Faith v. Logic

[Veritas]

Quath wrote:
One huge lesson that science has taught us is that the universe runs by its own rules. We can not guess them. That is why relativity and quantum mechanics made such a huge impact. They went against what people thought was reasonable and logical ideas of what the universe should do.

Quath wrote:
So reason and logic work as part of the universe.

So science now just says that converges on the best model. It does not say it converges on truth. The hope is that the best model does lead to truth, but there is no guarantee.

That is an interesting statement. Science converges on the best model, and the model leads to truth, hopefully. Isn't that still another "faith"? And do you realize that you are presupposing truth already if you are going about science logically.

 

[Atonement]

To Atonement and Quath

I was thinking about Heb 11:6 (specifically 11b)

And without faith it is impossible to please Him,for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him. NASB

In Christ: Stranger

But a rewarder of what?

 

[Quath]

That is an interesting statement. Science converges on the best model, and the model leads to truth, hopefully. Isn't that still another "faith"? And do you realize that you are presupposing truth already if you are going about science logically.

All I know for sure is somthing exists. After that I am assuming. So the assumption I pick is that logic, reason and observation to guide me in trying to figure out the rest of truth. This does not rule out God, but if God exists, I believe that this should reveal him. If God is not revealed by this, then I have no belief in him.

I don't see a way that I could accept that God exists without accepting that Zeus, Thor, Vishnu, etc exist as well. They all appear the same to me. Now, if there was some evidence so that one stood out, I could believe.

I guess I am uncertain about the word "faith" because it typically means belief in something unseen or observed. Yet, I try to base my beliefs on what is observed. I do make some shortcut assumptions (like believe textbooks without too much skepticism) but I know I can challenge them if I wish.

 

[MrVersatile48]

I just have 7 minutes, & having speed-read all 43 posts, it may help to share that I'd said to God, "Someone musta put Romans 1:18-32 & Romans 12:1-2 & 1 Corinthians 1:18-27 already"

God said, "No: you just have time to read thru & see"

& to post this timely Word 4 Today from http://www.arcamax.com

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Today, if you hear His voice
We should avoid a hard heart, an unbelieving heart...

Afterward He appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen Him after He was risen.

Mark 16:14 KJV

__________________

Today, if you hear his voice,
do not harden your hearts
as you did at Meribah,
as you did that day at Massah in the desert,
where your fathers tested and tried me,
though they had seen what I did.

For forty years I was angry with that generation;
I said, "They are a people whose hearts
go astray, and they have not known my ways."

Psalm 95:7-10 NIV

__________________

Take care, brethren, that there not be in any one of you an evil, unbelieving heart that falls away from the living God. But encourage one another day after day, as long as it is still called 'Today,' so that none of you will be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin. For we have become partakers of Christ, if we hold fast the beginning of our assurance firm until the end.

Hebrews 3:12-14 NASB

__________________

And He (Jesus) said to him,

"You shall love the Lord your God
with all your heart,
and with all your soul,
and with all your mind.

This is the great and first commandment.

Matthew 22:37,38 RSV

__________________

Thanks be unto God for His wonderful gift:
Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God
is the object of our faith; the only faith
that saves is faith in Him.



Printer Friendly Version | Send this story to a friend | Back to Top


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Through the Bible in a Year - Readings for December 4
December 4: Ephesians 1, Ezekiel 4-5, Psalm 150

Click Here for the complete schedule

Or Copy and paste this link into your browser:
http://www.arcamax.com/ttb-yr.html



Printer Friendly Version | Send this story to a friend | Back to Top


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Meditation 12/3 - 12/9: Fight the good fight 2 Tim 4:2-8 NIV

Fight the good fight

Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage - with great patience and careful instruction. For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths. But you, keep your head in all situations, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, discharge all the duties of your ministry.

For I am already being poured out like a drink offering, and the time has come for my departure. I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith. Now there is in store for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will award to me on that day - and not only to me, but also to all who have longed for his appearing.

2 Timothy 4:2-8 NIV



Printer Friendly Version | Send this story to a friend | Back to Top

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Back later, DV

Ian

 

[MrVersatile48]

On my walk to lunch, I planned to share how http://www.AlphaCourse.org Nicky Gumbel, a barrister before his call to be ordained, recently said an evangelist is like a barrister, presenting evidence for the existence, love, power & wisdom, etc of God & calling for a verdict - much as Rom 12:1-2 can be translated as the only rational, reasonable response for all the wonderful things God has done for us is to give ourselves 100% to Him

Revelation says that we overcome by our testimony, as well as by God's Word, but I only have 4 mins today

Timely testimony @ Nixon's ex 'hatchet man', Chuck Colson, many of whose regular Breakthrough emails I've posted:-

How Kind of God
Romans 2:1--16
"... not realizing that God's kindness leads you toward repentance?" (v. 4)

One of the places where Christianity parts company with modern-day psychology is over the matter of our ego. The ego is that part of us which contains our sense of individuality -- our self-esteem.

