious questions that problems are created, and visa versa. I've said it a million times, science tells us why it rains, religion tells us why it had to rain on my wedding day. Two distinctly different types of questions requiring two distinctly different types of resources for answers. And, thankfully, this gets us back on track for the theme of this thread, "Doesn't science disprove Christianity?" to which I loudly proclaim "NO!" Now you know why. "I think we all would like it if all roads led to heaven but when this statement is given much thought is it really viable? If all roads lead to heaven the(n) Charles Manson and Mother Theresa are both headed in the right direction...I don't think so." I never claimed to proclaim the truth about what happens to us after we die in exclusion of anyone else. In my opinion, none of us know, but we all believe something. I can't imagine Manson in heaven anymore than you can, as it just doesn't seem right. However, I equally can't imagine Ghandi in hell any more than Manson in heaven. That doesn't seem right. The traditional christian response may be that it isn't up to us to determine what is right - God decides. We all recognize variations in interpretations among professed christians, ranging from trivial to material. There is so much of this variation - even within Christianity itself - that if we were to find that only one set of spiritual beliefs can be true, at the exclusion of any that differ in any way, then all beliefs (minus one) must necessarily be wrong - at least to some degree. However, nobody likes to admit there beliefs are wrong, or even any aspect of it. To prove my point, please tell me who alive today do you suspect is more accurate about God than you, and on which parts? I am not aware of any religion that claims to be second best, and this speaks volumes. Logically, the variations of religious beliefs are not contradictory, but contrary. Contradictory means one option must necessarily be right. Contrary means the options necessarily exclude themselves from more than one being right, but all of them may be wrong. However, the supernatural (by definition) is not bound by logic. In fact, logic cannot even apply to the subject matter. This is not a satisfactory answer to many who need to feel like they've got it figured out. Uncertainty in such matters is a very uncomfortable state for everyone to some degree, which is where faith comes in. It bridges the gap of uncertainty, gives us hope, and offers explanation to the incomprehensible. I recognize this, and embrace it. But I am also required, to be intellectually, personally and spiritually honest, to understand the qualitative difference between what is objectively verifiable and what is faith based - two very different animals. Both are vital, necessarily and should be cherished. But I simply do not have the need to proclaim my faith at the expense of any others that differ. Doing so makes no sense to me at any level. It's late and now I'm rambling, so I'll cut myself off. But you all have made some wonderful points, and if it is valuable to you in your personal spiritual quests, then I am pleased to be part of that. Peace. - t | ||
| Dave Geisler Member Username: daveg Post Number: 26 Registered: 12-2003 Rating: N/A |
"This is not a satisfactory answer to many who need to feel like they've got it figured out. Uncertainty in such matters is a very uncomfortable state for everyone to some degree, which is where faith comes in. It bridges the gap of uncertainty, gives us hope, and offers explanation to the incomprehensible. I recognize this, and embrace it. " Is your faith in faith itself? OR is it faith in God? If it is faith in God then again how do you know the character of God? | ||
| Timothy Campen Advanced Member Username: tcampen Post Number: 325 Registered: 09-2003 Rating: |
Faith is a complicated thing. It's easy to claim, "I just follow 'X,Y and Z' as it is written in 'A, B and C'." This promotes the perception that one is following the teachings and mandates of a most credible higher source, rather than what they want to believe. However, billions of people all claim the EXACT SAME THING, yet STILL believe differently. This is compelling evidence that whether one admits it or not, we all believe what we want to believe when it comes to such matters. So what do I have faith in? I have faith in TRUTH as best as I can figure it out, just like you. | ||
| Dave Geisler Member Username: daveg Post Number: 27 Registered: 12-2003 Rating: N/A |
"So what do I have faith in? I have faith in TRUTH as best as I can figure it out, just like you." This is so untrue of me and so many other Christians...we do not hold our faith to be in how in we interpret truth but WHO THE TRUTH IS. I am fallible and as such am not the bench mark for truth here is an illustration: A pastor I know, Stephey Belynskyj, starts each confirmation class with a jar full of beans. He asks his students to guess how many beans are in the jar, and on a big pad of paper writes down their estimates. Then, next to those estimates, he helps them make another list: their favorite songs. When the lists are complete, he reveals the actual number of beans in the jar. The whole class looks over their guesses, to see which estimate was closest to being right. Belynskyj then turns to the list of favorite songs. "And which one of these is closest to being right?" he asks. The students protest that there is no "right answer"; a person's favorite song is purely a matter of taste. Belynskyj, who holds a Ph.D. in philosophy from Notre Dame asks, "When you decide what to believe in terms of your faith, is that more like guessing the number of beans, or more like choosing your favorite song?" Always, Belynskyj says, from old as well as young, he gets the same answer: Choosing one's faith is more like choosing a favorite song. Again, another example of us making an idol to be God and not a desire to truly know Him on His terms. In this day and age of political correctness it has crumbled our foundation of truth and replaced it with a feel good sense of relevance. I guess then that we will leave it at this...my faith is based solely in the person and deity of Jesus Christ. Your faith is based in what you believe to be have found truth in. Your faith is in yourself not in God. | ||
| Timothy Campen Advanced Member Username: tcampen Post Number: 326 Registered: 09-2003 Rating: |
"This is so untrue of me and so many other Christians...we do not hold our faith to be in how in we interpret truth but WHO THE TRUTH IS." ME TOO! The Truth is the Truth independent of my or YOUR interpretation of it. Finding what the truth is is the challenging part, and we have clearly come to disagreements on some of those issues. "Belynskyj, who holds a Ph.D. in philosophy from Notre Dame asks, "When you decide what to believe in terms of your faith, is that more like guessing the number of beans, or more like choosing your favorite song?" Always, Belynskyj says, from old as well as young, he gets the same answer: Choosing one's faith is more like choosing a favorite song." And you chose your faith as much as I did mine and anyone did theirs. The comparison is remarkably apt. Imagine saying "I didn't choose my favorite song, it chose me." Or, "It's the best song, and anyone who opens their heart to it will agree." The fact that many people might agree on which song is the best one does not make it so, does it? In fact, the whole idea seems a little silly, to say one can objectively establish one song as being better than any other. How is the song analogy and religion comparable? Simple, just look at the variety found in each. There are thousands of Christian denominations and even more independent churches around the world. And that is less than 1/3 of the world's population. There are more different views of religion than you could count, just like favorite songs. (What I am providing here is an argument in support of my position, based on indisputable facts.) "Again, another example of us making an idol to be God and not a desire to truly know Him on His terms. In this day and age of political correctness it has crumbled our foundation of truth and replaced it with a feel good sense of relevance." Actually, I know all kinds of people who know God on God's own terms, yet still have remarkable disagreements about God. You fit into that paradigm as well. Who's right at the expense of all others? You, the Pope, Cliffe, Pat Roberton, Harold Camping, Hank Hanigraph, Bob Larson, Fred Phelps, Stephey Belynskyj? I you want to apply logic and reason to this issue, then you have to face the music here. This variation of what God is, his nature and what he desires from us - even among professed chritians themselves who proclaim to follow God's word and will rather than their own - is compelling evidence that we ALL choose what we want to believe, whether we want to admit it or not. "I guess then that we will leave it at this...my faith is based solely in the person and deity of Jesus Christ. Your faith is based in what you believe to be have found truth in. Your faith is in yourself not in God." As I have demonstrated above, your position is not reasonable given the evidence. At least not from a logical standpoint. From a spriritual and religious standpoint, however, I can't argue with you, anymore than I can argue with the vast majority of Jews who reject your biblical interpretation and idol creating. Your position is clear. I just happen to disagree. I think you've convinced yourself your beliefs are not of your choosing, but based on an objective source that is the only correct source. However, the EVIDENCE proves that others claim the EXACT SAME THING, but have come to different conclusions about that ultimate source. The most reasonable explanation of this EVIDENCE is that we all choose what we want to believe with regard to such subjective matters. | ||
