Personal relationship with Jesus Christ

Tim Robbins

In another thread, Run to da hills made the point,

Christianity began as a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. When it went to Athens, it became a philosophy. When it went to Rome, it became an organization. When it spread throughout Europe, it became a culture. When it came to America, it became a business.

As an atheist, I find the terminology "personal relationship with Jesus Christ" something that is very fuzzy. How can you have a personal relationship with something that is not a person? Perhaps you might say he was a person, but so was my Granny who I can no longer have a personal relationship with.

If Jesus is having a personal relationship with millions and millions of people, how does he tends to all their needs and thoughts simultaneously?
How can it be "personal" if the same thing is happening with millions of others?

PDN

The Christian teaching and experience is that Jesus is still a Person. He is risen from the dead, ascended into heaven, and is seated at the right hand of God. He speaks to us through His Word and through the Holy Spirit, and we speak to Him in prayer and seek to obey His commands and teaching.

He can meet the needs of many people simultaneously because He is God as well as man. This is why I believe in praying to Jesus and not to finite beings such as angels, saints or Mary.

The relationship is 'personal' because it is different with each person. the issues I bring in prayer are not exactly the same as another Christian.

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

The Christian teaching and experience is that Jesus is still a Person. He is risen from the dead, ascended into heaven, and is seated at the right hand of God. He speaks to us through His Word and through the Holy Spirit, and we speak to Him in prayer and seek to obey His commands and teaching.

He can meet the needs of many people simultaneously because He is God as well as man. This is why I believe in praying to Jesus and not to finite beings such as angels, saints or Mary.

The relationship is 'personal' because it is different with each person. the issues I bring in prayer are not exactly the same as another Christian.

So it's possible for a person to exist outside space - time and relate to concious people inside space - time through a medium which has no energy and cannot be detected on the electro magnetic specturm, even though all other forms of communication, radio waves, micro waves, colour, sound can?

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote: »

So it's possible for a person to exist outside space - time and relate to concious people inside space - time through a medium which has no energy and cannot be detected on the electro magnetic specturm, even though all other forms of communication, radio waves, micro waves, colour, sound can?

I don't necessarily agree that heaven is outside of space - time. I would think of it more as another dimension, or even a parallel universe. CS Lewis hinted at this in his Narnia books.

Christians already believe that interaction between heaven and earth has occurred frequently. This would include the creation of the universe, the Incarnation of Christ, miracles, and prayer.

Prayer, IMHO, certainly possesses energy.

You say "all other forms of communication" can be detected on the electro magnetic spectrum. However, you have no way of knowing if there are other forms of communication that have not yet been detected. What you really mean is "all other forms of communication that we can detect". Several hundreds of years ago such a statement could have been used to argue against the existence of radiation, radio waves etc. Why assume that our technology has now advanced to a point where we have detected every conceivable form of communication?

Fanny Cradock

Tim Robbins wrote: »

So it's possible for a person to exist outside space - time and relate to concious people inside space - time through a medium which has no energy and cannot be detected on the electro magnetic specturm, even though all other forms of communication, radio waves, micro waves, colour, sound can?

How do you know that all other forms of communication can't be detected?

Tim Robbins

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

How do you know that all other forms of communication can't be detected?

Well it comes down to one of two possibilities:
1. There exists communication which can pass through the universe undetected, does not exist on the electro magnetic spectrum and somehow ends up right inside your head.
2. The communication began inside your head.

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

I don't necessarily agree that heaven is outside of space - time.

If Heaven exists inside space - time, well then it is subject to the Einstein's Relativity Laws. This means for any mass is to get there, it will have to travel quite fast if it wants to make it there in under a few billion years. The faster it travels, the more mass it gets and the more energy required to move it.

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote: »

If Heaven exists inside space - time, well then it is subject to the Einstein's Relativity Laws. This means for any mass is to get there, it will have to travel quite fast if it wants to make it there in under a few billion years. The faster it travels, the more mass it gets and the more energy required to move it.

