A confused atheist.

[Catherineanne]

I suppose my issue with the process occurring over time is that thousands upon thousands of people died due to what they thought god wanted.

I see life as a very precious commodity and as such I would want my father (god) to see it as precious too. However, because of these partial understandings (using your words) of god's intentions means that people lost their lives.

Life is indeed precious, but for a Christian life does not end with death, and there is something more precious than life, which is our relationship with God.

This one can't be unintelligible to non believers; there are plenty of men and women willing to die for a cause that they believe in, whether or not they believe in eternity.

If god is outside of time then he knew this would happen. Why doesn't he make him self clear. He's omnipotent. He could send a message to each of us when born (a real one, not an ethereal) so that we absolutely know of his existence and act accordingly.

As for the fire and brimstone reference; I was referring, in my own crude way, to the floods, genocides etc that occur in the OT and not necessarily about hell.

God gave us free will, and there are certain principles that follow from that. He cannot give us free will and at the same time take away our ability to doubt.

If I were not capable of doubting, then my faith would not be faith.

 

[Foolish]

If I tried to tell you, it would sound like I was explaining the four humours; you really have to live it for yourself.

Here is a parallel; think of a really exceptional moment in your life, and then try to put it into words. Inevitably it will lose something in the process. The same goes for encounters with God; they partake of his ineffable nature.

That's exactly my point.


That's where all your parallels to science fall down. Newton's and darwin's insights were real in the sense that others have tested and experimented with them and have shown that the theories hold true.

Faith is such a personal thing that is impossible to test tangibly.

That's why it is illogical to be a Christian as it's equally as logical to be a Muslim, Jew or pagan.

 

[Foolish]

Maybe so, but love your enemies and turn the other cheek are not. Neither when you are asked to go one mile with someone, go with him two, nor when you are asked for your coat, give your shirt as well.

And no concept whatever of let he who is without sin cast the first stone, or that someone who harbours anger in his heart is as morally culpable as he who commits murder. The Greeks would certainly not have accepted that one.

In other words, Christ goes a lot further than the Hellens.



That is the version without the hand of God through the Holy Spirit. Now consider putting the Holy Spirit back into the picture, and see his hand guiding the growth of the Church throughout the world.

That is the way most Christians would see it, I think.

I don't doubt that there were many philosophical developments between the time of Plato and the tim of Christ. 300 years can make a big difference. Look at how far our morals have shifted since queen Elizabeth.

There is no reason to believe that a divinity intervened to produce those sorts of thoughts.

 

[Foolish]

That's exactly my point.


That's where all your parallels to science fall down. Newton's and darwin's insights were real in the sense that others have tested and experimented with them and have shown that the theories hold true.

Faith is such a personal thing that is impossible to test tangibly.

That's why it is illogical to be a Christian as it's equally as logical to be a Muslim, Jew or pagan.

Or atheist. An agnostic one at that!

 

[Foolish]

Sorry guys, I'm off to the pub.

I'll catch up with you tomorrow, but if I respond before 8am tomorrow; be warned that I might be less than sober.

Cheers!

Foolish.

 

[Catherineanne]

Your belief that Jesus Was risen is based on the bible and I can't see how it's logical to trust a source like the good book which was passed on verbally for many years before it's written. Oh and the scribes were Christians so they're hardly unbiased.

There is something missing here. Certainly the gospels themselves were written from about 60AD onwards; about 30 or so years after the death of the Lord. However, they are not the earliest written accounts of what Christ said. There is very strong suggestion from the contents of the gospels (ie from what they share and where they differ) that they drew on earlier collections of sayings of the Lord. These sayings could well date from the time of the Lord, or very shortly afterwards.

I might not be able to tell you much about last week, but I could certainly tell you in some detail what my priest said in his sermon. And the week before, and the one before that. People remember some things more clearly than others.

Here is Paul, 2 Timothy 4;13, when he knows himself to be very close to death:

When you come, bring the cloak that I left with Carpus at Troas, also the books, and above all the parchments.

There is a very good chance that those parchments were collections of sayings of the Lord; certainly they are so important that he does not have to specify to Timothy which ones he wants; he only has to say the parchments.

These sayings do not survive to our time, but they are included in the gospels, and indeed form the framework to the narrative.

The Passion narrative is the most detailed part of all the gospels, and this is no surprise; that part would be very difficult indeed to forget.

 

[socialisview]

Jesus said nothing in its self is unclean, and he says my people perish becuase of lack of knowledge.

 

[socialisview]

thats why its so important to have a relationship with god.

 

[Catherineanne]

That's exactly my point.


That's where all your parallels to science fall down. Newton's and darwin's insights were real in the sense that others have tested and experimented with them and have shown that the theories hold true.

Faith is such a personal thing that is impossible to test tangibly.

No, this is not right. It is possible to test tangibly; jump in.

How will you believe that the water in the swimming pool is capable of bearing the weight of your body until you feel it for yourself? All your senses, all your logic, all your intuition will scream to you that if you jump in you will sink. It is only when you get into that water and find yourself bobbing on the top of it that you KNOW for sure.

There is only so much one can say to someone outside a swimming pool about the properties of water; there is only so much that can be learned from a driving simulator, or about scuba diving from the beach. Sooner or later you simply have to move from all the theory to trying it out.

I can tell you what has happened to me, but it will not convince you; I have tried before with other people. I can say the same story, and believers will say, God is good, while non believers will say, that is all coincidence/chance/random/imagination/insanity/whatever.

