On Justifying our beliefs.

[J Lowrie]

Dear Sirs,
I have been struck and displeased, when browsing various forums concerning religion, by the complete lack of reason people seem to be able to give to justify their (very strongly, and sometimes dogmatically held) opinions.
Descartes said that we ought not to believe something true unless we know it to be so. This is a rather obvious premise and is a vital rule which any man who is concerned with discovering any sort of truth should strive to adopt. I say 'strive' because, as humans, our perception and derivation of truth is apt to become clouded and distorted by our desires, emotions and errors of reasoning. It is an extrordinary fact that even very intelligent people hold beliefs more strongly than the evidence merits.
It should be a disipline of any trained mind to sort out his thoughts, beliefs, knowledge and justifications. If he does this well he will find a moras of contradictions and unfounded assumptions in his head, and in realising that he knew much less than he had so happily supposed will be rather more humble and willing to hear and more able to discern truth in others beliefs.

As a Christian one of the most frustrating and ignorant assumptions I meet is that a Christian accepts his religion through some sort of blind unquestioning faith. Nothing is further from the truth, and people who think this clearly do not know what Christians mean by the word faith.

Anyway, I could rant on here forever, but I think I should like to here some comments on what I have thus far written. (I am very open to hear some well fouded and cogent attacks on Christian doctrine).
Jamie Lowrie

P.S. Sorry for the multitude of spelling mistakes littering this piece - my only excuse is that I am a mathematician.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Originally posted by J Lowrie
Dear Sirs,
Don't forget our Madams. :D

I have been struck and displeased, when browsing various forums concerning religion, by the complete lack of reason people seem to be able to give to justify their (very strongly, and sometimes dogmatically held) opinions.
I agree. Clinging fanatically to dogma of any type is pretty senseless.

Descartes said that we ought not to believe something true unless we know it to be so. This is a rather obvious premise and is a vital rule which any man who is concerned with discovering any sort of truth should strive to adopt. I say 'strive' because, as humans, our perception and derivation of truth is apt to become clouded and distorted by our desires, emotions and errors of reasoning. It is an extrordinary fact that even very intelligent people hold beliefs more strongly than the evidence merits.
I think nearly everyone (excepting perhaps the clinically bonkers) hold beliefs precisely as strongly as they feel the evidnce merits. Unfortunately, no-one gets to sit around and be the final arbiter of what constitutes enough evidence, so you have people running around believing all kinds of wacky things based upon evidence that no sane person would accept.
It should be a disipline of any trained mind to sort out his thoughts, beliefs, knowledge and justifications. If he does this well he will find a moras of contradictions and unfounded assumptions in his head, and in realising that he knew much less than he had so happily supposed will be rather more humble and willing to hear and more able to discern truth in others beliefs.
Agreed.

As a Christian one of the most frustrating and ignorant assumptions I meet is that a Christian accepts his religion through some sort of blind unquestioning faith. Nothing is further from the truth, and people who think this clearly do not know what Christians mean by the word faith.
Well, nothing may be further from the truth for you, but Christians come in all stripes, many of which not only do believe this way, but believe they must believe this way. I have met those who say seeking evidence for God and not accepting blindly is "testing God" and is verboten.

I'll grant you that no-one should, upon meeting a Christian, assume how he arrived at his beliefs. There are as many justifications as there are Christians.

Anyway, I could rant on here forever, but I think I should like to here some comments on what I have thus far written. (I am very open to hear some well fouded and cogent attacks on Christian doctrine).
Jamie Lowrie

P.S. Sorry for the multitude of spelling mistakes littering this piece - my only excuse is that I am a mathematician.
No worries re the spelling errors, and welcome to the fora.

[Operaider]

If you think that we don't believe in God because we simple don't want one, in my case you are wrong. I actually was Christian. I believed whole heartily in Jesus. Then one day someone pointed out that I haven't actually read the bible. I had spent years devoting my life to a book of commandments I'd never gotten around to reading. Once I read it I realized what a load of nonsense it was. There were multiple contradictions. Commandments damning ridiculously innocent acts with extremely harsh punishments.

I don't believe in God because I have seen no purpose for God. All that I've witnessed does not require a God to exist. If you have some evidence of God that I missed, please present it. Because I for one, would actually like for there to be a God. But we don’t all get what we want

[Oleron]

Welcome to the forums! You may be just what my debate needs over here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=47468) .
Feel free to have a jolly good go at my ideas. I mean no offence by them and actually appreciate being proved wrong (if indeed I am wrong).

;)

[Flo]

Originally posted by J Lowrie
As a Christian one of the most frustrating and ignorant assumptions I meet is that a Christian accepts his religion through some sort of blind unquestioning faith.

Aside from the odd über-atheist on a crusade (mercifully seldom met here), you will mostly read this assumption from the likes of 1inChrist, who claims he is the only true christian around ... ;)


Nothing is further from the truth, and people who think this clearly do not know what Christians mean by the word faith.

Then according to 1iC, you're no real Christian ;)

[Skeptical Greg]

There was a recent thread in which we discussed the reason for belief.

A Question for Believers (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=45338)

The question was:

As a believer, what do you find compelling about your belief, that you feel others should find compelling also?

Perhaps you would like to have a go at it.. You might browse through the linked thread to see how it went.

Note that our friend Frisian, seemed to have made the most concerted effort from the ' believer ' side.


What do you mean by ' faith '?

Many ' non-believers ' would say that ' faith ' implies a lack of knowledge.. ( evidence if you will ) In the light of tangible evidence, faith is not necessary.

[Eleatic Stranger]

Descartes said that we ought not to believe something true unless we know it to be so. This is a rather obvious premise and is a vital rule which any man who is concerned with discovering any sort of truth should strive to adopt

This premise is obviously, however unfortunately it is not obviously true. The idea that one ought not to believe something unless one is willing to assert that one knows it is to construe evidence as a 1/0 sort of thing, which short consideration of the vagueries of life should reveal to be somewhat evidently false. We should obviously be willing to provide significant justification for any claim we make regarding our own knowledge of some fact or other, and similarly we should be willing to provide justification for any belief we hold -- however to claim that the level of justification needed for either case is the same is to indicate that one of the two terms is entirely superfluous.

[Anathema]

Originally posted by J Lowrie
Dear Sirs,
I have been struck and displeased, when browsing various forums concerning religion, by the complete lack of reason people seem to be able to give to justify their (very strongly, and sometimes dogmatically held) opinions. Welcome aboard. I'd suggest that "browsing" won't yield much. Participating will likely show you quite a different view. A lot of ground has been covered, and many now speak in a kind of shorthand, rather than rehashing the basis for their beliefs in every single post.
Originally posted by J Lowrie
Descartes said that we ought not to believe something true unless we know it to be so. Since there is no absolute "knowing" outside of some kinds of religious certainty, we have to accept standards of evidence, and accept operative 'truths" on a sliding scale. Some, we have great confidence in, others are more tentatively accepted until more information can conclusively validate or invalidate them.

