Total posts: 3,179
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
No, but sometimes it can be the only alternative to dying if someone will not share their abundance with someone in need. The OT and NT had provisions for the needy and poor (if followed).Is stealing food right?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Obviously inconsistency is sign something is wrong somwhere! I'm guessing the inconststency you refer to isa) atheism implies existence is meaningless and purposeless.
Atheism, yes, but not necessarily the atheist. An atheist can and does find meaning and purpose in life. But when you peel back the worldview to its basis/core/beginning, it is empty. The universe is meaningless and purposeless if its origin is chance happenstance. So the atheist is being inconsistent with his/her beginnings in that he is making up this meaning and purpose when ultimately it means nothing.
Now the Christian believes we find design, meaning, and purpose in the universe (and we keep finding reasons for things that signify mindfulness) because we are created by a mindful, purposeful being. We believe we find that meaning when we find God. So our worldview is consistent with what we see and discover.
I say it does, for you are discussing that very meaning and purpose now. The question that keeps bugging me with an atheistic perspective is why would you expect to find meaning and reasons in a chance happenstance universe? Even the chaos has an order. (^8b) existence has meaning and purpose.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
I will repeat what i said in #123https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/1105/post_links/49316I wrote:It seems your objection is that atheism is nihilistic. It is very likely that atheism is nihilistic, but it doesn't follow it is false.
Sorry, I missed it because you did not address it to me and therefore I received no notification.
Would you say that something that is inconsistent rings true?
Atheism can lead to existential nihilism, like with Nietzsche, if carried far enough. I don't know if many people think their atheistic worldview through enough to come to this point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrutalTruth
I've spoken my peace on this topic. My very well argued points are being dismissed as if they're not factual, and so I see no productivity in continuing, other than to say:The point here isn't about who or what, if anyone or anything, did or didn't create existence as we know it.
All major worldviews that I know of hold beliefs about such things, whether or not you might want to question or avoid this. When you say Christians are delusional because they place faith in an invisible Being I query how well your belief system can make sense of why you exist? If you do not care to question this then you are left with your facts and the present alone. Nothing else can be known, or so you seem to believe.
The point I'm making is very simple: All of it is nothing more than theory. Evolution, creationism, both are nothing more than unproven theories. Therefore, if a person claims to know that one or the other is true, yet declines to prove it, they are delusional.WE. DO. NOT. KNOW. HOW. THIS. SHIT. CAME. TO. BE.The end.
Then there is nothing left to discuss!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
How can you get much more basic than either God or chance happenstance (that which lacks intent) as the cause of the universe...I'm not sure you should use a capital G, but I'd agree that the choice is between a 'mindful' and a 'mindless' cause of the universe.
The Christian belief is only one God in three Persons. Other gods are fictions.
I favour a mindless cause, the details of which are yet unknown but are often referred to as a 'theory of everything'.
The "theory of everything?" Try God. How does a mindless cause sustain anything? There is no reason that it can, just our mindful "probability" that is not probable. It works in theory but how about practice? The dice example illustrates this. First, dice don't roll by themselves. Second, try rolling a six constantly and see how long it takes to roll six a thousand or million times in a row. It is not going to happen, except in your imagination or unless the dice are fixed. Third, "chance" can DO nothing. It is not a thing. It is not about anything. It is a term we use to describe mathematical probability, nothing more.
You, no doubt, favour a mindful cause and go further, indentifying the Christian God as the cause. Were I to accept the cause of the universe was mindful and intelligent I'd doubt it was necessariy the Christian God when there are so many other candidates!
You could test the worldviews as to whether they ring true, but that would take a lifetime. The Bible gives a set of reasons on how to test a worldview that Francis Shaeffer, Nancy Pearcey, Greg Bahnsen, Ravi Zacharias, and others have expounded on that I use. I don't have to know everything about a worldview to see where it goes astray and to show its inconsistencies, and when you have inconsistencies you have something that does not correspond with logic.
The universe needs something to get things started. Does that something have to resemble what is commonly thought of as a god? My feeling is 'no', I presume your feeling is 'yes'. But it is a matter of gut feelings, not cold rationality.
Sure, granted you believe it had a beginning. Again, if you think otherwise you run into a number of inconsistencies, such as how you get to the present from infinity.
Does the universe need a necessary Being to understand it? You and Brutaltruth have stated that it cannot be made sense of with any certainty, which is my point exactly unless this necessary Being exists and has revealed as much. Only then is certainty possible. An infinite Mind who created the universe and understands it in every way is what is needed. Is this necessary Being reasonable and logical to believe in? Brutaltruth says no, but his starting point (which he doesn't want to look into) CANNOT make sense of itself. Instead, he clings to what he can know, facts. Do you see the inconsistency in his thinking? How can he call me and all Christians delusional if he does not know how he came to be (i.e., origins)? All he has is the here and now. His assumption is atheism.
And you base your presumptions on "gut feelings." How likely and reasonable is that when others who oppose your view do the same thing? But if you want to compare evidence I think mine is logical and reasonable. Unshell your outer layers of worldview until you get to the core. See what it is built upon and if it can make sense of itself. That, I claim, is the difference between our worldviews. Do you want to believe what is unreasonable and illogical? If not, then ask yourself ultimate questions. And why are you searching for meaning and reason in a supposedly mindless, meaningless universe? And why do you keep finding reasons? I have an explanation: a reasoning Being has a purpose and we don't find that purpose until we find Him. The reason we are able to come up with reasons AND meaning is that a reasoning Being has designed us and our universe so we discover Him in every detail and fabric of the universe from the micro to the macro in the reasons we find.
I like the moral argument. It accentuates how one makes sense of values. How do you come up with good/right and wrong without an objective FIXED standard or reference point to measure qualitative values by? Why do the standards change depending on where in the world you live, or who you are? If the standard is objective then it should be a universal truth, not a changing guess or a power play by those who have the might to enforce their views on others. What makes an enforced view right? Nothing, it just makes it preferable to the pain you will experience if you don't follow the might of the oppressor; Hitler, or Kim Jong-un, or Stalin, or Mao, or a thousand others who have the power to put their preference into action. Like does not determine right, it only determines preference or else you could not say Hitler's Germany was wrong or torturing innocent babies was wrong. But in your heart, you probably believe that torturing innocent human beings is wrong.
So, I have found that whatever worldview you tackle, but one (Christianity), start to unravel with inconsistencies the more you probe it. Christianity, when rightly understood is not inconsistent from what I have seen (take it for what it is worth).
Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Since you deny God you must start with some other explanation and funnel everything through that system of belief.Actually starting with an explanation is the exact opposite of how one goes about verifying knowledge. You start with a question not an explanation. You then examine the evidence and find an explanation that fits with the data you have collected. If you start with an explanation and funnel everything through your world view then you are not observing the scientific method, which is the single most reliable method at our disposal of separating fact from fiction.
Knowledge is verified through explanations. The question is how it is verified. With origins, you have to start with something to build upon. With normal science, it is demonstrated through repeated experiments. How do you do that with origins? What are "the facts?" What fits into a particular paradigm tends to be the accepted explanation, even when things are left hanging out that do not conform to the accepted view. Thomas Kuhn demonstrated this in his book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. The thought of logical explanation by Ptolemy was found to be an error in thinking, even though it was the held view of the time. What makes you think a naturalistic explanation verifies origins? It is your starting point. You have to have a starting point. The premise is what governs the rest of your thinking to a significant extent. How can you get much more basic than either God or chance happenstance (that which lacks intent) as the cause of the universe, providing it has a cause. And if it does not have a cause but is eternal, we run into the problem of infinite regress and how we get to the present from infinity?