There is always another way to interpret what God does; he is clever like that. It is only when you live it for yourself that the evidence becomes so overwhelming that all we can do is to say, this is real; I know it. And leave it to others either to think we are mad, or to think, maybe ...

That's why it is illogical to be a Christian as it's equally as logical to be a Muslim, Jew or pagan.

There is nothing illogical in being a believer, given that faith is practically a human universal. What is illogical is rejecting that universal and deciding that faith CANNOT be real. It can. It is real for me.

 

[Catherineanne]

There is no reason to believe that a divinity intervened to produce those sorts of thoughts.

The Lord is fully human AND fully God. He did not need anyone to intervene; he is the Word of God.

 

[Foolish]

There is something missing here. Certainly the gospels themselves were written from about 60AD onwards; about 30 or so years after the death of the Lord. However, they are not the earliest written accounts of what Christ said. There is very strong suggestion from the contents of the gospels (ie from what they share and where they differ) that they drew on earlier collections of sayings of the Lord. These sayings could well date from the time of the Lord, or very shortly afterwards.

I might not be able to tell you much about last week, but I could certainly tell you in some detail what my priest said in his sermon. And the week before, and the one before that. People remember some things more clearly than others.

Here is Paul, 2 Timothy 4;13, when he knows himself to be very close to death:

When you come, bring the cloak that I left with Carpus at Troas, also the books, and above all the parchments.

There is a very good chance that those parchments were collections of sayings of the Lord; certainly they are so important that he does not have to specify to Timothy which ones he wants; he only has to say the parchments.

These sayings do not survive to our time, but they are included in the gospels, and indeed form the framework to the narrative.

The Passion narrative is the most detailed part of all the gospels, and this is no surprise; that part would be very difficult indeed to forget.

Waiting for a taxi so this might be rushed.

Do you know exactly what your priest was thinking when he was preaching?

Are there not instances of mistranslations and mistranscriptions in the bible?

The horns on michalangelo's Moses is my favourite.

I know it's OT but it's an example of how A minuscule change changes th entire meaning.

 

[Foolish]

No, this is not right. It is possible to test tangibly; jump in.

How will you believe that the water in the swimming pool is capable of bearing the weight of your body until you feel it for yourself? All your senses, all your logic, all your intuition will scream to you that if you jump in you will sink. It is only when you get into that water and find yourself bobbing on the top of it that you KNOW for sure.

There is only so much one can say to someone outside a swimming pool about the properties of water; there is only so much that can be learned from a driving simulator, or about scuba diving from the beach. Sooner or later you simply have to move from all the theory to trying it out.

I can tell you what has happened to me, but it will not convince you; I have tried before with other people. I can say the same story, and believers will say, God is good, while non believers will say, that is all coincidence/chance/random/imagination/insanity/whatever.

There is always another way to interpret what God does; he is clever like that. It is only when you live it for yourself that the evidence becomes so overwhelming that all we can do is to say, this is real; I know it. And leave it to others either to think we are mad, or to think, maybe ...



There is nothing illogical in being a believer, given that faith is practically a human universal. What is illogical is rejecting that universal and deciding that faith CANNOT be real. It can. It is real for me.

I can see the water. I can feel the water. I can put sensors in the water. I can do calculations as to surface tension and hydrogen bonds.

It's impossible to equate the intangible to the tangible.

I'll write about my thoughts on the universality of religion another time as I haven't got time to do it justice at the mo.

But suffice it to say; I disagree!

 

[Foolish]

The Lord is fully human AND fully God. He did not need anyone to intervene; he is the Word of God.

1st commandment.

That's why Christ is both god and human.

 

[Catherineanne]

I can see the water. I can feel the water. I can put sensors in the water. I can do calculations as to surface tension and hydrogen bonds.

It's impossible to equate the intangible to the tangible.

I'll write about my thoughts on the universality of religion another time as I haven't got time to do it justice at the mo.

But suffice it to say; I disagree!

I am sorry, it is not logical to disagree with the proposition that theoretical knowledge does not compare with experiential knowledge.

Enjoy your drink.

 

[socialisview]

like i can say science is wrong just by hearing it. but if its proven to work by me seeing it work then i believe it.

 

[Catherineanne]

1st commandment.

That's why Christ is both god and human.

The commandments are incumbent upon man, but not God.

 

[socialisview]

it says in genesis. people are turned away from the word becuase they dont follow it, and when they dont follow it they fail, and so that failer by not following the word of god turns them off.

 

[socialisview]

i mean dueteronomy. old testament.

 

[Catherineanne]

Waiting for a taxi so this might be rushed.

Do you know exactly what your priest was thinking when he was preaching?

I have a good idea, but only because his spirituality and mine are very similar. I can't know everything he is thinking, unless he tells me. Sometimes he does. Weirdly, though, he often knows what I am thinking without me saying. Very disconcerting, that one. He says I am not difficult to understand.

Are there not instances of mistranslations and mistranscriptions in the bible?

Some, but I don't think they have a major impact on the Christology.

The horns on michalangelo's Moses is my favourite.

I know it's OT but it's an example of how A minuscule change changes th entire meaning.

Why does it bother you if Moses is represented with horns instead of a halo? What difference does it actually make?

Orthodox icons of John the Baptist show him with wings, because wings denote a messenger of God; same with angels; they don't actually have wings but we show them with wings to denote that they are divine messengers. John the Baptist didn't have wings, but the image still conveys something important about who he was.

 

[socialisview]

you i heard something one time somebody said i dont take somebodys word becuase they are reepected. i take there word if its true. Jesus said love. if everybody was loving in this world except judging, wouldnt this world be a better place. its written on their hearts.