Originally posted by J Lowrie
It should be a disipline of any trained mind to sort out his thoughts, beliefs, knowledge and justifications. If he does this well he will find a moras of contradictions and unfounded assumptions in his head, and in realising that he knew much less than he had so happily supposed will be rather more humble and willing to hear and more able to discern truth in others beliefs. Your participation here will certainly allow you a lot of contact with "trained minds", in fact, you can't swing a dead cat in here without hitting one.

Originally posted by J Lowrie
As a Christian one of the most frustrating and ignorant assumptions I meet is that a Christian accepts his religion through some sort of blind unquestioning faith. Perhaps you do not. I applaud you. Many, many, many Christians however do precisely that. The evidence is too frequent to miss.

Originally posted by J Lowrie
Nothing is further from the truth, and people who think this clearly do not know what Christians mean by the word faith. Speaking for all Christians is a tricky proposition....

[monkboon]

Originally posted by Operaider
Then one day someone pointed out that I haven't actually read the bible. I had spent years devoting my life to a book of commandments I'd never gotten around to reading. Once I read it I realized what a load of nonsense it was. There were multiple contradictions. Commandments damning ridiculously innocent acts with extremely harsh punishments.

Same here. I've concluded that actually reading the Bible with a critical eye is the most dangerous activity to faith.

I personally am pleased as punch that I eventually came to my senses, even if a little miffed that it took me 21 years to do it. I am free to live my life without fear of eternal damnation over a little doubt now and again. It doesn't bother me that there's no eternal reward, either, as I'm also free to make the best of the life I have now.

[plindboe]

Originally posted by J Lowrie
Descartes said that we ought not to believe something true unless we know it to be so. This is a rather obvious premise and is a vital rule which any man who is concerned with discovering any sort of truth should strive to adopt.
&
Originally posted by J Lowrie
As a Christian.......

So, how do you know God exists?

PS.Welcome aboard.

[epepke]

Originally posted by J Lowrie
Dear Sirs

Msdms. & Messrs. would probably be more appropriate.

As a Christian one of the most frustrating and ignorant assumptions I meet is that a Christian accepts his religion through some sort of blind unquestioning faith. Nothing is further from the truth, and people who think this clearly do not know what Christians mean by the word faith.

Anyway, I could rant on here forever, but I think I should like to here some comments on what I have thus far written. (I am very open to hear some well fouded and cogent attacks on Christian doctrine).

I'm sorry to disappoint you, but this is not particularly an anti-Christian or anti-theist forum. You will probably meet more than the average number of non-believers, but this is not a requirement. This forum is part of a web site about scientific skepticism, and there has traditionally been somewhat of a truce with believers, so long as they don't claim that Jesus comes down and scrubs their pots and pans with his halo every other Thursday or something like that.

I also have to warn you that people here are pretty good at critical thinking, and you're not going to get very far with statements like "clearly do not know what Christians mean by the word faith." A typical response might go along the lines of, exactly which Christians are you talking about, Mr. Self-Appointed Ueber-Pope of All Christendom? Maybe the ones in Ireland who think that the Catholics aren't Christians. Or else the ones who think that the non-Catholics aren't Christians. Furthermore, you come in here with a prepared thing that you as much as advertise that you're just eager to be pissed off about. People aren't going to respond nicely to that, and you'll deserve it.

[Gulliamo]

Welcome. It is always a pleasure to have another “thinker� join the festivities.

Generally, it is weighed upon the claimant to provide evidence for their claim. If I were to claim, "There is not a god." Then I would be required to substantiate with supporting evidence for the given claim. Often, it is not the non-theist making the claims but, simply refuting the claims made by others.

[punchdrunk]

Originally posted by J Lowrie
As a Christian one of the most frustrating and ignorant assumptions I meet is that a Christian accepts his religion through some sort of blind unquestioning faith. Nothing is further from the truth, and people who think this clearly do not know what Christians mean by the word faith.

Fair enough. What does the word faith mean to you? Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=faith) defines it as "Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence."

[Ceinwyn]

J Lowrie:

How is it you are registered in May, yet your first post is today? Have you been lurking for this long?

Just curious.

[Kitty Chan]

Ceinwyn

I was thinking the same thing

Lowrie

Welcome and tell us your thoughts on the most popular christian here 1inChrist. What do you think of his discussions regarding the fires of hell?

[RamblingOnwards]

Originally posted by J Lowrie
As a Christian one of the most frustrating and ignorant assumptions I meet is that a Christian accepts his religion through some sort of blind unquestioning faith.

When I was a Christian, this is exactly how I saw it. While I wouldn't argue with other Christians I believed that if you said you believed in God for any reason OTHER than pure faith, then you were either 'shading the truth' because you thought it would convert more people, or you were ignorant of the facts.

I was (and still am) of the opinion that if you know something, then you do not have faith in it. The words 'have faith in', 'believe' and 'know' all have multiple meanings, but take this as a near example. If a close family member is accused of killing someone, you might have faith in the fact that they didn't. However, if you were with them at the time somewhere else, then you know they didn't - no faith involved.

I can respect someone who says they believe in God through faith. They have examined all the evidence and made their choices with eyes open. I find it difficult to respect someone who says that they believe because they have evidence of God. Firstly, in the Christian faith, that would be cheating:


Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." John 20:29 (NIV)

And secondly, because almost invariably that 'evidence' is absurd.

Lastly, the most famous Christian quote about faith is:
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen Hebrews 11:1 (KJV, because this is the one most quoted)

Which very much supports my argument - faith is used instead of evidence as a basis for belief.

What do you consider the word to mean, and why do you assume most other Christians feel the same way?

[Kitty Chan]

Originally posted by RamblingOnwards
I can respect someone who says they believe in God through faith. They have examined all the evidence and made their choices with eyes open. I find it difficult to respect someone who says that they believe because they have evidence of God. Firstly, in the Christian faith, that would be cheating:

John 20:29 (NIV)

And secondly, because almost invariably that 'evidence' is absurd.

Lastly, the most famous Christian quote about faith is:
Hebrews 11:1 (KJV, because this is the one most quoted)

Which very much supports my argument - faith is used instead of evidence as a basis for belief.


If I understand you correctly you are saying that it is alright to have faith because you have examined the evidence (evidence maybe was bible, different theologians, preacher, family, friends etc?)and made the decision. ?

but if they have evidence of God (maybe something like the shroud, or the ark? or mary / cross appearances) then no. ?

One other comment re that faith is used of evidence as basis for belief.

This would be in "modern times" where as in "biblical times" Thomas would have seen the risen Jesus and put his finger on the nail scars and had tangible evidence in front of him (which, prompted Jesus reply).

Not that I want to make a whole lot of tangible evidence because even that evidence as Thomas showed requires a decision of faith. As there were those in the day that saw something yet decided that they would not believe their eyes.

[RamblingOnwards]

Originally posted by Kitty Chan
but if they have evidence of God (maybe something like the shroud, or the ark? or mary / cross appearances) then no. ?

In essence, yes.

