My Final Conclusion about Science and Religion

[And-U-Say]

Public libraries are a good resource, as are the articles by William Lane Craig and other serious scholars that I've posted on this forum.

Using the words "scholar" and "William Lane Craig" in the same sentence should probably be avoided. I have read his stuff on his web site and his appologetics are shaky at best (aren't they all?). Example: the problem of those who have not heard the gospel. His answer: anyone who has not heard the gospel would not have accepted it anyway. So it is with whole cities or regions that have not yet been visited by missionaries, its because nobody would have believed the gospel anyway. The missionaries arrive only when someone is born who would accept it.

Pretty weird stuff, eh? Makes you wonder about the whole thing, as it should.

 

[radorth]

I started out as a bold, militant, in-your-face Biblical literalist and YECist and fundamentalist when I came here, though I was filled with doubts and fears that I could be totally wrong about everything (I'd been fearing that since I was 13, .

Man what church did you go to? I never get in anyone's face. I just quote reams of historical facts which invariably support the Christian world-view and PO the "free-thinkers." Yes, I stir the pot a little, and let the unbelievers shoot themselves in the foot and totally contradict one another, as they rationalize the most evil sins. I read mostly non-Christian history because I'm not afraid of any truth. You find the great historians like Durant and Wells concluding that the Gospels are basically factual, as any rational, intellectually honest person must do. It all comes from God and is used by God in the end.

Rad

 

[Phred]

I just quote reams of historical facts which invariably support the Christian world-view and PO the "free-thinkers."

What "christian world-view" are you talking about exactly? The one where snakes and donkeys talk? Or the one where the innocent firstborn of an entire nation are slaughtered by a "loving" deity to make a point? Perhaps you're referring to the "historical facts" of the slaughters of people for believing in the wrong deity? Maybe you're talking about the world-view that suggests if you hate the same people God hates you're a decent human being? Or are you referring to the current "Christian world-view" that holds anyone who disagrees with you is to be ignored?

What "facts" could you possibly present that support your "world-view"? I'm curious.

Yes, I stir the pot a little, and let the unbelievers shoot themselves in the foot and totally contradict one another, as they rationalize the most evil sins.

I dunno about stirring the pot, but you're calling it black... if you get my drift. Look at the things you justify and tolerate simply because they have the "Christian" label on them.

I read mostly non-Christian history because I'm not afraid of any truth. You find the great historians like Durant and Wells concluding that the Gospels are basically factual, as any rational, intellectually honest person must do. It all comes from God and is used by God in the end.

Shame there's no evidence to support you. But since you already know the "truth" what's the point of needing evidence?

.
​

 

[Jetgirl]

Thank you. I hope that it will help you find yourself.

As if she hasn't found herself already.

Are you completely blind as to what a jerk you're being?

 

[aeroz19]

Man what church did you go to? I never get in anyone's face. I just quote reams of historical facts which invariably support the Christian world-view and PO the "free-thinkers." Yes, I stir the pot a little, and let the unbelievers shoot themselves in the foot and totally contradict one another, as they rationalize the most evil sins.

Oh, noooo, you neverrrrr get in anyone's face. Your approach is sooooo different from the "get in your face" approach.

I read mostly non-Christian history because I'm not afraid of any truth. You find the great historians like Durant and Wells concluding that the Gospels are basically factual, as any rational, intellectually honest person must do. It all comes from God and is used by God in the end.

Rad

Ok.

 

[aeroz19]

As if she hasn't found herself already.

Yes, I believe I have. The second quote in my sig defines my thinking very accurately. It also seems to be intuitively correct. It embodies all that I used to fear that might be correct, and indeed that which turned out to be correct.

 

[Dr.GH]

Man what church did you go to? I never get in anyone's face. I just quote reams of historical facts which invariably support the Christian world-view and PO the "free-thinkers." Yes, I stir the pot a little, and let the unbelievers shoot themselves in the foot and totally contradict one another, as they rationalize the most evil sins. I read mostly non-Christian history because I'm not afraid of any truth. You find the great historians like Durant and Wells concluding that the Gospels are basically factual, as any rational, intellectually honest person must do. It all comes from God and is used by God in the end. Rad

I rest my case, your Honor.

