Near perfect existence

[quatona]

No. I asked if you wanted to be a follower of Jesus.

...and why did you ask this completely off-topic question in this very thread, at this very point in time?

Whatever, you may want to tell us first what it means to be "a follower of Christ" (does it mean I have to post illogical cryptic mumbo-jumbo on internet forums?), and whether and how it´s reconcilable with not believing in god/God/gods/God.

 

[quatona]

Sure.

Let's assume He is dead.

What of His teachings? What of His philosophy or Outlook on life?

I find them remarkable for the time and culture back then. And quite some times, I find them in agreement with my opinions. Sometimes they appear borderline ricidulous.
In any case, though, from my perspective they are not impressive and relevant enough to become a "follower". Or are you talking "followever" in the Twitter sense?

If you had been there in the crowd, would you have been one of the ones who followed after Him?

Sorry, that scenario is beyond my power of imagination.

But His teachings live on. Do you desire to live according to them?

Well, they are sufficiently ambiguous to not have serious problems with them.
But I see no reason to elevate them beyond "ok". Even more so since they don´t seem to address those real life issues I am dealing with most of the time.

 

[quatona]

And that is why you cannot believe.

Believe what? I believe a lot of things without being a "follower" of somebody.
So you must first "follow" in order to eventually be able to believe (whatever it is I am supposed to believe)? That sounds suspiciously like charlatanry.

 

[Davian]

Nothing. That's the problem with your argument, you're literally arguing for nothing. Both in the sense that you're argument is grounded on nothing(you can't present facts that you believe are true)

Again you misrepresent my position. Your arguments are for you to support. I am only here to observe.

and if you believe God is impossible

I still do not know what you mean by "God". Is this the "God" that allegedly walked and talked in a garden that has no evidence of having existed, poofed people and animals into existence, and later, in a manner contrary to the modern understanding of genetics, populated the planet with a tiny group of individuals and animals that survived a global flood in an unbuildable boat, a flood that killed the dinosaurs in a manner that only *appears* to be 65 million years ago, because the Earth is really only somehow 6000 years old, yet remains, by every objective measure to date indistinguishable from nothing?

then you've been waisting your time debating with me because if God is actually impossible then our debate is meaningless, if God is possible then our debate has meaning.

This is no debate.

Get my point? It has meaning behind it.

In all of your evasion and obfuscation I must have missed it. What is your point?

 

[Chriliman]

Again you misrepresent my position. Your arguments are for you to support. I am only here to observe.

I still do not know what you mean by "God". Is this the "God" that allegedly walked and talked in a garden that has no evidence of having existed, poofed people and animals into existence, and later, in a manner contrary to the modern understanding of genetics, populated the planet with a tiny group of individuals and animals that survived a global flood in an unbuildable boat, a flood that killed the dinosaurs in a manner that only *appears* to be 65 million years ago, because the Earth is really only somehow 6000 years old, yet remains, by every objective measure to date indistinguishable from nothing?

This is no debate.

In all of your evasion and obfuscation I must have missed it. What is your point?

Responding to me, is not observing, it's engaging in discussion/debating.

 

[Davian]

And that is why you cannot believe.

I am still not clear on what there is to actually believe. For example,

You think Him dead.

What options are available to me on that subject, other than 'dead'?

 

[Davian]

Responding to me, is not observing,

Sure it is. I observe your claims, respond with a challenge to substantiate them, and see if you do so, or instead come back with evasion, obfuscation, and/or attempts to shift the burden of proof.

it's engaging in discussion/debating.

Do you not have a point?

 

[Chriliman]

Sure it is. I observe your claims, respond with a challenge to substantiate them, and see if you do so, or instead come back with evasion, obfuscation, and/or attempts to shift the burden of proof.

You're misrepresenting my position. It is not my goal to prove God to you, it is my goal to show you that believing in God is a rational belief. I will make that clear with this statement:

If you don't accept the truth that God is possible, then you either must accept the truth that God is not possible (which hasn't been shown to be true, therefore irrational to believe) or you must admit you don't know yet if God exists.

Or you can accept the truth that God is possible and admit you don't know yet if God exists.

Do you not have a point?

I just made my point. Would you like to acknowledge God is possible and admit you don't yet know if He exists or not?

Please don't respond with your normal paragraph of information about the God you assume I'm referring to because that would be coming back with evasion, obfuscation, and/or attempts to shift the burden of reason because I've already made my reasoning clear and I'm not trying to prove God to you.

 

[Davian]

You're misrepresenting my position. It is not my goal to prove God to you, it is my goal to show you that believing in God is a rational belief. I will make that clear with this statement:

If you don't accept the truth that God is possible, then you either must accept the truth that God is not possible (which hasn't been shown to be true, therefore irrational to believe) or you must admit you don't know yet if God exists.

Or you can accept the truth that God is possible and admit you don't know yet if God exists.

I just made my point. Would you like to acknowledge God is possible and admit you don't yet know if He exists or not?

You have yet to make clear what you mean by "God".

Please don't respond with your normal paragraph of information about the God you assume I'm referring to because that would be coming back with evasion, obfuscation,

Is it only okay when you do it?

and/or attempts to shift the burden of reason

No, that burden still rests with you.

because I've already made my reasoning clear

Where?

and I'm not trying to prove God to you.