I wouldn't call these things evidence, but I wouldn't find it unreasonable to chose Christianity because you approve of the moral values, because you find support in the framework, because you respect other Christians, or because you find comfort in prayer. Knowing that no hard evidence exists, if you chose to believe in God, taking it on faith and leaping blindfold into that personal void, then while I wouldn't agree with your decision (clearly), I can respect it.

In theory, hard evidence would be better (although it would then no longer be faith in my mind). In practice, since no convincing evidence of this kind exists, some-one who thinks they have some is a little out of touch.

(edited for tags and spelling)

[Kitty Chan]

Just as a note I used the word evidence since you did.

Thats why I was giving some ideas of what that evidence may be. The evidence just describes what one is looking at to determine something.

Looks like we agree on "soft" evidence I could add what you said to mine.

So,back in the day, for a second . . .

As for "hard" evidence like I said Thomas had the hard evidence then believed. Im thinking he saw but did not believe but when he touched then he believed. I looked at the verse and Thomas said to the others until I touch I wont believe. When he saw Jesus He said come touch My hands, I wonder if Thomas thought now how did He know I wanted to do that?

I say so because, Thomas thought that he had to touch to know but he was presented with Christ knowing without being asked and it seems Thomas didnt notice. (not sure on that, but my point would be he reasoned what he wanted and missed another bit of evidence in the process)

I have experienced hearing or seeing things and not believing them until another sense was brought in. For example being told there was a fire but until I saw it I didnt believe. I just derailing myself wondering about seeing but not believing.

Ok I just wanted to mention that, now for today . . . .

The same hard evidence does not seem to be availiable at this time. You said hard evidence would be good but what would be hard evidence?

Thats why I was wondering about things like the ark if it was found to be there, would you consider that hard evidence? Or the ark of the covenant, the grail?

or would hard evidence be like a sign ie: sea turning red, earth quake covering more area that it should.

Or say someone (not Jesus) being killed and coming back

or say like in Rev Christ coming down out of the sky riding a white horse.

As I think of this there is alot of things that could be hard evidence, I guess Im asking what do you would think would be adequate, how much or how many things would be needed.

[RamblingOnwards]

Originally posted by Kitty Chan
As I think of this there is alot of things that could be hard evidence, I guess Im asking what do you would think would be adequate, how much or how many things would be needed.

Well, I'd need different amount of evidence for different things.

To believe in the historical existence of Jesus probably wouldn't take much. Of course the bible can't be accurate about his life (it gives him two different birth years 4 BC and 7 AD, and two different paternal grandfathers Jacob and Heli, and so forth) but that a real preacher actually existed and did cause a fuss is something I'm prepared to accept. I'd need some indicator outside of the bible though - a reasonable explanation for why he doesn't appear in either the Jewish or the Roman records at the time, some letters written during his lifetime about him, and so on.

That a God or aliens exists that are omnipotent (at least from our perspective) would need something unambigiously non-human, and ongoing. Basically, any of the 'grand gestures' as long as I can verify it isn't a) an illusion, or b) a delusion.

To believe in Christianity in the sense of becoming a Christian? In theory, nothing. I think that going to hell would be the most moral thing to do if the Chirstian God exists. In reality, if I was convinced of the existence of the Christian God, I doubt my moral character would be strong enough to stand by that decision.

[J Lowrie]

Dear Sirs and Fair Ladies,
I do hope I did not cause offence by the opening to my previous instalment on this thread for none was intended.
It was pointed out to me that the style of my piece was not normal (i.e was too prepaired) for this medium. I can only ask you to bear with me while I get used to arguing in a way (i.e with many people at once over the internet) which I am not used to.
Thank you all for your interesting replies. There are so many points I should like to answer but I am a slow writer and shall therefore limit myself.
Firstly, to clarify what a Christian means by faith. I suppose Chirstians use faith in two senses. We may talk about faith towards God in the same sense as faith from a man to his wife; in this context we have (or show faith) by obedience motivated by love. The other sense in which faith is used, the sense in which I used it in my first letter, is that connected with belief. It is this sense which I shall now explain.
Faith, as derived from the bible and understood by most Christians, is most certainly not forcing oneself to believe something which one has no evidence for. God is the source of reason, and gave us that power so we could establish truth: He would be a perverse God if He then expected us to believe anything without sufficient evidence. No, faith is practised when one holds to a belief which one once accepted as fact (because sufficient evidence was available), and possibly still intellectually knows to be true, even though everything else seems to be indicating that one is wrong and when ones emotions and feelings are telling one to think the opposite. Faith is the triumph of knowledge and reason over mere feelings(which are often deceptive). When I was a child and learning to swim my father stood a couple of meters from me at the deep end of the pool and told me to swim towards him. At the time I remember feeling scared of drowning though I KNEW that I could trust him and that if I went under he would save me immediately and I would get nothing worse that a wet face. But still, the fact of the deep water and my incompetence in swimming loomed large in my mind and blocked out of my consideration the knowledge that my Father could help me. Had I listened to my head and swam towards him I would have showed faith in his ability to save me from drowning; my knowledge and reason would have prevailed over fear and emotion. There are many facts which are in a sense difficult to believe because they are refuted by the mass of our experience and emotions. I find it difficult to believe that one day I shall die and that the hand which writes this will rot or burn; all my feelings tell me that this will never hapen, yet I know it is a fact. Sometimes I have such joy that I almost believe (and in fact have believed) that it must last forever but my reason tells me that such moments are transient - in fact during such times I invariably ignore my reason. I know there is a God of love but there are times when, obeying God is a pain, everything around me seems bad, the world seems inhospitable, and even my reason is playing tricks on me, it is difficult to hold fast to my beliefe in His existence. At such times my reason tells me not to trust my feelings and stick to what I know, or at least to what I used to know - this is faith!
Faith is one of the supreme Christian virtues because oftentimes to stick to ones knowledege of the existence of God when one does not feel His presence and when one would rather there were not a God is very difficult but is also very vital if we are to remain loyal to Him. Mostly Christians lack faith by wilfully ignoring Him because they want to sin; they ignore what they know to be true because it is convinient.
I accept that many Christians have a confused idea about what faith in this sense means, but in my experience of Christians I have known and read this is not usually the case. Indeed the Bible says, 'Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool' Isaiah 1:18. The Bible never indicates that we must ever believe God without evidence. However it does indicate that me may have evidence in abundance and still be blinded to the truth - this I believe to be the case with possibly the majority of the population.


Now, with regard to the justification of our beliefs. I hold to what I said that we must never accept a thing as true unless we know it to be so. I would further add that our certainty of a proposition must be only as strong as our evidence for it. The Marquis sugested that most people do precisely that. I would disagree. I think the majority of a persons beliefs derive from a mixture of what one accepted without question when a child, the influence of strong personalities on ones thought, propaganda, things one wishes to be true, and plain faulty reasoning. Remember that the average man will rarely question any of his beliefs at all - this may be verified by noticing that he will hold to contradictions in his own thought which he may not even suspect exist, and if he does, is not too bothered about them.
In reality I don't think it is possible to sort out all of one's beliefs so that they are fully cogent and dependent only on evidence. Again, as the marquis pointed out, we may even be mistaken in the strength of the evidence we have. One must come to the conclusion that the majority of men really hold far too many beliefs much too strongly.



