|
Post by jxr on Jul 10, 2006 21:46:53 GMT -5
She may be.....but if she is, then she is displaying a lack of application of critical thinking skills. There is nothing in this thread that remotely constitutes a sound argument to justify disbelief in God. Yet she states: "I think the replies have convinced me I'm on the right track."The options as I see them are: 1) She's easily convinced ie. gullible 2) She already disbelieves in God and some opinions here seem to confirm her disbelief 3) She's pot-stirring and not genuine I think 1 is highly improbable. 2 is very probable, but my gut feeling is that 3 is the case. Rob, You are an entrenched monotheist, and an extensively religious-educated one at that. In all of your education and research, have you ever pursued a skeptical line with respect to the validity of any parts of scripture? I feel your judgment regarding Helen is heavily clouded by your monotheist world view. Perhaps Helen also finds there is nothing in this thread which remotely constitutes a sound argument to justify any belief in God.
|
|
|
Post by Rob O on Jul 10, 2006 22:13:54 GMT -5
JXR,
Yes. I was an atheist for a period.
And in any given discussion I do not need to assume the validity or reliability of any part(s) of scripture. What assumptions I employ will depend on the discussion. If for example, I'm discussing the reliability of scripture I do not employ the assumption "Scripture is reliable" (whatever that might mean to the discussion) - that would be fatally circular. If I am conversing with an evangelical then we share that assumption and it does not need to be validated prior to discussion. Assumptions are just that - prior bases upon which a conversation can proceed. In the search for common assumptions two people may go way, way back before coming to a point where they can kick off a meaningful discussion. For instance, I do not even know if it would be possible to hold a meaningful conversation with a non-realist (someone who assumes all is illusion).
You are free to feel this. Just as I say it is my gut feeling that Helen is not being genuine. It is difficult to discuss because only Helen really knows Helen's motives. But my gut feeling is based on the behaviour of many, many people over the years who have participated in these forums. I do not have proof she is not genuine. I merely feel it.
She may indeed think that. But I see at least one sound argument in this thead that opens the door for belief in God. But to appreciate the soundness of it one would first need to be understand "warrant" and "proper function" and "basicality". I'm sure there are a number of people here who could understand these concepts if they researched them. But I doubt that any here have actually researched these ideas. So it is difficult to discuss them without shared knowledge of them. This is not intended as a slight on anyone. It is just an observation, as in it might be difficult for a plant pathologist to discuss her line of work with a quantum physicist - and vice versa. Both probably could understand the other, but both would need some grounding in the content of the knowledge that exists in the other's field.
And second, a number of sound suggestions (as opposed to arguments) have been given which would allow Helen to do follow-up research.
|
|
|
Post by Zorro on Jul 10, 2006 22:25:05 GMT -5
To those that question the existence of God,
Can any of you explain the OT prophesies of Christ?
|
|
|
Post by Simple on Jul 10, 2006 22:40:52 GMT -5
Once a B&R 2x2, this board has cured me of that. In fact cured me of religion altogether I think. I have many to thank for bringing me to a relaisation that I now enjoy. Ilylo perhaps most, with his God defying logic, but many others who have shown the holes in religion altogether. I've now come to the conclusion that I cannot be saved, in fact wonder if there's such a thing, and question that God even exists. Is there evidence of Gods existence? Can I find proof? Yes, the proof is just past the end of your nose. So close, and yet so far.
|
|
|
Post by Dakota on Jul 11, 2006 9:37:23 GMT -5
Once a B&R 2x2, this board has cured me of that. In fact cured me of religion altogether I think. I have many to thank for bringing me to a relaisation that I now enjoy. Ilylo perhaps most, with his God defying logic, but many others who have shown the holes in religion altogether. I've now come to the conclusion that I cannot be saved, in fact wonder if there's such a thing, and question that God even exists. Is there evidence of Gods existence? Can I find proof? Yes, the proof is just past the end of your nose. So close, and yet so far. Typical dodge.
|
|
juju
Senior Member
Posts: 263
|
Post by juju on Jul 11, 2006 9:49:15 GMT -5
Helen, I recommend, in the place that you are in, Reading a book by Neale Donald Walsh. Probably Book 1 in the Conversations with God series......It will be a good start. It was the first book I read when I stopped "professing". Good luck on your Journey
|
|
|
Post by Also struggling on Jul 11, 2006 12:15:12 GMT -5
To those that question the existence of God, Can any of you explain the OT prophesies of Christ? No I cannot. But I have questions of my own. (And I'm not debating here, I just don't know - been struggling with this for years now.) Is there any proof that the OT prophesies of Christ were NOT written AFTER the fact? Furthermore, what OT prophesies of Christ are any different that the thousands of other "prophesies" we have today... for example Nostradomis...people have been selectively applying prophesies to justify their beliefs for centuries now... are the OT prophesies of Christ any different?
|
|
|
Post by MusicOFSPHERES on Jul 11, 2006 12:48:11 GMT -5
Yes there is a God.