 

[Ledifni]

I am not going to lie, this thread truly bothers me given that it reminds me too much of myself and my own life. I am not an idiot but one who has found the truth, and having it, is dissapointed that she has lost faith.
In the final analysis, nothing really matters in this life aside from faith and therefore, it's a good thing that we can have faith in solid facts.

Correction: You have found what you believe on faith to be truth, and in doing so, have come to the conclusion that it is the duty of all people to confirm your beliefs by agreeing with you. There is no man alive who can state, "I have found the truth," without lying.

 

[Jetgirl]

Yes, I believe I have. The second quote in my sig defines my thinking very accurately. It also seems to be intuitively correct. It embodies all that I used to fear that might be correct, and indeed that which turned out to be correct.

I agree with you, and I like that quote.

I consider myself fortunate that reason and critical thinking were demanded of me by my parents, so that I started learning rational concepts from a young age.

I had to learn however, that finding one's self does not involve anyone directing you to where you might find it. I think you've done an amazing job. Unfortnatly there will be many who think that because you did not come to the same conclusion that they did, your conclusion is invalid and silly.

 

[Matthew777]

There is no man alive who can state, "I have found the truth," without lying.

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. - John 14:6

There is one love, one truth. If you look into the historical facts, hopefully you will find out.

 

[Matthew777]

Using the words "scholar" and "William Lane Craig" in the same sentence should probably be avoided. I have read his stuff on his web site and his appologetics are shaky at best (aren't they all?). Example: the problem of those who have not heard the gospel. His answer: anyone who has not heard the gospel would not have accepted it anyway. So it is with whole cities or regions that have not yet been visited by missionaries, its because nobody would have believed the gospel anyway. The missionaries arrive only when someone is born who would accept it.

Pretty weird stuff, eh? Makes you wonder about the whole thing, as it should.

In a debate printed on his site, William Lane Craig stated that those who have not heard the Gospel will be judged according to what they know and how they reacted to it. This is consistent with Scripture.
William Lane Craig is one of the best authorities on the historicity of the resurrection and he has defeated skeptics in public debates.

 

[Matthew777]

Basically, Matthew finds certain apologetic arguments very convincing.

Correction. I find the Gospels to be very convincing when we apply to them the same standards that we would use to scrutinize the reliability of any other ancient historical document.

But I'm curious how he rationalizes the profound lack of consensus amongst historians/archeologists given his very strong claims.

What historians? What archeologists? The ones who know their facts and are able to prove their assertions are almost always the traditional Christian scholars.

 

[DrunkenWrestler]

What historians? What archeologists? The ones who know their facts and are able to prove their assertions are almost always the traditional Christian scholars.

What a shocking coincidence.

 

[nvxplorer]

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. - John 14:6

There is one love, one truth. If you look into the historical facts, hopefully you will find out.

It doesn't matter what Jesus said. What matters is that you believe he said it, and that what he said is truth. That is a belief held by you. It exists in your mind. Therefore, it is your truth. Saying your truth is a universal truth is also a belief that exists only in your mind. Again, your truth. Your truth may set you free, but your truth is not universal truth. The term universal truth, based on faith, is a logically contradictory term.

 

[radorth]

What "christian world-view" are you talking about exactly? The one where snakes and donkeys talk? Or the one where the innocent firstborn of an entire nation are slaughtered by a "loving" deity to make a point? Perhaps you're referring to the "historical facts" of the slaughters of people for believing in the wrong deity?

.


​

I'm not a Muslim. And of course if you are referring to the Catholics who never even had a New Testament to read, then we I wouldn't call them Christians. That would be unfair and irrational. Now if they read the NT regularly and did those things, then you have an argument. Unfortunately, the "slaughter" mysteriously stops when the NT is widely published.

Maybe you're talking about the world-view that suggests if you hate the same people God hates you're a decent human being? Or are you referring to the current "Christian world-view" that holds anyone who disagrees with you is to be ignored?

God hates people? I didn't know that. I think they all have great intrinsic worth to him

What "facts" could you possibly present that support your "world-view"? I'm curious.

I guess you missed the largest thread in the last two months. Sorry there are so many I am loathe to re-type them. However if you like I will tell you where to find them. The Adams and Madison quotes are really amazing, and you can find out who graduated the first females from college, who were the first to come out against American slavery, and what principles bound the framers of the Constitution together- that sort of thng.