Operaider said "If you think that we don't believe in God because we simple don't want one, in my case you are wrong. I actually was Christian. I believed whole heartily in Jesus. Then one day someone pointed out that I haven't actually read the bible. I had spent years devoting my life to a book of commandments I'd never gotten around to reading. Once I read it I realized what a load of nonsense it was. There were multiple contradictions. Commandments damning ridiculously innocent acts with extremely harsh punishments.
I don't believe in God because I have seen no purpose for God. All that I've witnessed does not require a God to exist. If you have some evidence of God that I missed, please present it. Because I for one, would actually like for there to be a God. But we don’t all get what we want"

I reply: I have no way of knowing why you disbelieve in God - I don't say it is necessarily because you don't wan't him - but you do sound very hostile to the Christian God (or your idea of Him). It may be that in the past you merely believed a certain pick-and-mix of Chistian doctrine but were never actually born again - in which case if you desire to know the truth God and seek God He will prove to you His existence. One last thing: you rather hastily dimiss the Bible as nonsense and full of contradictions; remember you are talking about by far the most influential book ever written - our countries would not exist if it were not for this book, it is a book which has been scrutinized by the greatest minds in the world and declared great, it is easily without parallel. Greater minds than ours have examined the Holy Bible and far from finding contradictions find unity, beauty, simplicity (of expression), profoundity of thought. To a Christian it gives strength, and speaks with authority. Why is it that you believe there to be contradictions in the Bible but (for instance) Augustine didn't? Do you knoe the Bible better than him or are you just smarter?

Diogenes asked 'As a believer, what do you find compelling about your belief, that you feel others should find compelling also?'
I reply: The things I find most compelling are so varied and, by their very nature, could not be accepeted by an unbeliever (at least without the expense of much time). I think the historical evidence when examined with an open mind by an unbeliever ought to be compelling enough by itself. I think the lives of commited Christians (historical and those one knows personally) is also very strong evidence. Also, I would say that the best immediate evidence for the existence of a God (not necessarily Christian) is that of the authority of the mass of the population throughout history - at almost every period and location in history (except our own period and our own location) the mass of people (rich & poor, intelligent & simple, good & bad) have believed is some sort of deity. Authority is our major sorce of knowledge and is a thoroughly valid one so long as one believes ones authority to be reliable and substanciated. When I mention authority people complain that they must see things and prove them themselves, but they ought to realise that authority taken and accepted correctly is a most scientific and reliable source.

To Plindboe who asked how I know God exists: If you like I will be happy to give you a full justification for one of the reasons I believe God exists, to do so on all would take too much time over the internet. I would advise you, however, to go to a better source that me for Christian apologetics - if you seriously want to
discover truth read the best writers available - some of the greatest minds ever could give you better evidence than I. If you want dialogue I shall be happy to oblige.

I didn't really want this thread to be about the arguments suporting Christianity, rather I wish to persuade readers that their atheism is perhaps not so well founded as they thought and encourage them to very seriously read and enquire
into the possible truth of Christian doctrine. I am not the best person to obtain Christian truth from but I am ready to be grilled on any issue you choose, so long as your motive is a desire to know the truth, to help me know the truth, or to understand more fully what Christians believe.

Someone asked me what I thought of 1-in-christ. I have not been reading him for long, but from the little I have read he seems reasonably sound in doctrine. I really do not know enough to say anything more about him.

Yours,
Jamie Lowrie


P.P.S. To Ceinwyn: I registered in May but had no time to get down to reading or writing anything until now.

[Anathema]

sniff....snifff....I'm keeping an eye on this one too.....Spidey Sense(tm).....tingling.....

[RamblingOnwards]

Originally posted by J Lowrie
The Marquis sugested...
Operaider said ....
Diogenes asked ...
To Plindboe ....
P.P.S. To Ceinwyn....

I feel so unloved :(.

P.S. if you add '['quote']' to the beginning and '['/quote']' to the end (without the ' ' marks), you can get that nicely indented effect. Much easier to read!

[The GM]

Originally posted by J Lowrie
Someone asked me what I thought of 1-in-christ. I have not been reading him for long, but from the little I have read he seems reasonably sound in doctrine. I really do not know enough to say anything more about him.


Uhm, yeah. When atheists know the good book better than that @$$ clown, it's a difficult assertion to support that he is 'reasonably sound in doctrine'.
Besides, he's just a troll.

[Kitty Chan]

Rambling

I will keep talking so you feel loved :D

Ok I see what your saying, the first part goes back to starting with a historical Jesus as a first step before even getting to discussion if He was God.

The next part about if God or aliens exist that are omnipotent to us. For the first part being a former believer in aliens I can testify that it is a religion with a God substitute, someone to save you. When I found out exactly what christians were on about I realised it. And I suppose chose the god that seemed logical. At the same time Randi was explaining how paranormal science was not science.

So the next part of that was you would need something of the grand gesture as long as you can verify its not a illusion.

Then in the end part your saying that even if you did come to believe in God then your morals would conflict because you cannot understand a loving God that would send people to hell.

Im just repeating so I understand where your coming from. Oh also the grand gesture that would maybe be something from my post? If so which ones and what about the rest. I bring them up as they are some that are "possibilities" as in people mention them alot how do you feel about those specifically.

[Kitty Chan]

Originally posted by Anathema
sniff....snifff....I'm keeping an eye on this one too.....Spidey Sense(tm).....tingling.....

I will admit to my whiskers twitching too and have posted that in several places, but if JL was him then I will admit he is a Linguistics expert. Not to mention having a great sense of understanding of character and location of that character.

As for content its miles apart with deeper understanding rather than screaming hellfire and the use of the word logic in the sense its made.

Further discussion will bear fruit, so far the trees healthy.

[Kitty Chan]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by J Lowrie

I will say welcome to the boards. If you should notice my post to Anathema please do not be offended 1in has run rather ramshod over everyone here now defenses are up. And as you say being a christian does mean considering what you hear.

I enjoyed your post with excellent points, we shall see the responses those here (with some exceptions) have excellent questions.

As a hint try to space in some paragraphs it makes it easier to read. As well I sense you like that Clive fellow, I hope so. :)

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by J Lowrie
Diogenes asked 'As a believer, what do you find compelling about your belief, that you feel others should find compelling also?'
I reply: The things I find most compelling are so varied and, by their very nature, could not be accepeted by an unbeliever (at least without the expense of much time). I think the historical evidence when examined with an open mind by an unbeliever ought to be compelling enough by itself. I think the lives of commited Christians (historical and those one knows personally) is also very strong evidence. Also, I would say that the best immediate evidence for the existence of a God (not necessarily Christian) is that of the authority of the mass of the population throughout history - at almost every period and location in history (except our own period and our own location) the mass of people (rich & poor, intelligent & simple, good & bad) have believed is some sort of deity. Authority is our major sorce of knowledge and is a thoroughly valid one so long as one believes ones authority to be reliable and substanciated. When I mention authority people complain that they must see things and prove them themselves, but they ought to realise that authority taken and accepted correctly is a most scientific and reliable source.




