Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Evolution and a supreme being.
Options
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Firstly, just to say, I have no interest in responding to slander and falsehood about me, or what my aims are. Secondly, I don't need to defend changing my username, many posters on boards.ie do so. Finally, my interest is to defend the Gospel of Jesus, and I'm unashamed of defending Him and His truth. Ad-hominems are irrelevant.
I have a simple model for how I do this:1 Peter 3:14b-16 wrote:In your hearts honour Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defence to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect, having a good conscience, so that when you are slandered, those who revile your good behaviour in Christ may be put to shame.
OK, Pushtrak, let's have a look at your three posts. Let me grab some coffee and begin
Thanks for being patient, and thanks for being so understanding. Some others would almost expect me to give up the day job in order to respond to their posts
Post 3:Thanks for suggesting an alternative source material to reference, but really the fact there are such substantive differences between the sources really does beg the question. And honestly it hearkens back to the point about accuracy of the texts.
Does it? - Do the translations differ all that much? - For the most part no. The meaning remains the same, but it's more convenient to read the Bible in the English we use in 2012 rather than the English of 1611. Wouldn't you agree?
I'm personally quite thankful that there are Bible scholars at work to bring the Gospel in a readable format to literally millions of people both from the most widely used languages to some of the least frequently used in the world.The texts can not all be 100% accurate by the very virtue of how different they all are. So, ultimately which bible one chooses is subjective. A subjective means to obtain an absolute truth* doesn't make sense. You personally think this is the best bible. I have no leg to stand on making a claim on which is the most authroritative, but you could get a few thousand different Christians each pointing out their massive issues with all other texts than the one that they personally use.
Translations aren't always accurate. As for source material, it is abundant. In terms of the New Testament 24,000 Greek manuscripts, and over 10,000 in other languages. In terms of when these manuscripts lie in terms of time, this is the best in terms of ancient texts by a long shot. As I linked to previously. Thankfully in respect to the Old Testament, the Jewish people were meticulous in respect to transcribing the Hebrew of the Old Testament. So meticulous that when the Dead Sea Scrolls were uncovered in Qumran in 1948 the Isaiah scroll was a perfect match to the previous which was written 700 years earlier.
There's a reason why most people when they train for ministry read Koine Greek and Hebrew whilst studying. There's also a reason why we have Greek and Hebrew concordances, and tools so that we can look up the use of particular Greek and Hebrew words across the entire Bible.
I hope one day to perhaps to take a closer look at Biblical Hebrew and Koine Greek myself.Christianity then, appears to be anything but absolute. Nebulous may be more appropriate.
If the above weren't true, I'd agree with you. Since the evidence confirms the authenticity of the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts, and since we have by the means of a concordance a means of better clarifying which words are used where and in what context, I would say far from nebulous.
I welcome your reasons as to why I shouldn't trust this evidence.
Post 2:Analogies do break down. The essential premise though is that something we can all agree on being fiction can and often will have backing on differing levels in some form of mythos.
The question is whether the Gospel is fiction. There are a number of reasons, many of which I've been through which would suggest that it isn't. From mere textual content in the New Testament, to the reason why someone would even begin to present such a Gospel at all if it is true that Jesus remained in the grave. It was never preached as fiction, it was never read as fiction, it isn't even written as fiction.
Looking to the difference between the death of Jesus, and the date in Paul's ministry where he wrote his letter to the Galatians, there's simply not enough time in the history of the early church for this all to be merely contrived, and even if it was what would be the motivation behind contriving it, and why would it have been backed by such a large body of witnesses if it were not the simple truth?
Why would I believe it is fiction? - I'm happy to go into some of these reasons in a bit more depth, and I am entirely justified to ask why you believe it is fiction. That is a positive claim.Do you presume we should do it the other way? That we should go with something being true before it has been demonstrated? Well, that is what religious belief really is, when you boil it down. I don't think that is an unfair assessment on religion. It is all about the leaps of faith, et cetera... Honestly, though, the existence of Nazareth or any incidental claims are not historical proof of the miracles or the resurrection.
I don't know how you got that from my post. Honestly honestly. I just don't. Let me clarify.
No. I never presumed that we should. What I said from the beginning is rather simple. The way Biblical analysis should go is simple:
1) Look to see the hypothesis that the Bible suggests.
2) Assess to see if this is likely to be true in reality.
Surely that's not untoward?
To claim it is a leap of faith to look to what evidence we have to trust in the Gospel is absurd. Faith in a Christian context is simply trusting in the Gospel on the basis of what has been made evident. It is the assurance that His word is true. It's not blind by any means, and I've presented numerous reasons to demonstrate the contrary since I have become a follower of Jesus, and I hope to do so again with gentleness and respect and only in that context. I'm thankful that God gives me this opportunity.
As for the existence of Nazareth - you should read the context of my post. It was in response to The Corinthian referring to the lack of archaeology in respect to the Exodus. I posted simply that skeptics used to claim that Nazareth never existed only to be proven wrong in 2009. I never said that the existence of Nazareth was proof of the New Testament, or of the miracles of Jesus. That wasn't the topic of that discussion.
Logically - opposition to the possibility of miracles comes down to the lack of acknowledgement of a Creator.
It's rather simple. If I didn't believe that there was a Creator God who brought all things into being, who takes a genuine interest in His Creation and if I didn't believe that He was omnipotent, and omniscient then sure, it's hogwash.
