Is the church still relevant?

[civilwarbuff]

And yet here you are...

.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

No, I don't.......

Me neither.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Sir William Ramsay.

https://www.google.com/webhp?hl=en#...xzbJyq3LKtQQcS0sy8otC8p3y87P983IqAfV-z0crAAAA

The best you could do was a guy that died 77 years ago, and was not trained as a historian?

 

[MennoSota]

Are you in a position, to determine if another person has valid meaning in their life?

Again, you dodge around the elephant in the room.

If there is no God, then you are nothing more than compound elements bonded temporarily together. You are nothing more than this random connection. Whatever your mind chooses to create as an illusion beyond the basic reality is meaningless. It is just a matrix world your molecules have randomly built. You are fated to act as a mindless nature has chosen. Whatever purpose you are attempting to conjure is just a fairy tale of your own making.

 

[MennoSota]

No God=Lost

No God = Meaningless

 

[Dave Ellis]

No God = Meaningless

God = Not real

 

[civilwarbuff]

The best you could do was a guy that died 77 years ago, and was not trained as a historian?

Don't look down your nose too hard. Carl Sandburg, poet, writer, editor (not a historian) wrote a 6 vol work on Abraham Lincoln winning a Pulitzer for one of them. It is a work that has stood the test of time; Sandberg died almost 50 years ago.

 

[MennoSota]

Sir William Ramsay.

https://www.google.com/webhp?hl=en#...xzbJyq3LKtQQcS0sy8otC8p3y87P983IqAfV-z0crAAAA

One of the great archeologists of the 19th century and early 20th, Sir William Ramsay, who spent 15 years attempting to undermine Luke's credentials as a historian, and to refute the reliability of the New Testament, finally concluded: "Luke is a historian of the first rank . . . This author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians. "

 

[Truthfrees]

What would happen if the morality you reached through reasoned argument conflicts with one of gods commands though? Which would you take?

So far that hasn't happened.

The only problem that has happened is:

1. I didn't like what God said because I wanted to do what I wanted to do, even though I agreed He was right.

2. I tried to do what He said and failed repeatedly, even though I knew God was right.

3. I misunderstood a command and sincerely did the wrong thing.

Many Christians have "reasoned" against scripture, and usually their "reason" is scripture didn't mean it that way.

Christian denominations are a result of disagreements on how to interpret and apply scripture to daily living.

However, if your morality can be constructed via reasoned thought and argument, then you have made god irrelevant to morality.

My morality is:
1. set by God,
2. affirmed/confirmed by my reasoned thought and argument as being superior to any human morality,
3. making God my source of all things good, and my Mentor, Savior, Authority.

 

[MennoSota]

We understand it, we simply don't believe it.

We were hoping for someone to at least try to be convincing.

Clearly it's not you.

How can we convince spiritually dead people? (Ephesians 2:1)

 

[MennoSota]

God = Not real

Jesus is real.

Jesus is God.

Therefore, God is real.

 

[Truthfrees]

That would depend on how you approach that.
If in that exercise you still operate under the dogmatic premise XYZ MUST be immoral and ABC MUST be moral because god said so, then no.

At that point, if you can't find any reason for why ABC is moral, you'ld still be calling it moral because god said so.
Or worse: if your own reasoning informs you that ABC is actually immoral, then you'ld still call it moral "because god said so".

If however, you approach this with the mindset that you could actually come to a conclusion that doesn't agree with what god said....

But at that point, one would have to wonder why one would bother with what god supposedly did or didn't say... since at that point you can come to moral conclusions by yourself - regardless of what the bible states.

The "obedience" thing is not a type of morality. That's my whole point.
Obedience is just obedience.

Morality is all about inention, motivation and reason.
Mere obedience is all about..... being obedient, for the sake of being obedient.

WHY OBEY GOD'S LAWS?
I've studied them and they are outstandingly wise.

I can't find a better set of civil, social, moral, ethical, spiritual, financial, medical, marriage, business, etc laws anywhere.

I choose God's laws over any others I've ever seen/read/heard.

If you don't like them, I respect that decision.

If you feel you have found some better moral laws somewhere else, I respect that.

 

[Truthfrees]

Would you continue to do it even when you don't see the wisdom in it? Or does that not apply because you assume the wisdom is there because He said it?

Well this is purely hypothetical because I can't think of a God-made law that I thought was stupid/immoral.

I've seen lots of stupid man-made laws though.

I've been put in several situations where I was under the control of stupid authorities.

That was a tricky situation for sure - trying to abide by man-made-rules - even when they are stupid/unfair.

 

[bhsmte]

Again, you dodge around the elephant in the room.

If there is no God, then you are nothing more than compound elements bonded temporarily together. You are nothing more than this random connection. Whatever your mind chooses to create as an illusion beyond the basic reality is meaningless. It is just a matrix world your molecules have randomly built. You are fated to act as a mindless nature has chosen. Whatever purpose you are attempting to conjure is just a fairy tale of your own making.

More claims.

I see you avoided answering my question.

 

[bhsmte]

No God = Meaningless

Prove it.

 

[bhsmte]

How can we convince spiritually dead people? (Ephesians 2:1)

With a valid argument.

I havent seen one.

 

[bhsmte]

Jesus is real.

Jesus is God.

Therefore, God is real.

Prove it.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Don't look down your nose too hard. Carl Sandburg, poet, writer, editor (not a historian) wrote a 6 vol work on Abraham Lincoln winning a Pulitzer for one of them. It is a work that has stood the test of time; Sandberg died almost 50 years ago.

And what does that have to do with the author of Luke?

 

[TLK Valentine]

How can we convince spiritually dead people? (Ephesians 2:1)

Why then do you keep trying?

 

[Dave Ellis]

One of the great archeologists of the 19th century and early 20th, Sir William Ramsay, who spent 15 years attempting to undermine Luke's credentials as a historian, and to refute the reliability of the New Testament, finally concluded: "Luke is a historian of the first rank . . . This author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians. "

And virtually every biblical scholar, including Christian ones consider the gospel of Luke to be a mish-mash of plagiarized works, primarily using the gospel of Mark and Matthew, however lifting the works of actual period historians, including Josephus. However, he incorrectly plagiarized Josephus.

William Ramsay also concluded based on his own research that all 13 letters attributed to Paul were authentic as well, which is also a laughably wrong conclusion. Not even fundamentalist biblical scholars believe all of the 13 letters were actually written by Paul.