Ho Kay...

Let's try that again..

Name one thing, that you as a believer find compelling, that YOU think a non-believer SHOULD find compelling.. i.e... It is sooooooooooo obvious to you, that you do not see how anyone else could ignore it's existence..


My earlier example..:

I believe in the existance of General Motors because there is a Buick sitting in my driveway... ( Very compelling for me.... )


Your turn...

You believe in God because ??????


If you wish to end this exchange by simply saying " I can't think of anything that should be compelling to a non-believer .. "

... That will be O.K., and I will certainly understand; since the lack of compelling evidence is exactly why I am an unbeliever..

This is your chance to change that.

Keep in mind, that as a skeptical sort of person, the popularity or anecdotal ad nauseum consistency, of what you consider evidence, doesn't add up to one spark plug of my Buick.

P.S.
...authority taken and accepted correctly is a most scientific and reliable source. Not!

At least not until said authority has been established..

And yours would be?

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Diogenes
Name one thing, that you as a believer find compelling, that YOU think a non-believer SHOULD find compelling.. i.e... It is sooooooooooo obvious to you, that you do not see how anyone else could ignore it's existence..

I'm just going to pip in on this one point...

Any believer could easily list hundreds of compelling points. Which you would then subject to the back of one of your hands.

So here's one. Jesus as an answer to Job's complaint. It's compelling to me. It isn't compelling to you I reckon. I think you should find it compelling though. The *point* exists, you can't deny that it exists, as I mentioned it.

Turning your sarcasm around, a believer could easily apply your tone on you.

And J Lowrie answered your request. You asked him to offer things that he found compelling. He replied with the lives of commited Christians and the authority of the mass of population throghout history. In response you wax sarcastic and repeat your request.

So what you really mean to say is "name one thing that I WON'T REJECT that is compelling/obvious". In that case, you'll have indicated the futiliity of trying to respond to your request.

See Diogenes, you didn't do that eariler. Your bad. Be more specific next time, and save yourself the trouble of holding down the oooooooooooooooooooooooo key.

-Elliot





My earlier example..:

I believe in the existance of General Motors because there is a Buick sitting in my driveway... ( Very compelling for me.... )


Your turn...

You believe in God because ??????


If you wish to end this exchange by simply saying " I can't think of anything that should be compelling to a non-believer .. "

... That will be O.K., and I will certainly understand; since the lack of compelling evidence is exactly why I am an unbeliever..

This is your chance to change that.

Keep in mind, that as a skeptical sort of person, the popularity or anecdotal ad nauseum consistency, of what you consider evidence, doesn't add up to one spark plug of my Buick.

P.S.
Not!

At least not until said authority has been established..

And yours would be? [/B][/QUOTE]

[Kitty Chan]

Ok now I understand this compelling evidence you speak of.

I will toss one in

I know its debated to death but I find it something no one cannot get around. That is everyone in this planet wants to know how and why we as a collective race came from. Space travel, archelogy, all want to find our beginnings as humans. Often I have heard this theme on science shows for example space. We travel there to do this and that and oh yeah find out Why are we here, whats the purpose, discover the meaning of our planet.

This cannot be answered by curiosity. We are simply not THAT curious, its a driving force within us. A force common to all and it continualy comes up in topics.

This is where a christian finds God as the source that answers the questions. We were meant to be with Him but things have been sidetracked with another alternative. At this point the question becomes is the alternative or the original going to fullfill the answer of the ages that drives everyone.

Back in the OT to today people have been switching between alternatives (many gods) and the original (God). I will grant you some do not believe in any god but that is still a alternative view. And of all the alternatives only God promises to actually have the answer we seek to Why are we here. None of the alternatives will claim the final answer.

This shared experience, the longing to know compells me in my faith that the answer to Why is there.

[1inChrist]

Don't bother J. These atheists are nothing more than materialist fundamentalists.

[Operaider]

as opposed to someone who believes that scientists are witches using Satan’s tricks
and believes that logic and reason are the tools of the Devil
and believes that dinosaurs coexisted with humans sorta like the Flinstones
and believes that math worked differently a couple thousand years ago
and list goes on and on and on

[RamblingOnwards]

Originally posted by Kitty Chan
I will keep talking so you feel loved :D

Thank you, Kitty Chan, I feel all warm and fuzzy :).

I think you understand my position pretty well, but I would add to this:

Then in the end part your saying that even if you did come to believe in God then your morals would conflict because you cannot understand a loving God that would send people to hell.

What I find morally objectionable does depend on the flavour of Christianity in question. This one is widely, but not universally, held, so it is a good example (some exceptions: fuzzy diests who believe any good person of any religion goes to heaven, or modernist Anglicans who don't neccesarily believe in life after death at all). Another is that the institution the religion created is sexist and oppressive.

Oh also the grand gesture that would maybe be something from my post? If so which ones and what about the rest.

Thats why I was wondering about things like the ark if it was found to be there, would you consider that hard evidence? Or the ark of the covenant, the grail?

No. It would be some proof of a historical event that was written about in the bible, but not proof of the accuracy of the bible story or of God. (Unless said objects were otherworldy in and of themselves).

or would hard evidence be like a sign ie: sea turning red, earth quake covering more area that it should.

If it was significantly not within natural bounds. We have difficulty predicating earthquakes, and 'red tides' are freaky but natural (http://www.enviroliteracy.org/article.php/534.html). It would need to go a step beyond.

Or say someone (not Jesus) being killed and coming back

Again, within what time period? How were they killed? Death for a few minutes happens all the time. Some drowning victims (small children in cold water) have been dead for over an hour and came back. Many more people have been declared dead and woken up days later [which in low-tech environments often leads to claims of resurrections (like Pastor (Daniel?) in Nigeria)].

or say like in Rev Christ coming down out of the sky riding a white horse.

As long as I had reason to believe it wasn't a clever illusion or a delusion, then yes, this would do it (at least as far as God/Aliens/Other powerful being). As would 1inchrist's stars, the ongoing and instant cure of all illnesses, diseases and so forth, heavenly choirs, and so on.

(edited for poor wording)

[Ossai]

J Lowrie
Your reasons for belief boil down to three points:
1. It makes me feel ‘good’ - personal gain
2. Appeal to authority
3. Appeal to popularity

Do you actually have anything substantial to offer or just more of the same?

Ossai

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by elliotfc
I'm just going to pip in on this one point...

Any believer could easily list hundreds of compelling points. Which you would then subject to the back of one of your hands.

So here's one. Jesus as an answer to Job's complaint. It's compelling to me. It isn't compelling to you I reckon. I think you should find it compelling though. The *point* exists, you can't deny that it exists, as I mentioned it.





It is not compelling to me because I do not see how an omnipotent loving God would have made Job's complaint necessary. Far from compelling, the story of Job simply seems ludicrous.

But it really breaks down long before that, because you have to provide compelling evidence that God exists, before stories about said God's interaction with human beings, take on any meaning.