The idea that miracles are somehow difficult in the consideration of God's existence however is absurd. From this perspective God as Creator is Lord of the universe, and surely the idea that God could work within Creation, and the idea that God could manipulate the physical laws that He created is hardly irrational from this perspective.
The question is why do we believe in the logical necessity of a Creator, or if we don't what other possibilities are there?This is in reference to your citation of Mark 9:9 earlier. Now, before I go to 9:9 it may be worth looking at what 9:1 says.
Is the "may" there a get out of jail free card? An error with a give or take a couple of thousand years clause? What is the story here? With any other claim, we would say ok that was wrong.
No one ought to take Harold Camping seriously after two failed end time predictions. Of course, if he was to go a third time, most of us would agree that he'd still have people believe him. Same applies to Jesus. Here, it is demonstrably wrong, yet it is believed. Why is this?
Hasn't been any of that lately. Why not? Oh, sorry mysterious ways.
The previous verse says they heard the voice not saw anything. So, it wasn't going from seeing something to not seeing it. /Pedant.
And then we get to 9:9...
Hm, what do we say here... Son of man... That is a bit interesting. Is the son of man intended to be Elijah?
Restoreth all things, huh?
Ouch, that's a bit mean.
That's worse...
Do I need to say anything here?
Could you clarify just what this is intended to be?
There's a lot in here.
Harold Camping & End Times:
Let me look to Harold Camping for a start. According to what Jesus actually says in the Gospel, Harold Camping is a false teacher. As you've said He's predicted twice about the end of the world, and it has come to nothing.
Looking to Mark's Gospel we see that Jesus is really clear on the topic of when He will return:Mark 13:32-33 wrote:But concerning that day or hour, no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, or the Son, but only the Father. Be on guard, keep awake. For you do not know when the time will come
How can I presume that Harold Camping is excluded from this passage?
The same does not apply to Jesus. Here's why. We're in the last days. I.E - A time between Jesus' departure, and His coming back. The Bible actually deals very clearly with your objection. Peter in his second letter writes the following about the return of Jesus and the coming judgement.2 Peter 3:4-9 wrote:They will say, “Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things are continuing as they were from the beginning of creation.” For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God, and that by means of these the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished. But by the same word the heavens and earth that now exist are stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly.
But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.
These last days thankfully have been extended, (Jesus also backs this up in Matthew 24:22), so that we have the opportunity to know Jesus, repent of our sin before God, so that we might be forgiven. Jesus Himself explains that He will not return until the Gospel has come to all nations (Matthew 24:14).
Mark 9:
Before we go off on a tangent. I need to clarify that the reason I brought up Mark 9, was to point out to The Corinthian that it is actually explained as to why Jesus told people not to say He was the Son of God.
Before we look to this section, we need to look to what has been, and what is about to come. What has been is Jesus professing that Jesus is the Christ in 8:29, but fundamentally misunderstanding that Jesus had to die (Mark 8:31-33), Jesus goes into more depth as to why He has to die in Mark 10:45. Jesus also mentions the Resurrection as he rebukes Peter, saying that He will rise three days later.
OK.
The Kingdom of God coming in power -
Firstly, the Kingdom of God is not exclusively used in Mark for the kingdom that is to come. Rather it is used for God's dominion as a whole, this is why Jesus uses it to speak of present realities in Mark 4.
in the previous verse we've seen:Mark 8:38 wrote:For whoever is ashamed of me and of mny words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him will the Son of Man also be ashamed when He comes in glory of His Father with the holy angels.
The Son of Man is a term used in prophesy in the Old Testament:Daniel 7:13-14 wrote:I saw in the night visions, and behold with the clouds of heaven there can one like a son of man and He came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before Him. And to Him was given dominion, and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples and languages should serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion which shall not pass away, and His kingdom one that shall not be destroyed.
Mark 9:1 seems to be talking about Jesus' return to the Father (Ancient of Days) in righteousness - It points to the ascension and the coming of the Holy Spirit (see Acts 1 - 2) rather than the return of Christ. This would make sense of "there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Kingdom of God after it has come with power".
The Son of Man is Jesus, Jesus proclaims that He is the Son of Man throughout Mark. Mark 8:28 which comes right before this passage has Him doing this. It's a Messianic title. Indeed, Jesus must die because He is the Messiah (Isaiah 53), it was prophesied that that must happen.
As for Elijah, if you read Malachi chapter 3, Mark 1:4-7, and also 2 Kings 1:8 that should make sense of it.
It's hardly mean to say that someone is mute (ESV). The King James Version says dumb. This does not mean dumb as in stupid. The child was literally mute, dumb.
As for Jesus' message concerning the child. If you look to the section around it in chapter 10, it has to do with how can one enter into God's Kingdom? It's matched quite heavily with 10:13-16 which also has to do with entering the Kingdom of God.
In Mark 10, Jesus explains fully that it is impossible by vain observance of religious rituals (10:1-12), and by following moral rules (10:17-34) to enter God's Kingdom.Mark 10:26-27 wrote:And they were exceedingly astonished, and said to him, “Then who can be saved?” Jesus looked at them and said, “With man it is impossible, but not with God. For all things are possible with God.”
It is impossible for man to save themselves, they need Jesus. Children are better capable of receiving a free gift. One should receive the Kingdom of God as a free gift, because there is no other way into it other than accepting Jesus' grace.
Read the entire section from Mark 9:36 or so right through to chapter 10. You'll see what I mean.Indeed, it is nothing about victors. It is about believers. We could have a jew or muslim come in and be just as confident about the infallibility of their own message.