So, the scientific method has a starting point, the pre-paradigmatic phase.
People, scientists included, either presuppose God (necessary intentional Being) or chance happenstance (unreasoning fluke happenstance/nature alone) as the explanation for our existence. Or they could include both or some other explanation. How well does the explanation make sense from its propositions?
And so on down the 26 videos.
Or to sum it up:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrutalTruth
You talk a good show, and much of what you say does make sense in many different contexts.
Well, thank you, I think. (^8
However, for starters, you ignored both of the questions I asked you(I'm guessing because they're highly detrimental to your argument), and secondly:Your entire argument here has one fatal flaw: Your argument against atheism rests on the premise that atheism fails to give an alternate explanation for how the universe came about. You assert that unless an alternative can be given, the proclamations of Christianity have to be accepted. That is a logical fallacy. Argumentum ad ignorantiam. I will explain below.
No, I never rested it on the premise that atheism fails to give answers for how the universe came about. My contention is that the answers fail to make sense, given the starting point of chance happenstance. My assertion is that until you EXAMINE your starting point it is all very well and good to hold to atheism or lack of belief in God. Once you start questioning your core presupposition (on what everything else rests upon) is when things start to unravel and go awry. It is then you realize that your belief or lack of belief is not reasonable or logical based on its starting premises.
I have his book. Even though he speaks of cognitive bias, I find his views have some of the same, although overall a very useful reference guide. For instance, p. 4, "A belief is defined as the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true." So, atheists fit into this category.
Your argument fits the following example taken from that site:Example #2:To this very day (at the time of this writing), science has been unable to create life from non-life; therefore, life must be a result of divine intervention.Explanation: Ignoring the false dilemma, the fact that we have not found a way to create life from non-life is not evidence that there is no way to create life from non-life, nor is it evidence that we will some day be able to; it is just evidence that we do not know how to do it. Confusing ignorance with impossibility (or possibility) is fallacious.
Again, I have contrasted the two belief systems against each other minimally, asking which is the more reasonable and logical. I'm asking the questions of how life can arise from the non-living, without agency or intent? Your worldview fails to demonstrate or give adequate explanations to date, nor make sense of how it is possible reasonably. My worldview has a reasonable explanation, from Mind comes mindful being, from the living comes life, from the loving, comes the ability to love, from the reasoning comes reasonable beings (at times). I fail to see how chance happenstance produces what we observe. That is an assumption on your part (that it can), not mine. From your starting point, no God, why do we find meaning in a meaningless universe (we discover laws that explain how the universe, and logic, operates)? So who is giving the false dilemma? I'm only asking what is more reasonable and logical to believe.
You assert that if nobody can give a better explanation for existence than yours, then yours must be true. That argument is utterly fallacious. As an atheist, I am not claiming that existence as we know it didn't come from one god or another. I am claiming that we do not know where it came from, and currently, that claim is exactly right. Until someone proves a god created our existence, theism is fallacious.
No, my assertion was that the Christian explanation is the more reasonable and logical of the two. My CLAIM is that your system of belief analyzes things from a naturalistic or materialist perspective. It dismisses God as the REASONABLE explanation and relied on the natural alone for you don't include God in any of your thinking, except to deny Him and those who believe in Him as delusional. So, I say let us see how that pans out by examining what atheism would have to stand on by examining its starting points. Let us see how your system of belief stands up by supposing God is not the reasonable answer to our existence.
You grasp at straws. You are rigid in your assertion that a fallacious belief is a valid one, and you are, fundamentally, wrong. Whether or not you accept that factis what proves or disproves that you are delusional.
Okay, what are the facts about our existence or at least what is more REASONABLE to believe? You claim no evidence exists for God (delusional belief) so how do you explain our origin, of why we are here in the first place? If you don't know or have no REASONABLE idea, how can you call me delusional?
So, I'm asking you to lay down your reasons. If you can't do that then maybe the facts are not as you choose to believe them. Is that reasonable to believe???
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrutalTruth
As for your claims of ad hominems, and whatever other fallacies you accused me of, here's why you're wrong: I didn't use these insults, and appeals to the population, and everything else, to defeat your argument. [1] I had already proven it false before I ever said you were delusional, and even delusional people can make valid arguments, [2] so proving you to be delusional does nothing to defeat any argument you make, unless the argument is that you're not delusional.
Whether you want to admit it or not, you called me delusional by insinuating my arguments are invalid in the case of Christianity/God. You classed me as delusional because all Christians are delusional according to your thinking.
"It's up to the scribe to provide proof of their claims, and none of those whom authored the bible provided anything more than unverifiable speculation that you people delusionally accept as actual proven knowledge."
And again:
Absolutely not. I say you're all delusional. That keeps me firmly in the subject.
And again:
Absolutely not. I say you're all delusional. That keeps me firmly in the subject.
What people are you referring too? You refer to Christians, for I am a Christian, to people who believe in God because you claim we have unverified speculation.
On a side note: What you call "unverified speculation" has been verified by others and by historical records.
[1] First, establish that atheism is not delusional by addressing the origins of the universe, life, mind, logic, and reason. Establish how from such origins you can have certainty or a sensible (logical) belief about origins.
[2] Meanwhile, you ignore the conventional definition of evidence, which fits with biblical evidence. You also employ cognitive bias with the underlined in your statements above. You believe it is me, not you, whose worldview is derived by delusion. By stating it is we Christians or God believers who are delusional you lead others to believe it is the case. Like I stated in another post, first establish that the origins of your belief system are sound and reasonable - valid.
Either we are here by chance happenstance or we are created by a Mindful Being are the two main presuppositional points of view. Atheism denies God and looks to materialism for its answers. Thus there is no starting intent or agency behind such a view as materialism. It's just chance happenstance. You, as an atheist (to date), tend to explain everything in terms of naturalism.
You try to stuff the entire universe into your little box but things are left hanging out that you tend to ignore so as to make your belief seem tidy, but it is anything but tidy.
As for the claim that atheism is not a belief but lack of belief, the idea is absurd for the reason that a lack of belief in one thing is a belief in something else. Your foundation is built on anything but God. To deny God our existence would be explained purely by the natural realm and naturalism. That is all I have witnessed you doing to date. You focus on the natural.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrutalTruth
Except I have proven it. Many times over, in fact. And that is why I say it. I am not a person who makes empty claims. You believe something exists when you don't know it exists. That is textbook delusion.
My faith is a reasonable faith, and I have evidence that confirms my faith. Your faith - atheism - is not reasonable. To establish this I start with the origins of both beliefs.
One of the reasons it is reasonable is that it considers origins. How did everything start?
Another is prophecy. Prophecy is based on history, like other aspects of the Bible are, such as the historical narrative (people, places, events) which is confirmed by other extra-biblical accounts.
Another aspect of its reasonableness is its unity and cohesiveness - 66 different writings, 44 different authors, written over a period of 1500 years, all concerning specific themes and the OT contains a typology or shadow of greater truths which are expounded upon in the NT.
