Chief Delphi

Chief Delphi (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/index.php)
-   Chit-Chat (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=14)
-   -   God (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=22051)

KenWittlief 14-12-2003 20:52

Re: God
 
I looked up the exact place where Jesus said God would reveal Himself to us, its John 14:21 - read it for yourself, and check different translations

but there is no way getting around what that whole chapter is saying - that God is going to interact with us individually and personally, that He will reveal Himself to us.

KenWittlief 14-12-2003 21:10

Re: God
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Marygrace
So if you read the story you find Im not a big fan of religion although I am a big believer in God.

theres an old song that says "you gotta walk that lonesome highway by yourself"

in the end we must all work out our relationship with God for ourselves. It appears you have already realized this, and are off to a good start.

jonathan lall 14-12-2003 21:17

Re: God
 
The usual disclaimers apply here. I am a lot more neutral in this whole argument than it may seem from this post. I'm just playing Devil's Advocate, and making a few points toward the credibility of the Bible I can't leave out. A further disclaimer though, I haven't read the whole Bible (mainly parts of Genesis I've read in any detail). Feel free to put me in my place. I'm also getting a bit alarmed having read more of the previous posts as to how this is becoming a Christian debate... people are putting down other faiths without even realizing it. Anyway...



Quote:

Originally Posted by KenWittlief
Johnathan, I read through most of the BrandX website.

The author comes across as being angry, resentfull, arrogant and full of pride and self confidence - as if he is impressed by his own reasoning skills that have allowed him to figure out that religion is a 'bunch of fairy tales'.

I think he comes across as that because he's trying to keep an informal ambiance to his writing, and is clearly establishing his frame of reference. I think that's good. He provides his bias and gives examples, then makes his experiences in the whole affair, which led him to his conclusion, known. I think that in general, logic and theistic religion do not mix, but I'll elaborate on that in a moment.




Quote:

Originally Posted by KenWittlief
But the error in his logic is this statement:
Quote:

Originally Posted by BrandX
To assume that there is a god is to assume something that cannot be tested, measured, or discovered, which is how we, as humans, prove anything

thats totally wrong. The existance of God can be tested, measured and discovered - so many times throughout the bible God communicates to us, "seek the Lord and you will find Him"

I beg to differ. You are making the leap in logic to assume the Bible is some sort of factual account of anything (or rather of everything). Of course it contains factual events and information, but many of the events require a leap in imagination to even fathom. This is I suppose to be expected though. More importantly however, the Bible was written by a number of different people and has been edited heavily by early Christian bishops and the like, and then translated from Hebrew. How can one read it and assume it was the intended meaning then? Not only that, but many texts were declared apocryphal by early Christians, which, just like that, makes them not part of the Bible, whether induced by divine revelation or not. Why?

Well, I'll give you an example of why I can't take the Bible with the same faith that Ken does. One reason why is because the Old Testament contains evidence of multiple gods, and that early pagan Israelites decided to worship Yahweh, the God of Sinai alone (incidentally, God is known as Jehovah by some Christians, and as Yahweh by others, which shows the lack of credibility of the modern-day Bible even more). Thus, it is possible that all accounts of multiple gods in the Old Testament were altered out. This would explain why the Lord decides to wipe mankind from the Earth prior to the Flood, because he says basically that he screwed up; how is this an account of an omnipotent god? It would also explain why he physically goes down to Sodom and Gomorrah, and why he simply acts as a normal man sometimes; I find the example in Genesis where he physically wrestles with Jacob particularly interesting. Contrast this image of God with that of the kind and forgiving one in New Testament, and you're in a quandary. Why does God say, "Let us make man in our image" in Genesis? Is this a 'royal we' or something? The point is, taking the Bible as fact is a bad idea IMO. Whether or not it was originally a divine revelation and a perfect account of facts, it is very far from that now. How then can one take it as fact? Can you give me one example of a test I can perform to determine whether or not God exists? The meaning of that statement of BrandX's is analogous to what M. Krass said in this thread much earlier...
Quote:

Originally Posted by M. Krass
God was created (or exists, depending on your perspective) to be an infallible entity. That was a really smart move, really, because the moment something intangible and ethereal becomes omnipotent and infallible, there exists no logic that can defeat it. It is the ultimate justification for the most unimaginable and horrific of actions. It's carte blanche for people to exercise their will -- as you've said.