It isn't about conviction. I have no doubt that Jews or Muslims are sincere about their faith. I believe on a number of grounds that they are mistaken, just as I am utterly convinced that atheists are mistaken.
It is also a logical fallacy to say that just because numerous people are sincere that they are correct on this issue to presume that there is no truth, and that atheism defacto must be correct or that it is more likely to be correct.
In all reality atheism is just another ideology concerning God. It shouldn't be presumed to be true.
The reality is that there are quite a number of reasons as to why one could realistically accept Jesus, and accept the Gospel.This is really close to an argument along the lines that an atheist can not have morals. That there is no value in secular morality. That type of argument. I would challenge that by pointing out that religious (Christian) morality is strongest when looked on rationally. Equal treatment of women is certainly not something that is advocated in the bible. Subjugation of women seemes to be the moral lesson derived from that book.
Again, how did you get that from my post? - That's not what I said in that section. I never said that there is no morality other than in Christ. Rather, I think that all people can do what is good and right, due to God giving us a conscience. Indeed the Bible even tells us this much (Romans 2).
You should focus on what I do say, rather than what I don't.
As for the subjugation of women argument, that seems like more an atheistic myth concerning Christianity than anything with any solid basis. Perhaps you should chat to some of the women who go to my church (about half of those who go) and see why they can reasonably believe and trust in Jesus? I'd suspect statistically if that were actually true, I would expect there to be to be a lower proportion of women than there are in society, but realistically it is bang on. Actually, of the entire churchgoing population in Britain I would hazard a guess and say they are for the most part women.
I've posted about the role of women in the Bible before on quite a number of occasions.
Let's walk through it?Don't hold back. But, by the same token, don't hold back on compelling arguments if they exist. We have much to go in to in relation to authenticating the miracles (including the resurrection) and getting somewhere with establishing absolute truth. Though, absolute truth is going to be a bit of a pain to discuss, I'm figuring.
I'm not holding back on my position at all. I'm more than happy to discuss it with you, and I hope to get a little more in depth on it.I already cited proof that this judgement, et cetera is a long way coming. As in, I don't think any of the people purported to be alive for this judgement could be accurately described as amongst the living.
As we've seen. It makes good sense that Mark 9 is referring to the Ascension, particularly with the Mark 9 passage, particularly with the quote that Jesus Himself does not know when He will be returning, but rather the Father does.
I've also shown you how both Jesus and Peter explain why the judgement is a long time coming. That is because God loves us and longs for us to enter His Kingdom in Spirit and in truth. I long for that to happen too. I long for people to be rescued as I was.I can see this isn't really going to go anywhere. Sites sympathetic to one holy text will say its holy text is more accurate, and vice versa. So, you'll go with ones that say your holy text is more accurate and say this is the grounding of your belief.
The Corinthian said without any form of backup that the Qur'an was more historically authentic than the Bible. I'd love to see the evidence for his position.
He's also said that there is no historical evidence for the existence of Jesus. The reality is that we do have evidence for the existence of Jesus. Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, Josephus, Lucretius, and the Babylonian Talmud are just a start of where non-Jews referred to the existence of Jesus. Indeed, I'd say that there is more evidence for the existence of Jesus than of many people we regard as historical.
Claiming that I'm ignoring any other position by simply questioning someone on their claim is a little off surely? The reality is that it is fact that there are more manuscripts of the New Testament than any other text, and the reality is that there is quite a bit of history to back up the existence of Jesus, and plenty of non-Christians have even acknowledged this much.So, allow me to restate the things you feel are most compelling arguments in favour of a deity (your deity)... Something relating to the bible accounting for sin (which you'll get in to on your next post), incidental details in the bible, prophecies fulfilled, miracles and the resurrection. Is that a fair summary of it?
Not at all. I've pointed very clearly as to how the Biblical text points to history, I've pointed very clearly to how the Biblical text presents a clearer picture of how morality works, I've pointed very clearly as to how it is perfectly logical to believe in a Creator God, I've pointed to how it is reasonable to believe in a personal God, I've pointed to evidence for the existence of Jesus, I've pointed to clear textual reasons as to why the New Testament wasn't written as fiction, I've pointed to why I can reasonably believe that Jesus rose again from the dead. And more importantly, I've shown you that there are clear answers to many of the objections that you've raised.
The reality is that there are plenty of reasons to believe in Christ, and very few reasons not to.I honestly don't even know what this means.
The prime mover argument, basically?
There's the necessity of a first cause. Certainly. I don't believe it is likely or reasonable to believe that the universe came from nothing, and I don't believe that it is reasonable to claim that something of a finite age (13.7bn years old) can create itself.So, some of the incidental things reflected what was going on at the time. The only one of the ones you mention that make this important in the religious context is the miracles in the bible, including the resurrection. As for all the other details, if I were to write a religious book now with aspects depicting things of the world, it would no more vindicate the miracles than they do in the case of the bible.
I've dealt with miracles above. Simply put, whether or not we can believe in miracles comes down to whether or not we believe in a Creator.Have you not considered that there is an element of self fulfilling prophecy involved?
Even if that were true. Let's say that 90% of the New Testament accounts are just self-fulfilling prophesy (which is just a plain assumption on the basis of nothing considering what we've already looked at to back up the New Testament). Even then, that only works for those events that are not backed up historically. The prophesies concerning many things about Jesus' life still ring true, irrespective of whether or not they may or may not have been simply claimed to have been fulfilled in the New Testament.Is this to say you follow religion for the comfort in the idea that people get punished for wrongdoing in the afterlife? I honestly don't see a logical resolution to the problem of sin. No matter the wrongs one does as long as they pray to Jesus they are forgiven is the message. I don't think this is an effective means of dealing with sin. Nor is eternal punishment for a finite crime logical.