Even if you doubt I think it would be a better bet on God then little green men.
Not one human can tell us what existed before the (Singularity-Big Bang) nor can anyone tell where the universe is. Until we can have better knowledge of our own animation we will have to live with some degree ob faith. We exist. We will Die. We do not know the Who What Where When of this.
|
|
|
Post by a believer on Jul 11, 2006 13:25:18 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Zorro on Jul 11, 2006 13:29:46 GMT -5
Is there any proof that the OT prophesies of Christ were NOT written AFTER the fact?
From what I understand the answer is yes. I'm relatively sure that there is no serious debate as to whether Isaiah, for example, was written before Christ. Scripture tells us that Jesus went into the temple, picked up a scroll of Isaiah and read some of the prophesy about himself.
As far as Nostradamus and others are concerned, I've never read them so I can't really say. I do believe that a true prophet of God will never make a prediction that fails. As far as biblical prophesy, there are some that haven't been fullfilled yet.....that's why I like to focus on the ones that have, specifically those regarding Jesus. If you really think about it, they do answer the original question at hand - does God exist?
Here's something I found on bible.org: Prophecies About Christ Taken in the light of the entire canon, the historical fact of the resurrection, and with a view to Jewish hermeneutics, there are many prophecies about Christ in the Old Testament. Some of the familiar ones include: his birth (Gen 3;15; Gal 4:4); his lineage (Gen 49:10; Luke 3:33); his place of birth (Micah 5:2; Luke 2:4-7); his Galilean ministry of compassion and judgment (Isa 9:1-2; Matt 4:14-16); that he was the prophet to come (Deut 18:15, 18-19; Acts 3:20, 22); that he would function as a priest (Psalm 110:4; Heb 5:5-6); his betrayal (Psalm 41:9; Luke 22:47-48); his being sold for thirty pieces of silver (Zech 11:11-12; Matt 26:15; 27:1-10); his violent death (Zech 12:10; John 20:27); his resurrection (Psalm 16:10; Luke 24:7; Acts 2:25-28); his exaltation to God’s right hand (Psalm 110:1; Acts 2:33-34), his eternal reign in fulfillment of Davidic promise (2 Sam 7:12-16; Psalm 110:1; Isa 55:3; Acts 2:33-34; 13:22-23, 32-34).
|
|
|
Post by jxr on Jul 11, 2006 19:17:17 GMT -5
Zorro and Also struggling
If the OT prophesies were so accurate and explicit, why is it that only a minority believed that Jesus was the Christ? Is it not that the majority, having read and understood these prophesies prior to Jesus birth, were looking for something entirely different.
Those (the minority, and only close family at first) who accepted the Jesus heresy (from a Judaism viewpoint) read the prophesies from a totally different perspective.
And, all the Gospel writers were Jesusites, first meeting him in an era some 30 years after his birth. So where did they get their information surrounding the events of Jesus birth? As a follower of Jesus, I'm sure they didn't do much critical research about the accuracy of these events.
Furthermore [heresy], if Jesus was conceived out of wedlock (as is supposed), and Mary and Joseph wanted to deflect criticism, what was stop them fabricating a story to exalt their situation? Remember, that John the Baptist was Jesus cousin, so the incentive to protect the family reputation would have existed.
So [possibly] Mary and Joseph perpetuated this story about his birth (in an obscure place), the three wise men and other details.. Little Jesus, who gets fed this story continuously throughout his childhood, decides that he wants to be a worker... sorry,I mean a saviour to mankind, and decides to begin his work during a trip to Jerusalem.