Secular psychology says the stronger our ego and the more central it is, the better equipped we are to handle life and to live it to the full. Christianity sees the ego as important and does not (as some critics might suggest) seek to demolish it; rather, it puts it in its proper place -- at the feet of Christ. On August 12, 1973, Charles Colson, President Nixon's right-hand man, was feeling deeply disturbed by the events in which he was involved. He went to see a friend who read to him from C. S. Lewis's Mere Christianity. Later that evening, he began to sob so deeply that he became quite alarmed. He realized that something spiritual was happening to him and cried out to God: "Take me, take me." That night was the beginning of the period during which this strong, ego-centered man found a new focus for his life -- the Lord Jesus Christ. That is what repentance is all about: it is a change of mind as to where life is to be found -- brought about in conjunction with the Holy Spirit. Real life is not to be found in the pursuit of self-centered goals, but in living out God's will and purposes for one's life. Charles Colson is one of Christ's most powerful modern disciples. He appears to have continued the way he began -- with a mindset that puts Christ first and himself second.

Prayer:

O God, may I have this same mindset too-- a mindset that puts Your will ahead of my own. Teach me more of what is involved in the act of repentance for I see that without an understanding of it I can make no real spiritual progress. In Christ's Name. Amen.

For Further Study

Matt. 19:16--30; 16:24; Gal. 5:24; Matt. 8:18--22
1. What requirement did Jesus lay down for following Him?
2. What was the area of repentance that the young ruler struggled with?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Do see the biggest testimony site - http://www.HeInvites.org - see their alphabetical index of all the trials, traumas, tragedies etc that God has triumphed in, transforming lives

Must go

Ian

 

[Packrat]

The angels pushing the planets are not in the Bible.

Yep. So I assumed. It didn't quite seem right. :wink:

With the coices of it being false or peotic, Christians choose poetry.

Of course it may not have been poetry. It may have been the understanding of the day. But, yes, if God said something to that affect, I would probably say that He was either using their understanding of the world and the universe (Provers 25:2), that a human being was stating something poetically, or that a human being was misinformed.

Also remember that because we must teach ourselves, we probably remember it better than had God taken us by the hand and taught us everything word-for-word in Scripture. Why did Christ speak in parables to the people? To confuse them? Perhaps. It doesn't seem logical to me. I would say, at least in part, that it was to get them to think and meditate on his words. When one at last figured the parable out, they would remember it better, and the lesson it taught would remain with them.

I've heard atheists say that we claim to have all the answers (or rather that religion does). Any person that claims to have all the answers is a liar. But who's to say that Christianity does not have all the answers? Can any of us prove God wrong?

I was reading out of Isaiah last night and I came across Isaiah 40:22. At first glance it seems that Christianity is supporting the idea that the world is a flat circle. But then I looked closer and I found that, while prophets act often as the mouthpiece of God, Isaiah was speaking figuratively by relating the heavens to a tent and people to grasshoppers. Also, how does God sit? I agree that the circle of the earth does not appear to be figurative, but I do not believe that God is speaking through Isaiah in this verse.

My guess is that many Christians also see Adam and Eve in a poetic metaphor kind of way for similar reasons.

Why's that?

I just need enough evidence.

Take your own scenario into consideration. If God appeared to you, how would you know that it was not Loki or someone or some being with advanced technology playing tricks on you?

Now consider this: An object is created that could not be created by human powers. You say that you don't know where it came from. You do not believe in gods or God because there are too many out there which have passed into myth and contradict themselves. So, you do not believe that God created it. In fact, someone states that it must have appeared from another dimension, which you have little to no empirical evidence of, by means not yet understandable. Do you then choose to believe that everything in the category of mythology or religion is false, also assuming that it was man who originally invented the idea of God from which sprung millions and billions of other gods? Or do you hold to the fact that there always seems to be some element of truth in mythology and consider that there may have been some truth behind it all? By the way, the object is the universe.

I'm pretty sure that the choices I underlined above will determine how you view the creation of that object. To say that God created it, does not rule out science. To say that it came about by itself seems to rule out common sense, but then again we're talking about a pretty complicated subject. Is the idea of a God creating the universe too antiquated and too far from our modern 'new and improved' understanding of the universe? Do we understand anything about where the universe came from? Have so many religions 'cried wolf' that you simply refuse to believe in one? When speaking on myth, consider the following points:

1. Christianity is one of those (if not the only one) ancient monotheistic religions that tells people not to worship what they can't understand in nature as God but rather to worship God for it. Seems to be pretty logical there; so it has proven over the millennia.