Not at all. It's not about "comfort" at all. It's about what is more likely to be true.
I've seen many posts on boards.ie over the years from atheists including some quite recently on the Christianity forum where atheists have essentially claimed that because they just don't like the concept of sin that they don't believe.
We're justly deserving of hell. If God is good, He cannot allow evil to dwell in heaven. If God is just, He must punish for sin. To claim that it is a "finite" crime is to misunderstand what Christianity actually says.
We've all sinned against God, insofar as we've sinned, we've done what is clearly evil, and have rejected God. We are guilty before Him, there are no works we can do to not be guilty. If I murder someone and I get away with it and live a life with no wrongdoing thereafter (as if that could be possible), I'm still guilty of murder. Likewise the same is true of sin, if you are guilty, you are guilty and you will come before God to be judged.
Thankfully, as well as being just, God is also merciful. He sent His Son Jesus into the world to take the wrath that we clearly deserved away from us so that we can be forgiven in the last days and live for Him.
If one rejects Jesus, at the end of time, it will be as if you still bear the burden of your guilt yourself. As a result you will be condemned as if Jesus had never stood in your place.
Evil cannot dwell in heaven if God is truly good, that's why God sent Jesus to take away our sin and bring us to holiness.
Also, it doesn't particularly matter as to what you think it most effective. Ultimately, God knows better than any man can.So what are these absolute truths that are universal to show that we aren't drowning in subjectivity? From this, there must be things we all agree on
How can you hold there there is an absolute truth that binds us all that is common to us all, yet it is seen here that you are pointing out to the very awash of subjectivity you propose to be against.
Not true. You misunderstand the concept of absolute truth. Absolute truth means that we can all be deluded, but there is something true. Even if I believed that the earth was flat. Ultimately it is absolutely true that the earth is not flat. If the Gospel is true, even if one believes in Krishna, Buddha, Islam, Judaism or nothing, it is still absolutely true that God reigns and that we'll be brought before Jesus to be judged in the last days.
Likewise, if atheism is absolutely true, even if I believe in Jesus Christ, I will be still wormfood when I die.
There can be an absolute truth about reality, and everyone could reject it. Truth isn't absolute because everyone agrees, truth is absolute because it is true and it is real.It seems very much like if I were to say that I would walk somewhere to get some exercise and I'm going to drive my car because I need to get more petrol. It doesn't work.
I'm not surprised that it doesn't work. It wasn't what I was sayingOr in short, you aren't a solipsist.
No, that's not a particularly reasonable approach to take. If you want to see the torture of that position look at René Descartes - Meditations on First Philosophy. I don't think one could too readily believe in the existence of God and be a solipsist.This is troublesome water. It is a "whatever god says goes". This is a dangerous proposition as it validates all those people who think they hear god telling them to kill their children or to do any thing. Dominionists with a particular view of Revelations would be one of the worst things that could happen on this planet, as an example off the top of my head.
It's less troublesome than saying good is whatever the heck I want it to be, and its less troublesome than believing that what is evil is whatever the heck I want it to be. Particularly when there is no objective basis for determining what is really good, and what is really evil. In short, you could say I subscribe to moral objectivism / universalism, and moral realism.
Morality is mind independent. Good is good, and evil is evil. It's not whatever the heck we like.In these discussions it is good to see where a person is coming from. Surely, you too when discussing religion have certain things you find worthwhile as groundwork in a discussion. This isn't strange, surely?
It is, but it is better if we ask rather than assume. One shouldn't assume that because one is a Christian that one doesn't understand science.Ok, I'll deal with what you said in reference to gods image... For clarity I'll requote it and address it.
The pertinent bit being t'selem. I keep coming across it identified as in the image of.
Let me find the entry in the concordance:7512 I. צֶלֶם (ṣě∙lěm): n.masc.; ≡ Str 6754; TWOT 1923a—1. LN 6.96–6.101 image, idol, i.e., a created and formed artifact that is worshiped as or as representing a pagan deity (Nu 33:52; 2Ki 11:18; 2Ch 23:17; Eze 7:20; 16:17; 23:14; Am 5:26+), note: for another interp in Ps 39:7[EB 6]; 73:20, see 7513; 2. LN 58.58–58.62 image, likeness, i.e., that which is a pattern, model, or example of something (Ge 1:26, 27; 5:3; 9:6+), note: the exact reference of whether this is moral, ethical, physical, nature, etc. is not clear; 3. LN 6.96–6.101 model, figures, i.e., a two or three dimensional painted or sculptured representation of something, but not necessarily a worship object (1Sa 6:5,11+)
Swanson, J. (1997). Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains : Hebrew (Old Testament) (electronic ed.). Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, Inc.No, of course you shouldn't be sorry about that.
Well, theologians of some faith or another are just as devoted. By believing what any one of them say you disbelieve that of another.
Again, sincerity isn't a factor in determining what is true. One needs to look to the reasons. As I told you previously, just because people are sincere about varying positions does not say anything about the veracity of atheism or indeed that none of these positions are true. Indeed, atheism is just another philosophical position concerning God. It is subject to the same scrutiny as any other position is from my perspective.
