[_ Old Earth _] How is the Christian god detected?

[Orion]

I'm not sure of which way you lean. You said that you leave it to God on such things as this, but then say that we have been given the ability to discern what is moral/ethical. I find many stories in the bible to be lacking in morals/ethics. Should I conclude that, due to my given ability to discern morality/ethics, my take on this is correct?

We're all just going by our own discernment, really. We have religious documents that STATE "God authorship", but that is still an "issue of faith", and one that can't be given with complete authority. So even this topic resides under the OP, I feel. The conclusion would be, if there is no way to fully know, outside "faith", that this God is even real (but is some other religion's god, or a non-existant god), then to promote a "scary future" based upon no real evidence seems counterproductive.

 

[Aero_Hudson]

I'm not sure of which way you lean. You said that you leave it to God on such things as this, but then say that we have been given the ability to discern what is moral/ethical. I find many stories in the bible to be lacking in morals/ethics. Should I conclude that, due to my given ability to discern morality/ethics, my take on this is correct?

We're all just going by our own discernment, really. We have religious documents that STATE "God authorship", but that is still an "issue of faith", and one that can't be given with complete authority. So even this topic resides under the OP, I feel. The conclusion would be, if there is no way to fully know, outside "faith", that this God is even real (but is some other religion's god, or a non-existant god), then to promote a "scary future" based upon no real evidence seems counterproductive.

I stated that I feel we have the inate ability to discern what is moral and what is not in most cases. It comes with the gig and our nature in how we were created. You are right that I have a contradictory statement in there that I will edit to convey what I truly think. Sorry about that. I was referring more to the judgement question you were posing.

I do think that we do need guidance. I do think that the Bible and God's word should be used to provide us with this direction. However, we must also consider the historical context with how God guided the Jewish people. He probably would have taken a different road with us thousands of years later with similar issues. Just my thoughts.

As far as this "scary future" that is more of a dynamic of some believers and less about what Christ actually taught. Christ did not promote a scary future. He talked about bringing the Kingdom of God to Earth right now for the good of all. He also taught us to love all whether believers or not. That's why I think the heaven / hell question is the wrong question. We need to be talking about the here and now. What does heaven on Earth look like and how can we help make just a smidge of that a reality?

 

[Orion]

Sounds like your doctrines differ from the ones I was raised with. They seem to be more progressive. I think it is good to make this place [earth] a better place to live and there are some christ concepts that would be helpful there. :yes

I'm not a "bible literalist/inerrantist", so the issues I may raise, surrounding OT things, are more my argument against what I WAS raised with. The historical stuff, as I see it, wasn't a "god directive" as much as an ethnocentrism in overdrive.

 

[Aero_Hudson]

Sounds like your doctrines differ from the ones I was raised with. They seem to be more progressive. I think it is good to make this place [earth] a better place to live and there are some christ concepts that would be helpful there. :yes

I'm not a "bible literalist/inerrantist", so the issues I may raise, surrounding OT things, are more my argument against what I WAS raised with. The historical stuff, as I see it, wasn't a "god directive" as much as an ethnocentrism in overdrive.

I am a relatively new Christian so I will admit my views myight have a different flavor than some / most. My difference in opinion is more a difference of approach and what we truly should be focused on. Christ was about loving God and others and not hate. Sure he would call out sin when he saw it but at the same time he was rejecting the Pharisees and embracing the supposed despots of society like prostitutes, thieves, etc.

So, I feel that as a Christian I do no one any good arguing about whether or not people will go to hell considering I am not the judge and that kind of talk just turns people away. Regardless of what I believe on those details what I can do as a follower of Christ is embrace his teachings and do what he told me to do. A good thing is that he wasn't really specific about how to do that which allows Christians to be relevant in their own time, culture and society when choosing their methods and approach.

Matthew 28:16-20 (New International Version)

The Great Commission

16Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. 17When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. 18Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in[a] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

 

[Orion]

Even if the doctrine of Hell is completely thrown out for the immoral/unethical thing that it is? That would be fine with me, because [as I see it], you can't really have it reconcile with any "true love".

I noticed that you posted "the great commission". I won't get into it in this thread, but I'm not one who agrees with the mechanics of it, as something that was supposed to do something that would be the most important function this earth has ever known. Feel free to follow it, if you wish. ;)

 

[Aero_Hudson]

Even if the doctrine of Hell is completely thrown out for the immoral/unethical thing that it is? That would be fine with me, because [as I see it], you can't really have it reconcile with any "true love".