And your point is?

MrPudding

Tim Robbins wrote: »

If Heaven exists inside space - time, well then it is subject to the Einstein's Relativity Laws. This means for any mass is to get there, it will have to travel quite fast if it wants to make it there in under a few billion years. The faster it travels, the more mass it gets and the more energy required to move it.

I presume that, hoping not to get into trouble, that the answer is god is not subject to Einstein's Relativity Laws, or indeed any laws. Unless there is another answer.

MrP

PDN

MrPudding wrote: »

I presume that, hoping not to get into trouble, that the answer is god is not subject to Einstein's Relativity Laws, or indeed any laws. Unless there is another answer.

An answer would require a question.

So far we have a statement about large amounts of energy in relation to a discussion about an all-powerful God. So what might the question be?

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

And your point is?

If it exists, it's very unlikely to be inside space time.

Fanny Cradock

Tim Robbins wrote: »

If it exists, it's very unlikely to be inside space time.

How can you determine that?

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote: »

If it exists, it's very unlikely to be inside space time.

'Unlikely' in that high energy and speed is too hard for an omnipotent God

Puck

Newsflash: Christians believe in all-powerful God!

I can see the spinning newspaper montage now.

oobydooby

Tim Robbins wrote: »

If Heaven exists inside space - time, well then it is subject to the Einstein's Relativity Laws. This means for any mass is to get there, it will have to travel quite fast if it wants to make it there in under a few billion years. The faster it travels, the more mass it gets and the more energy required to move it.

Firstly, I think the context is inappropriate. If it's a legitimate point of view that God created the laws of the universe (assuming that the universe does follow laws) then He is not bound by them. It's a category mismatch.

A few scientific points on your post though:
1. These relativity "laws" describe objects with mass. Massless objects (eg photons) do not increase in real or relative mass with increased speeds.

2. Gravitational waves have not been detected yet.

3. Instant communication has been well debated (by Einstein himself amongst other philosophers) in the context of quantum determinism and in particular the EPR experiment. Serious scientists are currently trying to exploit quantum effects to overcome this luminal speed limit on communications.
[url]
http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/Faster than light speed.htm
[/url]

4. Primary school children learn that energy cannot be created or destroyed (Fundamental law of physics). However, teenagers learn about Einstein's general theory of relativity and the consequential big bang theory. These are not immediately compatible. Even sophisticated and unproven explanations like the Higgs boson which they might detect soon in CERN can seem as contrived to the amateur as the religious explanations can seem to an unbeliever.

There is plenty of mystery left in good science. Usually the questions which children ask cannot yet be answered.

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

'Unlikely' in that high energy and speed is too hard for an omnipotent God

Reducto ad god. Find something which by the laws of the universe is exceedingly unlikely but of course it's not to God.

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Reducto ad god. Find something which by the laws of the universe is exceedingly unlikely but of course it's not to God.

Circular reasoning. An atheist tries to argue against a Christian's beliefs about an omnipotent God by advancing arguments that assume the non-existence of said omnipotent God.

wolfsbane

I go with Tim on this. The spiritual world is not observable by the material eye. It effects the material world, but not vice versa. It co-exists with the material world.

If space/time is a description of the material world in its fullness, the the spiritual world is not part of it.

wolfsbane

Tim Robbins wrote: »

In another thread, Run to da hills made the point,



As an atheist, I find the terminology "personal relationship with Jesus Christ" something that is very fuzzy. How can you have a personal relationship with something that is not a person? Perhaps you might say he was a person, but so was my Granny who I can no longer have a personal relationship with.

If Jesus is having a personal relationship with millions and millions of people, how does he tends to all their needs and thoughts simultaneously?
How can it be "personal" if the same thing is happening with millions of others?

Jesus Christ is God, so can have immediate personal communion with as many people as He wishes. You and I struggle even with our nearest and dearest.