2. The Mythical City of Troy - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troy

3. Herakles & Other Heroes - Genesis 6:4

Nimrod and his mother may have introduced the worship of man and therefore the later creation of other gods. I've heard this explained by a rabbi once, but I haven't done my research on it and I can't remember much about it. Nimrod was the guy who started Babylon, other cities, and I think contributed in the building of Babel.

For example, God will forgive anyone that believes in Jesus. So it would seem logical that he would forgive people in hell if they believe in Jesus.

One of the things I've been considering is whether hell is really a place or simply a one-time judgement. I'd say that if the soul is eternal, then hell is a place for those souls to reside eternally apart from God. If the soul is not eternal, then I believe it to be a one-time judgement in which the wicked are consumed in flames and burned away. Seeing that we would not be eternal without God's help, I'd say that it is a one-time thing since I doubt that God would want to keep the wicked alive for eternity. At any rate, I've heard good arguments for both it being an actual location or eternal state and for it being simply a one-time judgement.

The Big Bang and Evolution and physics seems to show that a God is not needed to create a universe. So why suppose he exists? He explains nothing for me and just adds further complexity for it. So it is all about evidence.

I'm not against the Big Bang, partly because I know little about it. Also in part because a Catholic priest was key in the formation of the theory: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre So if you believe that the 'Big Bang' saves no room for God, could you list for me the reasons why it would not and how you are so sure of this theory and your reasons that you would base your life on them?

So why suppose he exists?

Why do you assume that humanity has supposed that God has existed? What if all religions originally stemmed from God?

Well, my guess is that he was buried in a mass grave and his followers just thought he was in a tomb.

That goes against the Biblical account of his burial - that someone explicitly asked Pilate for his body. Without knowing for certain that this part of the Biblical account is wrong, that seems like a guess to me - not one founded on facts either. See Matthew 27:57-60.

Heh. Hard to beat that argument.

Glad you see it my way. :robot: <(One of us! One of us!) :bday:

Wouldn't it make more sense, that the priests added this passage because they thought mistakenly thought that God would care?

I've often wondered about those passages but have not had the time to yet study them well enough. If you would like, I would be willing to listen to any explanation you have of it. I once studied sacred lots because it seemed to me that they were just an attempt of the priests to guess at God's will. I came to the conclusion that the practice wasn't though.

He thought that maybe God would give him good vision for an hour or something to reward his faith. But nothing happened.

That was an assumption on his part - an unfounded superstition, believing that he could know the will of God. How does it relate to my story other than the fact that his vision/eyes were involved?

If I find my car keys in my first attempt, was that God?

I understand what you're saying. I've done this on my own too. I've considered a situation that turned out to be good for me. Then I considered that if I had prayed for it, then would I have thought it to be an answer to my prayer? Short answer: I didn't pray so I won't know.

I will say that I try not to get carried away with superstition. If anything that menial appears to be the will of God, I usually consider it to be superstition on my part and I dismiss it. But stories like those I told you before - about praying for my bro's father to come back to him and it happening in due time and praying for God to strengthen my vision and then the answer coming to me as soon as I get home - I consider a little more seriously.

By the way, I found out last weekend that my bro was asking my grandmother about his vision because he wants to be a fighter pilot or some sort of aircraft pilot. That's how they got talking about it. Like I said, you choose to believe one way or another. Why you choose to believe in godlessness when I choose to believe in God is unknown to me at the moment. Perhaps you've got your hands on some information that I don't. ::: Perhaps you could share?

 

[Packrat]

This does not rule out God, but if God exists, I believe that this should reveal him. If God is not revealed by this, then I have no belief in him.

If you can use the Big Bang or any other theory, belief, or bit of evidence to rule out God, then post it up. If you can show that any god is more feasible to have existed than God, then please feel free to post up the information.

And if we cannot yet or ever explain the creation of the universe without God, then we cannot soundly rely on the assumption that science will eventually explain God away when infact it may lead us to him; some people would consider that a cop-out. And if we cannot explain a Godless universe, then we must consider which god is true and which is not. This is where theology comes into play. Theology is philosophy that helps us to root out which religious doctrines are sound and which are not, and which religions are more feasible than others and those that are not. If the belief of the rainbow being the bridge Bifrost seems to be more feasible to you than simply a symbol from God of his promise to us, then your individual reason will lead you to believe in Bifrost over the Biblical interpretation of the rainbow.

I don't see a way that I could accept that God exists without accepting that Zeus, Thor, Vishnu, etc exist as well.

See the above.

I guess I am uncertain about the word "faith" because it typically means belief in something unseen or observed.

Pretty much. Not entirely. I can vest faith in someone in the form of confidence through my past experiences with them. That is reasonable faith, but sometimes it is even let down. There is faith and then there is blind faith. We all use a measure of faith in our lives I think. If a stranger came up to me and told me that he'd give me $100 if I trusted him enough to give him $1, I would have to use blind faith to get that $100. This is the most unreasonable form of faith.

 

[stranger]

But a rewarder of what?

Hi Atonement,


'The pilgrims journey' (in faith), despite 'evidence' to the contrary. ( I used 'Presumably' and a '?' in my initial remark to Quath ).

In Christ: Stranger

 

[Quath]

Why's that?

I guess is that some Christians believe in evolution and so there was probably not a first man. So they may see it as poetic or maybe God picked one person out of a pre-existing tribe. (This would help explain how Cain was able to have children.)

God appeared to you, how would you know that it was not Loki or someone or some being with advanced technology playing tricks on you?

I wouldn't. It could be a trick by an alien. I would have to go with the simpliest explanation for what I see. The more evidence I see for God, the more likely I will believe it is him.

Do you then choose to believe that everything in the category of mythology or religion is false, also assuming that it was man who originally invented the idea of God from which sprung millions and billions of other gods? Or do you hold to the fact that there always seems to be some element of truth in mythology and consider that there may have been some truth behind it all?

I believe there are some truths in mythology. For example, I think historical places and people are named. But for me to believe that magic occurred, I would need much more proof.

By the way, the object is the universe.

If the object were God, then should I assume he was created as well? To me assuming that something that exists needs a creator means that God needs a creator is he exists. If something can exist without a creator, then we can call it the universe.

Have so many religions 'cried wolf' that you simply refuse to believe in one?

I have learned to be very skeptical of claims that can not be proven. So many people have worshipped what we know are false gods. So we know that humanity is quite gullible in that area.

One of the things I've been considering is whether hell is really a place or simply a one-time judgement.

Yeah, big theological implications in that. I think Christianity tends to make more sense without it (though that doesn't help me to believe it is true; it just removes one of my objections.)

So if you believe that the 'Big Bang' saves no room for God, could you list for me the reasons why it would not and how you are so sure of this theory and your reasons that you would base your life on them?

It is as Stephen Hawkings argued. If the universe is "closed" then we don't need anything external to set us up. God would be an extra variable to a math problem that doesn't use it. The Big Bang itself doesn't say that God doesn't exist. But it shows a natural way for a universe to exist that does not require a god.

Why do you assume that humanity has supposed that God has existed? What if all religions originally stemmed from God?

Then I would say that Christianity has to be wrong. After all, how do you know if the Hebrews recorded God correctly or did the Vikings or the American Indians? If God inspired all the religions of the world, then we have no idea which religion truely reflect him.

That goes against the Biblical account of his burial - that someone explicitly asked Pilate for his body.

In that time, he would have been considered a common criminal and most of them were thrown into a mass grave. It could be that Pilate thought that Jesus was buried somewhere or it could be that someone wanted others to believe it and started the rumor.

you would like, I would be willing to listen to any explanation you have of it.

Well, I see it that God's followers believed that he wanted unblemished animals sacrificed for him. So they assumed he wanted unblemished people worshiping him as well. They wrote it down. If God exists, he did not correct it. (Or correct any other written mistake such as the book or Mormon or the Quran.) I don't know if that helps.

How does it relate to my story other than the fact that his vision/eyes were involved?

It was a story of faith and vision. God could have won a convert for life with a simple miracle.

And if we cannot yet or ever explain the creation of the universe without God, then we cannot soundly rely on the assumption that science will eventually explain God away when infact it may lead us to him; some people would consider that a cop-out.

I once asked my science/math teacher in high school what his beliefs were. (Small school). His answer was that science and religion both seek truth. Science starts with the known and works to the unknown. Religion starts at the end and tries to work back to the known. In the limit they will meet and agree.

I thought it was an interesting answer. Maybe they will.

 

[Packrat]

Ah, another bright day on the streets of http://www.christianforums.net.

I guess is that some Christians believe in evolution and so there was probably not a first man. So they may see it as poetic or maybe God picked one person out of a pre-existing tribe.

Ok. I thought you were going to say something different. Yeah, I've considered this - not for the reason of evolution, but simply because a good deal of Genesis seems to be metaphorical or having double meanings.

For example, Adam in Hebrew means 'man,' but that's not to say that 'adam' meant 'man' originally. Rather, the meaning of 'mankind' could have been given to Adam's name later since Adam was the first man. Short answer: I don't believe that Adam and Eve are figurative in the sense that they represented men and women. Remember that Adam's age is actually recorded in Genesis 5. That would seem to indicate that Adam was an individual. I don't know about the original wording or even the Hebrew wording of the text at the moment, so I can't comment on whether the individual Adam could have also stood for a tribe or clan that took his name and lived for 930 years, etc. That would be ill-founded conjecture on my part, whether or not it were true.

The more evidence I see for God, the more likely I will believe it is him.

I will try to get back to this. :wink: I do not have a lot of free time at the moment.

But for me to believe that magic occurred, I would need much more proof.