| Timothy Campen Advanced Member Username: tcampen Post Number: 327 Registered: 09-2003 Rating: N/A |
And THIS is why I keep saying Science does NOT disprove Christianity. Can't we at least agree on THAT? | ||
| Ryan Archer Member Username: theleastofthese Post Number: 38 Registered: 01-2004 Rating: |
OK, seriously, you are either not reading and understanding, or you just make stuff up, I don't know... but how you came to say the following is astounding to me; "Ryan, You said, "FOR THE LAST TIME, THEY DO NOT DIFFER ON WHO IS THEIR SAVIOR AND WHO GETS THEM TO BE WITH THE FATHER - they ALL agree is it Jesus and Jesus alone. Amen. End of story." But you did so by showing how half the denominations I listed are NOT christian, which EXACTLY proves my point (You even went after Catholics). Just because not all christians adhere to the Nicean Creed doesn't make them any less Christian. That is God's call not YOURS." YES, I showed that half those "denominations" are NOT Christian, which goes to the DEFINITION OF BEING A CHRISTIAN AS PUT FORTH BY CHRIST HIMSELF: "NO ONE COMES TO THE FATHER EXCEPT THROUGH ME." You CANNOT get around that, that is the DEFINITION of being a Christian, by accepting Christ, you cannot be a Christian unless you have accepted the Son of God into your heart - it is EXCRUCIATINGLY AND EXCORIATINGLY PELLUCID!!!!!!!!!! As for "going after Catholics" - I did NOT include them among the NOT CHRISTIAN group, which is very clear in my post, I simply said they go against some pretty clear things that Jesus said (Mary being divine and praying to the saints, calling themselves Father, and having the authority equal to Christ to forgive sins before the Father). That's all. They are still VERY CHRISTIAN BECAUSE THEY PURPORT THAT THE ONLY WAY TO HEAVEN IS THROUGH JESUS CHRIST! Your last statement there about people not recognizing that Jesus is the ONLY way to the Father doesn't make them any less Christian is again, ASTOUNDINGLY ANNOYING TO HEAR AFTER WE'VE JUST GONE OVER THE DEFINITION OF A CHRISTIAN AS PUT FORTH BY CHRIST HIMSELF. You cannot be a Christian apart from Christ, it's that simple. Jesus Himself said it - you cannot get around that. And as for your trying to say that it is the Father's call on when people choose not to accept Christ whether or not they get to be with Him forever is a joke - the entire New Testament and the Old Testament too (b/c the New fulfills the old) irreconcilably states that JESUS is the ONLY way to the Father, He won't even listen to you unless you've accepted His Son - b/c Jesus makes you right with God. He forgives you so that you are blameless just as He is before the Father. You cannot refuse to recognize what I've said here, because this is not my "interpretation" or my "objective reasoning" or my "logical thinking" here, it is STRAIGHT out of Jesus' mouth. | ||
| Ryan Archer Member Username: theleastofthese Post Number: 39 Registered: 01-2004 Rating: |
I will say this much and then be done with talking to you for it is becoming a waste... Your incessant statements about you must apply logic and reasoning and objectivity and so forth while you at the same time say you cannot use any of those things when it comes to God is a contradiction which you continue to dither in. Also, we have told you the truth many times and in many different ways. You stubbornly refuse to even make an attempt in FAITH with Jesus (or at least you abstain from mentioning and make comments suggesting that you would never consider it all). You major in the minors and nitpick over every little thing and make astounding claims like the universe was NOT created in 6 days (HOW do you know that? If you were not personally present for it, then you cannot conclude anything, rather you can make an OPINION about it as you refuse to accept God's Word on it). Thus showing that you are not really seeking God anyway, only trying to disprove Him. The Bible is very clear on what to do with those who stubbornly refuse and reject in spite of the testimony of many witnesses; dust off your feet and move on to the next one (Jesus)...not to get involved in foolish, fruitless arguments (Paul)...etc. When you are genuinely seeking God, make it known, until then, I cannot afford this time spent this way anymore. I'll bet most of the others here share this sentiment. I'm sorry if this comes across as rude, but it's true. May Jesus give you revelation, as I have prayed for your heart to be soft and receptive so often. May God bless you Timothy, it is my deepest hope that you one day get tired of this existence and give Him a chance. Love ya, man, ~Ryan | ||
| Timothy Campen Advanced Member Username: tcampen Post Number: 328 Registered: 09-2003 Rating: |
[YES, I showed that half those "denominations" are NOT Christian, which goes to the DEFINITION OF BEING A CHRISTIAN AS PUT FORTH BY CHRIST HIMSELF: "NO ONE COMES TO THE FATHER EXCEPT THROUGH ME."] All those denominations YOU say are not Christian say the same thing about YOU while referring to John also. Funny how that works. [As for "going after Catholics" - ...They are still VERY CHRISTIAN...!] Yet you so quickly point out many "non-biblical" things they do. I'm fascinated as to how you attained the authority to proclaim Catholics as less christian than you (but apparently christian enough, thank goodness). The Pope would be wise to listen to you. [Jesus Himself said it - you cannot get around that...You cannot refuse to recognize what I've said here, because this is not my "interpretation" or my "objective reasoning" or my "logical thinking" here, it is STRAIGHT out of Jesus' mouth.] The author of the Gospel of John said Jesus said that. Whether Jesus actually said that is another matter. Whether Jesus really was the son of God is yet another. I understand you accept a whole collection of premises to get to your "obvious" conclusion, but please don't assume everyone makes the same blanket assumptions you do. It's a bit more complicated than you give it credit. I get it. Christians believe the NT is the divinely inspired work of men that reflects God's will. That's part of your belief system. I understand. Just as Muslims believe the Prophet Mohammed received the word directly from God. And Mormons believe in the revelation of Joseph Smith. etc. etc. etc. And everyone points the finger at the other, proclaiming, "I'm right and you're wrong." (I know....it's a little more complicated than that.) But the point remains. What seems so obvious to you is lost on others, including Catholics, apparently. That very fact is compelling evidence that what you consider to be objective facts beyond dispute clearly are not. Reasonable, informed, and sincere people can differ on these issues. Whether you think they should or should not does not change the fact that they do. I simply cannot dismiss others so easily. I understand your beliefs based on your stated premises. But I do not agree on your premises to begin with, thus I cannot agree with your conclusions. It's one of those things where reasonable minds just differ. Can't we just agree to disagree? | ||
| Timothy Campen Advanced Member Username: tcampen Post Number: 329 Registered: 09-2003 Rating: |