[epepke]

Originally posted by J Lowrie
I do hope I did not cause offence by the opening to my previous instalment on this thread for none was intended.

Your previous installment was highly condescending. Surely it cannot have escaped your attention that this culture is suffused in Christianity. Many Atheists you will meet have studied the Bible and even read it cover-to-cover.

However, I doubt that anyone was offended by that approach, because we've seen it scores, perhaps hundreds of times. I'll call it the "formal approach," to be scrupulously polite and mildly spoken in a nineteenth century sort of way while simultaneously treating the audience as if they were four-year-olds.

Since you've offered to be a source of information or refer questions to another source about Christianity, I'll ask you about this. While the form approach is common in some cultures, such as Japan, it's gone mostly out of fashion, except for Christians. The uniformity of the approach puzzles me. So, my questions are these:

1) Is the formal approach taught somewhere, such as Maranatha or some other group, or do Christians come up with it independently?

2) Are you aware that the uniformity of the formal approach gives the impression of "hey, this is going to be the same old stuff you've heard ad nauseum"?

3) If the answer to number 2 is "yes," what do you hope to accomplish by the formal approach?

In return, I will try my best to answer your questions about atheism.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Diogenes
In the light of tangible evidence, faith is not necessary.
Only faith that your evidence is indeed tangible. ;)

[Skeptical Greg]

No, faith is practised when one holds to a belief which one once accepted as fact (because sufficient evidence was available), and possibly still intellectually knows to be true, even though everything else seems to be indicating that one is wrong and when ones emotions and feelings are telling one to think the opposite.

.......................

Faith is the triumph of knowledge and reason over mere feelings(which are often deceptive).





You can't be serious?
.................................................. .................

Anyone else see a problem here?

[Kitty Chan]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by RamblingOnwards
[B]Thank you, Kitty Chan, I feel all warm and fuzzy :).
I think you understand my position pretty well

Thank you for your answers, I ask because it keeps coming up (just in general here) but no specifics usually so at least I know the actual root of the question.

What I find morally objectionable does depend on the flavour of Christianity in question. This one is widely, but not universally, held, so it is a good example (some exceptions: fuzzy diests who believe any good person of any religion goes to heaven, or modernist Anglicans who don't neccesarily believe in life after death at all). Another is that the institution the religion created is sexist and oppressive.

First I will agree with the sexist part, all I can say is I go back to what Jesus said / did and He did not have the same rules thats some churches seem to have made up.

And you will find me in agreeeable in the flavor part you have a good point. I think alot of christians mix up judgeing with having discernment about a person. Loving as God loves is really hard, in particular praying for ememies, but He also said not to throw those pearls so therefore I like to take Kenny Rogers advice and know when to hold em and when to fold em.

CS Lewis whom I rather like as a matter of fact non hysterical type writer said that God (this goes a bit with the driving force I posted too) being God could show Himself in many things. What you were saying about any good person. Can apply here, this is where 1in and I would part. Yes, I will admit Christ said through Me but He is also going to judge.

Its said that some of those who called Him Lord He will not know. Thats because they have misused His Name. So what about those that did not have the opportunity for church like some? And kind of have the idea of God but not quite. Like I used before someone that was selfless say Ghandi. All the negative talk forgets about GRACE.

God sees the heart and so those that think they are a shoe in may not be in and those that think they are outside may be in. I cant understand people saying Gods great then they tie Him down. Tony Campola once said that when your praying for Aunt Bell and her hip do you really think God is going, really I didnt know that! (Back to why I read Lewis he has a way of going to what actually matters).


No. It would be some proof of a historical event that was written about in the bible, but not proof of the accuracy of the bible story or of God. (Unless said objects were otherworldy in and of themselves).

I am fairly convinced that there will be no unquestionalble proof. There was something about the walls of Jerico, but I dont know where that left off. So much is buried under many feet of dirt or water and covered by cities. Digs do not have the time to unearth things before they are covered.

One I could think of that if the bible is right the discovery of the Jewish Temple. They are certainly ready as they have made every piece of furnature, candlestick, robe even found the linage of priests, the red heifer they had one born last year they have to wait I think another 1 1/2 yrs to see if hes pure. Basically they are good to go. They can be set up in 2 days.

If it was significantly not within natural bounds. We have difficulty predicating earthquakes, and 'red tides' are freaky but natural (http://www.enviroliteracy.org/article.php/534.html). It would need to go a step beyond.

exactly, Ive seen a red moon, something beyond I agree

Again, within what time period? How were they killed? Death for a few minutes happens all the time. Some drowning victims (small children in cold water) have been dead for over an hour and came back. Many more people have been declared dead and woken up days later [which in low-tech environments often leads to claims of resurrections (like Pastor (Daniel?) in Nigeria)].

Had not heard of Pastor Daniel I will have to look that up. I confess Im thinking anitchrist type stuff. Apparently hes going to be like he had a fatal wound and rise in 3 days, I wonder how something like that would be seen. I brought this up before and considering our modern times it would be on CNN, enquirier, etc so what would a person think. Especially since those like John Edwards have convinced people that the paranormal is real.

As long as I had reason to believe it wasn't a clever illusion or a delusion, then yes, this would do it (at least as far as God/Aliens/Other powerful being). As would 1inchrist's stars, the ongoing and instant cure of all illnesses, diseases and so forth, heavenly choirs, and so on.

:)

[69dodge]

Originally posted by elliotfc
And J Lowrie answered your request. You asked him to offer things that he found compelling. He replied with the lives of commited Christians and the authority of the mass of population throughout history.I don't understand. What is it about the lives of committed Christians that ought to convince me that a god exists? In particular, how would their lives differ if no god existed but they only believed that one did?

I consider someone an authority about a subject if I have reason to believe that he knows more about the subject than I do. So, what did all those people throughout history know that I don't, that makes them better able than I to correctly determine whether a god exists? (There is certainly lots of stuff people nowadays know, that no one knew a long time ago. The general trend is for knowledge to increase.)

[farmermike]

Originally posted by Diogenes
You can't be serious?
.................................................. .................

Anyone else see a problem here?
Yep,My brow has yet to become unfurrowed.

[RamblingOnwards]

Originally posted by Kitty Chan And you will find me in agreeeable in the flavor part you have a good point.

I suppose I shouldn't generalise 'Christianity' to the extent that I do in posts. I only fear that if I start specifying which aspects I'm talking about, I'll get jumped on by 'that's not REAL (tm) Christianity!'

CS Lewis whom I rather like as a matter of fact non hysterical type writer

I'm a fan of CS Lewis myself. I've always been particularly amused by the fact that he dismisses buggery between adolescent boys as a minor infraction.

said that God (this goes a bit with the driving force I posted too) being God could show Himself in many things. What you were saying about any good person. God sees the heart and so those that think they are a shoe in may not be in and those that think they are outside may be in. I cant understand people saying Gods great then they tie Him down. Tony Campola once said that when your praying for Aunt Bell and her hip do you really think God is going, really I didnt know that! (Back to why I read Lewis he has a way of going to what actually matters).

There is that consolation for religious family members of atheists who do believe this - if the atheist lives a moral life and God is Good, then when they die he will not judge them harshly for not believing in him.