Personally, I don't believe in magic. I doubt I ever could for the simple fact that it defies logic; that's why it's magic. Go back 400 years and show a computer to the locals. It'd be magic or a miracle only in so much that they could not understand it. That's what magic is; it's just ignorant people interpreting what they see as unexplainable science. For example, the Big Bang in the absence of a Creator smacks of magic in my current opinion. First there was nothing, then nothing made something appear. What made it want to make that something appear? Where was the cause to produce the effect if sentience was not involved?

That's what I think this all comes down to. Without a Creator, the universe is cause and effect. There always has to be a cause to produce an effect. With a Creator, the cause is governed by the Creator's decisions. Of course, then one would argue what caused the Creator to make his decision? Perhaps cause and effect can only be used to explain things within the confines of time.

To me assuming that something that exists needs a creator means that God needs a creator is he exists.

What if the Creator existed outside of time? I'm pretty sure that time is a part of this universe. When a potter makes a jar, he can exist within and without the jar at will. Why can't God exist within and without time? Now if there is a Creator that exists outside of time, he can decide (probably all of his decisions are already made in this scenario) to create the universe that we know. If some sort of Creatorless universe exists outside of time, then it cannot decide anything. It has no free will and no consciousness. So how could it decide to create time and the universe that we know? As I understand it, it wouldn't happen.

Yeah, big theological implications in that. I think Christianity tends to make more sense without it (though that doesn't help me to believe it is true; it just removes one of my objections.)

You mean Christianity tends to make more sense without judgement and justice for our sins or that it makes more sense without eternal judgement (in a place known as hell)?

It is as Stephen Hawkings argued. If the universe is "closed" then we don't need anything external to set us up.

A closed universe? Closed in what way?

The Big Bang itself doesn't say that God doesn't exist. But it shows a natural way for a universe to exist that does not require a god.

How does it show this?

After all, how do you know if the Hebrews recorded God correctly or did the Vikings or the American Indians?

With a bit of research and deductive reasoning I would assume. 8-) Actually many years of research and very careful reasoning. It's like philosophical and intellectual archaeology. Not that I've done all my research, but if you care to put up a more sensible religion than Christianity or a more feasible god than God, feel free to.

More on the rest of your post later...

 

[Quath]

Ah, another bright day on the streets of http://www.christianforums.net.

And a good day to you.

but simply because a good deal of Genesis seems to be metaphorical or having double meanings.

Yeah, I heard several lecutres on this. You can gains lots of different meanings quite easily. It can see seen as the beginning of sexual morality. Or it can be seen asa great fall of mankind. It could be seen as mankind learning his place between animals and gods. It could be seen as mankind choosing a harsh life of self determination over a soft life in a zoo.

That's what magic is; it's just ignorant people interpreting what they see as unexplainable science.

I agree. But if God uses science to do stuff (which would make sense), then ultimately we could figure it out. What we may lack is power though.

Where God seems unscientific is how the Bible portrays miracles. For example, God stops the Sun from moving in the sky so there is enough light the battle field for several more hours. But we know if this really happened, God would have to stop the Earth from rotating, stop all inertia and then restart it all at the end. A simplier way would have been for God to use flood lights. It is a very simple solution. So I am not saying it impossible for God to stop the Earth using advanced technology, but I see it as highly impractical.

There always has to be a cause to produce an effect.

In the quantum realm, this is not always true. For example, light going through a polarizer has a 50% chance of making it. It is 50% in a purely random sense. In other words, if it makes it though, it was not caused to go through, it just got "lucky." Particles may spring out out of nothingness without cause only to disappear a short time leter. So cause and effect may be more of a macroscopic effect.

What if the Creator existed outside of time?

I would think that God would have to exist outside time to make the universe. However, outside of time, everything can be thought of as happening at an instant (no time after all). So God creates the universe and the universe is just as old as God is. In a sense, God and the universe would both have existed for eternity. (Fun with time. Yippie!)

You mean Christianity tends to make more sense without judgement and justice for our sins or that it makes more sense without eternal judgement (in a place known as hell)?

It makes more sense without extreme judgement. It would be like torturing a child for all of eternity for eating candy before dinner. It just seems way too extreme. I don't have a problem with the concept of justice, but infinte punishment for a finite sin seems too harsh.

A closed universe? Closed in what way?

This is more of a mathematical term. It means that everything can be described with no external variables. Or in another way, God is like a 5th wheel that would not be needed to explain anything.

How does it show this?

It shows possibilities of a universe existing without intelligence creating it. After the Big Bang event, we pretty well understand how the universe creates elements and form stars and galaxies. The tricky part is the event itself. There are possibilities where higher dimensions collide (non-intelligent design) or that universes spring out ot quantum fluctuations (possible). Or a God could do it. It just gives possibilities for creation without intelligence.

