![]() |
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. |
Re: God
Quote:
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. |
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:
Quote:
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:
Quote:
Quote:
|
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. |
Re: God
Quote:
Quote:
|
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. |
Re: God
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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:
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. |
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. |
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). |
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. |
Re: God
Quote:
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. |
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:
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:
Jeremiah 29:13 You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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:
Quote:
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 |
Re: God
I was skimming (and I mean skimming) and came across this
Quote:
[edit]uhh, Tristan's a male name[/edit] |
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. |
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