I think the phrase you mentioned was used to say that ours is not a mere worship of a god out there, one who may or may not bother to notice us. It is a personal relationship which He initiated and enables.

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

Circular reasoning. An atheist tries to argue against a Christian's beliefs about an omnipotent God by advancing arguments that assume the non-existence of said omnipotent God.

There's nothing circular there. This is an example of circular reasoning:

Q. How do I know there is a God?
A. Because it says so in the Bible
Q. How do I know the Bible is true?
A. Because it is the inerrant word of God
Q. How do I know there is a God?
A. Because it says so in the Bible
Q. How do I know the Bible is true?
A. Because it is the inerrant word of God

Mine:
Q. If Heaven exists, is it likely to be in space - time?
A. No. For a number of reasons one of them being that it is exceedingly difficult to move something which has mass any great distance and when we do it gets more mass, making it even harder to move.

This would mean, the soul has no mass (in which case is it part of space - time?) or that God bends his own laws of the Universe, so that the soul is moved to far off place that in such a way that we cannot detected by any means, it does not radiate any energy.

Tim Robbins

wolfsbane wrote: »

I think the phrase you mentioned was used to say that ours is not a mere worship of a god out there, one who may or may not bother to notice us. It is a personal relationship which He initiated and enables.

It is an obscure form of communication that from a scientific point of view has no difference between someone just imagining something. If God is sending you messages, does this travel as energy waves through the universe like all other forms of communication? No - because they'd be measurable. They simply by - pass all that and begin in your head. Just like someone's imagination.

Puck

Why do you think the "messages" have to travel? God is everywhere, not "out there somewhere".

Fanny Cradock

I have no particular opinion on the matter, Tim, but why do you presume that heaven has to have mass?

Tim Robbins wrote: »

If God is sending you messages, does this travel as energy waves through the universe like all other forms of communication? No - because they'd be measurable.

As has been asked before, how do you know that all forms of communication have been discovered?

Now, it's not an accusation, but I would be interested to see anything you can dig up supporting your claim that all forms of communication travel through the universe as energy waves.

In this regard, I would assume you are inclined to believe that a smile or a scowl is simply a set of electrical impulses directing the movement of muscles associated with this particular form of communication?

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote: »

There's nothing circular there. This is an example of circular reasoning:

Q. How do I know there is a God?
A. Because it says so in the Bible
Q. How do I know the Bible is true?
A. Because it is the inerrant word of God
Q. How do I know there is a God?
A. Because it says so in the Bible
Q. How do I know the Bible is true?
A. Because it is the inerrant word of God

Maybe you should find someone who makes such an argument before you go setting up strawmen.

Mine:
Q. If Heaven exists, is it likely to be in space - time?
A. No. For a number of reasons one of them being that it is exceedingly difficult to move something which has mass any great distance and when we do it gets more mass, making it even harder to move.

'Exceedingly Difficult' means nothing when applied to God.

This would mean, the soul has no mass (in which case is it part of space - time?) or that God bends his own laws of the Universe, so that the soul is moved to far off place that in such a way that we cannot detected by any means, it does not radiate any energy.

Who mentioned souls? Your OP was about Jesus Christ, who most definitely has a body.

Also, only an extremely arrogant (or illogical) person would claim that our knowledge today is so advanced as to mean that anything that we cannot currently detect must therefore involve bending the laws of the universe.

Mal-Adjusted

wow, this certainly stayed civil for much longer than i would have thought:D
fair play to all involved. nice arguments from everyone.

Phototoxin

I never got the personal relationship thing... it seemed to abstact and foreign... God/creator thing yes but after that not really. Not something/one who is avaialbe on a personal level.

Fanny Cradock

Phototoxin wrote: »

I never got the personal relationship thing... it seemed to abstact and foreign... God/creator thing yes but after that not really. Not something/one who is avaialbe on a personal level.

It is central aspect Christianity. Sometimes this relationship can be extraordinary.