So what happened in Jesus life between the ages of 12 and 30? Did Joseph and Mary fear they'd created a monster-situation, and convince him to take up a carpentry apprenticeship, which he pursued till he had second thoughts at age 30?[/heresy]
Lots of questions remain unanswered, and lots of room for speculation. No doubt all the religious bigots will howl-down this hypothesis without a scrap of rational argument. I don't necessarily subscribe to this viewpoint, but merely point out that an alternative viewpoint exists, and is as credible as anything from orthodoxy.
|
|
|
Post by jxr on Jul 11, 2006 19:23:46 GMT -5
As a case in point regarding the information sources that the Gospel writers used, who was the witness to the events described so vividly in Matthew 4:1-11, Mark 1:12-13, Luke 4:1-13?
|
|
|
Post by Rob O on Jul 11, 2006 19:30:05 GMT -5
Jxr,
This is an interesting way of framing a discussion.
1) Who are "the religious bigots"? 2) What constitutes "rational argument"? 3) What makes this scenario credible?
|
|
|
Post by jxr on Jul 11, 2006 19:52:28 GMT -5
1) Religious bigot: (if this is a genuine post) ... Just read Gods word and keep it...I do not believe that nobody can live like Christ did nor is expected to.Christs work on the cross a finished work we are not to hown it or enhance it- in any way we are to KEEP it What is so difficult to understand nobody can understand the mind of God is that what you are trying to do? Main Entry: big·ot Pronunciation: 'bi-g&t Function: noun Etymology: French, hypocrite, bigot : a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices 2) A rational argument presents supporting evidence with sound logic. 3) The scenario is credible because is is not incredible (for those who dare to question any doctrinal status-quo). So Rob, get to it. Give me some sound arguments to refute this hypothetical scenario. No giant leaps of logic or blind faith should be required.
|
|
|
Post by The Jews on Jul 11, 2006 19:59:25 GMT -5
Is the state of modern Jews combined with their recent history confirmation enough that the bible is true?
|
|
|
Post by jxr on Jul 11, 2006 20:02:13 GMT -5
Is the state of modern Jews combined with their recent history confirmation enough that the bible is true? No.
|
|
|
Post by ganymede on Jul 11, 2006 20:44:52 GMT -5
Jxr, we are aspects of God, trying (consciously or not) to re-discover or divinity. We are GOD playing a game...in which HE (God) challenges the sparks from Himself, to rediscover that they/we (humanity) are actually part of HIM. Jesus, was the Son of God....& so are We.
|
|
|
Post by ganymede on Jul 11, 2006 20:47:06 GMT -5
Jxr, we are aspects of God, trying (consciously or not) to re-discover or divinity. We are GOD playing a game...in which HE (God) challenges the sparks from Himself, to rediscover that they/we (humanity) are actually part of HIM. Jesus, was the Son of God....& so are We.
|
|
|
Post by Rob O on Jul 11, 2006 21:00:45 GMT -5
Jxr,
Fine, I'll play. However, I'll play by your rules. It is a time-wasting exercise to set up a scenario that you don't even hold and yet demand others refute it. You want rational argument but since this scenario is not itself supported by evidence, then no objections to it need to be either. You've posited this scenario as credible simply because it's merely possible. Hence, any objections only need to merely possible as well.
From Joseph and Mary. I have no reason to think Joseph and Mary lied.
As political/religious messiahs were crucified as par for the course, I'm sure at least some of His followers critically researched the events. Luke claims to have investigated the beginnings seriously and questioned eyewitnesses. As the only eyewitnesses to Jesus' birth were Joseph and Mary it is probable he interviewed Mary about those events.
Nothing. Except this claim doesn't cohere with what Jesus' followers said of His ministry. According to them, it was characterized by miracles. Luke's source for the birth narratives (probably Mary) adds information that is consistent with Jesus' claim to divinity.
|
|
|
Post by Incredible on Jul 11, 2006 21:03:42 GMT -5
As Woody Allen said "If God would only speak to me. If he would just cough." It is up to those claiming the incredible to PROVE IT. Measure it. You wouldn't buy a new set of tires on faith and yet you would bet your "immortal soul" on hearsay.
|
|
Perfect reason why many do not
Guest
|
Post by Perfect reason why many do not on Jul 11, 2006 21:04:34 GMT -5
" Zorro and Also struggling
Lots of questions remain unanswered, and lots of room for speculation. No doubt all the religious bigots will howl-down this hypothesis without a scrap of rational argument. I don't necessarily subscribe to this viewpoint, but merely point out that an alternative viewpoint exists, and is as credible as anything from orthodoxy.There is a lot that the HS has to reveal or you will not understand or believe. Jesus told Peter that his revelation was not from flesh and blood, but from above. It is true today.