Instead of saying that people disagree, you should present an argument as to why my position is wrong.I think I already pointed out in reference to the resurrection that it is my intent when I can to take a look in detail at the evidence for the resurrection. Was your primary source of the resurrection the bible? Or, perhaps a better question might be did you have much in the way of additional reference material to support the bible? On what basis is your belief in the resurrection, in short.
Simply put, I'm asking you given the step by step logic I gave, what realistically are the possibilities concerning the Apostles following the death and resurrection of Jesus? We have the pieces that fall around event X between the death of Jesus and the Apostles very clearly going out into the world preaching that Jesus rose from the dead and one can have life in His name (2 Corinthians 5, 1 Peter 1:3). We also have enough information concerning the circumstances of the Apostles, and how well they knew Jesus.
I've not heard one good argument in respect to this in the years since I posted it. Go back and have a look at the quote a few pages ago.
If one is simply objecting on the basis of "miracles don't happen". Look to what I've posted about that above. In fact that is more about presuppositional assumptions than the position I've posted about the Resurrection is, a whole lot more presuppositional. The only assumptions I'm making are what we already know about the disciples, and what we already know about the history of the early church which can be accounted for in non-Christian texts.Can you not see that this type of argumentation does nothing more than preach to the converted? It is presuppositional apologetics mixed with confirmation bias.
Except people have become Christians by simply considering the case of the Resurrection.When I make a point that applies to more than one thing I find it best to speak about it in the terms that I'm addressing it. If I was to say something that applies to all religion and say it were true of Biblical Christianity I'd be called out on it and rightly so.
Except that religions actually vastly differ. It's lazy assumption. I'm not going to defend any other faith.No, no they didn't. If they did, why would things against the flat earth model, geocentrism, et cetera be treated as heresy? It was treated as literal. The biblical literalists of today? They had reason to believe the bible was literal. They didn't know any better because it was a book of its time.
PDN over on the Christianity forum has posted extensively about Galileo (one example of many). The Bible does not say that the world is flat, or that the earth is at the centre of the universe.
You should look up what he's said a bit further.
I'm going to ask you to find the Bible passages, and post them on the Atheist / Christian debate thread over on the Christianity forum.No more irrational than supposing that it is so powerful and really cares about what life on this insignificant planet (in cosmic terms) does on a day to day basis. And that it has somewhere for us to go after death.
Except, there is little that is irrational about God caring about the universe. You claim that God wouldn't care about tiny little humanity if He was Lord of the universe. This implies that somehow God (despite being omnipotent) wouldn't be able to do that?
I've had plenty of atheists show me the youtube video with the vastness of the universe (see it below), saying that why would God consider reality. The video actually doesn't demonstrate anything, indeed, for the Christian could very easily say that it is because God is Lord over a universe so vast and still cares about Creation that He demonstrates His power, and His care over us.
It's a poor argument to say the least.I'm sure you would agree that slavery is a bad idea. Instead of it outlining that it is wrong to own a slave, it never says any such thing. It advocates regulation in terms of slaves beaten should be allowed go free. Instead, the bible, even today can and is used to justify the practice of slavery. Wouldn't a great deal of harm have been prevented if a more moral approach to discussing slavery was exercised in the bible?
Read the posts that I gave on that link, and then give your position. Otherwise I'm just going to have to rehash everything that I posted there and this post is getting long enough!There wasn't a whole lot on that link. The question "Is the OT still applicable, or did the NT over rule it?" has been answered both yes and no in the bible. Which is the absolute truth? Oh, by the very fact it is presented both ways, does this not mitigate it from being absolute truth in either sense?
Not at all - It is clearly presented that Christians should read the Old Testament and live by it reading it in the light of Christ. That's very clearly what it says. The Old Covenant is fulfilled, and the New Covenant has been brought into being through Christ. I don't know a passage that would bring that into question or fundamentally contradict that position.It is trying to make an assertion that all know god.
Fair enough, but what does that have to do with what I originally said, or are you bringing this in as something new?Someone who is wronged is going to have an emotional reaction, assuming they have emotions with which to react. So, that person being wronged is not going to respond to such in a positive way. Hence, appeal to subjectivity. You aren't making the case for objective when you make it about one person responding to a direct influence.
When someone is wronged, are they wronged objectively, or subjectively.
Can we truly determine whether someone has been truly wronged in the absence of objective moral standards?So, slavery for instance with regulation is acceptable? And maybe if said slave was to be released (on account of the slave owner not following regulations) should we hearken to Exodus 21:11? You pointed out this in the thread you linked to.
Biblical slavery is not the same thing as colonial slavery. It existed for an entirely different purpose. The Jewish law provided clear safeguards for people who were in slavery so much so that it was forbidden in Torah law to return a slave that ran away from their master. I've explained exactly what my position is on it in that thread.And should the death penalty be something we consider? Is the death penalty something that is absolute and changeless or are we beyond this now?
The death penalty while technically justified has no grounds after what Jesus did for mankind. If Jesus died for my sin on the cross, and if I have grace through that event, far be it from me to suggest that someone else should be killed for their wrongdoing. They should be welcomed to receive the same truth that I did and believe in His name.
The Gospel can transform anyone, including some of the most grievous criminals. That's why many churches do prison ministry, in order to offer prisoners the chance of accepting the mercy of Jesus and the chance of being completely changed by His name,Actually, your post was more peripheral to the resurrection. It was about the propagation of the message, and why would adherents try to spread a message without being confident in the veracity of that message. This is an easy point to address, by doing so by providing evidence.