For example, I been fortunate enough to hear wonderfully moving testimonies from a number of people who, in their past, were violent criminals (and I mean brutally violent). The common thread running through each of their stories is that that it was the personal relationship with Jesus that gave them the strength to turn their life around.

MrPudding

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

It is central aspect Christianity. Sometimes this relationship can be extraordinary.

For example, I been fortunate enough to hear wonderfully moving testimonies from a number of people who, in their past, were violent criminals (and I mean brutally violent). The common thread running through each of their stories is that that it was the personal relationship with Jesus that gave them the strength to turn their life around.

Have there been no cases of bad criminals having the strength, themselves, to turn their lives around? I am not expecting you to find example, by the way, just throwing the question out there, I would not even know where to look. I know people, not criminals mind you, that have turned their lives around without god or jesus. People who have been through bad times or in a bad place.

So what is the difference between someone who can turn their life around by themselves, compared to someone who needs god to do it?

MrP

PDN

Phototoxin wrote: »

I never got the personal relationship thing... it seemed to abstact and foreign... God/creator thing yes but after that not really. Not something/one who is avaialbe on a personal level.

I seem to remember feeling the same way about marriage when I was a child.

Tim Robbins

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

In this regard, I would assume you are inclined to believe that a smile or a scowl is simply a set of electrical impulses directing the movement of muscles associated with this particular form of communication?

Yes and then visual colours are of course on the electro maganetic wave specturm.

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

Maybe you should find someone who makes such an argument before you go setting up strawmen.

It's not a strawman it's an example of circular reasoning.

'Exceedingly Difficult' means nothing when applied to God.

Well then there's absolutely no point entering a debate about God, if you treat that as axiomatic, in which case you cannot give out about circular reasoing because treating something which has no evidence as axiomatic is as ridiculous as circular reasoning.

Who mentioned souls? Your OP was about Jesus Christ, who most definitely has a body.

You brought the conversation that way with your post

I don't necessarily agree that heaven is outside of space - time. I would think of it more as another dimension, or even a parallel universe. CS Lewis hinted at this in his Narnia books.

Also, only an extremely arrogant (or illogical) person would claim that our knowledge today is so advanced as to mean that anything that we cannot currently detect must therefore involve bending the laws of the universe.

An extremly arrogant (or illogical) person would claim Einstein's Laws of Mass and Energy are wrong just becase it forces them to think about their religion a bit more. There is absolutely no evidence for Mass Energy relationship being wrong, and there is absolute tonnes for it being correct. Nuclear power being the most obvious.

Tim Robbins

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

For example, I been fortunate enough to hear wonderfully moving testimonies from a number of people who, in their past, were violent criminals (and I mean brutally violent). The common thread running through each of their stories is that that it was the personal relationship with Jesus that gave them the strength to turn their life around.

I accept that happens btw. I just have a different view of the cause / effect.

Fanny Cradock

MrPudding wrote: »

Have there been no cases of bad criminals having the strength, themselves, to turn their lives around? I am not expecting you to find example, by the way, just throwing the question out there, I would not even know where to look. I know people, not criminals mind you, that have turned their lives around without god or jesus. People who have been through bad times or in a bad place.

So what is the difference between someone who can turn their life around by themselves, compared to someone who needs god to do it?

MrP

Of course there are. And if I made a claim otherwise - for example, that Jesus is the only way a violent criminal can change his life - you would be perfectly correct in calling me up on this.

However, the difference between people in your experience and those I've personally had the privilege to hear boils down to the crux of their testimony - they believe that were utterly unable to change their lives by themselves.

Fanny Cradock

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Yes and then visual colours are of course on the electro maganetic wave specturm.

I'll not disagree, it does nothing to support your clam that we have discovered all forms of communication therefore God cannot communicate with us.

However, as a complete aside, I am still interested in any evidence you can dig-up that supports your belief that all communication is electro-magnetic waves travelling through space.

oeb

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Of course there are. And if I made a claim otherwise - for example, that Jesus is the only way a violent criminal can change his life - you would be perfectly correct in calling me up on this.

However, the difference between people in your experience and those I've personally had the privilege to hear boils down to the crux of their testimony - they believe that were utterly unable to change their lives by themselves.

That does not mean that Jesus exists.

I don't think anyone is in a position do deny that religion can give people something to hope for. Just like someone may pack in crime because it is hurting someone that they care about.

Let's say I am a drug addict. I become infatuated with a woman who does not use drugs. I get it into my head that we could live happilly ever after if I was not on drugs. So I pack them in.

Does that mean she will want to spend the rest of her life with me? Even though I believe it?

I took a look at the situation (I am a druggie, she does not like druggies) and jumped to a wild conclusion without taking any steps in between. This helped me get off drugs, but it did not make my assumption any more true.

(I would like to note, I am not, and have never been a 'druggie')

oeb

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I'll not disagree, it does nothing to support your clam that we have discovered all forms of communication therefore God cannot communicate with us.

However, as a complete aside, I am still interested in any evidence you can dig-up that supports your belief that all communication is electro-magnetic waves travelling through space.

I would not agree that all comunication is electro-magnetic in nature, but I would challenge anyone to show me a type of communication that does not travel over waves.

Fanny Cradock

oeb wrote: »

That does not mean that Jesus exists.

I don't think anyone is in a position do deny that religion can give people something to hope for. Just like someone may pack in crime because it is hurting someone that they care about.

Let's say I am a drug addict. I become infatuated with a woman who does not use drugs. I get it into my head that we could live happilly ever after if I was not on drugs. So I pack them in.

Does that mean she will want to spend the rest of her life with me? Even though I believe it?

I took a look at the situation (I am a druggie, she does not like druggies) and jumped to a wild conclusion without taking any steps in between. This helped me get off drugs, but it did not make my assumption any more true.

(I would like to note, I am not, and have never been a 'druggie')

Grand. If you can find someone who has done such a thing, then more power to them.

If you reread my post you will see that I never stated such testimonies mean that Jesus exists.

Fanny Cradock

oeb wrote: »

I would not agree that all comunication is electro-magnetic in nature, but I would challenge anyone to show me a type of communication that does not travel over waves.

Probably a debate better suited to the science form. However, what about smell?

Zombrex

I think both Christians and atheists can agree that either a) God doesn't exist or b) he does a good job at hiding the supernatural stuff from detection.

We can't detect heaven because either it doesn't exist or God doesn't want us detecting it. We can't detect the method of communication between God and humans because it doesn't exist or God doesn't want us detecting it.

Now, as an atheist I think you all know where I stand on that one :pac:, but equally I think it is pointless to try and apply methods of detection and modeling to these things as Tim seems to think we should. Not finding them doesn't alter the statements above, the claim they either don't exist or God has hidden them remains the same.

oeb

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Probably a debate better suited to the science form. However, what about smell?

This is how we actually smell anything at all.

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote: »

It's not a strawman it's an example of circular reasoning.

So you just happened to choose a random hypothetical example of a circular argument that just happens to sound like a misrepresentation of Christian belief? Pull the other one.

Well then there's absolutely no point entering a debate about God, if you treat that as axiomatic, in which case you cannot give out about circular reasoing because treating something which has no evidence as axiomatic is as ridiculous as circular reasoning.

There's plenty of point in having a debate about God where we define God as being omnipotent. Otherwise your debate is about some limited deity and not the Christian God.

If you are having a debate about a Being who created the universe out of nothing then arguing that something is 'very difficult' for Him is rather silly. Your argument only carries weight on the assumption that an omnipotent God does not exist. You are committing an obvious logical fallacy.

You brought the conversation that way with your post

No, I never mentioned souls. That was something you cooked up in your own head with no help from me whatsoever. I simply responded to your question about how people on earth (bodily entities) can have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ (another bodily entity).

An extremly arrogant (or illogical) person would claim Einstein's Laws of Mass and Energy are wrong just becase it forces them to think about their religion a bit more.

Tim, you're producing more straw men than a scarecrow factory. Who claimed that Einstein's Laws of Mass and Energy are wrong? I certainly didn't. I simply suggested that our current technology may not be so perfect as to be able to detect every conceivable form of communication in the universe. Given the history of science, and how new discoveries constantly update our knowledge, I would think my suggestion is perfectly reasonable.

I am perfectly happy to think about my religion a bit more, speculate about possibilities, and to suggest possible new ways of looking at things. You are the one who seems to get all dramatic and hysterical when someone doesn't agree with your rather narrow view of things.

If you calmed down a bit and listened to what others are saying then I'm sure we could have a fairly sensible and courteous discussion.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

We can't detect heaven because either it doesn't exist or God doesn't want us detecting it. We can't detect the method of communication between God and humans because it doesn't exist or God doesn't want us detecting it.

A very Robbinsesque tactic - arbitrarily narrow the choice to only two options - both of which serve your polemical purpose.

A third option would be that out current technology is still too inferior to detect heaven.

Just think, a few hundred years ago we had no way of detecting black holes. Was this because they didn't actually exist back then? Was it because God didn't want us to detect black holes? Or was it because our science and technology had not developed sufficiently to detect black holes?

Fanny Cradock

oeb wrote: »

This is how we actually smell anything at all.

I was actually talking about the odour itself rather than the mechanism to detect it. Still, completely off topic.

oeb

PDN wrote: »

There's plenty of point in having a debate about God where we define God as being omnipotent. Otherwise your debate is about some limited deity and not the Christian God.

Omnipotence is a paradox. It's also the biggest fob off in orginised religion.

"Well yes, my god can do this, cause my god can do anything"

What exactly makes you think that? Is there any evidence supporting this? Or is it just an assumption? It's like that game you might play as kids where you might be playing and someone goes "Haa haa, I shot you" and the other one says "But I am wearing a bullet proof vest" and the first one says "But I got you in the head" and the second one says "I am wearing an invisible helmet". and the first one says "They are armour piercing bullets".

Need I go on? As much as they like to say it and make believe, it does not change the fact that they are two kids with sticks.

oeb

PDN wrote: »

Just think, a few hundred years ago we had no way of detecting black holes. Was this because they didn't actually exist back then? Was it because God didn't want us to detect black holes? Or was it because our science and technology had not developed sufficiently to detect black holes?

The theory of a black hole is only a small leap from gravitational theory. IE: We know gravity exists, so what happens when something has such gravitational pull, not even light escapes it.

Heaven is a much larger leap. What steps lead to the logicial conclusion that heaven is even a possibility?

Tim Robbins

Wicknight wrote: »

Now, as an atheist I think you all know where I stand on that one :pac:, but equally I think it is pointless to try and apply methods of detection and modeling to these things as Tim seems to think we should. Not finding them doesn't alter the statements above, the claim they either don't exist or God has hidden them remains the same.

Well it means, he only wants us believing it based on flimsy evidence. He could give us better evidence. But who knows, he probably enjoys watching 6 billion people not agree on who he is or if he exists.

PDN

oeb wrote: »

The theory of a black hole is only a small leap from gravitational theory. IE: We know gravity exists, so what happens when something has such gravitational pull, not even light escapes it.

Yes, we know that now, but we didn't a few hundred years ago.

I am not arguing that there is scientific proof or evidence for heaven's existence. I am simply pointing out that scientific knowledge is always a work in progress. Therefore we cannot discount things just because our current technology can't measure them.

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

So you just happened to choose a random hypothetical example of a circular argument that just happens to sound like a misrepresentation of Christian belief? Pull the other one.

No you tried to insinuate I was using circular reasoning. I gave an example of circular reasoning, and why it was circular reasoning. But rather than point out why my reasoning was circular, you have tried to side track the discussion into mis-representing Christian.

There's plenty of point in having a debate about God where we define God as being omnipotent. Otherwise your debate is about some limited deity and not the Christian God.

There's no point asking any "how" question. Because there's infintite magic available.

If you are having a debate about a Being who created the universe out of nothing then arguing that something is 'very difficult' for Him is rather silly. Your argument only carries weight on the assumption that an omnipotent God does not exist. You are committing an obvious logical fallacy.

Who say out of "nothing"? "Nothing" is extremly difficult to objectively define because it is a human construct.

Tim, you're producing more straw men than a scarecrow factory.

You can't produce one I have used.

Who claimed that Einstein's Laws of Mass and Energy are wrong? I certainly didn't. I simply suggested that our current technology may not be so perfect as to be able to detect every conceivable form of communication in the universe. Given the history of science, and how new discoveries constantly update our knowledge, I would think my suggestion is perfectly reasonable.

I was speaking about the soul travelling to heaven. Now you seem a bit confused whether you want me to talk about the soul or not.

The soul, if it has mass, would require a huge amount of energy to move it. Otherwise Einstein's laws are wrong. Or that the soul has no mass and gets to heaven by a transport mechanism which we cannot detect. If it has no mass, is it inside space - time? If it is not, and you think heaven may be still be insde space time, therefore you are saying it is possible for the soul to be outside space time and get back in by a communication or action mechanism
we can't detect. Perhaps you could just clarify what you think, rather than accuse me of straw men and circular reasoning which you can't substantiate.

I am perfectly happy to think about my religion a bit more, speculate about possibilities, and to suggest possible new ways of looking at things. You are the one who seems to get all dramatic and hysterical when someone doesn't agree with your rather narrow view of things.

If you calmed down a bit and listened to what others are saying then I'm sure we could have a fairly sensible and courteous discussion.

You were the one to insinuate I was being arrogant and illogical. That's the way it came across. Which is nonsense and insulting.

Zombrex

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Well it means, he only wants us believing it based on flimsy evidence. He could give us better evidence. But who knows, he probably enjoys watching 6 billion people not agree on who he is or if he exists.

well like I said, the fact that God either doesn't exist or has decided to make the supernatural elements of the religion, such as the spirit, heaven, himself, undetectable to humans is a strong indicator to me that he actually doesn't exist. But then I'm an atheist. If you want Christian responses you need to tailor your questions to Christians. I don't think a Christian will find that argument particularly convincing, and Christianity itself has a lot of built in features that explain away why God would do that.

oeb

PDN wrote: »

Yes, we know that now, but we didn't a few hundred years ago.

I am not arguing that there is scientific proof or evidence for heaven's existence. I am simply pointing out that scientific knowledge is always a work in progress. Therefore we cannot discount things just because our current technology can't measure them.

A black hole was first theorised (well, theorised in a publication) in 1783 by john mitchell. At that stage we knew what gravity was and we knew what light was (On a scientific level). A black hole was the theory that gravity could become so strong that it could effect light. The point I am making is it is a logicial leap. To this day (as far as I am aware) a black hole has never been seen or measured, but logicially we can assume that they are correct because we know what happens to stars when the collapse, we know how gravity works, and we know how light is accecpted by gravity.

It was not a wild assumption, it was simply an conjecture (sp?) made from knowlege that we already had (proved).

Heaven is not based on the back of any other scientific knowlage, there are no scientific facts that lead to heaven being a logicial (or possible) conclusion (that I am aware of). That is the difference I am trying to point out. A scientific prediction (like a black hole) is based on the evidence out there. If it's all made up, we call it science fiction (or fantasy).

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

I am simply pointing out that scientific knowledge is always a work in progress. Therefore we cannot discount things just because our current technology can't measure them.

Everyone knows that. What we are trying to say is how would human concepts of God, heaven etc. fit in with what we know about the universe.

For example, suppose we could pick up the radiation of energy waves when Jesus was having personal relationships, just like we could pick up background radiation which validated the Big Bang? The fact is we can't. So given the laws of the universe and what we know, what type of "communication" is this?