I am still waiting for you to define what you mean by "God". If you don't like my description, supply your own.

 

[anonymous person]

Believe what? I believe a lot of things without being a "follower" of somebody.
So you must first "follow" in order to eventually be able to believe (whatever it is I am supposed to believe)? That sounds suspiciously like charlatanry.

Believe that Jesus is a person worth following and placing your hope and trust in. To be willing to do His will and not your own.

 

[anonymous person]

I am still not clear on what there is to actually believe. For example,

What options are available to me on that subject, other than 'dead'?

Believe in and trust in and place your hope in Jesus to show you and empower you to live a righteous life.

Jesus said a willingness to do the will of God is a prerequisite to obtaining knowledge of God and His will.

Assume that He is alive for a moment and is who He said He was. If you believed He was who He said He was, would you place your hope and trust in Him as He encouraged us to do? Would you be willing to do His will and forsake your own? Would you be willing to take up your cross daily and follow Him?

 

[Chriliman]

You have yet to make clear what you mean by "God".

Is it only okay when you do it?

No, that burden still rests with you.

Where?

I am still waiting for you to define what you mean by "God". If you don't like my description, supply your own.

I have defined God as eternal life, but that's not my point right now. My point is that it's reasonable to believe in God because it has not yet be shown to be true that God is impossible, therefore, it's true that God is possible and it's true that people do not yet know if God exists or if he does not exist.

Since those are all true statements, let me ask you again: Would you like to acknowledge God is possible and admit you don't yet know if He exists or does not exist?

Again, this isn't about defining God, this is about showing that it's reasonable to believe in the possibility of God for the mere fact that God has not yet been proven to be impossible. If He hasn't yet been proven to be impossible that means its true He is possible, therefore, reasonable to believe in the possibility of God.

 

[anonymous person]

Why not? Why are you cherry-picking his teachings?

God has not asked me to abandon my family, or sell all of my possessions.

No I am not cherry picking His teachings.

 

[quatona]

Believe that Jesus is a person worth following and placing your hope and trust in. To be willing to do His will and not your own.

Because he doesn´t believe Jesus is a person worth following he can´t believe that Jesus is a person worth following?

That´s an incredibly astute observation! And an interesting take on causality!

 

[Davian]

Believe that Jesus is a person worth following and placing your hope and trust in. To be willing to do His will and not your own.

Is there not an intermediary step of believing that he actually existed?

And another that he is, somehow, not dead?

And then there has to be some reckoning between the Bible and observations of reality; just how much of mainstream scientific knowledge must be binned to take on your particular religion?

 

[Davian]

Believe in and trust in and place your hope in Jesus to show you and empower you to live a righteous life.

Or what? Are there repercussions, as long as you believe?

Jesus said a willingness to do the will of God is a prerequisite to obtaining knowledge of God and His will.

How circular.

Assume that He is alive for a moment and is who He said He was. If you believed He was who He said He was, would you place your hope and trust in Him as He encouraged us to do? Would you be willing to do His will and forsake your own? Would you be willing to take up your cross daily and follow Him?

Without engaging in circular reasoning, I cannot answer that. It does not sound as if you have done so.

You still haven't answered my question: What options are available to me on that earlier subject, other than 'dead'?

 

[Davian]

I have defined God as eternal life, but that's not my point right now. My point is that it's reasonable to believe in God because it has not yet be shown to be true that God is impossible, therefore, it's true that God is possible and it's true that people do not yet know if God exists or if he does not exist.

Since those are all true statements, let me ask you again: Would you like to acknowledge God is possible and admit you don't yet know if He exists or does not exist?

Again, this isn't about defining God, this is about showing that it's reasonable to believe in the possibility of God for the mere fact that God has not yet been proven to be impossible. If He hasn't yet been proven to be impossible that means its true He is possible, therefore, reasonable to believe in the possibility of God.

I cannot comment of the possibility of something that has yet to be defined. Are you unsure of your religious beliefs?

 

[Davian]

God has not asked me to abandon my family, or sell all of my possessions.

No I am not cherry picking His teachings.

How then do you interpret Luke 14:26–33? Luke 18:18-22? Metaphorical, at your convenience?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Sure, I get that. But isn't it correct to state that this only works upto a certain point?
I mean, when we see the "beauty ideals" of cultures around the world for example, there are some vast differences.

When we talk about the "beauty" of art, we'll see a lot of disagreement as well.

I could get on board with the idea that there are perhaps a few basic "objective" indicators we could identify. But in general, it's easy to find 2 people of which one thinks X is simply gorgeous while the other thinks X is butt-ugly. Right?

Right. There's a strong cultural element, and a fair amount of individual variation within that. Just as you'd expect from environmental influences (cultural & personal) interacting with genetic predispositions.

 

[anonymous person]

How then do you interpret Luke 14:26–33? Luke 18:18-22? Metaphorical, at your convenience?

The first passage is Jesus telling us that we must put Him before our family, not abandon them.

The second passage is addressed to a rich young ruler who had great wealth which he put before God. I am not such a one. But the principle remains. I am to follow Christ even if it means offering up to Him those things most important to me.