Not that I've done all my research, but if you care to put up a more sensible religion than Christianity or a more feasible god than God, feel free to.

I think Deism works pretty well. It makes us an ant farm for God, but why not?

 

[Packrat]

In that time, he would have been considered a common criminal and most of them were thrown into a mass grave. It could be that Pilate thought that Jesus was buried somewhere or it could be that someone wanted others to believe it and started the rumor.

But that would be going against your own reasoning. Using your line of thought, what we see and are told is the simplest answer and therefore a more logical one. We have an account of a guy asking Pilate for the body. In fact we have more than one account. Because the book is religious, does that mean that its account(s) lose(s) credibility with you? I think that there's more empirical evidence that the body was buried in a tomb than there is of it being misplaced in a mass grave by a careless soldier or misidentified by one of Jesus' disciples.

Read Mark 15:25, 33-34, 37. It seems to me that on the same day that Christ was crucified he died. Because of Mark 15:42-43, we can assume that Christ was crucified, died, and probably even buried on the day before the Sabbath Day began at sundown. For another account, read Matthew 27:45, 57, 62-66. In Matthew 15:62 I believe it's talking about sundown by saying "on the morrow" or some such thing because each day began at sundown. So sundown would be tomorrow or 'on the morrow.' Besides, the Pharisees obviously felt that it was necessary to act as soon as possible to get Pilate to send a guard to guard Jesus' body. Therefore, they would have likely acted at sundown rather than in the morning. But, hey, maybe there was enough time for Christ to be thrown into a mass grave and picked out again.

If you can assume that Jesus was thrown into a mass grave from the common Roman practice of throwing the dead criminals into mass graves, I can also assume that a Roman centurion would not have misidentified the body nor made a mistake because of the strict discipline imposed on the Roman ranks. The only difference between your assumption and mine is that I have more empirical evidence to back this particular position of mine.

Well, I see it that God's followers believed that he wanted unblemished animals sacrificed for him. So they assumed he wanted unblemished people worshiping him as well.

::: It'd take a bit of studying I think. If that statement is more than an assumption, I'll consider it then.

It was a story of faith and vision. God could have won a convert for life with a simple miracle.

Who's to say that the person would have believed for life? Now if you had told me a story that the guy had prayed for good vision for an hour but he went blind or his vision was damaged further, I would be prone to think more deeply on such a story. But to me, it's just another story of a person acting hastily or out of naivety to try to get God to do a personal miracle for them but then becoming disappointed when it doesn't happen.

Religion starts at the end and tries to work back to the known. In the limit they will meet and agree. I thought it was an interesting answer. Maybe they will.

That's the best answer I've heard in a long time. I'm glad that someone is open minded and intelligent enough out there to state it.

As to your request for evidence for God, I will try to get back to that as I can not answer any further off the top of my head in regard to that than I already have in my stories about prayer. Don't worry. I've still got it in mind.

 

[Packrat]

Ok... I'm going to be studying prophecy in my free time. The first installment of mine to your previous question is this:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_symb.htm

Read about the history of the cross in Christianity, specifically how it has been depicted as a pole. Then read Numbers 21:8-9. The snake represents Christ. The pole represents, I would say, the pole that he was crucified on. I believe that the punishment for blasphemy, of which Jesus was accused, was stoning. Jesus, however, was crucified quite likely on a pole. That's an interesting twist of events in my opinion. As Moses lifted up the snake, he was acting out prophecy as other prophets later acted out prophecy as well. Prophecy was not only verbal in the Old Testament; it was seen through actions.

 

[Quath]

Using your line of thought, what we see and are told is the simplest answer and therefore a more logical one. We have an account of a guy asking Pilate for the body. In fact we have more than one account. Because the book is religious, does that mean that its account(s) lose(s) credibility with you? I think that there's more empirical evidence that the body was buried in a tomb than there is of it being misplaced in a mass grave by a careless soldier or misidentified by one of Jesus' disciples.

There is cedibility issues just as if a follower of David Koresh was writing about him, I would wonder about accuracy. However, I don't just dismiss everything out of hand either.

When I read the NT, I tend to filter out the stuff that doesn't seem to make sense. I don't see Jews choosing a murderer over Jesus (partly out of history and partly because I can not see a group of people doing something bad and reveling it it to the point where the say his blood is upon them.) Here is how I see the ending of Jesus:

My guess is that Judas betrayed Jesus by talking about how he will be the Son of Man when God comes to set up his kingdom. Word gets out and the authorities hear about a conspiracy to overthrow the givernment. They arrest Jesus as an insurgent. Jesus is tried and killed in a day. His followers are not at the trial so they are guessing at what happened. Pilate hears enough to think that Jesus sees himself as a future king and does what any Roman governor would do in that situation - order him killed (to be on the safe side).