Looking to the before, and looking to the after can be useful in looking to what happened in the middle. Fobbing it off by looking to completely different events isn't an honest way to deal with that topic.0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
0
-
-
The Corinthian wrote: »You forgot to capitalize the 'T' in truth.
If you respond to me you might simply stick to demonstrating how the New Testament is 'true' by referencing sources that are not the New Testament. That would help a lot, thank you.
I'll try get to your posts at some stage at the weekend.
The pattern is always going to reference the Bible. The objections are pointed to it, so how could I ignore it.
The best way of doing it is look to the passage and see what reasoning there is for that position being true. Expecting to discuss Christianity without reference to the Bible is like attempting to go sailing without a boat 0 -
-
philologos wrote: »Ah, the paradox of some people claiming that I actively ignore their posts, and then others claiming that I shouldn't respond to them.
I can't win can I?
Your excuse to ignore my last post tells me you are too afraid to tackle the notion of infinite regress as it could put your faith into jeopardy. Thus you ignored it. I don't believe that you ignore posts because you regard them as insulting - as nozzferrahhtoo has highlighted in this thread already.
My strife with you is that in every thread I've encounter you, you show a blatant disregard of evidence or facts. None was so apparent to me than in a previous thread about same-sex marriages where you showed a blatant disregard to studies about same-sex couples raising families and failed to tackle them or introduce concrete peer-reviewed evidence to back up your argument. I deduced that your position on the issue stemmed from your homophobia, which in turn stemmed from your religious beliefs. My strife with you is that you will so willingly offend the integrity of others (their sexual orientation and ability to raise a family) with little regard for evidence, all in the effort to justify your religious beliefs. You allow you ego to trample over others. In short, you reap what you sow.
This thread, that thread, and other like it where you have been involved have always followed a similar pattern: You come in preaching, you engage in debate, you deny evidences/facts/studies, fail to counter that evidence, then you continue with your deranged logic and when other posters laugh at your inability to accept evidence or to rationalise you try to take the moral high-ground and leave in a huff because it doesn't satisfy your ego. It has always been about you at the end of the day, it's all about you. Don't be suprised that you receive insults, you deserve them at this stage. And you know, I don't care if I receive an infraction/ban for this post.
Also I don't believe for a second that you changed your username just for the fun of it. You changed it because you couldn't forward your ego under that username as that username's reputation was tarnished.0 -
I think you misunderstand me. By all means reference the Bible, but only in relation to external proof that supports its validity. Do not reference it as a proof of itself, as you have been doing to date. Logically you can prove nothing that way and I will not waste my time responding to it.philologos wrote: »The pattern is always going to reference the Bible. The objections are pointed to it, so how could I ignore it.
The best way of doing it is look to the passage and see what reasoning there is for that position being true. Expecting to discuss Christianity without reference to the Bible is like attempting to go sailing without a boat
Can you demonstrate this or is this a hypothesis?In a time when religion was so influential such a conclusion could not but be influenced by it.
That hardly invalidated his maths. Indeed, he was also a Deist, which would make him a very naughty theologian.And the proof of that is in the fact Newton himself was a theologian.
You stated that belief in God requires religion. If that is false in the past, it means that your assertion is incorrect, because it contractions your assertion, regardless of when it happened - it happened.And the fact that it may have once supported something means nothing in relation to how someone now views something.0 -
-
Pedant: I covered the infinite regress in post 245, in my post to Pushtrak.
So you claim I spend too much time responding, but I don't spend enough time responding because I missed your post? That's the paradox right there.
I won't be responding to posts with clear personal attacks about me, or falsehoods about my username. It was set last year, I set it because I thought that philologos was more in keeping with my character than Jakkass, it's really that simple. I don't care about what you think about me. I'm interested in the Gospel 0 -
-
philologos wrote: »Pedant: I covered the infinite regress in post 245, in my post to Pushtrak.
So you claim I spend too much time responding, but I don't spend enough time responding because I missed your post? That's the paradox right there.
I won't be responding to posts with clear personal attacks about me, or falsehoods about my username. It was set last year, I set it because I thought that philologos was more in keeping with my character than Jakkass, it's really that simple. I don't care about what you think about me. I'm interested in the Gospel
This is all you said:Pedant in another post said that there is a contradiction insofar as God could not create Himself. This is something that in philosophy is called an infinite regress, and has been dealt with in philosophy by many philosophers of many creeds. There is a difference between a contingent being (that which has a beginning a finite amount of time ago) and that which doesn't, a necessary being. Simply put, Christians have never claimed that God is a finite being. Had they done so, then hands down that would be a valid objection to the Gospel. Since Christians have said that God is a necessary being, this doesn't stand as a good logical objection to God as Creator.
This is only good logical sense. What has created the world, can't be within creation (I.E God couldn't create Himself, or indeed, the universe couldn't. What has created the world ultimately, must not be constrained by its conditions.
Hardly tackling the issue. Your trying to justify god's existence by saying he is "outside creation". That doesn't tackle anything.
We can prove that god isn't an immanent being. Accepting that god is not immanent but rather a wholly transcendent being then there is no way he could have aided in the development of earth, life or humanity or indeed the development of the entire universe.
A transcendent being can do nothing in the physical universe. This means the Bible wasn't the word of God as God couldn't have influenced physical beings to write his word. If the Bible is not the word of God then who's word are they other the words of humans. If these words are but the words of humans then they are merely the product of the human mind. If they are the product of the human mind then what of God? God here is an idea made up in the minds of humans, it doesn't reflect reality. If God is wholly transcendent, we could not have been informed about him.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
Evolution doesn't disprove god, a lack of evidence disproves god.