|
|
|
Post by Rob O on Jul 11, 2006 21:12:41 GMT -5
Incredible,
As is evident from one of the threads on IIDB, the standard of evidence required by most skeptics is such that what would constitute evidence for skeptic A would be rejected by skeptic B etc, and even if the evidence they demand were presented by God they still claim they would have no way of knowing if it was God, a deceitful demon or a being from a civilization of advanced technology. In other words strong skepticism is a form of invincible ignorance.
Not so. Any events from history are to be assessed through historical tools.
Actually, I would buy a new set of tires on faith. All the evidence may point to the store being honest on the recommendations of my friends' good experiences with the store. The salesman may seem above board. The tyre fitter may seem to have technical knowledge and convince me. But ultimately the decision to go ahead and purchase is always one of faith because I can never have 100% certainty that I am not going to be ripped off or sold a defective product.
|
|
|
Post by Zorro on Jul 11, 2006 21:29:38 GMT -5
If the OT prophesies were so accurate and explicit, why is it that only a minority believed that Jesus was the Christ? Is it not that the majority, having read and understood these prophesies prior to Jesus birth, were looking for something entirely different.
If you want to cast God and scripture aside, surely you have more than this. The prophets very accurately predicted that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem. They knew Jesus as a Nazarene and explicity stated this as the reason for rejecting him as Messiah.
No doubt all the religious bigots will howl-down this hypothesis without a scrap of rational argument. I don't necessarily subscribe to this viewpoint, but merely point out that an alternative viewpoint exists, and is as credible as anything from orthodoxy.
Being called a religous bigot certainly doesn't seem to be a very cordial invitation to dialogue, so I think I'll pass. Especially when you lay an argument on the table that you don't even hold - and then you demand rational dialogue. LOL.
|
|
|
Post by jxr on Jul 12, 2006 9:21:57 GMT -5
Zorro, I wasn't intending to extend a cordial invitation to any religious bigots. But if you choose not to be bigoted in your response, you are welcome to join in. I think I only exposed a post of las logged out, as being bigoted, as he denied the right of another poster to query this topic. ... The prophets very accurately predicted that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem. They knew Jesus as a Nazarene and explicity stated this as the reason for rejecting him as Messiah. ... I found something in Micah about a leader coming out of Bethlehem, but I can't find anything yet prophesying Jesus to be a Nazarene or that this would be cause of his downfall. There is mention of this prophesy in the NT, but I find no reference yet. ... It is a time-wasting exercise to set up a scenario that you don't even hold and yet demand others refute it. Yes, I said I don't necessarily hold to this scenario, but to be fair, it occasionally bothers me as one of those nagging doubts. I have done some research but haven't been able to convince myself once-and-for-all that such a scenario is not a possibility. ... From Joseph and Mary. I have no reason to think Joseph and Mary lied. ... Except that the Joseph and Mary's progeny was conceived in unorthodox and unpopular circumstances (out of wedlock). Is there anything to suggest that Mary would not have had an agenda to clear her name? Joseph hid her away when he knew she was pregnant, so he was obviously concerned about the stigma. ... As political/religious messiahs were crucified as par for the course, I'm sure at least some of His followers critically researched the events. Luke claims to have investigated the beginnings seriously and questioned eyewitnesses. As the only eyewitnesses to Jesus' birth were Joseph and Mary it is probable he interviewed Mary about those events. Luke, if it truly was him who wrote that gospel, obviously wasn't one of the apostles. He says he carefully investigated everything from the beginning but he doesn't cite sources, so one can't be sure about a lack of bias. ... Nothing. Except this claim doesn't cohere with what Jesus' followers said of His ministry. According to them, it was characterized by miracles. Luke's source for the birth narratives (probably Mary) adds information that is consistent with Jesus' claim to divinity. The first, and possibly the most notable of the miracles (water into wine) is only recorded by John. If Luke had researched as carefully as he suggest, would he not have come across some snippet about this notable event? Jesus was purportedly there with his disciples, so why didn't Matthew or even Mark, a disciple of Peter, make mention of it? But theological scholars accept that John's gospel was written much later than the others (including Luke's researched gospel). If John the Evangelist was also John the Apostle, then perhaps he was getting a bit old and senile when he wrote down his gospel? Did John imagine some stuff? Even so, Jesus cautioned not to accept prophets and messiahs on the basis of miracles (Matthew 24:24)