My guess is that Jesus's followers did not want to get too close in case they would be asked to share his fate. After his beating, he is put on the cross and dies quickly. Putting him in a tomb sounds way too odd. He would be seen as a criminal. I think the writers also saw how odd that sounded and decided that it was probably donated by a Roman. But I think Jesus was really put in a mass grave and his followers went to a tomb that they thought Jesus was going to. That didn't see him and assumed he was risen from the dead. Miscommunication seems a much simplier explanation than resurrection. (When people really don;t want someone to die, they imagine they see that person around. You can see this in the death of Elvis.)

It'd take a bit of studying I think. If that statement is more than an assumption, I'll consider it then.

I may have heard this from another Christian. The difference is that the Christian believe that God did not want people with crushed testicles. I am promoting the idea that it was the priest's beliefs, not God's. (The only way to verify this is to ask God I guess.)

Who's to say that the person would have believed for life? Now if you had told me a story that the guy had prayed for good vision for an hour but he went blind or his vision was damaged further, I would be prone to think more deeply on such a story. But to me, it's just another story of a person acting hastily or out of naivety to try to get God to do a personal miracle for them but then becoming disappointed when it doesn't happen.

I don;t know if you have ever had doubts, but they are a very scary feeling. You feel like you are losing a hold on your world, but you can't stop it. I know how genuine people really want to believe in God, but they can't find evidence for him. (I have been there.) God not revealing himself was a huge proof to me that he did not exist because I knew the sincerety I felt and the desire I wanted to know. So some Christians do understand this and they just say that God chooses who receives salvation. It is a gift you are lucky to get

 

[Veritas]

Quath, sorry about the delay. Looks like you have alot of discourse here anyways though.

Quath wrote:
All I know for sure is somthing exists. After that I am assuming. So the assumption I pick is that logic, reason and observation to guide me in trying to figure out the rest of truth.

This does not rule out God, but if God exists, I believe that this should reveal him. If God is not revealed by this, then I have no belief in him.

Yes, and I think that if you are assuming that logic and reason are valid, you rule in favor of God by default. I'll explain more below.

Quath wrote:
I don't see a way that I could accept that God exists without accepting that Zeus, Thor, Vishnu, etc exist as well. They all appear the same to me. Now, if there was some evidence so that one stood out, I could believe.

And I can give you a difference between the God of the Bible as opposed to the ones you mentioned (with a partial exception of Vishnu). So you can at least narrow it down a bit more.

Zeus, Thor, along with most other polytheistic gods are all considered part of the Universe/Nature/Total System. They are not creators of the universe nor self-existent. Most polytheistic gods are considered a product of the total system.

Quath wrote:
I guess I am uncertain about the word "faith" because it typically means belief in something unseen or observed. Yet, I try to base my beliefs on what is observed. I do make some shortcut assumptions (like believe textbooks without too much skepticism) but I know I can challenge them if I wish.

I think we should back up again. Yes, I understand what you are saying, for example: we do infer evolution from fossils. But all inferences like that one are inside a very general inference that I think you may be missing.

To put it in its most general form the inference would run like this: 'Since I am presented with colors, sounds, shapes, pleasures and pains which I cannot perfectly predict or control, and since the more I investigate them the more regular their behavior appears, therefore there must exist something other than myself and it must be systematic.' Inside this very general inference, the rest of the special trains of inference can be made to lead us to more detailed conclusions, like the ones you are speaking of.

Do you see what I'm getting at yet? If the value of our reasoning is in doubt, you cannot try to establish it by reasoning. Reason is our starting point. There can be no question either of attacking or defending it. If, by treating it as a mere phenomenon you put yourself outside it, then there is no way, except by begging the question, of getting inside again.

Quath, you said before,

I don't see what is gained by postulating a God to give such attributes to the universe.

Well, it doesn't create the problems that are presented by making a sweeping negative assertion. I showed you a little of the problem it creates with your own words in the last post I made. Just the act of 'knowing' creates a problem. 'Knowing' doesn't fit in, it is impossible to explain it away because if it were 'explainable', it would be discredited.

Is that making sense yet? I know its hard to think about (its a basic thing that is suprisingly profound). I can keep giving different ways of looking at it however, and how it relates to God.

 

[Quath]

Zeus, Thor, along with most other polytheistic gods are all considered part of the Universe/Nature/Total System. They are not creators of the universe nor self-existent. Most polytheistic gods are considered a product of the total system.

Many gods are part of their universe. Some are of them are created by it. That doesn't mean they can not be real though. They just have a different origin. They are used more to describe why nature acts as it does instead of why is there nature.

'Since I am presented with colors, sounds, shapes, pleasures and pains which I cannot perfectly predict or control, and since the more I investigate them the more regular their behavior appears, therefore there must exist something other than myself and it must be systematic.'

People have thought this and were greatly surprised when they discovered quantum theory which showed that there was no regular behavior - just probabilities.