I noticed that you posted "the great commission". I won't get into it in this thread, but I'm not one who agrees with the mechanics of it, as something that was supposed to do something that would be the most important function this earth has ever known. Feel free to follow it, if you wish. ;)

How do you define "mechanics"?

 

[Orion]

I may start another thread on that topic. :yes

 

[AAA]

I disagree with your analogy on Theo as well as Dawkins analogy to the spaghetti monster. These beings that were created as a result of your imagination in an attempt to make a point do not compare in the slightest to humanity's inherent longing and need for connection to a greater purpose. You made up these monsters to try and minimize what you feel is the creation of God and the question of his existence. What these "beings" lack is context, history, archeology and a written record dating back thousands of years. These beings also lack eye witness accounts and many other tit for tat points that you and I could no doubt discuss for many long hours over dinner or some drinks. My only point her is how absurd these kinds of analogies are because they ignore the thousands of years of historical evidence, writings, philosophy and other disciplines that should be used to better understand the concept and existence of God. I would agree that you have no good reason to believe Theo exists becaue we both know for a fact that you made Theo up in your head on the fly. We would all agree that we do not "know" this with God and their is much more to discuss and understand in relation to God.

Yes - I agree with what you are writing here. There is a history and context to Christianity that doesn't exist for the Theo analogy, which is clearly not a perfect analogy. However, the question that your comments beg is the following: what does all that history, context, and nuance amount to? Does it amount to anything more than a story that I made up in my mind to make a point? How do we assess what it amounts to?

There is a deep history, philosophy, & context behind Islam as well, yet only one, or neither, of Islam or Christianity can be true since they are mutually exclusive. At least one of them must be false, making all that history, context and nuance nothing more than people making up and thinking about baloney for millenia. The same could be said about Hinduism, and countless other exclusive theisms. They are all either made up baloney, just like Theo, only with a lot of extraneous baloney to boot, or, perhaps, one of them is true. As always, and this remains my main point, if our beliefs are to represent what we think is true about reality, the consideration must boil down to the evidence, and the evidence supporting the myriad claims that comprise Christian theism is slim to none. I know you disagree with this last statement, and I am more than glad to continue our discussion on this topic, since that evidence would boil down to a discussion of how the Christian god is detected.

As always, been a pleasure posting with you. Very stimulating discussions to this point even though I thought I was bailing from the thread. I just can't help but engaged in these kinds of discussions.

Agreed.

 

[Aero_Hudson]

I disagree with your analogy on Theo as well as Dawkins analogy to the spaghetti monster. These beings that were created as a result of your imagination in an attempt to make a point do not compare in the slightest to humanity's inherent longing and need for connection to a greater purpose. You made up these monsters to try and minimize what you feel is the creation of God and the question of his existence. What these "beings" lack is context, history, archeology and a written record dating back thousands of years. These beings also lack eye witness accounts and many other tit for tat points that you and I could no doubt discuss for many long hours over dinner or some drinks. My only point her is how absurd these kinds of analogies are because they ignore the thousands of years of historical evidence, writings, philosophy and other disciplines that should be used to better understand the concept and existence of God. I would agree that you have no good reason to believe Theo exists becaue we both know for a fact that you made Theo up in your head on the fly. We would all agree that we do not "know" this with God and their is much more to discuss and understand in relation to God.

Yes - I agree with what you are writing here. There is a history and context to Christianity that doesn't exist for the Theo analogy, which is clearly not a perfect analogy. However, the question that your comments beg is the following: what does all that history, context, and nuance amount to? Does it amount to anything more than a story that I made up in my mind to make a point? How do we assess what it amounts to?

There is a deep history, philosophy, & context behind Islam as well, yet only one, or neither, of Islam or Christianity can be true since they are mutually exclusive. At least one of them must be false, making all that history, context and nuance nothing more than people making up and thinking about baloney for millenia. The same could be said about Hinduism, and countless other exclusive theisms. They are all either made up baloney, just like Theo, only with a lot of extraneous baloney to boot, or, perhaps, one of them is true. As always, and this remains my main point, if our beliefs are to represent what we think is true about reality, the consideration must boil down to the evidence, and the evidence supporting the myriad claims that comprise Christian theism is slim to none. I know you disagree with this last statement, and I am more than glad to continue our discussion on this topic, since that evidence would boil down to a discussion of how the Christian god is detected.

[quote="Aero_Hudson":2d9wvzr2]As always, been a pleasure posting with you. Very stimulating discussions to this point even though I thought I was bailing from the thread. I just can't help but engaged in these kinds of discussions.

Agreed. [/quote:2d9wvzr2]

Thanks for responding. Some additional thoughts...

- There are many legitimate studies on the NT specifically that we could reference and indeed discuss that would point out the relevance of Christianity. I think it is clear that the early believers, specifically the apostles, saw and experienced something they felt was real and valid so much so that they were willing to risk their lives to spread the word. Most lost their lives as a result. I am not talking about those that were targeted by fundamentalists that were in a weakened mental state as we see with many terrorists groups today and manipulated based on abstractions. These men actually saw something that compelled them to love the rest of their lives spreading the word. I think that in an of itself makes Christianity unique and compelling in the same breath. You cannot throw away over 2000 years of history and say it does not amount to anything. I also will say that it would be hard to tell 2.1 billion + people they are being intellectually dishonest. It is obvious that these people are experiencing something themselves and just because some do not completely understand it does not make it intellectually dishonest.

- I am not an expert of any religions in any sense of the word. However, there are some very unique aspects of Christianity that I think make it much more compelling than Islam and others. However, for our purposes, I don't think discussing evidence on which is more valid is the important piece here. What I do think is important are the following:

- Humanity has an inate need to explain why we are here, who / what created us and how that all came to pass. Religion is one avenue to try and explain this where science is another. I think both can coexist but both cannot be held to the same standard of "evidence". I am of the belief that no matter how far science takes us it will never answer the question of God. How can it? Just because it cannot answer that question does not all of a sudden mean there is no God or their is no evidence to proove such a thing. Scientific evidence and evidence prooving the existence of God are not and should not be one in the same. So, although I agree with you that evidence is key in the belief of God it is not scientific evidence that it should be judged by. Also, your claim that Christian theism evidence amounts to slim or none is a gross over simplification of the 2000 years of evidence that is available for all to see. You may disagree with said evidence as a result of you trying to hold it to scientific standard but that does not mean that the evidence is not there or should be considered.

So, at the end of the day, I think we can agree that evidence is needed. However, the kind of evidence that can explain the existence of God is up for debate and in my opinion cannot be scientific evidence.

 

[Orion]

I want AAA to actually address your post [since it WAS for him], . . . but I think you may have answered part of your own statement:

Humanity has an inate need to explain why we are here, who / what created us and how that all came to pass.

This is WHY there is 2,000 years of Christianity. Well, that and "the fear of Hell" for those who don't agree, which tends to create "converts". I know this well, being raised in the religion. "Flock mentality" can play a role. "Our own galvanic skin responses to stimuli making it seem like 'the spirit is moving', which some would see as evidence". . . . One COULD use "healings", but people outside Christianity have stated a "healing" in their life as well. And as for the "direct experience of disciples", this is recorded in a book that claims it to be the only way to God. And while some of them may have died, I don't think you'll find much in the way of "dying because of their faith", outside a few places.

You don't have to address my post. I'm more interested in reading your conversation with AAA, but felt like adding my own thoughts while I read.

Thanks.

 

[Aero_Hudson]

I want AAA to actually address your post [since it WAS for him], . . . but I think you may have answered part of your own statement:

Humanity has an inate need to explain why we are here, who / what created us and how that all came to pass.

This is WHY there is 2,000 years of Christianity. Well, that and "the fear of Hell" for those who don't agree, which tends to create "converts". I know this well, being raised in the religion. "Flock mentality" can play a role. "Our own galvanic skin responses to stimuli making it seem like 'the spirit is moving', which some would see as evidence". . . . One COULD use "healings", but people outside Christianity have stated a "healing" in their life as well. And as for the "direct experience of disciples", this is recorded in a book that claims it to be the only way to God. And while some of them may have died, I don't think you'll find much in the way of "dying because of their faith", outside a few places.

You don't have to address my post. I'm more interested in reading your conversation with AAA, but felt like adding my own thoughts while I read.

Thanks.

A couple of thoughts on your response...

- I disagree, of course. There is 2000 years of Christianity due to the life and death of Christ. You forget that the apostles were not motivated by trying to explain their existence. They already followed the Jewish faith and as a result believed in God. They spread the word of Christianity based on what they saw and experienced and often died for it. If you don't think many died as a result of these beliefs tell that to the early church and the thousands that were fed to the lions or stoned as a result of their beliefs. Not to mention that Christianity is still illegal in over 50+ countries today and people are still persecuted, tortured and put to death as a result. Some pretty powerful stuff to just explain away as being intellectually dishonest.

- If someone claims that the apostles just made it up I would ask them for evidence as such. Why would they make it up and what is your evidence? Why would they be willing to die for it if they were spreading the word not for power or money or some other tangible benefit tied to this world?

- I did not come to Christ due to fear. I know this may be different for others but never once did it cross my mind that I was becoming a follower of Christ to avoid hell. This is not a motivation for me. If interested, I can go into detail as to what does motivate me and why I became a follower of Christ.

- In reference to the Spirt moving...I have experienced things in the last year that I cannot explain. It has nothing to due with a "flock mentality" as you call it. These were personal experiences that I had as an individual that are just too convenient to be explained away by random chance or coincidence. As far as healings go, I have never witnessed not experienced healings so I cannot comment.

You knew I would have to respond.

 

[Orion]

Responding really was okay.

What I am saying is that the apostles were believed to have died for their faith, but there really isn't a lot to go on other than "church history", which isn't the best evidence. As for the numbers who were killed as a result of their faith (of which you mentioned), people have died for their beliefs many times, but their martyrdom doesn't/didn't make their beliefs right. That's the problem. We get into "faith", and how far someone will follow their belief unto death. Christianity doesn't have the monopoly on it.

You may have experienced some stuff. That's good, I suppose, . . . but I can't go on YOUR experience to make me believe that your path is true. The muslim is just as sure. This is the problem brought up in this thread. For as many stories you tell, another religion will be able to tell the same.

Now, the Christian response would be, "they are influenced by demons". What if another religion is actually the right one, and THEIR version of "demons" have deceived you? I know you couldn't ever think along those lines, but the logic is there.

For the most part, . . . live your life as you see fit. Do good to people and yourself, and you'll be okay.

 

[Aero_Hudson]

Responding really was okay.

What I am saying is that the apostles were believed to have died for their faith, but there really isn't a lot to go on other than "church history", which isn't the best evidence. As for the numbers who were killed as a result of their faith (of which you mentioned), people have died for their beliefs many times, but their martyrdom doesn't/didn't make their beliefs right. That's the problem. We get into "faith", and how far someone will follow their belief unto death. Christianity doesn't have the monopoly on it.

You may have experienced some stuff. That's good, I suppose, . . . but I can't go on YOUR experience to make me believe that your path is true. The muslim is just as sure. This is the problem brought up in this thread. For as many stories you tell, another religion will be able to tell the same.

Now, the Christian response would be, "they are influenced by demons". What if another religion is actually the right one, and THEIR version of "demons" have deceived you? I know you couldn't ever think along those lines, but the logic is there.

For the most part, . . . live your life as you see fit. Do good to people and yourself, and you'll be okay.

A couple of thoughts...

- It's not just "church history". Most historical experts and scholars agree that the NT is valid and can be used to determine the historical record. Couple that with archeological finds, references to Christ outside of the bible and other factors and there is a compelling case there.

- For people willing to die for their faith I would agree with you if it were not for the apostles themselves that died for their beliefs. They didn't die for just beliefs or for power or influence or money. They died based on what they actually saw and experienced. That is the difference in my mind. Why would anyone in their right mind die like this and risk it all with nothing tangible to gain. I think it illustrates how powerful their experiences were.

- You are correct...you shouldn't base what you believe on others' experiences. However, as others have stated, that does not make my experiences wrong just because you are not there. It also does not make me intellectually dishonest. These experiences are mine and as a result very unique and distinct to my consciousness. I also believe that if most people would honestly open themselves up to these kinds of experiences they would be surprised by what would happen. Bottom line...just because you have not experienced this does not make it false.

- Be careful when you think you speak for all Christians considering you are not a follower yourself. I would not say that Muslims are infuenced by demons. Let's take a specific belief out of it for a second. Atheists and others would like for everyone to believe that over 75% of the world's population are "intellectually dishonest". That over 5 billion people some how have it wrong in believing there is a God. I find that quite humorous.

- You already know what I am going to say about your last point. Living a selfish life focused on just you is not how we should be living. Focusing solely on success and selfish pursuits is not why we are here. It's about so much more than that. It's about being significant in the world. It's about eradicating illness, suffering, poverty, war, etc. Now, you may tie that purpose to a secular inspiration, to a belief in God or you may completely disagree with it. For me, that is my purpose. To love God and my neighbors with all of my heart and soul and do what I can to bring God's Kingdom to Earth right now.

 

[Orion]

I will tell you, . . . . everyone is selfish, to some degree, but feel free to read that how you'd like.

As for "the disciples dying for the gospel", where do you find that information? Also, there are those who have poked holes in Lee Strobel's "Case for Christ" book, so . . . . . (I know you didn't specifically mention that book).

Anyway, I don't want to get in the way of yours and AAA's conversation. Hopefully he will come back on to address your questions/comments. I'll sit and read.

 

[Aero_Hudson]

I will tell you, . . . . everyone is selfish, to some degree, but feel free to read that how you'd like.

As for "the disciples dying for the gospel", where do you find that information? Also, there are those who have poked holes in Lee Strobel's "Case for Christ" book, so . . . . . (I know you didn't specifically mention that book).

Anyway, I don't want to get in the way of yours and AAA's conversation. Hopefully he will come back on to address your questions/comments. I'll sit and read.

Sure, everyone is selfish. We are all broken people and have to fight selfish urges as well as other things. I am confronted with this constantly as is everyone else.

As for the apostles dying, it is part of the historical record. Of course, the Bible provides some accounts as well as historians. We know that Paul was executed as well as Peter, Stephen and many others. The list goes on and on.

 

[Orion]

The thing is, . . . how many of those accounts are what they have been made out to be? How many were tradition, based upon no real evidence? If you'd like, I can give you a link to ProfMTH [youtube video] as he discusses this very subject (Josh McDowell and Lee Strobel are a couple who are commented on). If you're not interested, that's fine. If you are, feel free to ask and I can PM it to you.


Updated: Actually, I won't provide the link. If you're interested, I'm sure you can look his stuff up. The bottom line is, . . . not everyone is easily convinced by those who make the "wouldn't die for a lie" statement, but I have no problem with you believing so.

Blessings!

 

[AAA]

I think it is clear that the early believers, specifically the apostles, saw and experienced something they felt was real and valid so much so that they were willing to risk their lives to spread the word. Most lost their lives as a result. I am not talking about those that were targeted by fundamentalists that were in a weakened mental state as we see with many terrorists groups today and manipulated based on abstractions. These men actually saw something that compelled them to love the rest of their lives spreading the word. I think that in an of itself makes Christianity unique and compelling in the same breath.

Hi again, and sorry for the delay in responding.

Aero, I've hear you advance this argument for your belief before:

The original followers of Christ put there lives and their families lives on the line everyday for what they believed and taught. I find that very compelling. Most of the original apostles and many after them were martyred for what they believed. Why would these men do that? They weren't doing it for power or money or other tangible reasons. They did this for one reason. To spread the teachings of Jesus and to tell people what they saw. I find these circumstances to be intriguing and compelling and not something that can just be dismissed.

I guess that I, like Orion, have to ask you why you believe that the apostles were martyred and could have been saved if they had recanted? What's the evidence for that, and what's the quality of the evidence?

 

[Barbarian]

I guess that I, like Orion, have to ask you why you believe that the apostles were martyred and could have been saved if they had recanted? What's the evidence for that, and what's the quality of the evidence?

It's actually pretty good. The Roman archives of the persecutions are filled with the frustrated puzzlement of magistrates who cannot understand why Christians wouldn't just burn a little incense to the emperor and save themselves. They even try to reason with Christians to find a way to save them from death.

http://www.publicbookshelf.com/public_h ... io_eg.html

 

[AAA]

I guess that I, like Orion, have to ask you why you believe that the apostles were martyred and could have been saved if they had recanted? What's the evidence for that, and what's the quality of the evidence?

It's actually pretty good. The Roman archives of the persecutions are filled with the frustrated puzzlement of magistrates who cannot understand why Christians wouldn't just burn a little incense to the emperor and save themselves. They even try to reason with Christians to find a way to save them from death.

http://www.publicbookshelf.com/public_h ... io_eg.html

I couldn't find any reference in the link you provided to the lives of the Apostles. I also couldn't find any references to sources in that link.

Another opinion can be found at the link below (you should find Christian sources for a lot of the info) where the demise of each apostle is addressed: http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/06/ ... s-die.html

 

[Barbarian]

If convicted of being a Christian, a prisoner was not necessarily to be punished. He was given the chance of casting a few grains of incense upon the pagan altar; and if he refused this, he might be subjected to the scourge and the rack. But the Roman magistrates were, as a class, humane, and the number of martyrs was inconsiderable.

There was always the opportunity to recant, except during a relatively short period of time in which Nero was using Christians as scapegoats.