Noah's Ark

[Subduction Zone]

I agree. It always seemed more interesting to me that Christ's teachings would be the key, and the sacrifice more a symbol. But I always got the vibe from many denominations that yeah the teachings were nice and all but the sacrifice was the key.

There are now some people that are "Christian Atheists". They follow the teachings of Jesus, but do not think that he was divine. I don't think Colter fits into that group at all but your post reminded me of those people. Here is an article by one of them:

What Does It Mean to Be a Christian Atheist? | HuffPost

 

[Colter]

My apologies for assuming something about your version of soteriology that is why I phrased it as a QUESTION.

And by your fruit I feel I know you just a bit better.



The fact that I lack the faith you have does not necessarily mean I am wrong and you are right. But I understand that you are scared that my path is not inherently in error and you lack the ability to definitively point out that error. So you do what so many of your faith do and place the blame on me for failing to arrive at the same place you are at.

Don't sweat it and no need to apologize but do be aware that it is a pretty hackneyed response.

Faith is a gift and neither my path nor your path is new. I could argue the atheist vantage point if it weren't for the fact that I'm spirit born.

We might both agree that the universe is expanding. But what if the universe expands and contracts on 1 billion year cycles in a respiratory like fashion? Those who claim expansion would be correct for 999 million, 999 thousand, 999 days until the contraction began. Then a whole new fact and consequence would be revealed. So to all appearances the expansion crowd was undeniably correct, but if they drew conclusions of a final value then they did so without all the facts.

I get the impression from your comments that you have drawn conclusions of final value.

 

[Colter]

Was Christ's sacrifice then not necessary? (I am fascinated by this because it is a much more ecumenical version of Christianity than I normally see here. I would prefer a Christ who's "value" is in the teachings not the suffering. That always sounded so cruel and unnecessary to me.)

There was a gospel before the tragic cross ever happened. It changed after Jesus left. The gospel of Jesus became a gospel about Jesus as the Pagan world adopted and customized it more to their liking.

In order to achieve unquestioned sovereignty of his co creation, the Son was required to live the life of one of his own created beings. Death is a part of life, so the Father required that he drink that cup as well. The entire thing was an act of love. We have a God who has been human.

 

[Colter]

Disagree. All one has to do is sit back and let those making claims about a god, to show they have evidence to support the claims.

Actually, skeptics just sit back self satisfied with the claim that since we can't prove who we know then it must not exist.

 

[Obliquinaut]

Actually, skeptics just sit back self satisfied with the claim that since we can't prove who we know then it must not exist.

I will claim that you probably utilize this version of skepticism in everyday life. On countless claims others make.

If someone were to come up to you and say they have a miracle cure for every ailment you have, I suspect you will demand some form of proof before paying them vast sums of money for this cure.

Skepticism is a very good tool that keeps us safe. But for whatever reason we are asked to not use it in conjunction with the most important topic imaginable (God). In fact many people of faith will command us not to even DARE be skeptical, just believe.

My question has always been: if God is real why can't I ask for at least some incontrovertible evidence? It is, in many ways, like Job's questions. And the answer seems to be "how dare we ask for this!"

 

[Subduction Zone]

Faith is a gift and neither my path nor your path is new. I could argue the atheist vantage point if it weren't for the fact that I'm spirit born.

We might both agree that the universe is expanding. But what if the universe expands and contracts on 1 billion year cycles in a respiratory like fashion? Those who claim expansion would be correct for 999 million, 999 thousand, 999 days until the contraction began. Then a whole new fact and consequence would be revealed. So to all appearances the expansion crowd was undeniably correct, but if they drew conclusions of a final value then they did so without all the facts.

I get the impression from your comments that you have drawn conclusions of final value.

I understand your point, but we would observe contraction on such a short period of time. The universe has continually expanded over its history. But that could change in the future. There is no indication of such a change being upcoming, nor does it fit any rhyme or reason. But physicists my not have a complete grasp on the situation, yet.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Actually, skeptics just sit back self satisfied with the claim that since we can't prove who we know then it must not exist.

Actually the claim is that there is no valid reason to believe. A subtle but important difference. Your version would have skeptic not acting in a properly skeptical manner. If one is a proper skeptic one must be willing to change if proper evidence is give for a contrary belief.

 

[Obliquinaut]

I get the impression from your comments that you have drawn conclusions of final value.

And you would be 100% wrong. (No surprise).

I like to think scientifically. And part of that is the TRUTH THAT WE CAN NEVER KNOW WITH PERFECT KNOWLEDGE. We are always working ONLY with the best estimates we have.

I realize I could be completely wrong about God's existence. In fact I am the kind of atheist called a "weak atheist", not because my position is weak but because I take the logically defensible position that I fail to believe in God. I never claim that God does not exist. That would be logically indefensible. I work with the data I have available. I could very well be wrong!

Can you say the same thing? Most people of faith cannot (will not) say that because it is a position of weakness in the faith. And since faith is without evidence it can hardly stand any weakness in the position. It must be adhered to dogmatically and without question. Because to question is to open the door to doubt which kills faith. Skepticism cannot be allowed.

 

[Colter]

I will claim that you probably utilize this version of skepticism in everyday life. On countless claims others make.

If someone were to come up to you and say they have a miracle cure for every ailment you have, I suspect you will demand some form of proof before paying them vast sums of money for this cure.

Skepticism is a very good tool that keeps us safe. But for whatever reason we are asked to not use it in conjunction with the most important topic imaginable (God). In fact many people of faith will command us not to even DARE be skeptical, just believe.

My question has always been: if God is real why can't I ask for at least some incontrovertible evidence? It is, in many ways, like Job's questions. And the answer seems to be "how dare we ask for this!"

That's a great question, what qualifies as incontrovertible according to your specifications? After that then what?

Suppose Jesus appeared to you today at Starbucks, you talked for say 10 minutes. He answered some questions and then left. So you get all excited and join some church, they are amused by your claims (probubly wouldn't belive you) however you continue on brimming with faith. This is my question, would you know any more about the Universal Father because of this one seemingly miraculous encounter with the Son? Wouldn't you still need to resume the search for the Father through experiential truth just like you were expected to before your meeting with the Son?

So called miracles are overrated as God proving occurances, Jesus already proved that when he was here. Some idiots even thought he got such power from Satan.

Human things must be known in order to be loved, but divine things must be loved in order to be known. There is NO shortcut to the experience of finding God. In fact, upon the resurrection in the next world, nothing will be added except for the fact of survival. And oddly enough, that still won't be proof of the Father.

 

[AV1611VET]

Actually, all the stories from other countries verify the world wide flood,

I'm going to respectfully disagree.

They get names wrong (including God's) and are way off in details; even though Shem lived right up to the time of Jacob to set the record straight.

Those stories are nothing more than mockeries of what really happened.

 

[Colter]

Actually the claim is that there is no valid reason to believe. A subtle but important difference. Your version would have skeptic not acting in a properly skeptical manner. If one is a proper skeptic one must be willing to change if proper evidence is give for a contrary belief.

I'm skeptical of plenty of things. I never believed in Noahs flood! I'm also skeptical of many other claims made by the people who killed Jesus. The NT also has errors. Paul just happened to be the first great evangelist, he never knew Jesus in the flesh. He couldn't help but bring his own opinions into the rapidly evolving Christian religion. And while I belive there was a revelation to Jogn on Patmos, it was chopped up and redone by some opocolyptic goofs!


Jesus chose some skeptics as followers, one he lost.

Ya know, sometimes skeptics can get so skeptical that they become skeptical of their own skepticism?

 

[Colter]

I understand your point, but we would observe contraction on such a short period of time. The universe has continually expanded over its history. But that could change in the future. There is no indication of such a change being upcoming, nor does it fit any rhyme or reason. But physicists my not have a complete grasp on the situation, yet.

You are familiar with the Great Attractor model of late?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You are familiar with the Great Attractor model of late?

No, but a quick read on it does not seem to support your contraction claim. It is a local phenomenon and not a universe wide one.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm skeptical of plenty of things. I never believed in Noahs flood! I'm also skeptical of many other claims made by the people who killed Jesus. The NT also has errors. Paul just happened to be the first great evangelist, he never knew Jesus in the flesh. He couldn't help but bring his own opinions into the rapidly evolving Christian religion. And while I belive there was a revelation to Jogn on Patmos, it was chopped up and redone by some opocolyptic goofs!


Jesus chose some skeptics as followers, one he lost.

Ya know, sometimes skeptics can get so skeptical that they become skeptical of their own skepticism?

That is good. At least you are not blinded by faith. When a person has a rational belief a meaningful discussion can be had with that person. By they way, I have never claimed that the obvious errors in Genesis refuted the Christian faith. It only refutes some of the beliefs by specific Christians.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm going to respectfully disagree.

They get names wrong (including God's) and are way off in details; even though Shem lived right up to the time of Jacob to set the record straight.

Those stories are nothing more than mockeries of what really happened.

The people that follow those beliefs would say the same about you. And they would be just as right as you are.

 

[Colter]

"God is so all real and absolute that no material sign of proof or no demonstration of so-called miracle may be offered in testimony of his reality. Always will we know him because we trust him, and our belief in him is wholly based on our personal participation in the divine manifestations of his infinite reality." UB 1955

 

[Obliquinaut]

Human things must be known in order to be loved, but divine things must be loved in order to be known.

"Take my word for it!"

There is NO shortcut to the experience of finding God.

If only He'd offer a little help in that endeavor. But, such is faith I guess. If we fail to find God it's our fault. And then God will have to condemn us.

I feel bad for God having all these imperfect beings who could really use some help in finding Him. Some of us are clearly flawed.

 

[Obliquinaut]

"God is so all real and absolute that no material sign of proof or no demonstration of so-called miracle may be offered in testimony of his reality.

That's awfully convenient! (Because now there's absolutely no difference between something that DOESN'T exist and God! BOTH share this same crucial attribute!)

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's awfully convenient! (Because now there's absolutely no difference between something that DOESN'T exist and God! BOTH share this same crucial attribute!)

I can't fault someone too much for those beliefs. You and I are both "weak atheists". We know that we can't disprove all gods. I can't even begin to disprove such a God like his and at least he is not denying reality. If it gives a person comfort I don't see to much harm.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

I'm going to respectfully disagree.

They get names wrong (including God's) and are way off in details; even though Shem lived right up to the time of Jacob to set the record straight.

Those stories are nothing more than mockeries of what really happened.

No worries.... think on this a while.... .....
(I knew someone would seemingly point this out, 'as if' .... )
all the vagaries , so to speak, of all the other stories,
if
they did have the same names and details, would be suspect ....

i.e. all the differences, all verify the original truth, WHEN UNDERSTOOD.