I would suspect from this that you also adopt the view point of purgatory rather than hell?

I am fairly convinced that there will be no unquestionalble proof.

It does seem unlikely at this point. That doesn't mean I don't find the bits and pieces we do discover fascinating :).

I confess Im thinking anitchrist type stuff. Apparently hes going to be like he had a fatal wound and rise in 3 days, I wonder how something like that would be seen. I brought this up before and considering our modern times it would be on CNN, enquirier, etc so what would a person think.

One of the problem's with todays media is that we have to be trained to treat it sceptically. As a result, I think there would be widespread dismissal of this story and with isolated fanaticism, the same as any other religious revelation. In other words, if it's on too small a scale, I don't think the reality of the event would have any impact on the reactions of the population. Religious and non-religious alike, it takes some doing to shake us from our established mindset.

[Kitty Chan]

Originally posted by RamblingOnwards
I suppose I shouldn't generalise 'Christianity' to the extent that I do in posts. I only fear that if I start specifying which aspects I'm talking about, I'll get jumped on by 'that's not REAL (tm) Christianity!'

Why I do not like labels, they are good for a start point but go no where for understanding. Whats Real or Reality is a whole other post. For christianity I go with the creed then go from there. I figure its the main point and the rest is extra.

I'm a fan of CS Lewis myself. I've always been particularly amused by the fact that he dismisses buggery between adolescent boys as a minor infraction.

Well I have not heard that where does he speak of that? What of his books have you read?

There is that consolation for religious family members of atheists who do believe this - if the atheist lives a moral life and God is Good, then when they die he will not judge them harshly for not believing in him.

I would suspect from this that you also adopt the view point of purgatory rather than hell?

I suppose that it could be a consolation I was thinking more of fairness, if a christian trusts God to be who He says He is then one must trust Him to be fair. And as well what we think we know about a person is not the whole picture, whereas God knows the whole picture and hes the judge not us. As for a moral life Im thinking a little more than being a all around good guy thats why I mentioned someone like Ghandi.

Purgatory I dont know too much about the details, I think it comes from a confusion about what happens when one dies. Its said when you die you are with Christ so that would leave out purgatory. But Ive also heard asleep in Christ. Maybe purgatory fits in as a "waiting room" Im really not sure and havent completely decided on how it all works. Im not sure anyone knows for certain the exact procedure.

All I know and I know it drives this forum nuts is that "God is in control and whatever He decides is ok by me" :D that trust thing again. I know you think its a cop out but if He is God . . .

It does seem unlikely at this point. That doesn't mean I don't find the bits and pieces we do discover fascinating :).

Yes its very interesting, I love history even saw King Tut's tour when it came but I was sad to see most of it was fibreglass. I just have a feeling that to find a positive proof would enable people to worship the item ie ark so I just believe that there will never be anything conclusive only glimpses.

One of the problem's with todays media is that we have to be trained to treat it sceptically. As a result, I think there would be widespread dismissal of this story and with isolated fanaticism, the same as any other religious revelation. In other words, if it's on too small a scale, I don't think the reality of the event would have any impact on the reactions of the population. Religious and non-religious alike, it takes some doing to shake us from our established mindset.

Im thinking that if it were this situation its supposed to occur after he has been around for a while so he would be well known across the world. And if you think about the bandwagon types I certainly hope that there would be those that would see through it. Because the bible does say appears to be dead. I dont know just random thoughts about it trying not to watch the election too much

[RamblingOnwards]

Originally posted by Kitty Chan
For christianity I go with the creed then go from there. I figure its the main point and the rest is extra.

Ahh, but which creed? The Nicene? The Apostle's? The Korean (this one is very pretty)? How about the Mennonite Confession of Faith?



I'm a fan of CS Lewis myself. I've always been particularly amused by the fact that he dismisses buggery between adolescent boys as a minor infraction.


Well I have not heard that where does he speak of that? What of his books have you read?


It's in 'Suprised by Joy'. Some googled extracts:

And [this] is why I cannot give pederasty anything like a first place among the evils of the Coll. There is much hypocrisy on this theme. People commonly talk as if every other evil were more tolerable than this. But why? ... The real reason for all the pother is, in my opinion, niether Christian nor ethical. We attack this vice not because it is the worst but because it is, by adult standards, the most disreputable and unmentionable, and happens also to be a crime in English law. The World will lead you only to Hell, but sodomy may lead you to jail and create a scandal, and lose you your job. The World, to do it justice, seldom does that.


[They] would have preferred girls to boys if they could have come by them ... we should have to say that pederasty, however great an evil in itself, was, in that time and place, the only foothold or cranny left for certain good things ... A perversion was the only chink left through which something spontaneous and uncalculating could creep in

Purgatory I dont know too much about the details, I think it comes from a confusion about what happens when one dies. Its said when you die you are with Christ so that would leave out purgatory. But Ive also heard asleep in Christ. Maybe purgatory fits in as a "waiting room" Im really not sure and havent completely decided on how it all works. Im not sure anyone knows for certain the exact procedure.

I was thinking of it in the terms of a limited punishment rather than an eternal punishment.


All I know and I know it drives this forum nuts is that "God is in control and whatever He decides is ok by me" that trust thing again. I know you think its a cop out but if He is God . . .


Well, it requires that you believe that God is fair and just and so on, and frankly, the descriptions in most religious texts falls far short of the mark.

Also, that statement can be read as an abdication of moral responsibility - the belief that as long as you are ordered to do something by a legitmate authority, you do not have to consider whether it is wrong or right. After the holocaust, I'm sure you can appreciate why people are concerned about that outlook.

Im thinking that if it were this situation its supposed to occur after he has been around for a while so he would be well known across the world.

I'm curious as to why you think this would be the case. I ask because Jesus was not well known even in the area in which he lived until many generations after his death. Isn't the anti-christ supposed to be patterned after his life?

I dont know just random thoughts about it trying not to watch the election too much


Well, you probably have a month in which to do that :)

[Kitty Chan]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by RamblingOnwards
[B]Ahh, but which creed? The Nicene? The Apostle's? The Korean (this one is very pretty)? How about the Mennonite Confession of Faith?

In particular 1Corinthians, Chap 15, 3-7 for a statement.

Also Philippians 2 6-11 and Colossians 1 15-20 are more well known.

I guess if I was going to pick one of the ones you mentioned it would be Apostles' Creed. Like I said I would rather go with whats in the bible.

As for Lewis I will have to pick up a copy thats one I dont have. Then I can answer when I see the whole thing.

I was thinking of it in the terms of a limited punishment rather than an eternal punishment.

Limited or eternal? Well perhaps this purgatory bit starts limited, like I said dont know and havent totally decided.

As for eternal punishment let me put it in a different outlook for some food for thought. God gave us free will and would like it very much if we would choose to be with Him. In fact that is His number one goal. But that choice has another option there are those who choose not to acknowledge or be with God. Take Him or leave Him. So, the separation chosen in this life will follow them into the next.