Correct. You won't find him if you're looking for him to be the next person to show up on X factor -With the absense of evidence, a supreme personality being responsible for the universe is equally as likely as an infinite number of possibilities.
O yeah? It's either God or Chance - Daddy or Chips - Order or disorder - Who's your God? It's always been that way long before Evolution one way or the other...
Probability is not on the side of an ordered universe such as ours that sustains conscious human people such as ourselves that can actually explore and understand and conquer our surroundings. Unless you try to insert every other possibility going universes with no evidence either than I'm afraid your living in a highly fabulous and ordered universe...So there's technically a slight chance, but for all practical purposes there's no god. changing your lifestyle to please your interpretation of a supreme being is like quitting your job and ordering a new car because you 'might' win the euro millions this week.
You presume that people who put their faith in Christ want to win a lotto as a goal - that's silly, it's anything but. It's not for love of the destination, but love of the journey and how sound the path is...
They put their faith in Christ because it makes sense to do so in a 'practical' way in an increasingly inpractical world - should one consider actually persuing more about their faith other than name calling or abstract stereotyping of other people. Afterall everybody is different and everybody has their own choices to make. Life is good. 0 -
-
-
-
We can disprove an immanent god (a god who is present and interacts with humanity and the physical word) by science. We can't disprove a transcendent (a god who is outside the physical universe). But if we can disprove an immanent god, which we can, we can disprove that any man every communicated with god. You cannot communicate with a transcendent being and a transcendent being cannot communicate with you.
So do it? I'm off to bed Good luck with that proof -If you can't find God through the scientific method then you won't find him at all.
I hope you live everything in your life according to your new creed - you can thank Christians for giving you such rigorous examination while you strawman them.Poetic nonsense.
Thank you Spock. Live long and prosper 0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Time for an avatar change, methinks... First time changing it in my time here.
No prob. It has been an interesting discussion and it has gotten me to look up things I didn't know before.philologos wrote: »OK, Pushtrak, let's have a look at your three posts. Let me grab some coffee and begin Thanks for being patient, and thanks for being so understanding.
This discussion though, on the finer points of biblical scholarship, the dating, the veracity are outside my field of experience. For my part, I don't think there is much to be gained from the subject except for if I were to research it.
In a sense, I can appreciate that perspective, but I'd rather an internally consistent narrative that is harder to read than one than the differing accounts of some events in the gospels..The meaning remains the same, but it's more convenient to read the Bible in the English we use in 2012 rather than the English of 1611. Wouldn't you agree?
In the stead of trying to counter this, I'll not be pointing out the manuscripts, et cetera, but to the fact of how many denominations exist. Many of them would say that others, if not all of the others are doomed to hellfire. Or, they might say doomed to absence from Christ in the afterlife, or even those who say nothingness in the afterlife. I've encountered all three.If the above weren't true, I'd agree with you. Since the evidence confirms the authenticity of the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts, and since we have by the means of a concordance a means of better clarifying which words are used where and in what context, I would say far from nebulous.
It goes back to the supposed absolute truth.. I am figuring that the absolute truth is supposed to be independent of what we think of it, is it? As in all the subjective opinions that are not of the particular faith one goes with are just subjective. But the one that whichever person has is the absolute truth. What makes any human the arbiter of truth? There is a landscape of these "absolute truths" within the one faith. You will doubtless argue that it is the holy text that is the absolute truth. But, from this book comes the very subjective. If I were to read it, I'd have my own subjective interpretation. And on, and on it goes.
A historic account of the times, if written can be taken or left. It isn't ultimately going to make much difference if it were just that. The issue comes in with the arrival of the miracles. My making the claim is merely pointing out that is where it stands on the scale of literacy.Why would I believe it is fiction? - I'm happy to go into some of these reasons in a bit more depth, and I am entirely justified to ask why you believe it is fiction. That is a positive claim.
There are a number of possibilities in terms of us being here. To start with, the idea of a creator. Well, within this, the creator could be the deistic concept, for one, or it could be an interventionist deity. Within the idea of an interventionist deity, it could be any one. And of course, it could be a naturalistic answer in the form of the universe always existed or is part of the multiverse.The question is why do we believe in the logical necessity of a Creator, or if we don't what other possibilities are there?
So god changed its mind? There is a point here about how perfect plans ought not be altered.These last days thankfully have been extended, (Jesus also backs this up in Matthew 24:22), so that we have the opportunity to know Jesus, repent of our sin before God, so that we might be forgiven. Jesus Himself explains that He will not return until the Gospel has come to all nations (Matthew 24:14).
It was close, though, and I didn't feel it appropriate to let it slide just because it wasn't directly stated. If I was heavily implying towards something you took exception to you'd call me out on it too, and rightly so.Again, how did you get that from my post? - That's not what I said in that section. I never said that there is no morality other than in Christ. Rather, I think that all people can do what is good and right, due to God giving us a conscience. Indeed the Bible even tells us this much (Romans 2).
If the eternal hellfire afterlife is credible to a person, that person is more likely to accept things they otherwise would not. Also, human emotion isn't always conducive to the correct application of logic.As for the subjugation of women argument, that seems like more an atheistic myth concerning Christianity than anything with any solid basis. Perhaps you should chat to some of the women who go to my church (about half of those who go) and see why they can reasonably believe and trust in Jesus?
But let me bring up some verses to illustrate my point.
So, a woman is equal to the rib of a man, and a helper, i.e subservient to man. Anyway, onwards to Genesis 3...Then the LORD God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.” Now out of the ground the LORD God had formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name. The man gave names to all livestock and to the birds of the heavens and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper fit for him. So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. And the rib that the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man.
(Genesis 2:18-22 ESV)
And what of this? Last one for now. If more are required, I can present them.To the woman he said,
“I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing;
in pain you shall bring forth children.
Your desire shall be for your husband,
and he shall rule over you.”
(Genesis 3:16 ESV)Lot went out to the men at the entrance, shut the door after him, and said, “I beg you, my brothers, do not act so wickedly. Behold, I have two daughters who have not known any man. Let me bring them out to you, and do to them as you please. Only do nothing to these men, for they have come under the shelter of my roof.”
(Genesis 19:6-8 ESV)
If the point you are trying to make is that women would never be part of an abusive ideology then that is an error. The point should stand on its own, if I were to explicitly state what I meant then there might be accusation I'm trying to equivocate one with the other. This is not my intent.I'd suspect statistically if that were actually true, I would expect there to be to be a lower proportion of women than there are in society, but realistically it is bang on. Actually, of the entire churchgoing population in Britain I would hazard a guess and say they are for the most part women.
It seems to be a consensus among biblical scholars from what I understand that Jesus lived. The jury is out on the miracle bit.He's also said that there is no historical evidence for the existence of Jesus. The reality is that we do have evidence for the existence of Jesus. Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, Josephus, Lucretius, and the Babylonian Talmud are just a start of where non-Jews referred to the existence of Jesus. Indeed, I'd say that there is more evidence for the existence of Jesus than of many people we regard as historical.
You are convinced of the arguments for the miracles, et cetera and this in conjunction with the prime mover have you convinced that there is a god, the christian one specifically. The non-biblical sources do not substantiate miracles though. Why would events that would be as fantastical as this not be better recorded? Why would the odd reference to "The Christ" survive, but not an account of people raising from the dead, and other events as described in the bible? It seems a very skewed sense of priorities there. I recall looking in to some of this stuff some time back, and honestly can't recall the dates. It is getting late, too. Want to get this post written up and call it a night.Claiming that I'm ignoring any other position by simply questioning someone on their claim is a little off surely? The reality is that it is fact that there are more manuscripts of the New Testament than any other text, and the reality is that there is quite a bit of history to back up the existence of Jesus, and plenty of non-Christians have even acknowledged this much.
I would say that you are on a hard ground to defend when it comes to the arguments from morality. The specifics of the moral system of the believer is rendered irrelevant in comparison to if they pray to Jesus or not. There is no morality here. One does wrong, prays to Jesus and it is a mechanism for trying to assuage guilt. The conscience can be cleared by this process. Or, at the very least, cleared more than in its absence.a clearer picture of how morality works
A good approach to strive for.Not at all. It's not about "comfort" at all. It's about what is more likely to be true.
I think a better perspective is that a deity that would rather people worship it and apologise for wrongdoings in any way, shape or form in the form of prayer is morally questionable. It says nothing about the existence or non existence.I've seen many posts on boards.ie over the years from atheists including some quite recently on the Christianity forum where atheists have essentially claimed that because they just don't like the concept of sin that they don't believe.
I think I made the point about how looking at where we are now, and trying to race ourselves back to the start of the universe, and seeing how naturalism explains as much as it has taken over from religion.. The sin issue isn't an argument against god. But reality seems largely to be.
Out of curiosity, suppose there was intelligent life on other planets. What could one infer about such a thing in terms of religion?
But if they repented, did they suddenly become pure good? I can't see any human being a pure representative of good... Save for if they had large aspects of their personality removed.We're justly deserving of hell. If God is good, He cannot allow evil to dwell in heaven. If God is just, He must punish for sin. To claim that it is a "finite" crime is to misunderstand what Christianity actually says.
Assuming absolute truth exists, it doesn't seem possible to know if/when you have it.There can be an absolute truth about reality, and everyone could reject it. Truth isn't absolute because everyone agrees, truth is absolute because it is true and it is real.
I actually have that book. I'll get to it, but will be a while.No, that's not a particularly reasonable approach to take. If you want to see the torture of that position look at René Descartes - Meditations on First Philosophy. I don't think one could too readily believe in the existence of God and be a solipsist.
Is anything outside the one man, one woman a sin? I'm sure many adherents would say yes. Was polygamy a sin when it was in the bible?Morality is mind independent. Good is good, and evil is evil. It's not whatever the heck we like.
So, it is a subject of debate exactly what is intended by in gods image? As per "note: the exact reference of whether this is moral, ethical, physical, nature, etc. is not clear."Let me find the entry in the concordance:
Indeed, that is so.Again, sincerity isn't a factor in determining what is true.
To restate what this was about it was in reference to the bible verse where it was postulated that all know god, as if god reveals himself to all. This is evidently not true owing to the fact there are atheists and people of other faiths.Fair enough, but what does that have to do with what I originally said, or are you bringing this in as something new?
The golden rule is a pretty solid basis.Can we truly determine whether someone has been truly wronged in the absence of objective moral standards?
There was sex slavery in the bible, so I'm not really buying this line.Biblical slavery is not the same thing as colonial slavery. It existed for an entirely different purpose.0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17jymDn0W6U
Advertisement