Rad

 

[rmwilliamsll]

In a debate printed on his site, William Lane Craig stated that those who have not heard the Gospel will be judged according to what they know and how they reacted to it. This is consistent with Scripture.
William Lane Craig is one of the best authorities on the historicity of the resurrection and he has defeated skeptics in public debates.

his book Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview is excellent, however he is a Molinist.

 

[aeroz19]

I'm not a Muslim. And of course if you are referring to the Catholics who never even had a New Testament to read, then we I wouldn't call them Christians.

I wouldn't define a christian as "one who reads the NT." Just because they didn't read it themselves doesn't mean they'd never heard it.

That would be unfair and irrational. Now if they read the NT regularly and did those things, then you have an argument. Unfortunately, the "slaughter" mysteriously stops when the NT is widely published.

The NT circulating wasn't the only thing going on.

God hates people? I didn't know that. I think they all have great intrinsic worth to him

Essentially, you're worthless without God, according to Christianity. Our righteousness is as filthy rags. The heart is desperately wicked, who can know it? Unless we're saved, all we do is worthless and doesn't count. You're only worth something to the Christian god if you are saved and doing his work, which also means denial of the self and the ego. But the self and the ego largely make up who we are...so god doesn't care about who we are. He just wants service and obedience.

I guess you missed the largest thread in the last two months. Sorry there are so many I am loathe to re-type them. However if you like I will tell you where to find them. The Adams and Madison quotes are really amazing, and you can find out who graduated the first females from college, who were the first to come out against American slavery, and what principles bound the framers of the Constitution together- that sort of thng.

Rad

Adams and Madison were not Christians. Liberals are responsible for the progress made in many of the areas you mentioned. These people were often Christians, yes, but liberal ones. Susan B. Anthony was a Unitarian Universalist, which I believe is not Christian, though I remember reading that Susan was a Christian. Perhaps she joined the church due to its open attitude towards liberal reforms she was starting. I slightly remember reading that, strangely, the Quaker church she was attending before was hostile towards reforms. Elizabeth Cady Stanton renounced Christianity and became an atheist. Lucretia Mott was a liberal Quaker. When people are allowed to read something for themselves, and take responsibility for their own education, they are able to think freely. This situation always produces an environment where new ideas abound and flourish, and where these ideas lead to reforms, and that leads to solutions to problems, and progress. Freedom of religion led to a situation where people's intellects were stimulated by the religious material they were reading. Certain ideas in the Bible did indeed lead to reform and progress. The Bible contains both horrible and wonderful ideas.

 

[mikeynov]

What historians? What archeologists? The ones who know their facts and are able to prove their assertions are almost always the traditional Christian scholars.

Translation: "The historians that know their stuff just happen to be the ones whose conclusions I happen to share." What percentage of historians do you honestly feel would assert with authority that Christ's resurrection is a historical, empirically verifiable fact?

This is pointless. You won't and can't cough up an empirical test for Christ's resurrection 2000 years ago (because that's impossible), and you really like Craig. I really have nothing to comment on that fact, but if you seriously think his opinion is the most qualified on the planet, I'd suggest looking to non-extremely-religiously-motivated sources for your science (and history is a social science).

As an observation, your opinions seem fleeting (how many times have you changed positions in just the past year?) and subject to what authors you seem to idolize at any given time. There's nothing wrong with learning about the subject (and in all seriousness, it's a good thing that you try to educate yourself as much as you do), but every time you find a new perspective you treat it with the same self-evident authority as the others.

It's not that you "think X" that bothers me (or, I imagine, most others). It's that you arrogantly treat your own perspective as being self-evident that's bothersome, in a manner exactly analagous to YEC's (i.e. treat a fringe position like Christ's historical resurrection as empirically verifiable as an undeniable fact when very few to any non-religiously-motivated experts would actually support that position). As stated above, this becomes even more irritating when you change from one position to the next, and treat each of these positions with that same attitude.

 

[Praxiteles]

But Matthew has always been a YEC TE IDist OEC. Like, since forever.

 

[revolutio]

I saw your name and remembered it. I saw the Humanist icon under it and my spider sense started tingling. It makes sense now that I read your account but I was very confused at first.

Good to have ya back around.