Well, it requires that you believe that God is fair and just and so on, and frankly, the descriptions in most religious texts falls far short of the mark.

Also, that statement can be read as an abdication of moral responsibility - the belief that as long as you are ordered to do something by a legitmate authority, you do not have to consider whether it is wrong or right. After the holocaust, I'm sure you can appreciate why people are concerned about that outlook.

To be clear, I do not reject responsibility, If I believe that at one point in my future I will be judged for my actions then whatever I do here I know eventually I will not "get away" with it.

The only "order" from God as a authority is

Jhn 13:34 A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.

People will use God, religion, athesism, ufos, science, pseudo science, politics, family, friends, environment, situations to further their agendas. Its inaccurate to blame any of these things for individual or group behaviour. One blames anyone or anything but themselves. It isnt the systems its the users that are the problem.


I'm curious as to why you think this would be the case. I ask because Jesus was not well known even in the area in which he lived until many generations after his death. Isn't the anti-christ supposed to be patterned after his life?

I dont know if Jesus was so unknown, I think a couple of people showed up on Palm Sunday. Also if He was unknown then why the crowds when He spoke. Why did the Magi come from the great distance? I think He was very well known.

And yes the anti christ would be patterened after Christs life.

:)

[RamblingOnwards]

Originally posted by Kitty Chan
But that choice has another option there are those who choose not to acknowledge or be with God. Take Him or leave Him. So, the separation chosen in this life will follow them into the next.

Hell as separation from God. Do you think you have the option of changing your mind after you die?

People will use God, religion, athesism, ufos, science, pseudo science, politics, family, friends, environment, situations to further their agendas.

That is very true, and one of the reasons I believe we should never allow 'someone else told me to do it' or 'the greater good' as a valid reason for immorality - because it will be abused. I know (or rather, I suspect) if you heard 'the voice of God' you'd consult a psychiatrist, but if some-one managed to convince you that they really had recieved an instruction from God, would you still condemn them if it was immoral?

I dont know if Jesus was so unknown, I think a couple of people showed up on Palm Sunday. Also if He was unknown then why the crowds when He spoke. Why did the Magi come from the great distance? I think He was very well known.

Okay, I hate to sound like the stereotypical skeptic here, but... evidence?

I was under the impression the 'reasonable' explanation as to why nobody mentioned the guy until half a decade after his death (no letters between Roman leaders discussing the threat, no butcher's filing complaints because that Jesus rabble blocked access to his store, no record keepers or historians at the time giving him so much as a footnote) was that he simply wasn't that well-known (and it's proof of God's power that from this quiet inspiration a handful of isolated churches were established, which grew into...yadda yadda).

Do you believe the Josephus paragraph is genuine? Even so, do you consider this enough to indicate that he was very well known? I don't mean to attack your faith here, I'm just interested in how you fit your belief into the historical framework :).

[richardm]

Originally posted by Kitty Chan
I dont know if Jesus was so unknown, I think a couple of people showed up on Palm Sunday. Also if He was unknown then why the crowds when He spoke. ... I think He was very well known.

Trouble is, from this distance it's very difficult to say with certainty just how many people were present at these events.

Even today when there's a protest rally you'll see two sets of figures - one from the organisers: "More than 20,000 people!" and one from the police "Around 7,000". There are two reasons for this. Firstly, the police are better at counting; they have the experience and the opportunity. The rally organisers don't have this advantage. The second reason is that the rally organisers do have an interest in inflating the numbers. And it's not hard to imagine that the early Christians would have had a similar motivation.

So those huge crowds may not have been all that impressive, in reality. I daresay Jesus would have been known about in the immediate locality, but I don't think we can say with any certainty that he was very well known generally.

[evildave]

I find it's easiest to get rid of unsupportable beliefs as I identify them.

Saves the effort of 'justifying' them.

[Gestahl]

Originally posted by Diogenes


No, faith is practised when one holds to a belief which one once accepted as fact (because sufficient evidence was available), and possibly still intellectually knows to be true, even though everything else seems to be indicating that one is wrong and when ones emotions and feelings are telling one to think the opposite.

.......................

Faith is the triumph of knowledge and reason over mere feelings(which are often deceptive).


You can't be serious?
.................................................. .................

Anyone else see a problem here?

So, he claims that faith is holding on to a cherished truth in the face of contradictory evidence, feeling, and thought?

I would actually claim that definition is closer to the truth than many of the standard definitions given. However, the second statement does not follow, because knowledge and reason dictate that one should reexamine truths against evidence.

The problem with this is that faith is a terribly emotional thing, not logical or reasonable. If there is evidence, it is not faith. If there is a scientific verification method, it is not belief, but fact. Most of the things people have faith in are what they are told from an authority, or from someone with emotional significance, without evidence sufficient for the skeptic.

[Kitty Chan]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by RamblingOnwards
[B]Hell as separation from God. Do you think you have the option of changing your mind after you die?

As a start I am enjoying this conversation, learning alot actually. One must be able to talk about what or why they believe anything, I may not know all the reasons there is still things Im finding out. ie you seem to know more about purgatory than me, but Im patient I will try to figure out what I think about it.

I do not think there is a option after you die. Thats why its said that now is the time of decision. For example the 2 thiefs on the cross'es. The difference is the one thief realised that he did do crimes and knew he was guilty, and acknowledges Jesus. The other thief hardened his heart as they say and would not agree he had done anything wrong and would not acknowledge Jesus.

The one that acknowledged Jesus as the Son of God was promised to be with Him that day.


That is very true, and one of the reasons I believe we should never allow 'someone else told me to do it' or 'the greater good' as a valid reason for immorality - because it will be abused. I know (or rather, I suspect) if you heard 'the voice of God' you'd consult a psychiatrist, but if some-one managed to convince you that they really had recieved an instruction from God, would you still condemn them if it was immoral?

One thing that is overlooked by alot of people is that Jesus was rather insistant on people judging what they hear and see and not to trust just anything. There is volumes written about how to make sure one is hearing the "voice" of God.

(As a note that I dont believe there is a audible voice like in biblical times. The best I can describe it is different times call for different things. Like we are not following around a pillar of cloud or fire either at the moment. The next audible sound if I recall correctly would be the trumpet. I say so because there was another thread about voices in the head and this is entirely different.)

But back to what you were saying you are correct if I think God is telling me something I would consult not a pshchiatrist but perhaps my husband. See what he thinks if its of God or not. And as I have said before I have friends whom are christian I would ask, pastor, even my non believing friends etc. Then maybe pray more. Dont forget prayer IS talking to God. So, depending on what I think Ive "heard" then I will try to confirm what it is. If its a big decision the more thinking over it gets.

And no one would convince me that they had heard from God if the instruction they heard was immoral. I would be checking out their claim with suspicion. God does not tempt us. He does not say to run the plane into the building. Remember I said responsibility? Also how people use God to further their personal agendas? Well running planes into buildings is personal agendas.

Im gonna hit submit reply so this doesnt get a mile long :)

[Kitty Chan]

ps to all this I am travelling for a couple weeks so if my computer does not log in I may not answer straight away but I'll be back ;)