Quote:

Originally Posted by KenWittlief
The problem BrandX has is, he wants to determine if God is real or not, THEN he will decide what he wants his relationship with God to be - its a 'show me the money' thing - God, prove to me that you are real, then I will love you and follow you.

How is that a problem? I think it is a reasonable thing to do. God never provided anyone with any proof of his existence. In any case, it will never be proven whether or not God exists, because the concept of God prevents this from happening. Perhaps this is good, because diversity in religion is a great thing, if only a contributor to values and natural law. I have little interest in swaying the beliefs of any religion, but I do wish some people were more open to all sides. In any case, everything can be explained through a systematic use of logic and the scientific method, versus theism, which cannot explain everything. I can however leave you a(nother) quote...
Quote:

Originally Posted by Epicurus
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

Logic burns theism again. I can't think of a way around this.

KenWittlief 14-12-2003 22:10

Re: God
 
Johnathan, I think you are mixing up your concept of God, with God Himself.

If God exists then there is nothing that requires Him to be mysterious or etheral, or impossible to pin down and understand. There are many cases in the old and new testiment where God makes His presence, nature and character perfectly clear

and somehow you seem to have missed this, but as I pointed out before, Jesus said that He is willing and able to reveal Himself to us - and millions of people have experienced this personally.

What more proof do you need that someone exists, than to have them reveal themselve to you personally?

The problem that I pointed out with BrandX, wanting to see the proof first

this is similar to someone who is rich - win the lottery tomorrow and you will have hundreds of people showing up at your door - if you are wealthy and you meet a girl and fall in love with her, then how do you know if she is really in love with you, or only in love with your money?

one answer to most of your questions is freewill. Evil exists in our world, and God does not stamp it out because He gave us a freewill. If everytime someone did something evil, God immediately stepped in and prevented it, or punished them, then our freewill would be lost.

At some point in the future God will reveal Himself to the world, in all His might and glory, and every knee will bend and every person will acknowledge that He is our creator.

but for some reason, at this point in history, our freewill is intact, and we have the option to choose to follow God, or to go our own way and do whatever we want to.

which goes back to what I was trying to say earlier. If you know something is right, you dont have to be promised a reward for doing it, and you dont have to be threatened with punishment if you dont. And you dont need a higher being to perform signs and wonders in your presence to prove to you that its right and true. You do it only because it is the right thing to do. What you do of your genuine freewill reveals the deepest aspects of your character.

and for some reason, God respects that, and adds to it - as I said in my last post.

I could address all the questions and concerns in your post, but I think I have derailed this thread too much already - if you are really interested in those things, send me a PM and I will respond to your last post in more detail.

jonathan lall 14-12-2003 22:27

Re: God
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by KenWittlief
I think you are mixing up your concept of God, with God Himself.

Come again, are you saying my view of God is wrong? :D See, that statement doesn't go with
Quote:

Originally Posted by KenWittlief
in the end we must all work out our relationship with God for ourselves.


KenWittlief 14-12-2003 22:35

Re: God
 
not really. If your concept of God is that Hes suppose to be infallible, but then He logically would not be able to allow evil to exists, or He should have know He would end up wiping out most of humanity with a global flood

and therefore God is self contradictory, and cant exist

well yes, the God you define in that manner cannot exist

but thats not who God is, thats only your definition or concept of God at this point in time.

That doenst mean you cant keep persuing God for the rest of your life, learning more and more about Him

I doubt you will be able to understand everything about Him in this lifetime

but what you do come to know and understand, that will be a reflection of your personal relationship with him, and yours alone.

Tristan Lall 14-12-2003 22:37

Re: God
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt Adams
The mug can not be both IN BOX and NOT IN THE BOX. It's one or the other.