If the value of our reasoning is in doubt, you cannot try to establish it by reasoning.

I agree, but in the end, there has to be tests by nature because reasoning itself does not lead to better understanding of the universe. It is a great tool, but it needs checking to make sure there are no bad assumptions.

Just the act of 'knowing' creates a problem. 'Knowing' doesn't fit in, it is impossible to explain it away because if it were 'explainable', it would be discredited.

Is that making sense yet? I know its hard to think about (its a basic thing that is suprisingly profound). I can keep giving different ways of looking at it however, and how it relates to God.

I am not quite sure what you mean by "knowing" being a problem.

 

[stranger]

I don;t know if you have ever had doubts, but they are a very scary feeling. You feel like you are losing a hold on your world, but you can't stop it. I know how genuine people really want to believe in God, but they can't find evidence for him. (I have been there.) God not revealing himself was a huge proof to me that he did not exist because I knew the sincerety I felt and the desire I wanted to know. So some Christians do understand this and they just say that God chooses who receives salvation. It is a gift you are lucky to get

Quath,

Presumeably by evidence you mean: 'that God exists and that He rewards those who seek Him'. . .

In Christ: Stranger

 

[Quath]

Presumeably by evidence you mean: 'that God exists and that He rewards those who seek Him'. . .

Not so much rewards, but material signs that show he is real. I would tend to be skeptical of voices in the head due to schitzophrenia and DID. But simple things like a talking bush or a talking donkey is a good way to show that God is real without giving out a reward. (Unless knowing God is real is considered a reward.)

 

[Packrat]

Many gods are part of their universe. Some are of them are created by it. That doesn't mean they can not be real though. They just have a different origin.

That's another thing that I've considered. If a god is born, then how did the god(s) that god was born from get born themselves? I really don't consider any being that was born or whose power is limited as a god. To me they're just powerful beings - not gods. So who is the original and real god in that particular religion (whatever it may be)? In other words, who is the head-god from which the other gods come? And if that god was created some how, then how was he created and what created the thing which created him?

When people really don;t want someone to die, they imagine they see that person around.

Which goes to show that any Christian having a vision of God or Christ would generally be cast aside as delusional. Visions won't help. Hearing God wouldn't help. Miracles wouldn't help unless they were mass miracles. Even then they would probably be explained away as occuring naturally without intervention on the part of outside Intelligence.

I don;t know if you have ever had doubts, but they are a very scary feeling. You feel like you are losing a hold on your world, but you can't stop it. I know how genuine people really want to believe in God, but they can't find evidence for him.

Sure I've doubted, and of course it's scary. It's a big change. But because I'm scared to reject my beliefs in favor of yours or someone else's doesn't mean that I should. It also doesn't mean that I'm incapable of rejecting my beliefs. If I am going to reject what I believe in, I want more information than, "We believe that the universe came about from the clashing of other universes of which we don't know how came about."

So some Christians do understand this and they just say that God chooses who receives salvation.

In my opinion, people choose whether they want to be saved or not. People might wonder why God made it so easy to be saved, but apparently it's not. ;)

For example, light going through a polarizer has a 50% chance of making it. It is 50% in a purely random sense.

Are you sure? Because it could just be something that we're overlooking. At such a level, it may be hard to tell what we're doing wrong or leaving out in considerations.

In a sense, God and the universe would both have existed for eternity.

Good point. Pretty much what I concluded some weeks or months ago - that the universe is eternal and infinite. Still don't know if it's right, but it's the belief I currently hold on to.

The tricky part is the event itself. There are possibilities where higher dimensions collide (non-intelligent design) or that universes spring out ot quantum fluctuations (possible).

Then you know what my next question is. What do you mean by higher dimensions and what made these dimensions collide?

Gotta get going. I'll try to post more later.

 

[Packrat]

I don't see Jews choosing a murderer over Jesus (partly out of history and partly because I can not see a group of people doing something bad and reveling it it to the point where the say his blood is upon them.)

What in their history would cause you to believe that they wouldn't choose a murderer over Jesus? The Pharisees were pretty much the ones plotting against Christ. Because of his claim that God was his Father, that would be enough to anger or incite any Jew, ignorant of Scripture, to stoning Christ to death on the spot. According to the Bible, Christ was almost stoned to death once but escaped. Because the Pharisees were supposedly jealous, that would be further persuasion on their part to have Christ killed instead of a murderer. He was supposedly blaspheming God, possessed with the devil, breaking the laws, and getting on the Pharisees' nerves; not to mention that he wasn't too popular with everyone he drove out of the temple with a whip that one time.

What did they care about Barabbus?

Having killed Christ, whom they considered to be all the above, why wouldn't they be proud of what they had done? In their eyes, they were probably doing God's will. Judas may have thought him innocent after he betrayed him, but I doubt the Pharisees would.