[Your incessant statements about you must apply logic and reasoning and objectivity and so forth while you at the same time say you cannot use any of those things when it comes to God is a contradiction which you continue to dither in.] And I will explain this one last time, for it appears lost on you. There is a DIFFERENCE on determining whether a methodology CAN APPLY to the subject matter, and ACTUALLY applying the methodology to that subject matter. I've done both, admittedly. But if you take the time to actually consider the arguments, you'll discover that with regard to the latter, my point of logic not being applicable to the supernatural was shown by applying logic to it and getting inconsistent and incomprehensible results. This illustrates the point. I apologize if I didn't give illustrated road signs explaining which issue I was addressing when applying critical thinking. I'll be more careful in the future. [You major in the minors and nitpick over every little thing and make astounding claims like the universe was NOT created in 6 days (HOW do you know that? If you were not personally present for it, then you cannot conclude anything, rather you can make an OPINION about it as you refuse to accept God's Word on it). Thus showing that you are not really seeking God anyway, only trying to disprove Him.] I learned from other Christians in these threads that Genesis was really written poetry, never intended to be taken literally. Are YOU saying those Christians are wrong? (Again, more vindication.) The EVIDENCE disproves everything in the universe, including the earth and all life on it, being created in 6 days. Was I there? No. But if such a thing did occur, the evidence should reflect such an event. That is not the case. If you so quickly dismiss evidence because to might conflict with what you want believe, that's your business. But if you believe God created the universe, the earth and all life on this planet in 6 literal days, you'd be among the minority of even your fellow Christians. [When you are genuinely seeking God, make it known, until then, I cannot afford this time spent this way anymore. I'll bet most of the others here share this sentiment. I'm sorry if this comes across as rude, but it's true. May Jesus give you revelation, as I have prayed for your heart to be soft and receptive so often. May God bless you Timothy, it is my deepest hope that you one day get tired of this existence and give Him a chance. Love ya, man, ~Ryan] Ryan, it's allllllllll good. We both have strong beliefs, and we both seek what is right and true. You've found it in your beliefs, as I have in mine. I'm not stupid, uninformed, rejecting God or Jesus, or any of that. I simply believe differently than you. I realize you don't agree such can have any validity whatsoever, and I'm not here to pick fights. I'm also not here to try to diminish your faith in Christ one bit. If I could leave you with anything it is this...perhaps others can have your level of spiritual experience, depth, intellect and sincerety, yet still not believe as you do. It's called empathy, and I know you have it - it's just a matter of how its applied. I believe with all my heart that while all people will never agree on matters of spirituality, we do have the ability to respect our spiritual differences. I respect your beliefs and understand how and why you have such strong conviction for them, just as I understand people of other religions have just as strong convictions in their beliefs, and I with mine. You may sincerely believe I am wrong, and that is fine...just as long as you recognize I am sincere in what I and others believe, and respect others' individual (and god-given) right to worship as they are called. I may have taken a long way around to get to this point, but I doubt it would have had the same impact if I came out and said this first. I'll be away from my computer for most of the next several weeks, so I won't be around much. But that's ok. This discussion has run its course. Great chatting with you all. Keep up the good work and never stop considering the possibilities. - t | ||
| Minister to Eris New member Username: personalpope Post Number: 4 Registered: 04-2004 Rating: N/A |
And I've come to the conclusion that religious discussion smacks of pointlessness. People cling desperately to their religious beliefs simply because it alleiviates their fears of the unknown(what happens after death, for example). All of you will experience such relief and freedom once you abandon your rigid beliefs and become more flexible. Afterall, "Nothing is True; Everything is Permitted." Cease your hollow pursuit for "Truth" since absolute truth doesn't exist. "Truth", an aritifical construct, gives reality meaning. Since there are an infinate number of facts available, truth forms by choosing amongst relevant facts and assembling them into a model. So if nothing is *Absolutely* true, then everything is permitted. Belief in truths, is merely a means to an end. We can create any truths we want and therby alter our own realities. The universe IS relativistic(Einstein) and arbitrary(Chaos Theory). Enjoy yourselves. | ||
| Minister to Eris New member Username: personalpope Post Number: 5 Registered: 04-2004 Rating: N/A |
For examples of just how strongly beliefs(especially religious) form and warp socieities, simply study the history of Christian, Islamic and Buddhist societies. They formed in such a manner simply because of the mass beliefs people held. Islamic countries led the way in science, mathematics and medicine at one time, then something "clicked" and forced them into their radical versions of Islam, and look at them now. | ||
| Ryan Archer Member Username: theleastofthese Post Number: 40 Registered: 01-2004 Rating: |
Eris, you don't really have a strong point in your above posts. Your quote about "Nothing is True; Everything is Permitted." - who said that...? What is your point? You talk about the Truth as if God is just some vague notion that we should just blindly follow without knowing anything about Him. Like following God is merely the application of some certain rules in one's life, and it's all about outward appearances and what other people think of others... To some people, this IS God to them, because they are simply doing whatever they want and not actually applying what God said in the Bible. However, IF you read about Jesus and what He said to us, you would see that Jesus is VERY personal, He does not say come and LISTEN to the Kingdom of God, or come and STUDY the Kingdom of God, He says come and SEE the Kingdom of God, come and EXPERIENCE the Kingdom of God (Jesus). What He was relating to people was the Kingdom of God, Himself, was very near to them, in proximity, and that He was there to demonstrate what God's Kingdom is like - that the mission of God is to personally seek out each one of us who will listen to Him and who will acknowledge their need for Him (we all need Him) and to set us free, physically (if we ask for it), but especially INSIDE OUR HEARTS. God knows each one of our hearts, and He says we will not see the Kingdom of God unless we become as a child again, on the inside, because a child just believes without a reason, a child has real faith and will believe God for whatever He says, just like you did with your parents. It's also about being humble before God and in seeking Him. Jesus said whoever seeks, finds, whoever asks, receives, and whoever knocks, the door will be opened to him - all of those instances have one thing in common: they all require the person honestly, and willingly desiring God to reveal Himself to them, in a humble way (asking, seeking, knocking; they are all humbling because you're asking God to do something for you that you yourself cannot do). Then let Him show Himself to you on HIS terms, rather than your own, and if you are honest in your heart and are sincerely looking to know Him, then I GUARANTEE you, because His Word says it and He is not a man that He should lie, HE WILL COME TO YOU and you will find the Son of God. Until you have done this, you cannot say that you have been honest in giving God a chance. I personally hope you do, because I PROMISE you that you will not be disappointed in any way, He will fulfill you beyond anything you could have ever expected or even conceived of, and He will give to you a peace that makes everything, literally everything fade away as you soak in the pleasure of just being in His presence, and He will hold you and touch your heart in the deep places you did not know you even had...He truly loves you and just wants you to come to Him. That's all He's waiting for. ~Ryan | ||
| Ryan Archer Member Username: theleastofthese Post Number: 41 Registered: 01-2004 Rating: |
As for your statement about "For examples of just how strongly beliefs(especially religious) form and warp socieities, simply study the history of Christian, Islamic and Buddhist societies. They formed in such a manner simply because of the mass beliefs people held. " Whatever has been done by people to go contradictory to what Christ says has been done BY PEOPLE, not God. If you told your son not to kill someone and then he killed someone anyway, does that mean you don't exist? Or that YOU are evil? NO, absolutely not, because your son makes his own decisions, and he has free will to either follow you or not. So when someone who "claims" to be a Christian does something clearly contradictory to Christ, it does not make Christ look bad, it makes that person look bad because THEY are the one that did it, not Christ. | ||