Beyond the Bible itself there are the questions of what is more reasonable to believe concerning the universe and its origins. Try explaining it
from an atheistic perspective and making sense of it. "Once upon a time, a long long time ago..."
You say you are not concerned with such events, but only what you can establish as fact, but your very position of atheism has to believe things that are not established by fact but by faith. I fail to see otherwise.
That is where you are mistaken, granting God exists. Granting God exists and that God is the biblical God(here is where you created a hypothetical situation) we can know since there was Someone there and Someone who created what we see, so all facts and truths would be God's facts/truths.(and there is where you spoke of it as if it were real, and not hypothetical) To discover anything we would have to think His thoughts after Him or understand them through His revelation.Notice the notes I made in your quote above. You began with a hypothetical proposition, and then claimed that hypothetical proposition to be a source of factual knowledge, as if it weren't hypothetical at all. "If god exists, then that's how earth was created. So, I know god exists because the earth exists." That is just plain nonsensical. It's as if you forgot that you used the word "granting."
The granting is for your benefit, not mine since I do not question God's existence. I am putting it in a hypothetical for your consideration, not mine. I'm coming to the equation that you grant Him His existence. If you grant God His existence then all fact would be God's facts. They would be created and established by Him. Since you don't know, either way, thus you are an atheist in some sense of the word (whether a weak - agnostic - or strong atheist), you come to the argument with the hypothetical that He does not exist. I say allow for the fact that He does exist. So, for your benefit, granting He exists how does He make sense of the world, the universe, right and wrong, truth and error, as opposed to atheism? My claim is that from your starting point there is no sense to be made from atheism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrutalTruth
Since you deny God you must start with some other explanation and funnel everything through that system of belief. Your limited subject reasoning becomes the key. Instead of focusing on the overall picture you divide the picture up into tiny pieces and focus on one aspect of the picture. Thus we have a conflicting theory of reason and evidence between atheism and Christianity. You hold a non-theistic conception of reason and evidence, which assumes the ultimacy of your human mind. And you use as an excuse for holding your position of atheism that only the facts as you determine them are valid, that what you hold as fact does not act on faith, but solely on reason and proof. You fail to look at how you arrived at atheism because this is an uncomfortable subject that exposes what I would coin a foundation resting on thin air (no visible means of support). Until you look deeper at that system of thought and determine what makes it tick I claim it is you who is delusional for you have built your whole house of cards on a shaky beginning that you refuse to look at (the Emporer has no clothes). The foundation is cracked at the seems.
You base your facts on the empirical, on what you see, what complies with your rules and your evidence (only the facts please, sir). But your very system of belief, atheism, is an assumption. And for many atheists that I have encountered, they make the assumption that their system of thought, how they look at the world and the universe is not a belief taken by faith. It is precisely that, for their structure of thought is based on the materialistic, on what they see and how they understand what they see, devoid of God. (i.e., Show me what your epistemology rests upon. I contend, and you have stated as much, that it rests on you. Why should I believe you? Who are you that you determine what is and what should be?) So you think you can make sense of your experience, yet you fail to look at the starting point of your worldview experience, what it all hangs upon without God, and with the denial of God - blind, indifferent, random, chance happenstance. Why is that reasonable? So you have declared your independence from God, a law unto yourself. Without God, you would have to assume that you are not created. You would look for means that verify this hidden presupposition.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrutalTruth
Again, thanks for the ad hominem and a genetic fallacy (i.e., all Christians are delusional and brainwashed), as well as an appeal to common belief (argumentum ad populum - what is true of one is true of all with the belief that all Christians are delusional), plus it is begging the question (assumes the conclusion by the premise/states X, thus X is true), an overgeneralization, and the list goes on!Asserting delusion and proving it are different matters.Except I have proven it. Many times over, in fact. And that is why I say it. I am not a person who makes empty claims. You believe something exists when you don't know it exists. That is textbook delusion.de·lu·sionnoun
My belief in God is not contradicted by reality or rational argument. That is BS. What is "generally accepted" (per above) is a form of ad numerum or appeal to the common belief. Because something is popular does not necessarily make it true. An example of what was generally accepted or popular was the Ptolemaic model or geocentrism where the earth was thought to be the center of the universe until disproven by Copernicus. It fits what was considered to be "generally accepted" at the time.
The Bible does not claim to be ordinary, but a revelation by God. As such it does not leave the reader with no evidence of God but gives many proofs of its truth claims. You keep claiming there is no evidence but you are not open to the evidence. You keep shutting it down. You have created your own system of belief where you will only look at what you consider to be factual as you determine facts. You mask the true identity of your belief system behind such thinking, IMO. You will not consider the reasonableness of Christianity. I ask you, is atheism reasonable? I claim it is not when you get to the core of such a belief that funnels everything through naturalistic means. The reason is that it can't make sense of its starting point/position - blind, random, chance happenstance causing what we see. There is no REASON that it would since blind, random, chance happenstance lacks reason.
Definition of reasonable
1a: being in accordance with reason
c: MODERATE, FAIR
2a: having the faculty of reason
b: possessing sound judgment
Knowledge or epistemology deals with how we know what we know, thus unless your system of belief is sound because its foundation is sound then you build that foundation on a faulty starting point or premise. Jesus likens it to a house.
Matthew 7:24-29 (NASB)
The Two Foundations24 “Therefore everyone who hears these words of Mine and acts on them, may be compared to a wise man who built his house on the rock. 25 And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and slammed against that house; and yet it did not fall, for it had been founded on the rock. 26 Everyone who hears these words of Mine and does not act on them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. 27 The rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and slammed against that house; and it fell—and great was its fall.”
28 When Jesus had finished these words, the crowds were amazed at His teaching; 29 for He was teaching them as one having authority, and not as their scribes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
I haven't read the Bible for a while (I am currently rereading it), but I don't understand logic and reason from the Bible. It seems like a mash of stories/parables etc that were just kind of thrown together. But who knows,
When you read it may I recommend you pay attention to the audience of address and the timeline?
The OT is mainly about a covenant God made with Israel through Moses, hence, the Mosaic Covenant.
The OT is a typology and picture of Jesus Christ, page after page.
The NT speaks of a soon coming judgment by God on these OT people, through and through.
The NT presents many spiritual truths that have there start in the physical reality of the OT and point to Jesus. For instance, Moses foretold of a prophet like him that would come to the people (Deuteronomy 18:15-18; Acts 3:22-25).
Moses took the physical nation of Israel out of Egypt, the land of bondage, to the Promised Land.
Jesus takes His people out of spiritual bondage from sin and of this world into the New Promised Land, the heavenly country (Hebrews 11:16).
Moses was the Mediator between God and the people.
Jesus is our Mediator between the Christian and God.
Moses is the one God uses to establish a covenant with Him and the people at Mount Sinai.
Jesus is the One God used to establish a new covenant with Him and His people on the mount, outside the city.
Moses was given manna from heaven.
Jesus is the manna from heaven.
Moses lifted up the snake in the desert that all those who looked upon it would live.
Jesus was lifted up on the cross and all those who look to the cross and believe find mercy with God and live, even though they die.
Most of the people did not trust in God's means and the generation Moses led died in the desert. Only a few entered the Promised land from that generation.
Jesus, as well as the author of Hebrews, warns His/that generation that those who did not believe in Him would also perish (Matthew 23:36; Hebrews 3:8-4:11).
The NT parables relate to Israel.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
One way is by your thoughts, I am coming to know you better. I have learned a few things about you through your correspondence.I don't see how someone can come to know God through a book.
Through logic and reason is another.
Faith and trust are another.
Faith and trust are another.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
But I take it that the biblical God is not that God?No, although I am open to the possibility
Well, that is good news!
What do you mean by origin?I don't know where God came from, or if He has always existed, or anything about Him really
The biblical God is described as eternal, without beginning or end. The Bible also gives us insight into the mind of God, His thoughts and attributes, His love and how it is demonstrated, so He is knowable to an extent.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrutalTruth
If you can't say, then I see you divorcing yourself from the subject under discussion since you have made a judgment above.Absolutely not. I say you're all delusional. That keeps me firmly in the subject.
Again, thanks for the ad hominem and a genetic fallacy (i.e., all Christians are delusional and brainwashed), as well as an appeal to common belief (argumentum ad populum - what is true of one is true of all with the belief that all Christians are delusional), plus it is begging the question (assumes the conclusion by the premise/states X, thus X is true), an overgeneralization, and the list goes on!
Asserting delusion and proving it are different matters.
Regarding evidence, the problem is that none of us were thereDING DING DING!!!! EXACTLY!!!! And that little statement right there, my friend, defeats everything else you said. You CANNOT KNOW, so stop acting like you can.
That is where you are mistaken, granting God exists. Granting God exists and that God is the biblical God we can know since there was Someone there and Someone who created what we see, so all facts and truths would be God's facts/truths. To discover anything we would have to think His thoughts after Him or understand them through His revelation.
As an atheist, your worldview would see life coming from the non-living since you do not ascribe it coming from a living Being - God, would it not?What the hell? No it wouldn't? Being an atheist means you don't claim to know where shit came from, not that it came from nothing. I don't try to answer things I can't answer dude. I go out and gather information so that I CAN answer it. Currently, humans have no ability to say where this universe came from, if it came from anywhere at all.
I'm not necessarily referring to you specifically, but your worldview. Atheism (antitheistic for whatever reasons) tends to look for answers solely from a materialistic perspective since it does not see evidence for God/gods.
Atheism, in general, the critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or spiritual beings. As such, it is usually distinguished from theism, which affirms the reality of the divine and often seeks to demonstrate its existence. Atheism is also distinguished from agnosticism, which leaves open the question whether there is a god or not, professing to find the questions unanswered or unanswerable.
Definition of atheist
: a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any
gods :
one who subscribes to or advocates
A person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.
Once you deny God in whatever way you want to describe it you tend to find another reason for everything you look at that is materialistic or empirical in nature as the explanation. The Enlightenment and Age of Reason started shifting the paradigm away from the Bible in Western thought to a new secular view of humanity. Darwin added nails to the coffin of God as the answer, as did philosophers such as Kant and
Nietzsche.
Or as National Geographic put it: "The World's Newest Major Religion: No Religion"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrutalTruth
And it could be right and if you don't know then what is more sensible and reasonable to believeI seem to have to repeat this fact over and over again with you people: Without KNOWLEDGE, NO BELIEF is reasonable. So, the answer to your question is: None. No belief whatsoever until knowledge, one way or the other, is gained.
Are you under the assumption that the Bible does not reveal knowledge?
and what is the case for God (I defend only the biblical God and will argue against any other as being nothing but the construct of the imagination)?Lmao that is hilarious dude. Your god has no more proof or evidence than any other god ever claimed to exist, yet you say all other gods except yours is a delusion? I took you for a more reasonable person than that, but clearly I was wrong.
You deny it but there is evidence that is reasonable and logical and greater than any other supposed god. Many, over the centuries, have recognized the reasonableness of the biblical revelation. Some very brilliant people think other than you do. They see evidence in ways that you are not open to.
Definition of evidence
(Entry 1 of 2)
(Entry 1 of 2)
2: one who bears witness
***
1The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
1.1Law Information drawn from personal testimony, a document, or a material object, used to establish facts in a legal investigation or admissible as testimony in a law court.
1.2 Signs or indications of something.
Btw, nice ad hominem (also known as a personal attack, against the person, against the man, name calling, etc) underlined! (^8
To answer your question: Same answer for your god.Since you are a philosopher the question is how does a universe materialize naturally and which natural theory or paradigm (or the one you support - what is it?) is right if any?Being philosopher doesn't give me some magical ability to divine information out of thin air. I don't claim to know how the universe came about, and I'm not stupid enough to blame something I can't explain on something equally unexplained (like theists do). See, I'm a sane person, so I only claim to know things that I actually know.
Actually, all worldviews that query existence attempt to answer basic yet ultimate questions such as, Who are we, where do we come from, how do we know, and what happens to us when we die. From my perception, your beliefs, based on facts obtained from a priori and posteriori knowledge seems devoid of meaning to me if you don't question why you are here and what significance there is in that thought. Philosophy is all about these questions.
Somehow we got here. If you are right in your worldview or don't really care, then ultimately nothing matters. If my worldview is right, then you have a problem. So questions about our origins are worth the thought.
Somehow we got here. If you are right in your worldview or don't really care, then ultimately nothing matters. If my worldview is right, then you have a problem. So questions about our origins are worth the thought.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
I am just a theist. I believe in a personal God of unknown qualities, or origin.
But I take it that the biblical God is not that God?
What do you mean by origin?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Quanta is quantifiable and empirically and scientifically verifiable and real and extant (and emotionally meaningless).What does it have to do with meaning?I am drawing a line between what is meaningful and what is meaningless.
How do you get meaning from the quantitative as opposed to the qualitative?
I'm not arguing for a dog or fish since they do not have the same reasoning power that we do. They can't meditate on meaning as we do. They can't reason with each other as we can, with abstract thoughts that we put into practice in subduing our world.A dog a fish and an ant have motives. For example they seek out particular foods and consume them. Their particular type of food is valuable to them. Finding and consuming food and reproduction are valuable activities to them. Social creatures also value interactions with fellow members of their pack, school, and colony.
Dogs and fishes don't compose symphonies or discover laws of nature.
If there is no intrinsic value to being human then is it justifiable to eliminate all humans (you first)?I value myself and you value yourself in the same way a dog a fish and an ant values itself.
Not in the same way. Humans are the dominant species on the planet because of their reasoning ability to manipulate their environment like no animal.
I value my community because humans cannot exist in isolation. If you have an impulse to "kill all humans" you are basically suicidal.
More like genocidal.
You have a sense of value and meaningfulness for the exact same reasons the dog and the fish and the ant have a sense of value and meaningfulness.First, establish that a fish thinks of itself as valuable. Show me how it contemplates its meaning.A dog a fish and an ant have motives. For example they seek out particular foods and consume them. Their particular type of food is valuable to them. Finding and consuming food and reproduction are valuable activities to them. Social creatures also value interactions with fellow members of their pack, school, and colony.
A dog, a fish, and an ant can't manipulate the world to the same degree humans can. They do not have the same ability.
Your emotional queues and motives and desires are integral aspects of your survival instinct.Or my emotional queries and motives are from a meaningful mindful Being that has created us in His image and likeness. Like produces like. Thus, we are meaningful beings who can investigate our meaning. Show me how a rock dissolving and creating minerals that produce intelligent being over vast amounts of time, that leads to meaningful thought. It is YOUR presupposition that it does, not mine.I'm not sure how a hypothetical Deistic Being adds any meaningfulness to human existence. Please explain.
Why is He hypothetical? That is your assumption, not mine.
How does meaning originate from inanimate, non-living matter? That again is your assumption, not mine.
You can identify and maintain your emotional mechanisms with science - http://www.robertlustig.com/4cs/What does this link signify? It has nothing to do with the discussion.The link explains how you can increase your general sense of well being, scientifically. Sky daddy completely optional.
I don't buy it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Were I to write a dictionary I would not put 'can perform miracles' in the definition of 'man', I would put in it the definition of 'god'.
The Person of Jesus has two natures, human and divine, yet He did not use His divine nature while on earth. He lived completely in His human capacity yet was filled with the Holy Spirit, as were the disciples who also did miracles. So the miracles came from God the Spirit.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
So, there are good, logical reasons to believe in the historical Person.Many atheists accept a historical human Jesus existed. Only a minority ascribe to the 'jesus myth' theory.I'm in the first group.It is interesting that you say that. Do you base the evidence on the extra-biblical (external) information or both that and the biblical (internal) information?Extra-biblical.There's not much I take from the Bible itself except "probably inspired by a real person".
There were around 44 different authors, written over 1500 years, with the same themes throughout.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
Yes, I agree with the evidence of a Creator, but I do not agree with the rest of your conclusion. If you wish to challenge it further may I ask what you believe? Are you a pantheist, a Buddhist, a deist, a monotheist, or some other kind of theist?I am saying there is evidence of a creator. Just not a specific one from any particular religion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
A "fine-tuned universe" is inconclusive scientifically because of sample biasNevertheless, to date, this is the only planet we know of that sustains life to my knowledge. Through the vastness of the universe, this planet seems unique. I have a reasonable explanation for that, do you? If so, then please state it. I'm willing to learn.All dogs love eating bananas.Of course, I've only ever seen one dog in my entire life and only fed it one slice of banana, but it seemed really really happy to me.I have therefore concluded, based solely on this one brief experience, that all dogs love eating bananas.This is an example of sample-bias.If your sample is too small, your conclusions cannot be considered reliable.
Sample bias? The point is that to date there is no EVIDENCE of life on other planets. To date, this planet seems as if it is the only one in a vast universe capable of sustaining life. To date, that is all you have to work with. Everything else is speculation. To date, which argument makes sense?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
So are you saying the evidence from either is equally valid, or both presuppositional, or what?The evidence that points to a creator in general.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
And meaning - why do we derive meaning from the meaningless and what difference does it make in the big picture? It means nothing in the big picture, yet to some degree are you acting like it does by thinking meaningfully?Quanta is quantifiable and empirically and scientifically verifiable and real and extant (and emotionally meaningless).
What does it have to do with meaning?
Qualia is qualitative and experiential and private and personal and imaginary and immaterial (and emotionally meaningful).A dog has a qualitative experience and values things and activities that you do not.A fish has a qualitative experience and values things and activities that you do not.An ant has a qualitative experience and values things and activities that you do not.Simply because you value things does not in any way imply that those particular things have any intrinsic meaning or value to a dog or a fish or an ant or even necessarily to another human being.
I'm not arguing for a dog or fish since they do not have the same reasoning power that we do. They can't meditate on meaning as we do. They can't reason with each other as we can, with abstract thoughts that we put into practice in subduing our world.
If there is no intrinsic value to being human then is it justifiable to eliminate all humans (you first)?
You have a sense of value and meaningfulness for the exact same reasons the dog and the fish and the ant have a sense of value and meaningfulness.
First, establish that a fish thinks of itself as valuable. Show me how it contemplates its meaning.
Your emotional queues and motives and desires are integral aspects of your survival instinct.
Or my emotional queries and motives are from a meaningful mindful Being that has created us in His image and likeness. Like produces like. Thus, we are meaningful beings who can investigate our meaning. Show me how a rock dissolving and creating minerals that produce intelligent being over vast amounts of time, that leads to meaningful thought. It is YOUR presupposition that it does, not mine.
You can identify and maintain your emotional mechanisms with science - http://www.robertlustig.com/4cs/
What does this link signify? It has nothing to do with the discussion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
They have just the same evidence of YOUR God existing.
What is that?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
A "fine-tuned universe" is inconclusive scientifically because of sample bias.
Nevertheless, to date, this is the only planet we know of that sustains life to my knowledge. Through the vastness of the universe, this planet seems unique. I have a reasonable explanation for that, do you? If so, then please state it. I'm willing to learn.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
How does that make sense of a chance universe sustaining itself? How can something that is not 'about' anything do this or anything?You seem to be under the impression that the teleological fallacy somehow justifies the fine-tuned-universe fallacy.
I'm simply asking how it is justifiable that a chance universe is sustainable within itself? Show me how it makes sense without agency or intent behind it in sustaining it??? Can you do that? I'm asking you to make sense of your worldview claim if you deny God.
A "fine-tuned universe" is inconclusive scientifically because of sample bias.However, even if you wanted to accept that a "fine-tuned universe" was "evidence" in favor of some sort of creator gods, THAT LEAVES YOU WITH LOGICAL DEISM. It is an astronomical leap to any specific particular flavor of "theism".
Except that I do not support just any gods but a specific God, the one and only. I will be right there with you arguing against just any god. I believe the universe, and the earth, is fine-tuned for life because it was designed and sustains itself via a living Being.
No, they are not, unless you can justify them with reasonable evidence that these gods exist.(IFF) fine-tuned-universe (THEN) Marduk.(IFF) fine-tuned-universe (THEN) Brahman.(IFF) fine-tuned-universe (THEN) Nanabozho.(IFF) fine-tuned-universe (THEN) Pangu.All of these are equally valid statements.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
That is my point. There is no evidence for these deities or others such as Shangdi or the Demiurge. The fact that the universe and life exists and there are stories giving these deities credit for that is not evidence.
True.
The Bible, through prophecy (as one evidence), gives credence for its truth claims that can be verified to a reasonable degree through historical data, among other things. But the greater questions are 1) How does a chance universe exist, 2) How does it sustain itself seemingly indefinitely?
Without Mindful creation, there is no sense to be had from it yet we keep deriving sense from it. That is one of many inconsistencies. Why should we be able to make sense of something that is senseless? No reason. Why do we keep finding reasons? Again, no reason in the grand 'scheme' of a solely materialistic universe. And meaning - why do we derive meaning from the meaningless and what difference does it make in the big picture? It means nothing in the big picture, yet to some degree are you acting like it does by thinking meaningfully?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
The odds are astronomical. Why would a chance universe be capable of sustaining itself?Ask that question from within a universe incapable of sustaining itself.
Well, thanks for making sense of it for me! How does that make sense of a chance universe sustaining itself? How can something that is not 'about' anything do this or anything? Your reply - it just does. How is that any better of an answer than what you charge theists with, no proof, just assumptions?
As usual, you seldom answer a question, just give another assertion. What your assumption is is that because we are here that your worldview justifies itself. Based on what you have built your worldview upon, that the universe sustains itself because the universe is here, is circular reasoning. It is your PRESUPPOSITION, not mine. It answers nothing, just asserts. And if you funnel everything through that assumption you look for every explanation through that thought process.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
How can the earth be further from the sun and still support life? Please give your evidence for this statement.It can't. Not in the real world anyway. But if there was an omnipotent creator such as Ahura Mazda or Eiocha then it would easily be within their power, would it not?
I do not accept the evidence for these idols you call gods.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
In excess of 80% of this planet is uninhabitable to humans. If that's fine tuning never build an aeroplane will ya?
So what? It is still habitable to other forms of life, so it is not fatal to life like 99.999...% of the universe and it is fine-tuned for those forms. Another fine-tuning is that humans require a specific kind of environment in which to live naturally. We do not live in water as our natural environment, yet fish, another living thing, do.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrutalTruth
If there's no evidence against God, but there is evidence for God, the claim "God exists" is more likely true than not. How is that not sufficient to warrant belief that the claim is true?Because if you don't actually KNOW it's true, then you could be wrong, and if you believe something that's wrong, you're delusional. Something having a favorable probability is nothing more than reason to investigate further. If it were reason to believe it to be true, then if we saw some idiot come down a chimney on Christmas, we'd believe Santa Clause exists.
And it could be right and if you don't know then what is more sensible and reasonable to believe and what is the case for God (I defend only the biblical God and will argue against any other as being nothing but the construct of the imagination)? Since you are a philosopher the question is how does a universe materialize naturally and which natural theory or paradigm (or the one you support - what is it?) is right if any?
If you can't say, then I see you divorcing yourself from the subject under discussion since you have made a judgment above.
I really don't understand how you're unable to comprehend the simplest of concepts pertaining to evidence, proof, and reason to believe. I mean I understood this shit as a child. It's novice level shit dude. Theists never cease to amaze me with their naivety and stupidity.
Regarding evidence, the problem is that none of us were there. So, the data needs interpretation. Can you guarantee the conditions now are the same that they were then, and if not then how do we get them right? What I am saying is how do you know that the present is the key to the past since we are working from the present when we examine the past, and I'm speaking of our origins - the origins of the universe and the origins of life? Speaking of life, if you want to go by the facts, where have you ever witnessed life coming from something non-living?
As an atheist, your worldview would see life coming from the non-living since you do not ascribe it coming from a living Being - God, would it not?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
It's not surprising that you can't differentiate between the universe and earth. Narrow minded is an adequate description.
Another ad hominem! I pointed out that even though that 99.999...% of the universe is uninhabitable the earth, which is in the universe, is not. So the earth goes against the outstanding odds you gave of it being fatal to life.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
Become a theistWhat's the going price for a prefrontal lobotomy?
When the recourse is an ad hominem you have nothing factual.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
One has to ask why our civilization just happens to exist on a planet, and not only that but a planet where the conditions for the natural development of such a civilization are physically possible. Please stop reading this for about thirty seconds and just think about that for a moment. Why is it that our civilization exists in the one place we know of that it is possible for it to naturally exist?
The odds are astronomical. Why would a chance universe be capable of sustaining itself?
The vastness of the universe gives good reason to think of a mighty Creator. If you don't want to support such a view then how does the universe begin without agency or cause (I.e., why does the Big Bang happen, if you support the Big Bang)? Can you answer the why question, or make sense of the universe?
Surely if a creator being capable of designing the universe such as Aten, Gaia, Ymir, Vishnu, Ngai, Zamba, Atum, Pangu, Xamaba, or any of a dozen others were responsible then our civilization could exist anywhere. Earth could be, for example, several times further from the sun and still support life just fine. We would hypothetically not even notice a difference until we developed astronomy and began to better understand the physical laws of the universe. Would this not be within their power?
How can the earth be further from the sun and still support life? Please give your evidence for this statement.
So why instead do we happen to be in the one tiny part of the universe where the development of life is physically possible? Some people would say that such is the case because this is the one tiny part of the universe where life is physically possible. Of course we would develop here. Others would instead choose to believe that the entire cosmos exists literally for their benefit alone.
Which is the case for the fine-tuning argument.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
The universe is so fine tuned that 99.99999999999999999999999% of it is fatal to life.
Which makes life on earth very fine-tuned.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Jesus is not a created being.Wow, all incarnations are created beings, that is what Jesus was and how Jesus was able to incarnate into an embodiment...an incarnation of God in the flesh as all beings are it is the Source they are individualized from which has not been created. When Jesus leaves that embodiment He returns to the Father, this is true of all expressions in creation. Jesus always pointed to the "Father" out of which everything has manifested and was sent into these lower worlds to redeem man and his corrupt systems and this is possible through an incarnation....a created being taking on an embodiment. It's hilarious Jesus can claim he was one with the Creator as we all are, but when some Guru or Swami says it they are some evil heretic. Get real dude.
Your language is a little vague here, but I hear you saying that we are all an incarnation of God. Is that right? Not all beings are an incarnation of God in the flesh. That is a New Age teaching. Furthermore, your teaching on "we are all 'one with the Creator' is not a biblical teaching. We are separated from the Creator by our sin. That is why Jesus is of so much significance. God, the Creator, becomes human. You are not God, and you do not have the power of God. So, when you speak of Jesus you speak of the Person revealed in the Bible and you must represent Him as He is revealed there or you misrepresent Him.
For if one comes and preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted, you bear this beautifully.
The NT apostles guarded the message with their lives and were against false teaching they encountered,
Galatians 1:6 I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; 7 which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! 9 As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!
10 For am I now seeking the favor of men, or of God? Or am I striving to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a bond-servant of Christ.So, I go to the primary source in establishing who Jesus is. Now, where do you go?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
So, there are good, logical reasons to believe in the historical Person.Many atheists accept a historical human Jesus existed. Only a minority ascribe to the 'jesus myth' theory.I'm in the first group.
It is interesting that you say that. Do you base the evidence on the extra-biblical (external) information or both that and the biblical (internal) information?
Created:
Posted in:
@ Keith, continued.
11 But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things to come, He entered through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this creation; 12 and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption. 13 For if the blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling those who have been defiled sanctify for the cleansing of the flesh, 14 how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
15 For this reason He is the mediator of a new covenant, so that, since a death has taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were committed under the first covenant, those who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance. 16 For where a covenant is, there must of necessity be the death of the one who made it. 17 For a covenant is valid only when men are dead, for it is never in force while the one who made it lives. 18 Therefore even the first covenant was not inaugurated without blood. 19 For when every commandment had been spoken by Moses to all the people according to the Law, he took the blood of the calves and the goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, 20 saying, “This is the blood of the covenant which God commanded you.” 21 And in the same way he sprinkled both the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry with the blood. 22 And according to the Law, one may almost say, all things are cleansed with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.
Hebrews 9 clarifies the whole thought process above:
15 For this reason He is the mediator of a new covenant, so that, since a death has taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were committed under the first covenant, those who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance. 16 For where a covenant is, there must of necessity be the death of the one who made it. 17 For a covenant is valid only when men are dead, for it is never in force while the one who made it lives. 18 Therefore even the first covenant was not inaugurated without blood. 19 For when every commandment had been spoken by Moses to all the people according to the Law, he took the blood of the calves and the goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, 20 saying, “This is the blood of the covenant which God commanded you.” 21 And in the same way he sprinkled both the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry with the blood. 22 And according to the Law, one may almost say, all things are cleansed with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.
23 Therefore it was necessary for the copies of the things in the heavens to be cleansed with these, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. 24 For Christ did not enter a holy place made with hands, a mere copy of the true one, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us; 25 nor was it that He would offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the holy place year by year with blood that is not his own.
26 Otherwise, He would have needed to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now once at the consummation of the ages
He has been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself.
27 And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment, 28 so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him.
So Jesus entered into heaven on behalf of those who would believe, and since man originally sinned and still sins against God it was necessary that a MAN live a completely righteous life before God. That is something you cannot do. That is why His sacrifice is so significant. And just as earthly high priests were mediators between God and His people, so Jesus became that mediator:
For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
We Orthodox see Jesus all throughout the Old Testament because we know that Jesus is The Word of God. We don't worship a man as God, that would be an obvious error to us.I think that the NT's Jesus is not 'a man'. Could a man be born of virgin, perform miracles, raise the dead and defeat death itself? I believe that the reality - the 'Truth' - is that Jesus was a man; but what the NT depicts is not 'a man'.
The NT Jesus is most definitely a man. That teaching is present throughout. The Son is the One who becomes incarnate and is born as a man, a human.
She will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins.”
The name Jesus means Yhwh/Yahweh/God is salvation.
For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; And the government will rest on His shoulders; And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.
Notice the child is born, the Son is given.
Notice the child is born, the Son is given.
“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.
So, within the Person of Jesus as two natures, a human and divine nature. One Person, two natures. We catch a glimpse of His divine nature throughout the NT in that what is attributed to God alone in the OT is attributed to Jesus in the NT. Furthermore, the OT is also a revelation of the Son throughout, except this revelation is done through shadows and types/typology.
A man could only be born of a virgin through the Spirit of God (i.e., a miracle). He could perform miracles because the Spirit of God filled Him and was with Him. Thus, in this way, He acted purely as a man to fulfill what God required of man/humanity. Death could not hold Him in the grave because He committed no sin.
Abraham said, “God will provide for Himself the lamb for the burnt offering, my son.” So the two of them walked on together.
That is why John the Baptist could say:
The next day he *saw Jesus coming to him and *said, “Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!
His offering was pleasing to God, a pure sinless offering.
What is more, the Old Covenant was initiated with a blood offering (i.e., Genesis 15:9-11; 17:1-4). The covenant was initiated with circumcision, which is a symbol and Sign of the covenant by the cutting away of the old (and it is a bloody process or signified by blood, not only with this but also in the atonement offerings).
In ANE (Ancient Near East) culture covenants were made with animal sacrifices, as signified various times in the OT, for instance:
Abraham took sheep and oxen and gave them to Abimelech, and the two of them made a covenant.
The same blood covenant typology is true of the New Covenant. The covenant is initiated with blood through the body of Jesus Christ, but our circumcision is one of the heart, not of the flesh. Blood signifies death (when you bleed out you die) for the life is in the blood.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
The other fascinating thing is that what is applied to God in the OT is applied to Jesus in the NT.I think very few atheists accept a human YHWH existed! Most atheists have very little interest in theological speculation on the nature of Jesus' divinity. In fact i would concede that many 'activistic' atheists' attitude to theology resembles a bull in china shop!
That's understandable or else they would not be atheists.
As we have previously discussed, Christian theologians are obliged to attempt the reconciliation of the testments.
They reconcile very well. I have argued that prophecy in the Hebrew Bible or OT is fulfilled in the NT. It is a topic that most atheists seem very uncomfortable discussing as to the reasonableness of the statement. Instead, there is the charge by many that there is no evidence for God's existence.
As I consider them as human documents I think they reflect the societies that produced them - which are hundreds if not thousands of years apart and very different in nature.
Sure, they reflect the society that they write about that is vastly different from ours. The message is the same for both theirs and ours - Acts 4:12
And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved.”
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
Tonight at 12:19 the Earth will be the closest to the sun.
That is pretty hot! (^8
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
So, there are good, logical reasons to believe in the historical Person.Many atheists accept a historical human Jesus existed. Only a minority ascribe to the 'jesus myth' theory.
True, it does seem to be the majority of scholarly consensus. So the question becomes how this Jesus ties in with the Hebrew Bible or OT. The other fascinating thing is that what is applied to God in the OT is applied to Jesus in the NT. This can be demonstrated time and time again.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
Do you have Jesus in your life? Do you experience His presence? That is what I mean by real.
You are speaking of a personal, experiential Jesus. His words, His thoughts, His example, speak to me. I recognize myself in Christ in the sense of what He did He did for me and I accept this. I have seen His hand of providence upon my life in that when my father died and within the short space of a year, I kept running into Christians when I wasn't one. Something about their character and compassion caused me to search out a church and find out more about Him. And when I first read the NT, I read it as God speaking to me. It had a profound influence on my life.
I trust in who He is and in what He has done. The word of God has been confirmed in me and by me. I can make sense of life and why I'm here. I believe God has been gracious to me and I am thankful.
Having said that, I have not been given the spiritual gifts spoken of in 2 Corinthians 13. I believe those were for the start of the Christian church and ended in AD 70.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
How do you know Jesus is real?
I think Gary Habermas covered this subject fairly well in which he identified 12 points. I would add others, but they are a good starter and here they are:
1. Jesus died by crucifixion.
2. He was buried.
3. His death caused the disciples to despair and lose hope.
4. The tomb was empty (the most contested).
5. The disciples had experiences which they believed were literal appearances of the risen Jesus (the most important proof).
6. The disciples were transformed from doubters to bold proclaimers.
7. The resurrection was the central message.
8. They preached the message of Jesus’ resurrection in Jerusalem.
9. The Church was born and grew.
10. Orthodox Jews who believed in Christ made Sunday their primary day of worship.
11. James was converted to the faith when he saw the resurrected Jesus (James was a family skeptic).
12. Paul was converted to the faith (Paul was an outsider skeptic).
2. He was buried.
3. His death caused the disciples to despair and lose hope.
4. The tomb was empty (the most contested).
5. The disciples had experiences which they believed were literal appearances of the risen Jesus (the most important proof).
6. The disciples were transformed from doubters to bold proclaimers.
7. The resurrection was the central message.
8. They preached the message of Jesus’ resurrection in Jerusalem.
9. The Church was born and grew.
10. Orthodox Jews who believed in Christ made Sunday their primary day of worship.
11. James was converted to the faith when he saw the resurrected Jesus (James was a family skeptic).
12. Paul was converted to the faith (Paul was an outsider skeptic).
To the list of twelve points above, I would add the prophecy aspect. There is good evidence that the OT or Hebrew Bible was written before the timeline of AD 30 or AD 70 (i.e., Daniel 9:24-27). The Dead Sea Scrolls establish the Hebrew Bible existed before AD 30-70, for one.
Prophecy predicted the Messiah before the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. The prophecy was written in regards to a specific timeline and regarding a specific people who lived under the Old Covenant or Mosaic Law. These Mosaic laws cannot be followed after AD 70 by these people, so what was written in the NT rings true. It foretold a Messiah and eyewitnesses testify that Jesus claimed to be this Messiah.
***
Habermas notes 17 extra-biblical sources that mention Jesus within 150 years after His death. Twelve of these sources mention His crucifixion and a few examples are cited of the above link/article. I have read his books that cite more of these sources. It lists them and gives the primary sources from history in which they can be found. I have checked out the primary sources to confirm this with many of these references.
From the same articles here are a few of those early extra-biblical mentions:
“Christians…worship a man to this day…who…was crucified on that account…[They] worshipped the crucified sage…” (Lucian, famous Greek Satirist). He called him a crucified sophist.
“Nor did the wise king die for good; he lived on in the teachings which he had given” (Mara Bar-Serapion, Syrian Writer). He tells his own son to emulate Jesus who gave his life.
“Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die...His disciples…reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive” (Flavius Josephus, 38-97 A.D.). Though it is disputed, the portion about the cross is believed. He also mentions Tiberius Caesar.
“Jesus…was nailed to a tree” (The Gospel of Truth, a Gnostic Source).
“On the whole world presented there presented a most fearful darkness…” at the time of the crucifixion of Jesus (Thallus, Samaritan).
“And with regard to the eclipse in the time of Tiberius Caesar..” at the time of Jesus’ death (Phlegon, 80 A.D.). There was a lunar eclipse April 3, 33 AD (Julian)."
So, there are good, logical reasons to believe in the historical Person.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
I would guess most 'naive' Christians today believe you go to heaven when you die and immeditaely become some sort of angel. That seems to be the official position of Catolicism but not of Protestant denominations.Protestant doctrine favours a bodily resurrection, which implies to me the afterlife will not be in heaven but here on earth, albeit with a new order in place. Presumbly the 'new world' would resemble the paradise from which man was expelled, with no hard labour, nor any sickness and death. that 'feels more Judaic' to me; souls migrating to eaven feels more Hellenic.I'm not interested in what is true or justfied by scripture per se, but in how reigious concepts such as 'the afterlife' evolve over time.
I would think through the interpretations of Scripture for the most part.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
It was only when that failed to materialise that it was re-interpretted in terms of posthumous survival of souls.While this is a claim, what evidence do you have to support it?More reading on my part reveals the popular notion that 'the dead go to heaven' is more recent than I thought! It is such a familiar idea I assumed it was ancient, but - appaently - it is not.
Sorry, Keith, I had no idea you had replied since I did not receive notification. I browsed the article, but what specifically are you referring to in the article?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Is it the case that the first Christians did not conceive of 'eternal life' in terms of the survival of ethereal souls in heaven? I get impression that the new order was imagined more like a re-establisment of a pre-fall Eden right here on Earth, where life was easy and there was no death or suffering,
In the OT you get the physical reality, a physical country, physical temple, physical sacrifices, physical law, the physical journey to that land, and Moses as the prophet and leader to bring them there, physical idols, the physical law on tablets, physical food along the way, etc. In the NT you get the heavenly country (Hebrews 11:16), the heavenly temple made up of believers (1 Peter 2:5), spiritual sacrifices (Romans 12:1), a spiritual journey to that land (Hebrews 3), spiritual food along the way (1 Corinthians 10:3), and Jesus as the prophet-priest (Deuteronomy 18:15; Acts 3:22), and king to bring them there, physical and mental idols, the law as written on the hearts of the believers instead of on stone, etc.
which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words.
But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.
However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural; then the spiritual.
Not only this but what was lost in Eden is restored to the believer in AD 70. So Eden or that intimate relationship with God is made available once again where humans do not have to hide from God or only have access once a year into the MHP (Most Holy PLace) or inner temple but have access all the time via the Advocate and High Priest after the order of Melchizedek, the King of Peace (Hebrews 7:1).
Acts 3:20-22 (NASB)
20 and that He may send Jesus, the Christ appointed for you, 21 whom heaven must receive until the period of restoration of all things about which God spoke by the mouth of His holy prophets from ancient time.22 Moses said, ‘The Lord God will raise up for you a prophet like me from your brethren; to Him you shall give heed to everything He says to you. It was only when that failed to materialise that it was re-interpretted in terms of posthumous survival of souls.
While this is a claim, what evidence do you have to support it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrutalTruth
The Christian god himself is "prideful in the negative sense." Isn't hypocrisy a sin? I'm pretty sure it is, and in this, the Christian god is a hypocrite.But anyway, I wouldn't call that pride at all. I wouldn't even call it arrogance, as arrogance is an exaggerated belief of one's self worth. I'd call that confidence, and again, there's nothing wrong with confidence either. If I'm the best in the world at something, believing I am and saying I am is perfectly fine. I'd say it's more sinful to say it isn't, as that implies jealousy, and jealousy is a biblical sin(but wait, the Christian god is also jealous. Hypocrisy again!).I've just realized that we've hijacked this thread. We should probably stop.
I'll bring it back to topic then. You must be able to comprehend the Christian God to some extent, no matter how faulty that comprehension is because you have argued about Him for several posts. You understand the revelation of this God to a point, but your knowledge breaks down because you don't know Him intimately or well enough would be my contention. If Paul could say to Timothy,
"Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth,"
or in another translation to English (NIV),
Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth,
And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as a human word, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is indeed at work in you who believe.
So, what he claimed as this word of truth was a work in those who believe.
Paul, who also wrote Romans believed that those who do not believe set up idols of created things to compensate for their denial of God. IOW's, they looked to the created order to explain everything. As Nancy Pearcey said in Finding Truth (and I paraphrase), those who deny God try to stuff everything into a box that is too small to hold it all and something is always left sticking out of the box.
When your finite mind builds its idol something is always left hanging out of the box of this universe because you divide the universe into a number of different idols that cannot accommodate it all.
God’s Wrath Against Sinful Humanity
18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.
24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another.25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts.
So, from a biblical perspective, what is the common denominator in Romans 1? I would say it is people suppressing the truth of God in exchange for an unrighteous life. Their desire is to pursue their idols over God. They want to do what feels good to them, even though the consequences are devastating (look around the world at humanity living with the idols of their minds and the inhumanity it causes when they live as if God does not exist or do not worship God as He truly is). And what does God do when they ignore Him and create for themselves idols found in the world or created order? He gives them over to there sinful desires since they no longer want to retain a knowledge of Him.
When we don't want to live with the knowledge of God, God gives us over to our own desires so we might understand our own folly. We see it every day.
24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires...
26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts.
28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done.
So, we receive the consequences of our actions. When Adam chose to eat the forbidden fruit God gave him over to his own desires. He found out the consequences.
So, there is a comprehension of God to a degree. We comprehend the idea of God rather than God Himself and when we comprehend an idea we more often than not misrepresent it because we only see part of the picture or try to stuff everything into our little box and something is always left hanging out.
So, we receive the consequences of our actions. When Adam chose to eat the forbidden fruit God gave him over to his own desires. He found out the consequences.
So, there is a comprehension of God to a degree. We comprehend the idea of God rather than God Himself and when we comprehend an idea we more often than not misrepresent it because we only see part of the picture or try to stuff everything into our little box and something is always left hanging out.
Created: