RoderickSpode

Cleansing with lambs blood? Cleansing with fire? Cleansing with leeches? Cut off the persons head?

Which one of those are supported by medicine?

Which of those are supported methods of medical treatment in the Bible?

How do I know what? Are you actually asking me how I know that everyone on the planet isn't communicating with God? Is that supposed to be a joke? Are you serious? Use your head, pal.

Actually I'm asking you how you know that no one is communicating with God.

I'm sure that you know that you're not. And I'm sure you're right in that respect.

You don't have to answer by the way.

You have it somewhat backwards: the idea of god compliments science. Ever since the age of enlightenment, people have been neatly fitting gods into the gaps of our knowledge (derived through science). Seizures in the year 50 were demonic possessions. Now we know they're neurologically caused and in many cases, we have solutions (derived through science, not praying). People who still want to include the supernatural in that will tell you "Well, that's how the demons work, in your mind!" Just one example, it's something I know you're familiar with (god of the gaps), I won't belabor it. 

Thanks, you just admitted religions are man made.

You are making an appeal to special knowledge. Unless there is some independently verifiable evidence which does not rely on personal testimony I have no choice but to reject your claim.

This is not determined by my desires but by my epistemological limits. 

Religious people often seem to be at odds with science because they believe it threatens their religion.

What I am wondering is, do you ever wish you lived in a world without science where your religion could flourish unimpeded?

No. This is what I actaully  said;

No. This is what I actaully  said;

"If God & Jesus are one and the same as they [chrsitians] believe, then it shows real signs of schizophrenia at worse and  a delusional disorder at least" one jesus' part.

The problem (if we have to call it a problem) is that it's not a sticky situation. You're claiming Jesus was schizophrenic and/or delusional because you're assuming he wasn't the Son of God. And you'd probably be right if he wasn't!

If that's the case, you'd have to prove Jesus isn't the Son of God if you really want any Christian to buy into your claim.

Yes you did, Here

It is enough that we are asked to believe in the father, son and ghost i.e.  three parts of one god but all god;  and now you are saying that for us to understand this story that we have to time travel hypothetically back to our infancy as if this goes anywhere to explaining how it was that god was to be able to ask himself to spare himself and question himself as to why he forsaken himself. This, was not  a 5 year old infant child, it was an adult addressing another adult. jesu was  said to have been 31 - 32 when he died; that is to say he was a man. And we can safely assume the person he was addressing (his "father") was also a man

Jesus was scared witless and terrified when he was on his knees begging his "father" to spare him the barbaric ordeal of crucifixion that he was to face and endure. And his "father" simply  ignored his plea totally, not even a  ' there, there my son '.  So we have a three part god ignoring other parts of himself. Which then begs the question why did jesus even bother asking to be spared and asking why he had been forsaken when he must have known his pleas and begging were going to fall on deaf ears?

Do you not realise how absolutely ridiculous that actually sounds? 

You explanation is nonsense and you must do better.

Or did you mean how do I know that a mirage is not what it seems even within the context of our perceived reality? Because I am aware of the phenomena of mirage within our perceived reality and when I see one I recognize it as such. Whether reality is real or not a mirage misrepresents it.

I have no doubt you would recognize the mirage of water on the highway on a hot day. But if you were stranded in the desert, it would probably be quite a bit different. For one, an oasis in the desert (shade and water) is not non-existent. Plus, you'd probably be vulnerable to believing there's an oasis if you were in a bad condition.

Like sight, at times it's very obvious that what you see is really there. When it's not so clear, further examination might be required. It's the same with hearing God's voice. Sometimes crystal clear without controversy. Sometimes the question might arise, "was that really God?" And that may require more prayer or any other type of reexamination.

I do not know. I merely accept it as real as a convenience since it is the only "reality" of which I am aware. Pain is unpleasant even if illusory so I do not touch a hot iron even though it may not be real (whatever real even means).

Now if we accept our perceieved reality as genuinely real we can determine certain things about the universe by a process of experimentation and these observations are "useful" in the context of our perceived "reality".

This belief is not determined by my desires but by my epistemological limits 

The same would apply to someone who encountered the creator of the Universe. I might not like the fact that we all grow old and die, but that wouldn't have any significance to my own epistemological limits.

If God and Jesus are the same,  as many  Christians will have us believe, having the same mind, knowledge and power, then why would Jesus (god) beg himself (god) in the garden of Gethsemane, to spare himself ( god) from having to be crucified?

Matthew 26:39

And further, why would Jesus (god) ask himself why he (god) has forsaken himself (god) by allowing himself (god) to be crucified?

Matthew 27:46 

This is truly a awkward subject for many Christians to discuss considering that it gives the impression that if God & Jesus are one and the same as they believe, then it shows real signs of schizophrenia at worse and  a delusional disorder at least.

This isn't even remotely awkward.

I guess the problem you're having here is the idea of 2 individuals being one and the same, yet having opposing thoughts. (God demands the person representing the Son in the trinity sacrifice his life, and the Son experiencing apprehension).

Suppose we now had the ability to travel back in time, and you volunteer to be the first to go. You end up going back to the year you were 5 years old. You even meet your 5 year old self. Now you've got 2 of you, separately, yet still the same person. Awkward enough?

Are you and your 5 year old self like-minded? No. At least not completely. You're looking at your immature self who may still be afraid of ghosts.

Now let's say your 5 year old self doesn't for some reason accept you. Maybe afraid of you. You wonder why your own 5 year old self is rejecting you. Are you now schizophrenic under this circumstance?

If intuition is sometimes right and sometimes wrong how can we possibly know which is the case if there is no independently verifiable evidence with which to confirm or deny the efficacy of any given intuition? (Say in the case of the supernatural)

How do you know what you're seeing is real versus a mirage or optical illusion?

Have you ever had an intuitive thought and it turned out to be wrong? You must count them as well or you are guilty of confirmation bias.

You didn't answer my question of course, so the question is still there. But I will answer your question (hopefully you'll answer mine).

The answer, although I can't think of any specifics, is yes. I say that knowing it happened at some time. But so has all of my 5 senses at some point. And when that happens, further examinations are needed.

Example. I'm sure you have no doubt that your computer screen is in front of you. You trust your sense of sight that it is in fact in front of you. Do you remember when you were a kid, in your parents car driving down the highway in the summer heat, and you see up ahead what looks like water on the road? And as you progress further down the road, the water doesn't get any closer? If so, either your parents explained how our eyes can be deceived, or you figured it out yourself?

In similar fashion, sometimes intuition, or a sixth sense might work the same way. Sometimes crystal clear, sometimes not. I would include hearing from God as well.

What is the functional observable difference between evidence that is not recognized as evidence and no evidence at all?

Would it be fair to say that you believe any Christian denying medical treatment or home repairs or groceries to someone because they look like a homo would be immoral?

Not addressed to me of course, but yes, this would be immoral. But this is not what these laws are promoting. The problem that some people are having with these laws is what they speculate may happen. A business refuses to design a product for a gay marriage may lead to a gay person being denied medical treatment because he/she is gay. The challenge is sincere religious belief can mean anything. So if a doctor sincerely believes he should avoid treating a gay person on religious grounds, the lawmakers will honor it. But this is why we have judges. If this was a black and white issue, we wouldn't need judges.

These laws center around incidences where business owners did not refuse service based on the customer's sexual preference. in each case it was about refusing to design something supporting a form of marriage they disagree with for religious reasons. The lawmakers, who are not dealing with these issues from the comfort of an internet forum, had to deal with business owners who showed no sign of hatred, bigotry, vindictiveness, etc. In each case it was made clear they wouldn't refuse service to a gay person or couple except when it involves designing a product celebrating a same-sex union.

In spite of this, there's a constant perpetual accusation made concerning discrimination.The word discrimination is thrown out indiscriminately. So yes, laws protecting religious freedom are definitely necessary.

Does anyone know what part of "The Bible" makes denial of service to sinners mandatory?

I know it says "gay = bad" in a few places, but it also says "divorce = bad" and "shellfish = bad" and "picking up sticks on a Saturday = bad".

So the whole reason that an ant farm is evidence of a creator is because we know humans manufacture them. In that case it is a poor analogy since we are unaware of any manufacturers of universes.

You specifically said I was to view this from an ants perspective. Now you wish me to tell you if an ant is touching something that is evidence from a human perspective.

Which perspective are we actually adopting for this thought experiment?

So the ant has only found evidence of a creator of ant farms if it understands the concept of manufacturing and if it only recognizes the ant farm as an artificial structure because it differs from a natural structure then natural structures are not evidence of any creator.

I'm not asking if an ant is aware that what he is touching is evidence of the creator (manufacturer). I'm just simply asking if his antennae came in contact with evidence (whether it's realized or not).

You can name any type of physical object we might call evidence, a fossil, or artifact, etc. And if an animal grabbed it and ran off, we wouldn't be out of line by stating "an animal just ran off with the evidence". Or do you think we would be out of line? Would we have to say, "the animal couldn't have run off with the evidence because the animal doesn't understand the concept of evidence"?

So the whole reason that an ant farm is evidence of a creator is because we know humans manufacture them. In that case it is a poor analogy since we are unaware of any manufacturers of universes.

Everyone has wondered but I have never seen any evidence to support the premise.

How do we know that ant farms are created? What I mean is what differentiates an ant farm from a natural habitat?

That is entirely irrelevant unless there is some way of answering the question.

Reply

No, I am always willing to examine new evidence. But it has to be EVIDENCE. Not someone's story or dream. It has to be something I can demonstrate, or they can demonstrate. I'm not sure still how nature is involved. THere's tons of natural explanations for basically every phenomena we observe. 

Imagine a manufactured ant farm. You look through the glass, and you can see dirt tunnels, ants moving along through the tunnels, etc. Now, imagine one of the ants hitting his antennae against the glass reminding him/her that he/she can't go any further. Did that ant just touch evidence of a creator (of the ant farm)?

Which god? Obviously I've wondered if god(s) exist(ed), and obviously I have yet to see any demonstration that it / they do / does or did. Given all the conflicting accounts of these characters and the dearth of evidence for all of them, then, the only sensible conclusion is to say it or they seem really unlikely, and if I had to bet I'd bet on no. 

Why?

It's magnanimous of you. So I guess you don't believe in hell, or at the very least you think heaven is for everyone no matter what they believe or did? You've changed, Rod! :-)

I haven't changed at all. If we took the term in it's broadest definition, it would include just about anything including atheism. The term has a negative connotation in the Bible.

Roderick is certainly not expressing the Orthodox Christian position.

Reply

I wouldn't call it a simple matter of tribalism, which seems to be what you are implying.

To believe on Jesus Christ as is taught in Orthodox, that is, true worshiping, right believing Christianity is not to simply believe in a prophet or teacher called Jesus and the club he started. It is to believe in The Son in Trinity with The Father and Holy Spirit. Jesus Christ is God!

I wasn't implying tribalism, and I believe the orthodox view. I was simply defining the term Christian.

Clearly, because there are so many vastly different versions of the character, he is either unwilling or unable to do so definitively, or he's simply incompetent at the task. Otherwise why would so many people NOT believe in him?

Have you ever wondered if God existed when looking at nature?

Ok so how do you know all the other religions (besides yours) got things wrong? 

This includes those who think all religions are "a little bit" right or that they all secretly somehow agree with each other. If that is your belief how do you know that other religions are wrong for claiming to be exclusively right? How have you determined that one religion really isn't top dog?

(Special disclaimer: proving other viewpoints wrong does not prove your viewpoint right it only disqualifies the debunked viewpoint.)

It's not about which religion is right, but who God is. Just like it's not about which OP is right. Once we've all found out who the OP is for this topic, who started this thread is no longer an issue.