| Hanson Street Member Username: hansonstreet22 Post Number: 29 Registered: 03-2004 Rating: N/A |
"Jews don't believe in Jesus's resurrection and Christians do... HOw can they be equally correct? - me Muslims believe Muhammad is the only prophet... Jews and Christians disagree... how can they be equally correct? " - me "How can the trinity be reconciled logically? It cannot. But it is still accepted on faith. If a God can do all these these that are absolutely contrary to logic and reason, then why can't a god make multiple faiths viable paths to it? Why are you trying to limit god's abilities? "- Tim So, you're saying you accept it on faith that all these religons are "equally correct" and it takes no logic it only requires faith because that belief obviously defies logic...? Uh, well I wouldn't say he "can't" make faiths viable paths to salvation i bet if he wanted to he could because he CAN do anything if he wanted to... it doesn't mean he has to, he can obviously choose not to... can he not? It's that he chooses only to have one path. Or at least the God i believe in and if you don't believe me i'll show you. John 3:18 "Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son." Right there it clearly states that (according to the Christian Religon) the only way to heavy is through the Son Jesus Christ... Does it not? Now you're saying that "...why can't a god make multiple faiths viable paths to it? Why are you trying to limit god's abilities? " Did i limit his abilities? God is like hey alright, if you want to come to heaven with me the only way is to believe in Jesus. Have faith, trust in me, and you're good to go. If he wanted to he could have said (since he can do anything) believe whatever you want... it's all equally correct (defying absolute truth which the Bible also claims) so no matter what you believe as long as your "good" (according to your standards) then you go to heaven. NOT AT ALL Tim. Tim I'm going to just basically go way off topic and explain a lot of things here because I'm not goign to get on this site for a while because i got a bunch of projects to worry about right now anyways... First of all, you have a right to your opinion and obvioulsy it's very different than mine and we cant seem to accept or agree on very many things. I'm goign to have a last say for a while basically just tell you what i believe... (i also believe that i dont know everything about everything some of it is theories but the more i study the more i learn the more i grow in faith) First of all i believe in Jeus because : he had great teachings to prove he was a sane very moral man historically it is known that Jesus infact did die on a cross... very painful undeserved death (he must have been clearly motivated) Motivated only by love and grace for everyone, he even forgave the people that were killing him "forgive them Father for they known not what they do" thats some serious love That's my pitfall i have a hard time forgiving people that I don't like. Today i was sitting there whining about losing my 20 worthless bucks in poker cause i lost it all when i had a full house and somebody had a better full house and i was sitting there thinking of how baaad my life was cause of school and losing money in poker and all these stupid projects i got to do. And i was also just feeling like what am i doing in life? Have youe ver thought that? LIke what is it that I'm trying to accomplish and why am i here and all those in depth questions that tons of people think about? Im like my life isnt even that exciting right now whats do i do to make it more exciting and feeling down about stupid stupid crap. So I'm sitting here driving down a road going 30 miles an hour randomly, since it's wet, my car hydroplanes i spin out go across the road and ove a hill go down about 15 feet a really steep hill. My cars pretty banged up. I'm completely fine. (yes you can give me the well you got lucky speech) I would say your absolutely right. I totally believe that God was telling me Hanson wake up man. Look at all the stuff you got. You got your life your family your brohters your friends and i even still got my car cause miraculously its not even that banged up(thats not what matters though). I'm living pretty good right now i shouldn't have any worries. That led me to some other thoughts too. Heaven for me is basically no worries. If somehow i could come to the realization about what actually does and doesnt matter in life i think I would be a much happier person, and today i am. ... next point Jesus' disciples highly doubted him resurrecting. Some died martyr's deaths for claiming that they saw him resurrected ... now think about this LOGICALLY - they doubted Jesus coming back so why would they die for something they doubted if they hadn't seen Jesus. It seems very logical to me that htey doubted and then Jesus was like hey gues whats up and they're like wow this is insane (causing their faith to be 100% now) They turned into some of hte most bravest men in history. Spread the word like Jesus commanded in Romans ... making disciples of all nations and then they too died for what they believed and for what they claimed ot have seen. Dying for what you believe is a lot more credible if you claimed to have seen it. Next point: All the prophesies, there are numerous prophesies that Jews believed hundreds of years befoer the messiah came. Hundreds of years now think about that. It would of had to have been a majore fluke for these other people to believe in a God that wasn't there (God of Isreal, Abraham, and Isaac). They claimed this God helped free the slaves from Egypt. They claimed this God did numerous things. Tons and tons of which seem logically possible if he were a supreme God that claims all the things he has. Next to that Tim, Jesus fulfills all these prophesies hundres of years later and i heard this somehwere (so i can't back it up 100% b/c i dont just believe something when i hear it i have to look into it) ... the chances of Jesus fulfilling all the prophesies that he did are like covering the state of texas in silverdollars and closing your eyes and randomly guessing the right one. That is ridiculous. (look into that if you dont believe me) What is the reason for everything being here... now I really want you to think about this? Maybe there is more possibilities that i havn't thought of but i can only come up with a few of how everything has got here. One being that everything has always been here matter can't be created or destroyed and its lasted forever and has always been here. Two... big bang theory spontanious explosion explaining the red factor and why planets and stars are racing the universe and also explaining how everything (by some small chance) just got here. Three... A supreme being above the laws of science (hence he created everything even science itself) creates the universe ... possibly doing it witha "big bang". Now looking into to number 1 i would say you have no factual proof or evidence on this theory except for the scientific observation that you cant make things go away or appear because matter is definite it doesnt go away. (but could'nt a supreme being create things if anything is possible for him) Looking at two... i say this theory contradicts the law of matter, as stated in number 1, that matter cantbe created or destroyed, so i find this theory very hard to believe in. Three... a supreme being possibly using the big bang makes a lot of since. It would explain the dilemma as to how everything got here. Something so powerful beyond our understanding (obviously if we understand the origin of the universe then it wouldnt be beyone our understanding). The convincing evidence of the big bang is the red factor... now im not going to go into it but look it up if you dont believe me. Now whose claim to the supreme being is correct? (you claim that all very well could be equally correct) Is it the Christian, the Jew, the buddha, the hindu, the muslim, and so on. Jew is the hardest for me to believe because the Jews are still waiting on a messiah and Jesus seemed like a pretty good one i dont know what he did wrong. Muslim claim that there is only one true prophet of the god Allah. Also in the Quran two separates quotes i have found to be very controversial. Table Spread Surah 5:51: " O ye who believe! Take not Jews and Christians for friends. They are friends one to another. He among you who taketh them for friends is (one) of them. Lo! allah guideth not wrongdoing folk." Family of Imran Surah 3:151: " We shall cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve because they ascribe unto Allah partners, for which no warrant hath been revealed. Their habitation is the Fire, and hapless the abode of wrong-doers" you think about those for yourself im not going to get into that... Hindu- blue elephant god and cows are holy... enough said Buddha was clearly a man, and then one day claimed to be the enlightened one. He can't be God... i havn't looked very much into this one but i have studied him in history and im not convinced that his religion is absolutely correct. As i've said before he does speak some truths that i believe in and... i also believe you agreed with me that all religions have similar truths in them. Now how do we define what is actually truth- In my opinion truth is the Bible. I believe it speaks absolute truth. I've found no flaws in it. Show me a flaw is all i ask. The Quran and the Bible can't be equally correct if it states to take not Jews and christians for friends in the Quran ... yet in the Bible it says to love thy neighbor as theyself. I know Muslims that have friends that are Jews and Christians but that doesnt disprove what it says in the Quran about not doing that. I also know Christians (I'm one of them) that don't do everyhting perfectly as explained in the Bible. Next point- Think about dying... like honestly think about it for a second. You're lying there in your death bed when your 90 maybe. Maybe you look back on things regret some things and feel good about others. But i bet you think about whats going to happen next. Tim, i believe you said, you think theres a possibility of something spiritual surviving our deaths. I would ask you to search and search until you find exactly what that is. It seems to me that you are unsure about many things. I too don't know everything and am unsure about other things as well. I am sure about there being a God with 100 percent faith. Yes, sometimes i doubt but thats only when I get angry or irrational, in my opinion. I think you want a sign to be shown to you for you to drastically grow in faith as to whatever it is exactly that you believe. Tim, I honestly believe that my God is working on you and trying to show you. I ask you to look for the signs. If you deny them than you have no excuse for not seeing them. If you look and don't see any without any denial then fine believe what you believe. But I would bet my life that there are times at least once a week when you see or think about something... and your like hey what if there really is a God and the Christians are right? Now you can argue with me all day about how do I know what is right... and who am i to say they're wronga nd I'm right. I say this... I say Jesus is right and wahtever he thought and said was right. I try to be like him although not perfect so thus i am not always right. Back to the main point here... I pray that when God shows the signs that you notice them. Try and be as open-minded as possible you might laugh when im saying this, but I'm dead serious. Try asking God to show you a sign... but dont be like God show me something now or else i won't believe in you... that's not the right way to ask... just ask for him to show you wisdom or some sort of proof. In Galatians God claims that the Earth and nature clearly show his invisible qualities ... i also suggest to you that you read the Bible with an open-mind... consider possibilities ( and to be fair and open-minded i will read other points of views and look into them and consider different possibiliities) Another awesome thing about Christianity is... Tim you ask for Jesus in your last breathe it says you will go to heaven for that. So if you're ever in some crazy freak accidnet or lying on your death bed... and thinking or possibily fearing death i say you dnt have to fear it just ask for Jesus's help whether you believe its there or not and i guarantee you will be comforted. Good luck with life Tim,and since I'm not great at explaining everything i believe I strongly suggest you read Case for Christ by Lee Strobel. He comes up with far better convincing (in my opinion) ideas on theology than i have ever thought of. He was an atheist who's goal in life was to disprove Christianity. You and him have some similarites in that you don't think Christinianity is absolutely correct and you like to look at the other side of the argument. After all there is 2 sides to everything and i suggest you look at my side with this book. | ||
| Timothy Campen Advanced Member Username: tcampen Post Number: 330 Registered: 09-2003 Rating: |
"So, you're saying you accept it on faith that all these religons are "equally correct" and it takes no logic it only requires faith because that belief obviously defies logic...?" I recently read a christian theologian who put it this way.... "the opposite of certainty is faith." When I say there may be more than one viable path the the place most of use would like to end up, I am saying such a belief is just as reasonable as asserting there can be only one viable path. That's all. "Jesus' disciples highly doubted him resurrecting. Some died martyr's deaths for claiming that they saw him resurrected ... now think about this LOGICALLY - they doubted Jesus coming back so why would they die for something they doubted if they hadn't seen Jesus." I never thought this argument made much sense. Taking the Gospels at face value, the disciples saw lots of people resurrected from the dead prior to Jesus doing the same. They also witnessed countless other miracles prior to the crucifixion that were greater than any miracles witnessed by anyone before or since. The idea that not a single follower of Jesus beleived he would come back three days later, when everthing else Jesus said had come true and witnessing all the other resurrections Jesus had performed, makes no sense. People are willing to die for beliefs and causes without witnessing a single miracle. The actions of the disciples between the crucifixion and the resurrection is inexplicable from a human behavioral standpoint. I even debated Cliffe personally on this point some years ago, and I didn't find his response adequate. The best explanation for this anomally is that the miracles attributed to Jesus didn't really happen, but the disciples did believe Jesus was resurrected in some respect. This would better explain the disciples behavior. It is also supported by the fact none of the pre-Gospels writings (of Paul, for example) refer to any specific miracles of Jesus prior to the crucifixion, nor even of a virgin birth for that matter. (The argument that such pre-crucifixion miracles were common knowledge at the time and didn't need to be written about doesn't hold water either.) My point is this. Step back and look at it objectively, without any investment in the outcome. How do we expect people to behave given certain circumstances? Are the disciple's behavior in the Gospels consistent with what we know about human behavior in general, given what they are said to have experienced? In my analysis, the answer is the Gospel accounts as to the disciples' behavior just doesn't quite add up. I think reasonable minds can differ on this, however. "In my opinion truth is the Bible. I believe it speaks absolute truth. I've found no flaws in it. Show me a flaw is all i ask." See the above analysis for starters. Or, see the two lineages of Jesus in the Gospels which are inconsistent with one another, for example. Or the story of Noah, which is proven to have never happened. The problem is, devote followers have been reconciling the NT and Hebrew scriptures for 2,000 years. The arguments are all out there, and for those who start with the premise of biblical infallibility as one of the foundational aspects of their faith, any flaw is unacceptable from the outset. From that perspective, even specious arguments that support infallibility must be accepted over more reasonable and supported conclusions. Thus, any such discussion is essentially meaningless. We won't agree on this, so what's the point? "I would ask you to search and search until you find exactly what that is. It seems to me that you are unsure about many things." I am quite unsure about many things, but I'm quite ok with being unsure. I don't need to make myself feel like I am certain about something in which that kind of certainty is impossible. If you've found something that alleviates any fear of uncertainty, then that's great. Go for it. But don't think I ever lie awake at night worried about the fate of my eternal soul. I have embraced not knowing, and remain as secure in my eternal fate as you. Again, the opposite of certainty is faith. "Try and be as open-minded as possible you might laugh when im saying this, but I'm dead serious. Try asking God to show you a sign..." I am so open minded, thanks. And perhaps God has shown be a sign, but God's sign told me something different about God than what you are describing. That's my point. You're assuming that because my faith is different from yours that God isn't speaking to me as authoritatively as God speaks to you. You're judging the validity of my spiritual experience by how similar or different it is to your spiritual experience, or that of others who share your particular faith and interpretation of the bible. I appreciate your intent to be open minded on this issue, by the way, I really do. And with this in mind, may I suggest the following: Rather than judging the credibility of one's faith on how similar it is to your own on a nuts and bolts level, try looking at one's sincerety as compared with your own sincerety. It has been my experience to find people just as sincere and devote to their faiths as your are to yours (or anyone else), even though they may be Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Wiccan, Sikh, Atheist, you name it. When I see people of faiths different from my own, and they are honest, sincere, and informed in those faiths, I can't possible imagine saying "I know you are wrong." I have to recognize each person's spiritual experience as their own, and unique from anyone else's in some respect. That includes you. While we may disagree on some historical claim in the bible, I cannot dispute your relationship with God, because I believe it is sincere. "Good luck with life Tim,and since I'm not great at explaining everything i believe I strongly suggest you read Case for Christ by Lee Strobel. He comes up with far better convincing (in my opinion) ideas on theology than i have ever thought of. He was an atheist who's goal in life was to disprove Christianity. You and him have some similarites in that you don't think Christinianity is absolutely correct and you like to look at the other side of the argument. After all there is 2 sides to everything and i suggest you look at my side with this book." Actually, I believe there are multiple sides to everything - perhaps even infinite sides. The book you suggest is probably interesting, but I can say I probably won't get to it any sooner than I'd get to any other apologetic book for any relious belief. On the other side of authors like Lee Strobel, you have atheists like Dan Barker, a former Christian minister, you provide compelling arguments against Christianity. I'd be infinitely more interested in reviewing a debate between two such people, as I find the competition and testing of ideas produces the truth, whatever that turns out to be. But rest assured I am more than familiar with your side. I grew up Catholic, and the whole bit. I still have a nostalgic fondness for the Church, and even did my post-graduate work at the Catholic University of America. My point of posting in places like this is not to destroy your Christian faith. Rather, it is to hopefully make the point that honest, sincere and informed people can believe different than you without be liars, cheats, or stupid. I am not an unbeliever, but simply one who believes differently. | ||
| Hanson Street Member Username: hansonstreet22 Post Number: 30 Registered: 03-2004 Rating: N/A |
"Or the story of Noah, which is proven to have never happened. "... actually many scientist believe that there indeed was a great flood. They found striking resemblences in Gilamesh which was written about a thousand years before Noah's ark... so they began to look into it. I saw a whole show actually 2 days ago on national geographic that didnt prove the story was true... yet the likely possibility that it was. I dont know where you got your information. Also I'm not totally out to point the finger at everyone else and be like your wrong i'm right. Sometimes i think I'm right and your wrong in situations as do you. Example being you think I'm wrong in thinking theres only one path you think that there is more than one path. Well... since i believe in Christianity than i believe there is only one path. You believe in the possibility that everyone could be correct. I see a sense of why you believe that b/c i do believe that most-all religions have grasped the concept of truth. I cant prove to you that I'm righ in believing in Christianity but i definitely have a right to believe that ... and if i am to believe that then it's fair for me to think that if you believe in more than one path than you can not be correct saying that I am. " Rather, it is to hopefully make the point that honest, sincere and informed people can believe different than you without be liars, cheats, or stupid. I am not an unbeliever, but simply one who believes differently." Did I ever call you a liar, a cheat or stupid? Even if you were stupid it's not your fault that you were born with a stupid brain. And i agree... just because they believe something different doesnt make them a liar. Lying is when you try to deceive somebody. In their hearts i bet they believe that they are correct. So they are being honest and not trying to decieve anyone. I think Ghandi thought similar to you and i think Ghandi had a great grasp of the idea of truth. I also think Jesus did too. I think Ghandi didn't claim to be God and Ghandi was clearly not perfect. He also preached a lot of the same lessons Jesus did. Jesus also claimed to be God and we have no proof today that he sinned. Nonetheless we have no proof today that he was perfect. WE do have a book writeen by many people claiming that there was going to be a guy coming (old testament) who will be perfect... and then we have a new testament which claims the guy is perfect. Thus leading me to believe in Jesus... plus many other factors. In no way are you a liar. But yes, it is possible that you are wrong in some of your beliefs. I could be wrong too in some of mine... because i dont know everything either .. and am uncertain with some things yet i am confident also. I in my faith though... as are you. I'm just trying to explain to you that it isn't possible for you to believe in Christianity being absolutely correct while Hinudism or Islam is absolutely correct at the same time. The fact is they have many similarities (truth) which causes great things to come out of people. They become holy and good-hearted human beings using this truth. Jesus also preached this. But there also are some differences (proving that they both can't be absolutely correct). Jesus says theres one way to the Father and thats through him. And according to that you would be calling him a liar to say that ... no your wrong Jesus there is more than one way... everyones correct. It is not fair to say that. Now am I calling you a liar? No, because i dont believe you're trying to decieve me. You're being honest and telling me exactly what you believe and I respect that. I also disagree with somethings you say. Because if everyone is correct... then you and I are both correct and nobody is wrong. Somebody has to be partially wrong. Be it that you may be wrong sometimes and i may be wrong sometimes. This is obvious because we arent perfect. Now if it makes you feel better I will admit to not being perfect and being wrong sometimes. I used to have old theories on my religion that i now know are wrong. ex.When i was really little I thought Jesus was white because i would watch Jesus movies and he looked white. Now i know he's not white and htat he was Middle Eastern. Thus he was of different complexion and in no way was he white. This has nothing to do with race im just stating the obvious fact that i can be wrong in some things i believe. I may mis interpret the text slightly from time to time... but that doesnt mean that thetext is untrue. It means that I am untrue. I accept that, I accpet the fact that I am not perfect yet I put my faith in God and that what he thinks is. To make things easier i try to live a simple life and do what i think is right according to the bible and the consciencei have inside of me. Now i also believe you are open-minded about this as well. yet so am i. I have looked at it from multiple sides and find my side most convincing. As do you probably... but i ask you the question one more time ... how can Jesus (who claimed that there is only one way to God and that is through him) be ABSOLUTELY correct while Judaism is also correct when they believe otherwise. Jews and other religions owuld have to believe that Jesus was not speaking absolute TRUTH when he said that... for them to not believe he is the way to God. Nicodemus told Jesus in the Bible ... basically hey man we know your a man of God. We've seen what you have done and hte miracles you've done. But look man come on... are you really God? If your Jewish, do you think God would work miracles through a man lying (trying to decieve people into thinking he's God) . I bet if he did do those miracles and claimed to be God at the same time then he infact is God. Another thing that you said about the apostle paul. " It is also supported by the fact none of the pre-Gospels writings (of Paul, for example) refer to any specific miracles of Jesus prior to the crucifixion, nor even of a virgin birth for that matter. " Mayb(not sure on that), yet Paul also used to be named saul and he used to persecute Christians. He used to murder thousands of Christians. He claimed that he saw Jesus. That in itself is a miracle including Jesus. Is that enough for you to believe Paul? Obviously not... but that's fine that is your opinion. Actually you believe everyone is correct ... so paul must be correct and so is Jesus and so are the Jews and so are the Hindus. I am saying to you that that is not logically possible. You argue that well the trinity isn't logically possible. Look at it ... the trinity is saying the 3 are in 1 right. Not possible... i say yeah it is and its logical too. Have you ever heard that when 2 people have sex the 2 become one. Are the two people not separate beings... after they have sex its not like they are attached and they can only function as one . No its just saying by the two being one ... that they are emotionally one and htey will make decisions as one and they are relationally equal (one). Just like the trinity. God, Jesus, Holy spirit. They are separate. God was in heaven while Jesus was on Earth and then when Jesus went to heaven he sent the Councelor (holy spirit) down. This proves they are separate. Yet they are also one ... relationally (they all believe the same way), emotionally htey all feel the same way), and they all make decisions as one. If you read the Bible you'll realize that Jesus would ask God questions and pray to God to do what he wants done. Jesus was God's chosen one ... Jesus was perfect and he fulfilled God's plan ... he did waht God wanted. Hopefully you understand my side of it better... doesnt mean i'm absolutely correct in everything i say ... but it does mean that i could be and it does mean you could be wrong... i dont thinkyou and i are both equally correct. The fact that we have diverse opinions means that our opinions both cant be equally correct. | ||
| Hanson Street Member Username: hansonstreet22 Post Number: 31 Registered: 03-2004 Rating: N/A |
"But I do not agree on your premises to begin with, thus I cannot agree with your conclusions. It's one of those things where reasonable minds just differ. Can't we just agree to disagree? " wait a second Tim, i thought everyone was equally correct? Also yes yall can agree to disagree... and so can i. Tim you and i disagree on some things. We both can't be correct and you said it yourself. " Logic will not allow free will and an omnipotent God. Logic will not allow the Trinity. Logic will not allow omnipotence but freedom from responsibility from anything. But all of these things can be accepted on faith, and I readily accept that." How does logic not allow free will? You can't just say things as if they're facts when really they're opinions. I believe free will is logically possible. Ha don't you have free will? Isn't it possible for you to choose whatever it is that you want to do? I think so, I think God gave us free will to show love. He gave us freedom. I'm glad I'm not a robot... then again if i was a robot i wouldn't be glad b/c i couldn't think and if i couldn't think i wouldn't have a free will. Now please don't give me any strawman fallacy , anomaly big word balogna because you like to hide behind your big words. You avoid points when you are questioned sometimes. How is free will illogical? It seems totally logic to me as i just explained. I explained above how the trinity is logical. The three are separate in being yet 1 in emotional feelings decisions and relationally one. Just like when people have sex "the two become one" ... ha they don't have one being. They are one relationally. Is that illogical Tim? Please explain to me this and stop avoiding it. You have avoided many of my questions you just pick and choose some of the little things like Ryan said and then try to explain that ... well you can't be 100 percent certain but uhh i disagree on you. Logic will not allow omnipotence but freedom from responsibility of anything? So you're saying since God is everywhere we don't have any freedom. Whatever man. He's everywhere watching what we do with our free will's and judging us. WE have all the responsibility we want. It's what we choose to do with it man. All of this seems very logical to me. Try and prove me otherwise or at least explain why you disagree... b/c you and i both can't be equally correct now Tim? | ||
| Timothy Campen Advanced Member Username: tcampen Post Number: 331 Registered: 09-2003 Rating: |
Hanson, About Noah's flood on national geographic...that expose was about the universality of flood stories on the region, including flood stories that predate the story of Noah. What they found was that melting glaciers caused the Black Sea to rise dramatically, submerging agricultural lands and settlements in the area. Was an actual flood the basis of Noah's flood story and other similar stories? I'd bet good $ a real flood did happen. But a world wide flood that covered all the land, and wiped out all land-based life that wasn't on the ark, is a story that is totally unsupported. THAT was my point. [Jesus also claimed to be God and we have no proof today that he sinned.] First of all, only the canonical gospels say Jesus claimed himself to be God (and I'm not sure all four have such express sayings attributed to Jesus, but I may be mistaken). Other gospels do not include such references. Whether Jesus really did claim to be god, or whether that was attributed to him is certainly one issue. Even if Jesus did claim to be the son of god and the same god himself, he may have sincerely believed that. Whether that was actually true is another issue as well. As far as Jesus sinning goes, that is a loaded question. Were certain gospels canonized because of their reliability or because they supported previously held assumptions while other gospels did not? Futhermore, when one begins with the premise of Jesus being infallible, then one cannot even entertain an argument Jesus may have sinned. For example, when Jesus was a child, and failed to tell his earthly parents he was going to stay behind in Jerusalem to talk to the priests in the Temple, that was failing to honor his parents. Even arguing he was obeying God the Father, Jesus still had an obligation to honor Mary and Joseph as well - and it is difficult to argue that Jesus (God Himself, remember) was incapable of at least having the common decency to tell his folks where he was. Mary and Joseph were upset and worried sick about Jesus for what he unnecessarily did, and that is not honoring one's parents, and therefore - arguably - a sin. Now, I've heard a lot of excuses of why this act was not a sin, but they all involved the presupposition that Jesus could not sin to begin with, which is not the most intellectually honest approach to the issue. Replace Jesus which any other 12 year old who had the ability to inform his parents of an obligation to do God's work rather than just abandoning his parents, and we would not find it wholly justified. We might excuse the conduct for its higher purpose, but we'd recognize it could have been done without dishonoring one's parents i nthe process. But your point is well taken. [Is that enough for you to believe Paul? Obviously not... but that's fine that is your opinion. Actually you believe everyone is correct ... so paul must be correct and so is Jesus and so are the Jews and so are the Hindus.] First, I never said "everyone is correct." I said that one cannot logically rule out the possiblity that multiple paths could be valid. I expressly do not claim to know the truth about that which none of us can have certainty. Like the catholic priest said, the opposite of certainty is faith, and faith is what we're talking about. Second, as to Paul. Paul certainly went through a dramatic transformation. Jesus was certainly responsible for that, taking Paul at his word. But if that is evidence for the validity of Jesus as expressed in the Gospels, for example, then similarly transformed lives at the hands of other religious experiences must also be validation for those other religious beliefs as well. In other words, what's good for the goose... [How is free will illogical?] Actually, I said "Logic will not allow free will and an omnipotent God," meaning "free will" and "omnipotence" are mutually exclusive concepts, logically. They cannot be reconciled by definition of what those words mean. Sorry for the confusion. [ explained above how the trinity is logical. The three are separate in being yet 1 in emotional feelings decisions and relationally one. Just like when people have sex "the two become one" ... ha they don't have one being. They are one relationally. Is that illogical Tim? Please explain to me this and stop avoiding it.] Thomas Jefferson, who studied the bible in english, latin and greek, found the concept of the Trinity so irrational that he held those who held such beliefs left their minds like a wrecked ship being tossed around directionless in the wind. I'm not nearly so harsh about it. The Trinity can be accepted on faith that it can be so despite our inability to comprehend it rationally. But I don't accept your analogy. Analogies, while sometimes necessary, are among the weaker forms of argument, for the analogy is rarely close enough to the actually subject matter to be truely comparable. Two people having sex feel very close, yes, but they are not ONE as Jesus is as much God as the Father is God or the Holy Spirit is God. In fact, your explanation is blatant polytheism, in that you recognize distinct separate individual gods who have such a close (quasi-sexual) relationship that they "feel" like one. But feeling as one, even in a relational sense, is still not really one. I hope I've answered you directly enough here. [Try and prove me otherwise or at least explain why you disagree... b/c you and i both can't be equally correct now Tim?] I hope I have explained my position. Again, when it comes to matters of the supernatural and spirituality, we're dealing with faith, not certainty. Logic tells us that many of the issues we are discussing are contrary - meaning that while neither position may be true, they both cannot be true either. But logic does not apply to the supernatural, by definition of what the supernatural is. So what may appear contrary to our earthly intellects may have no basis in reality when it come to the supernatural. We don't know - thus we have faith where was cannot have certainty. Hope that explains my position a little better. -t | ||
| Mary Dill Member Username: kazegpan Post Number: 30 Registered: 12-2003 Rating: |
Timothy, I just wanted to weigh in on the discussion on Jesus's adolescent behavior. Reread these passages and think of it like this: wouldn't it be cool if you were parents and when your son turned up "missing", upon finding him he told you "where else would I be but at church taking care of my Father in Heaven's business?" I have to say as a parent that would be Godsent behavior from a child! kaze | ||
| William Lloyd Gwynn New member Username: playpsyche Post Number: 3 Registered: 01-2005 Rating: N/A |
Man trying to disprove the existence of God is similar to a thought process in a human brain, trying to disprove the existence of the human form. God is. It's a tough subject to argue as no one individual in any time or space knows what God thinks about. How can one relate to a supreme being? Science can test nature and form hypotheses based on what has been observed, but I do not belive God is going to pose and flex his infinite abilities for the benefit of science. Science seems to be able to grasp the abstract- forming theories and piling hypotheses as more facts present themselves. Even though these facts are just facts- but not a complete picture, they become taught as a proven fact. If you look at a elephant from 1 in away, based on the facts that present themselves (i.e., rough skin, grey skin color- or black of red or brown, dusty skin, etc.,) can we truly say we have a grasp of the complete picture? Similar is our grasp of the infinities of God. He has sent his Son to be born, teach and then die, only to be resurrected to prove what he taught was real. These are verifiable facts, corroborated by innumerable eyewitnesses and written about by hundreds of scribes and scholars over the last thousand years. Science has facts that can be verified- but still the existence of God is non-existent? It appears that science is trying to disprove the existence of God by merely ignoring the very facts that history presents to us. The very facts that science uses to firm up the existence of evolution (as an example) are just theories; suppositions and extrapolations of researched data. Science would have us believe that we look like apes - therefore we came from apes. If it looks like dirt, smells like dirt and feels like dirt- it must be dirt. According to the basic tenets of science- wrong. My opinion is that humans are so busy proving themselves the masters of their environment, they are forgetting their 'roots'. In our hearts and minds, we can sense the truth in anything (i.e., truth seekers, psychics, sixth sense, etc,.), but we can't seem to find the obvious. The science of God is exactly that. As he created this universe, for a creature, existing in this universe to try to disprove the existence of said being- it's insane. Why not take the easy way out. Believe in God, learn his teachings and live as He asks. Then, when you die- if you were wrong, you have gained nothing and you are proven correct on your way to oblivion. But, if you are right- you live forever. Seems an obvious choice to me. | ||
| Timothy Campen Advanced Member Username: tcampen Post Number: 335 Registered: 09-2003 Rating: N/A |
William: "Similar is our grasp of the infinities of God. He has sent his Son to be born, teach and then die, only to be resurrected to prove what he taught was real. These are verifiable facts, corroborated by innumerable eyewitnesses and written about by hundreds of scribes and scholars over the last thousand years." William, who are the "innumerable" eyewitness you describe? We only have the 4 gospels in bible, 3 of which (the synoptics) are likely based on the same source, leaving two at best? Where are these independent accounts from any other witnesses? Who are they? (And please don't quote Paul saying Jesus appeared to 500 people, etc. That means nothing if we don't hear from a single one of them.) And so what if thousands of people (non-witnesses) wrote about Jesus later? Thousands of people have written about other religious figures as well. Does that validate Mohammed's or Buddha's existence and supernatural claims as well. "The very facts that science uses to firm up the existence of evolution (as an example) are just theories; suppositions and extrapolations of researched data. Science would have us believe that we look like apes - therefore we came from apes." Gravity is just a theory, too, keep in mind. How you use the word "theory" and how science uses the same word is quite different. Evolutionary theory has done more to understand bio-diversity and biology in general than any other scientific theory. It is so substantiated - with well over a hundered documented examples of speciation in nature and labratories, that it cannot be refuted. The legitimate debate is over the mechanisms of evolution, not whether it happens. And evolution is not based on the fact we look very similar to chimps. It is infinitely more complex than that. It is on a molecuar level these days, examining evolution in DNA, and showing we have certain genetic similarities that can only be explained by common ancestry. "Why not take the easy way out. Believe in God, learn his teachings and live as He asks. Then, when you die- if you were wrong, you have gained nothing and you are proven correct on your way to oblivion. But, if you are right- you live forever. Seems an obvious choice to me."\ Pascal's Wager, huh? It's a false dichotemy. In reality, there are more than just your two choices. What the muslims are right, and instead of being wrong and going to oblivion, you go to hell? Isn't that worse? Your assumption that the ultimate reality after death is either your concept of Christianity or absolutely nothing simply doesn't pass the simple logic test. | ||
| Timothy Campen Advanced Member Username: tcampen Post Number: 336 Registered: 09-2003 Rating: N/A |
William, I didn't want to leave on "attack mode," since that was not my intent. I do agree with several of your themes, just not several of the factual and logical assertions. My contention is that God, spirituality, etc., are all concepts belonging to the supernatural. By definition, they do not comply with the rules we recognize in nature, math, logic, etc. As such, trying apply our "natural" rules directly to the supernatural just can't work. It's foolish, in my opinion. That is why I laugh when people try use science to disprove God or anything else supernatural. (There is one caveat to this, which is when a supernatural claim is made for an event, which is later shown to be perfetly natural, such as thunder.) In the end, the concept of the existence of God cannot be ultimately refuted using the science or logic, nor can it be anymore support using the same. I say we leave spirituality to the individual and his/her heart, where it belongs. | ||
| amy Intermediate Member Username: amylc Post Number: 176 Registered: 06-2004 Rating: N/A |
Amen. I will add that spirituality, when left to the individual and his/her heart, is an evolutionary process too. |