|
|
|
Post by Incredible on Jul 12, 2006 9:40:56 GMT -5
Incredible, As is evident from one of the threads on IIDB, the standard of evidence required by most skeptics is such that what would constitute evidence for skeptic A would be rejected by skeptic B etc, and even if the evidence they demand were presented by God they still claim they would have no way of knowing if it was God, a deceitful demon or a being from a civilization of advanced technology. In other words strong skepticism is a form of invincible ignorance. Well, you make a good point. However, no matter how much I may believe that the moon is made of green cheeze, it isn't. That is a proven fact. Gravity is real. It's measureable. Provable. Not so. Any events from history are to be assessed through historical tools. Good point. All I would ask for is ONE IOTA of proof for the existence of a deity. Any deity. Jesus may have (and I think it's been shown to be historically true) existed. That does not constitute proof that he was a deity. Actually, I would buy a new set of tires on faith. All the evidence may point to the store being honest on the recommendations of my friends' good experiences with the store. The salesman may seem above board. The tyre fitter may seem to have technical knowledge and convince me. But ultimately the decision to go ahead and purchase is always one of faith because I can never have 100% certainty that I am not going to be ripped off or sold a defective product. Again, you are gathering knowable evidence to make your decision. That's a good thing. You've checked it out. Read the existing data about the tires perhaps. But I doubt you would simply take it on faith in a tire salesman who told you "these are the best and safest tires in the world. You can bet your family's life on that". He has an obvious agena. Moreover, would you take his word that the tires exist in the first place and were actually installed on your car without in some way proving it to yourself by looking, touching, measuring? Would you believe it without any other knowable data if the salesman handed you a book which he wrote that claimed everything in the book is true and everything the tire salesman said is likewise true?
|
|
|
Post by Rob O on Jul 12, 2006 9:41:12 GMT -5
Jxr,
It is a possibility. That doesn't make it probable or even the best possibility. It is a possibility that there is no real world out there and I am simply a brain in a vat being fed sensory data by a mad scientist who tricks my brain into thinking it is actually experiencing a world that is really out there (think The Matrix). But this is not a plausible explanation for what I experience and it is not the best possibility among the various explanations available to me as to why I experience a world out there.
Similarly, even though the scenario you posit is possible, mere possibility does not equate to best possibility. And that's why I'm not particularly prepared to spend a lot of time refuting a position that you openly admit to not holding. If you really want to look into serious work on the gospels I can suggest a number of resources.
|
|
|
Post by Rob O on Jul 12, 2006 9:46:24 GMT -5
Incredible,
At some point in the process I take a step of faith after gathering enough evidence to assure me my step of faith is warranted. I can never have 100% certainty and that is the point. At some stage, faith always comes into a decision. The important question to answer is "Is my step of faith warranted?"
|
|
|
Post by Incredible on Jul 12, 2006 10:42:23 GMT -5
Incredible, At some point in the process I take a step of faith after gathering enough evidence to assure me my step of faith is warranted. I can never have 100% certainty and that is the point. At some stage, faith always comes into a decision. The important question to answer is "Is my step of faith warranted?" Thanks for the reply Bob. My problem is that I don't personally have any proof of a deity that I feel would warrent my belief in such a being. I'm really asking for proof, if anyone has any, so I could believe in a deity myself. I was born and raised a Christian but over time I stopped believing simply because I felt belief needed to be based on some kind of proof. I need some kind of proof that God exists or that Jesus rose from the dead and rose bodily into the sky or was conceived by a spiritual deity. I can't make the leap into the metaphysical without SOME kind of proof. Believing in gods without proof is what led people to worship Zeus, Neptune, Pele, Ra and Isis (and to commit unspeakable acts in their names, much as we have seen committed in the name of your God down thru the ages to this very day). But all the sincere, pious believing by the faithful didn't make any of them real. Furthermore, I am feeling more and more that irrational, unyielding beliefs in your particular God by Christians, Muslims and Jews is leading to the very real possibility of the destruction of mankind. To me, it is mass insanity over something that is, at best, completely unproovable and very possibly nonexistant.
|
|