To extend this analogy, we have only to open the box to discover the existence or nonexistence of the cup. And so it is with the Christian god. Except that when dealing with deities, we're unfortunately unable to do anything of the sort--simply opening the box is not an option. We are therefore confronted with a problem: how to discover the contents of the box? We can weigh the box, shake the box, make ritual incantations all about the box, ask a so-called psychic for $650 an hour--but in the end, not one of these things will prove, one way or another that the mug exists. It is only supposition, based on inadequate evidence, since there are an infinite number of things that could cause the box to exhibit these properties. And so it is, once more, with God. The alleged miraculous acts could have been caused by any number of possible series of events--there is nothing to say that only the Christian god could have done these things--why not Horus or Hanuman? Can a believer in the god of the Jews, Christians and Muslims dispute their existence (without hypocrisy), and if so, how?
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ken Wittlief
But the error in his logic is this statement:
Quote:

To assume that there is a god is to assume something that cannot be tested, measured, or discovered, which is how we, as humans, prove anything
thats totally wrong. The existance of God can be tested, measured and discovered - so many times throughout the bible God communicates to us, "seek the Lord and you will find Him"

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ken Wittlief
but there is no way getting around what that whole chapter is saying - that God is going to interact with us individually and personally, that He will reveal Himself to us.

How exactly, can an impartial non-believer measure, test and discover the word of God, revealed "individually and personally", when God doesn't want to speak to those without Christian faith? (It is absurd to try to offer proofs that can only be known to a partial observer!) And in any case, even if we were to assume that the Bible was the unvarnished Truth of God, which version of the Bible would we consult? The King James? The New American? The original Greek and Aramaic? Each version of the Bible differs on numerous counts, and we cannot say with any sort of certainty, which of these represents the truth, if any. But, let us once again make the assumption that we have found a version of the Bible that is consistent with the spirit and intent of the original versions (only in English, so it is comprehensible). How can we tell that it isn't just the writings of people, uninfluenced by God?

As it happens, there exist entire religions that are provably based on the writings of humans. Scientology (see here for further details), for instance. Of course, we can also prove that it is the work of a less-than-half-decent science-fiction author (L. Ron Hubbard), and is intended solely to decieve and swindle its unwitting believers, but that's beside the point. It is not inconceivable that Christianity (rather, ancient Judaism) could have had its roots in the vision of a man (or men), rather than a god.

But don't get me wrong here--I'm not saying that Christianity is a swindle on the order of L. Ron's monstrosity. In fact, it holds certain crucial moral principles rather dear: "Thou shalt not kill", "Thou shalt not steal", and others (and not just the commandments). What strikes me as odd, is that some individuals believe that it requires a god to make these morals have any value! No, this is not the case! Speaking pragmatically, these sorts of regulations make society function in an orderly fashion--they are necessary to the operation of society, irrespective of the existence of gods. And indeed in many cultures, legal systems, and yes, religions too, these same moral tenets are held equally inviolable, and ensure that the society can exist without self-destructing.

Is it too hard to consider, therefore, that at some point, people felt that these morals were being ignored, and decided to construct, or more likely modify a cosmological framework, to impress upon others the value of obeying? (The Jesuits modified native American legends to suit their purposes--why do we say that the same did not occur between ancient Jews and pagans?) While the message might have been accompanied by a threatening "don't do evil or my god will smite you (or I'll do it in his name)", the message itself was "uphold these moral values". Take the supernatural out of the equation, and the morality remains, valid as ever, and in no way diminished.

The morality is diminished, however, by people of all religions who display hatred toward nonbelievers, or attempt vainly to convert people to their god's cause. Pat Robertson and Osama bin Laden are both examples of this phenomenon (though for vastly different reasons). They disseminate and amplify the hatred, the ill will and the stupidity that came about because they remembered their religions, and forgot their morality.

On a related note, religions themselves are known to abandon morality for profit, or greater numbers of followers, or other less-than-holy causes. The Catholic church at the time preceding the Reformation was guilty of ignoring morality, to line its coffers with the indulgences of the devout commonfolk, who would pay to have their sins confessed away. Militant Islamic (and other) sects regularly advocate military and paramilitary attacks in the name of Allah (or God, as the Christians know him). Israel steals land from Palestinians, and drives them from their homes, all the while trumpeting its Jewish heritage. What have these travesties got to do with the simple need, centuries ago, to unite warring tribes under a common moral framework? These three religions are all descended from the same roots, but they have fought for centuries amongst themselves, and with others, each in the name of God. They have forgotten that they "shalt not kill", and they have instead entrenched themselves in dogma, deceit and outright carnage.

