Personal relationship with Jesus Christ

Tim Robbins · 15-10-2008 10:28AM

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 · 15-10-2008 01:35PM

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 · 15-10-2008 01:43PM

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 · 15-10-2008 01:59PM

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 · 15-10-2008 02:01PM

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 · 15-10-2008 02:13PM

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 · 15-10-2008 02:16PM

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 · 15-10-2008 02:36PM

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 · 15-10-2008 02:38PM

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 · 15-10-2008 02:45PM

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 · 15-10-2008 02:50PM

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 · 15-10-2008 02:52PM

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 · 15-10-2008 02:55PM

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 · 15-10-2008 03:00PM

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 · 15-10-2008 03:12PM

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 · 15-10-2008 03:13PM

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 · 15-10-2008 03:28PM

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 · 15-10-2008 03:29PM

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 · 15-10-2008 03:31PM

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 · 15-10-2008 03:33PM

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?

Mal-Adjusted · 15-10-2008 03:44PM

Tim Robbins wrote: »

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?

I think what PDN is trying to say is that we don't know yet, so asking what type of communication it is will not generate an answer, only lead to more speculation

oobydooby · 15-10-2008 04:10PM

Tim Robbins wrote: »

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?

Is it not a case that many Christians believe that God uses the natural world and the people around us to communicate with us? He does not need to use supernatural means, but could if he so desired. In many lives, there is an astonishing serendipity surrounding life's weighty moments. This is, of course, a personal observation. This can lead a reflective intelligence to purport some unknown force (God?) guiding these serendipities rather than the less egocentric possibility of patterns arising from coincidence or the human psychological bias towards finding patterns where they don't exist.

In the light of faith (as I understand it), the believer can find evidence of how God was communicating with him/her even before the believer became sensitive to this communication and even (and especially) when the believer may have been very very far from living within God's will. The encounter remains personal. An outsider can only speculate on what's going on inside the believer's head. Another believer will likely recognise an encounter whereas a sceptic will probably attribute it to a natural cause.

Also, just as you've mentioned space time on a few occasions, here's a yes/no type of question that might appeal to you: The geometry of space time, does it exist? If yes, does it have mass and can it be observed and how? If no, why is it often described as being curved?

Fanny Cradock · 15-10-2008 04:53PM

Tim Robbins wrote: »

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.

So, everybody knows that science is a work in process, but you have somehow managed to determine that all forms off communication have been discovered.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

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?

It's called Xearopic communication. PDN discovered it just recently.

Really, Tim, sometimes I can't figure out your agenda or why you bother to pursue it so doggedly, especially when you consistently bypass other peoples opinions.

Christians make no specific claims as to the medium God hypothetically uses to communicate with his creations. I've yet to hear anyone claim that God operates on certain frequencies. Instead, it is you who are talking about electromagnetic waves and space - time. In doing so, you ignore one of the central aspects attributed to the Christian God: omnipotence.

Tim Robbins · 15-10-2008 05:05PM

oobydooby wrote: »

Also, just as you've mentioned space time on a few occasions, here's a yes/no type of question that might appeal to you: The geometry of space time, does it exist? If yes, does it have mass and can it be observed and how? If no, why is it often described as being curved?

ASFAIK we can't see it directly, but we can test for by predicting the position of planets and stars which fit the space time model.

The model is only a system of representation so it doesn't have mass, in the same way as the alphabet doesn't. It's described as being curved because space bends.

oeb · 15-10-2008 05:06PM

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Christians make no specific claims as to the medium God hypothetically uses to communicate with his creations. I've yet to hear anyone claim that God operates on certain frequencies. Instead, it is you who are talking about electromagnetic waves and space - time. In doing so, you ignore one of the central aspects attributed to the Christian God: omnipotence.

Of course they make no claims, there is nothing external to indicate that there is any merit to the theory that there is an external force in (or outside) the universe that communicates with us. Everything we experience around us can be explained. If not with cold hard fact then with scientific assumptions. We can make the assumption for instance that religion is a by-product of our social instincts as a race. We can base this fact on what we know about human social behavior and from past experiences.

It's like the old invisible lion in my attic claim. If I was to claim that there is an invisible lion in my attic you would say that I was nuts. You would say that if there was a lion in my attic everyone would hear it, and people would see it knock things out of the way. And we could smell it's poop. Why is something that is plainly insane when one person believes it perfectly normal when half the world believes it?

Tim Robbins · 15-10-2008 05:14PM

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

So, everybody knows that science is a work in process, but you have somehow managed to determine that all forms off communication have been discovered.

When did I say all types of communication have been discovered?
No, what I am trying to say is we can either use Science to try to progress the God theisis or we can just opt out and say there's no point, because God can do whatever he wants?

Consider it this way. SETI is a funded project to search for life in other parts of the Universe. Is that a waste of time because aliens could communicate whatever they want?

Now, if I am wrong and there is a God, I ask you the question should Science be used as a mechanism to discover God or is it pointless and irrelevant?

If its the former well then the questions I pose are relevant and deserve a bit more thought from Christians.

Christians make no specific claims as to the medium God hypothetically uses to communicate with his creations. I've yet to hear anyone claim that God operates on certain frequencies.

I know that, but why must we dismiss a scientific analysis of how he is sending messages from wherever he is to inside your brain.

Mal-Adjusted · 15-10-2008 06:00PM

oeb wrote: »

Of course they make no claims, there is nothing external to indicate that there is any merit to the theory that there is an external force in (or outside) the universe that communicates with us. Everything we experience around us can be explained. If not with cold hard fact then with scientific assumptions.

Slightly OT i know, but that's one of my main gripes with astro-physics and quantum physics. it's generating conclusions based on assumptions based on other assumptions "that we just haven't proven yet" i'd rather wait for proof before labelling something as more than a theory or hypothesis.
just my 2c, sorry for the little distraction:)

oeb · 15-10-2008 06:07PM

Mal-Adjusted wrote: »

Slightly OT i know, but that's one of my main gripes with astro-physics and quantum physics. it's generating conclusions based on assumptions based on other assumptions "that we just haven't proven yet" i'd rather wait for proof before labelling something as more than a theory or hypothesis.
just my 2c, sorry for the little distraction:)

And is this statement coming from a theist?

Mal-Adjusted · 15-10-2008 06:12PM

oeb wrote: »

And is this statement coming from a theist?

:Dwhere did i claim i was a theist?

oeb · 15-10-2008 06:16PM

Mal-Adjusted wrote: »

:Dwhere did i claim i was a theist?

You did not, that's why I asked

Personal relationship with Jesus Christ

Comments