Even if we step back and recognize the fact that not all groups (indeed the majority) of Christians, Muslims and Jews believe in the use of violence, we can still question their devotion to the truth. It all comes back to this truth of which we are so concerned, because to do the moral thing, and to know the truth--these things often go hand-in-hand. I question the devotion to truth of any religion that actively attempts to persuade people that the mythologies of the past are every bit as credible as science, while offering but a miniscule fraction of the evidence that would be required to make a scientific claim. If this foundation exists to inspire and recognize the pursuit of science and technology, why do some of us insist on promoting theology instead?

We can say that Jesus or YHWH or Isis (not the bastardized, westernized version!) talks to us, and is with us every step of the way--but without proof, what is that but comforting, yet hollow talk? I object to the supposition that any gods exist, because there is not a shred of evidence to prove that any gods have done anything. (Are there things that you and I cannot explain? Yes, and perhaps these things may forever remain inexplicable--but if you can attribute these things to God, I can attribute them to little green men, or another god, or parlour tricks and psychological chicanery. Or I can offer no explanation at all.)

I notice now, that Ken has posted the following:
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ken Wittlief
which goes back to what I was trying to say earlier. If you know something is right, you dont have to be promised a reward for doing it, and you dont have to be threatened with punishment if you dont. And you dont need a higher being to perform signs and wonders in your presence to prove to you that its right and true. You do it only because it is the right thing to do. What you do of your genuine freewill reveals the deepest aspects of your character.

True enough--and you don't need a deity to do these things. Just do them out of your own morality, and be doubly content that you have done good, and that you have not invoked the supernatural in matters where its existence has not been established.

Finally, I should point out that that BrandX fellow has some interesting points, if you can excuse his occasional bad taste. He's definitely worth a critical read--for Christians and others alike.

Tristan Lall 14-12-2003 22:38

Re: God
 
By the way, I'm not tag-teaming you with my brother. He's as surprised as anyone that I showed up....

And by the way, that Epicurus mind-bender is rather elegant. I'd really like to see someone explain that away, without resorting to attacking poor Epicurus, or redefining omnipotent like Thomas Aquinas tried to do.

KenWittlief 14-12-2003 23:45

Re: God
 
Tristan

I think your concept of what God is trying to accomplish with us, or the way that He is interacting with us, is not what God is actually doing.

Your post conveys a sense of what you think God must do, if He is going to be fair - that He must reveal Himself to the believer and the non-believer, He must provide proof to everyone, because thats what you want Him to do

or that is your concept of fairness.

If God is only revealing Himself to some people, and not to nonbelievers, then revealing Himself is not His goal at this time - something else is going on. And He is not giving the believers the ability to prove His existance to the nonbelievers. He is retaining that ability to Himself.

As for the bible, this collection of documents contains 66 books, written by 40 authors over a period of thousands of years, but when you study it you discover it is an integrated message system, that could only have originated from outside our time domain.

We know for certain that the entire bible was not written by one group of people at the same time. The old testiment was originally written in hebrew, and was translated into greek around 250 BC. The new testiment was most likely originally written in greek (which was the most precise and well documented language in human history).

So we know it wasnt all written at once. But the reason I say its an integrated message system is, you can see the same message from page one to the end. Every book conveys a consistant message of the nature of God, and His relationship to us.

And its not about morality. Its not about right and wrong (as you pointed out, we somehow inherently know whats right and wrong for the most part).

When you study the bible as a whole, one message comes through: reconciliation. Its a common misconception that christainity teaches that if you do good things, you will goto heaven, and if you do bad things, you will goto the other place.

The bible teaches that man rebelled against his creator, had a falling out

and that God would rather die than to live without us - that He provided a way for us to be reconciled to Him - not something we have to earn, not something we have to mediate and pray for, or pay money for, or work and toil for - that reconciliation is offered to us as a priceless gift - free to us, but infinitely valuable.

That is the difference between the judeo/christain understanding of God, and all the other religions of the world. All the other religions say you have to work or be moral, or be good, or sacrifice yourself, or kill your way into heaven.

It totally amazes me how much our society has lost sight of what Jesus really came here for - so we could be reconciled to Him. Nothing else!

back to your question of which version or translation of the bible is the correct one? I believe the original texts were written by men on whom God had poured out His Spirit, so they would communicate exactly what He wanted us to know. There may be errors that have crept in as the originals were hand copied, and there are difficulties in translating from one language to another.

But we have many ancient manuscripts of all 66 books, and its not hard for a person to learn the original languages and study them. That use to be a major part of what ministers did - learned to read greek and hebrew, studied the scriptures in their original languages - this is how the great strides in understanding have been brought out, taking christianity out of the dark ages to where it is today.

for some reason in the last 30 years or so, many regular people have taken it on themselves to study the bible in earnest, not leaving it to their pastor or minister to study it for them and give them the highlights. People who do this, and dont go beyond the english translations often run into difficulties - but if you study the bible in earnest, study the works of scholars and others who have taken the time to learn the original languages

the wealth of insight and understanding that opens up to you is well worth the time and energy.

As for your question, why are we talking about religion on a science and technology forum? I didnt start this thread - it is in the off topic section - and for many people their relationship with their creator is more important that their career. But dont jump to the conclusion that science and the bible are somehow at odds. Modern science sprang up only in europe, in a society that was based on christianity (with many difficulties, and a somewhat corrupt leadership)

but even still, read the writings of Newton, or Pascal, or any of the people who brought about the existance of what we call the scientific method. They were all christians. Their reason for studying science was to better understand the one who created the universe. Its only been in the last 150 years or so, that some scientist have become arrogant, thinking they have eliminated the need for God, or have somehow proven that the bible is full of errors, and creating a skewed form of science where theorys that can never be proven by direct observation are now accepted as scientific fact (when in reality, these 'facts' require more faith than all the religions put together).

KenWittlief 14-12-2003 23:49

Re: God
 
one thing I missed. When I said we should do the right thing, without God needing to beat us over the head to do it

the right thing I am referring to is to seek out our creator, to seek to be reconciled to God

not that we should all run around and be good and moral all the time. If you are honest with yourself, you will discover that although we know inside what we should do, very often we do just the opposite

its only when we have established that relationship with our creator, and He pours out His Spirit and love on us, and through us, that peoples lives are really turned around, and that type of unconditional love pours out from us.

KenWittlief 15-12-2003 00:04

Re: God
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall
And by the way, that Epicurus mind-bender is rather elegant. I'd really like to see someone explain that away, without resorting to attacking poor Epicurus, or redefining omnipotent like Thomas Aquinas tried to do.


Its simple - Ive already addressed this

God is not malevolent (having, showing, or arising from intense, often vicious ill will, spite, or hatred)

God has given us a freewill. If God erased evil, then we would no longer have a freewill, because we would no longer be able to do anything wrong.

We were not created to be robots. we were given the ability to choose between good and evil

and in the end, to choose to seek our creator, or to go our own way.

Matt Adams 15-12-2003 00:22

Re: God
 
The statements claimed within are based on my faith as a follower of Jesus Christ. They are representative of myself only. I feel blessed to live in a country where topics of this sort can be spoken in an open environment without fear of persecution or censorship. I hope that we all are able to appreciate that...

I would also like to preface this by saying that I do not attack Tristan's beliefs, but simply try to give answers to many of the questions from the perspective of a follower of Christ. I absolutely have the utmost respect for Tristan's opinions and thoughts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall
To extend this analogy, we have only to open the box to discover the existence or nonexistence of the cup. And so it is with the Christian god. Except that when dealing with deities, we're unfortunately unable to do anything of the sort--simply opening the box is not an option. We are therefore confronted with a problem: how to discover the contents of the box?
<SNIP>
Can a believer in the god of the Jews, Christians and Muslims dispute their existence (without hypocrisy), and if so, how?

As I’m sure that you know Tristen, there is absolute no way to prove with 100% certainty that God does or does not exist. However, to assume that since one can't determine with 100% fact that God does exist, doesn't make the case that God does not exist any stronger.
I think when one subjectively weighs the evidence for both sides, the case for Christianity is among the strongest explainations of the truth, for a number of different reasons.
I’d like to make a few points on your comments below, and follow up with other evidence to support the evidence for Christ in a seperate post.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall
How exactly, can an impartial non-believer measure, test and discover the word of God, revealed "individually and personally", when God doesn't want to speak to those without Christian faith? (It is absurd to try to offer proofs that can only be known to a partial observer!)

This is an excellent point! If God didn’t wish for non-Christians to know him, it would be impossible for non-believers to do so. But I think it’s important to realize God’s view: He loves each and every person, and more than anything in the world he wants to form a relationship with them. However, this choice is not up to God, it is up to each person. It’s stated clearly:

Jeremiah 29:13
You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall
And in any case, even if we were to assume that the Bible was the unvarnished Truth of God, which version of the Bible would we consult? The King James? The New American? The original Greek and Aramaic? Each version of the Bible differs on numerous counts, and we cannot say with any sort of certainty, which of these represents the truth, if any.

I find this argument proposed by many people, and it most often exagerated immensely. If one looks at the Bible and it’s translations, there is amazing uniformity. The fundamental meanings are all there, and all rooted in the truth. Please give some examples if you have some concerns, and I’d love to address them. Examples will help both sides.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall
But, let us once again make the assumption that we have found a version of the Bible that is consistent with the spirit and intent of the original versions (only in English, so it is comprehensible). How can we tell that it isn't just the writings of people, uninfluenced by God?

Well, one ought to take a look at what these people wrote. For instance, the Gospels; Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were all written by people who walked and spoke with Jesus Christ, all within a generation of His death. I would say that these people, assuming that Christ is the son of God, probably had some sort of influence… namely having spoken with Jesus Himself! If one looks at Paul, also a writer of many books in the New Testament, you’ll see that he was actually a fierce non-believer in Jesus, and actually committed what would probably be considered war-crimes against Christians until Jesus appeared to him, upon which he was a immense believer who spent his life, and ultimately DIED while trying to spread the Gospel. Thought: Why would Paul spend part of his life in prision, and ultimately die for a lie?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall
As it happens, there exist entire religions that are provably based on the writings of humans. Scientology (see here for further details), for instance. Of course, we can also prove that it is the work of a less-than-half-decent science-fiction author (L. Ron Hubbard), and is intended solely to decieve and swindle its unwitting believers, but that's beside the point.

Just because it’s claimed to be a true doesn’t mean it is... we’re back to the mug.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall
It is not inconceivable that Christianity (rather, ancient Judaism) could have had its roots in the vision of a man (or men), rather than a god.

I think that the immense amount of prophecies that were proclaimed prior to the coming the Christ, that were fulfilled by Jesus makes the Old Testament, as a whole, an immensely reliable historical source. There are documents that were written centuaries before the coming of Christ with prophecies regarding his coming, all of which were fufilled.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall
But don't get me wrong here--I'm not saying that Christianity is a swindle on the order of L. Ron's monstrosity. In fact, it holds certain crucial moral principles rather dear: "Thou shalt not kill", "Thou shalt not steal", and others (and not just the commandments). What strikes me as odd, is that some individuals believe that it requires a god to make these morals have any value! No, this is not the case! Speaking pragmatically, these sorts of regulations make society function in an orderly fashion--they are necessary to the operation of society, irrespective of the existence of gods. And indeed in many cultures, legal systems, and yes, religions too, these same moral tenets are held equally inviolable, and ensure that the society can exist without self-destructing.

Ahh… objective moral values.

Morals are not relative. If you think that morals vary from society to society... that sometimes things could possibly be "right to some, and wrong to others," then you must also accepting the following scenario:

Since all values are relative, ultimately, nothing is “right” or “wrong.”

However, let’s get right to it: The holocaust, where millions of people were executed in a method nothing less then absolute genocide. Could anyone make the arguement that perhaps nothing was wrong with that?

If you believe in a relative value system… then absolutely nothing wrong occurred during the holocaust and you should quit being so judging of the nazis: they were just doing what they believed to be right, and it was just human nature taking it’s course. We're all too human to believe that “the holocaust might have been okay.” Some things, such as murdering the innocent, rape, torture, theft, are all absolutely morally wrong, not merely a “bad idea.”

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall
<SNIP>
On a related note, religions themselves are known to abandon morality for profit, or greater numbers of followers, or other less-than-holy causes. The Catholic church at the time preceding the Reformation was guilty of ignoring morality, to line its coffers with the indulgences of the devout commonfolk, who would pay to have their sins confessed away.
<SNIP>
These three religions are all descended from the same roots, but they have fought for centuries amongst themselves, and with others, each in the name of God. They have forgotten that they "shalt not kill", and they have instead entrenched themselves in dogma, deceit and outright carnage.
Even if we step back and recognize the fact that not all groups (indeed the majority) of Christians, Muslims and Jews believe in the use of violence, we can still question their devotion to the truth. It all comes back to this truth of which we are so concerned, because to do the moral thing, and to know the truth--these things often go hand-in-hand.

People claiming to be followers of Christianity who commit hypocritical acts have absolutely ZERO bearing on the historical evidence relating to the existence and divinity of Jesus Christ and the Christian faith. Arguments that members of a religion committed hypocritical acts do not support or diminish the mutually exclusive fundamentals of the belief system they have. If I say I’m a member of FIRST and cheat at the game, that doesn’t mean that FIRST doesn’t stand for and promote ideals of gracious professionalism. Laws and truths, by their definition, are steadfast.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall
I question the devotion to truth of any religion that actively attempts to persuade people that the mythologies of the past are every bit as credible as science, while offering but a miniscule fraction of the evidence that would be required to make a scientific claim.
<SNIP>
(Are there things that you and I cannot explain? Yes, and perhaps these things may forever remain inexplicable--but if you can attribute these things to God, I can attribute them to little green men, or another god, or parlour tricks and psychological chicanery. Or I can offer no explanation at all.)

I plan on making a strong historical claim in a future post. I wished to address your previous comments first. However, there is a distinct difference between little green men and that of a historical person, such as Jesus. People have not only claimed to see a historical Jesus, but the wrote about him, including sources outside the Bible. Not only did the write, they suffered while trying to proclaim what they saw to all the nations. Many of the disciples of Christ not only went around and “talked the talk” but the were killed for proclaiming the truth that they saw within their lifetimes. I can't imagine any person who would you die for a lie, something that you didn’t truly see. I find it much harder to believe that so many who saw and knew Jesus would do the same. They had nothing to gain by spreading a false truth; on the contrary, they had absolutely everything to lose: their lives

There is evidence out there to support a case for Christianity, and it is very strong. Science and religion need not contradict each other, and I see no reason why the understanding by humans about how the world and universe interacts seemingly explains away God. Simply understanding scientific principals doesn’t diminish that these principles had to be set, a groundwork and foundation had to be laid down.

I hope that I was able to address some questions and concerns. Look for a future post.

Matt

jonathan lall 15-12-2003 00:43

Re: God
 
I was skimming (and I mean skimming) and came across this
Quote:

Originally Posted by KenWittlief
That is the difference between the judeo/christain understanding of God, and all the other religions of the world. All the other religions say you have to work or be moral, or be good, or sacrifice yourself, or kill your way into heaven.

I'll edit this post later when I get time to respond to the whole thing. This particular quote though I am really upset about... are you sure that's what you meant? BRB...

[edit]uhh, Tristan's a male name[/edit]

D.J. Fluck 15-12-2003 01:44

Re: God
 
Honestly, with the utmost respect:

Most of the posts here have all made good points from both sides of the argument, but as of late I really haven't seen too much except repeating yourselves or different people posting the same stuff that someone else posted a few pages earlier. Honestly (no matter what you think), I don’t think any of you will be convincing anyone through this thread to change their minds on this subject no matter how well the argument. Brandon, I request that you close this thread and let this matter drop before it offends somebody (which it already has, and it’s not me for the record).

-D.J.

KyleGilbert45 15-12-2003 01:46

Re: God
 
I second DJ's motion to have this thread closed.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 17:10.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi