[PERMANENTLY CLOSED] When should we change our reasoning / beliefs?

[paulm50]

Exactly! And its a true Christians calling to make sure the truth is represented correctly.

If I represent the truth as best I can and then someone disagrees with me, I simply ask them why they disagree and eventually after asking enough honest questions the truth becomes clear. It either becomes true that I was wrong or it becomes true that they are wrong.

Well not me and not you and not any other human, so who does that leave us with? God. I think you can begin answering a lot of your own questions if you start believing in God because ultimately He'll answer all your questions you just have to ask Him.

Without direct guidance from god, who can make the decisions?
Are you suggesting god answers your questions about who is a good Christian and not?

 

[Chriliman]

Without direct guidance from god, who can make the decisions?
Are you suggesting god answers your questions about who is a good Christian and not?

Logically that would makes sense wouldn't it? If God holds the truth and I'm in direct connection with Him then I would reasonably be able to determine who else is in direct connection with God because they would value the exact same truth that I value. And time and time again I'm able to determine who is a true believer in Christ and who is just claiming to believe in Christ. The truth is very powerful. No one comes to God accept through Christ.

 

[anonymous person]

I arrived in my journey to the truth. It was either god is happy to see so many of us kill each because of him. Or he doesn't exist.

Seems to me instead of arriving at truth, you arrived at a false dichotomy.

Just because people kill each other in the name of religion, it does not follow that God is happy about this.

Back in the days of writing bibles, it was claimed he was only to happy to get involved, killing people or helping people kill people.

Who claimed this?

And god does nothing. Why?

This is a loaded question. It assumes God does nothing. Why do you think that?

I don't despise religion, even though it may sound like that. I despise the strong leaders who tell the weak followers what to do.

Following a strong leader is not necessarily a bad thing is it? Leading those too weak to lead others is not necessarily a bad thing is it?

Agreed. since him, look at the strong leaders and weak followers who were happy to take up arms to kill, hurt, harm, oppress others. Because their thinking differed, religion, race, tribe or gender.

You agree that Jesus is so attractive and so altogether lovely that this loveliness like a great magnet, will pull you unto Himself and show you great and marvelous things you did not know were possible?

If you agree with this then why are you not a follower of Jesus?

 

[anonymous person]

Logically that would makes sense wouldn't it? If God holds the truth and I'm in direct connection with Him then I would reasonably be able to determine who else is in direct connection with God because they would value the exact same truth that I value. And time and time again I'm able to determine who is a true believer in Christ and who is just claiming to believe in Christ. The truth is very powerful. No one comes to God accept through Christ.

Amen.

 

[Davian]

=== REPLY: With no response from this website’s webmaster or such, I must assume that this is, in fact, an anti-Christian forum! Only Christian posts are restricted by the Statement of Purpose, as below, on anything even considered to be apologetic or evangelical! So, it appears to me that this is just a trolling anti-Christian site. So, why respond to the email “teasers” (as I have here) when threads, which threaten non-Christian (esp. atheistic) belief, are closed so quickly?

From the Statement of Purpose: "Philosophy of religion is a philosophical study of religion which seeks to discuss questions regarding the nature of religion as a whole, including the nature & existence of God, rather than examining or arguing against the theology of a particular belief system [Like Christianity in “Christian Forms”?]. The philosophy of religion is rational, critical thought & exploration of general religious themes & concepts. Philosophy of religion is focused on investigating religion itself, rather than the truth of any particular religion [ibid].

o The CF Philosophy forum is not intended for general apologetics of Christianity, i.e., the defense of the Christian faith against arguments, objections or attacks from non-Christians. [It is OK for non-Christians to defend their beliefs, though?] Nor is this forum intended as a means for Christian evangelism (persuasion) of unbelievers. … [On the other hand, this is OK for non-Christians?]

It is my understanding that the intent of this particular forum is that it is for philosophical discussions, and is not intedned for Christians (or others) to preach their beliefs. This clearly stated in the passages you quoted.

This is not "anti-Christian" or "trolling".

There may be individuals, such as Chriliman, that are unable to grasp this concept, and continue to preach their beliefs here. However, there are plenty of other forums on this site where where preaching would be more suitable.

 

[Davian]

Logically that would makes sense wouldn't it? If God holds the truth and I'm in direct connection with Him <snip>.

Is this a two-way connection? Do you get answers back?

 

[Chriliman]

Is this a two-way connection? Do you get answers back?

I get understanding that I would otherwise never have if I didn't believe in God.

 

[Davian]

I get understanding that I would otherwise never have if I didn't believe in God.

Indeed, but that would be circular. What I am asking, do you get answers that demonstrate that these responses were not simply products of your imagination? No?

 

[anonymous person]

The problem is all religions only have words to use. They have no proof.

You have something against words?

And what do you mean by proof anyway?

What can be proven about religion is it has been used to oppress and kill.

It has.

So have other things.

It's good work is minor.

Even if this were the case, what does it show?

That Christianity as a worldview is false?

No.

Early on in our life on Earth, it was essential to keep order, to bond a tribe, to get men to go into battle knowing the afterlife waited for them. Essential to build huge vanity projects like pyramids or cathedrals.

Maybe it was. So what?

Today what's its role in society? ISIS needs it to gain control of the Middle East, this also applies to many places in the Third World as well.

You are talking to Christians here, not members of ISIS.

I could spend all day railing against the deeds of ISIS too. They just recently decapitated a number of my brothers in Tripoli.

They believe they are doing God's will I suppose. Or maybe they are doing it to spread fear among Christians.

What is the philosophical issue here?

Move those people to the First World, and it isolates them from the rest, makes them alien in the country of their birth. Kurds, Shia, Sunni, Orthodox any religion. The Holocaust was only possible because the jews refused to integrate.

What is the philosophical issue being addressed here?

GWB said he was on a mission from god, doubt if many in the West believed him. So what positive affect do religions have on the Western World today?

How is this a philosophical issue?

 

[Chriliman]

Indeed, but that would be circular. What I am asking, do you get answers that demonstrate that these responses were not simply products of your imagination? No?

If you knew where to access truth wouldn't you continue going back to that source to confirm truth? This would be a form of circular confirmation, would that really be a bad thing if the source was actually the true source?

It'd be like an investigator trying to solve a crime and he has a reliable source that he continues to go back to in order to solve the crime and confirm what is true.

It's not unreasonable to believe that theres an actual source for all truth about the mystery of why we're all here. Except it's not a mystery about what this true source is because it's clearly God.

 

[anonymous person]

If you knew where to access truth wouldn't you continue going back to that source to confirm truth? This would be a form of circular confirmation, would that really be a bad thing if the source was actually the true source?

It'd be like an investigator trying to solve a crime and he has a reliable source that he continues to go back to in order to solve the crime and confirm what is true.

It's not unreasonable to believe that theres an actual source for all truth about the mystery of why we're all here. Except it's not a mystery about what this true source is because it's clearly God.

Also Chriliman, it will be helpful to put yourself in Davian's shoes and look at all this from where he stands.

Davian thinks that you and I imagine that we hear from God. He does not think that God actually communicates with us because he does not believe that there exists a God who communicates with us.

So from his perspective when we say things like "God gives us understanding", or "God communicates to us that thus and so", he reasons that what really is going on is that we are imagining that this is taking place or that we are hearing or sensing nothing more than that which is of our own creation in our own minds.

So him asking the questions that he does seems reasonable.

It seems to me then, that the real issue at hand is whether or not there exists a “supreme self” or person—omniscient, omnipotent, and all good who possesses at least these four metaphysical attributes i.e. —simplicity, timelessness, immutability, and impassibility who communicates with man. For if such a being does exist, then it is certainly plausible that this being could communicate with man in such a way that said communication would be distinguishable from one's own imagination. So to answer his questions, we must go back to the beginning and provide evidence for the existence of this being, and then upon that foundation we would need to build a case that this being is not merely some causal entity "out there" such as deists would envision, but rather, a being that communicates with man and is intimately concerned with his affairs.

 

[Davian]

If you knew where to access truth wouldn't you continue going back to that source to confirm truth? This would be a form of circular confirmation, would that really be a bad thing if the source was actually the true source?

It'd be like an investigator trying to solve a crime and he has a reliable source that he continues to go back to in order to solve the crime and confirm what is true.

It's not unreasonable to believe that theres an actual source for all truth about the mystery of why we're all here. Except it's not a mystery about what this true source is because it's clearly God.

I know you believe that. What I am asking, do you get answers that demonstrate that these responses were not simply products of your imagination?

 

[anonymous person]

I know you believe that. What I am asking, do you get answers that demonstrate that these responses were not simply products of your imagination?

If there existed a being who was the greatest possible being, do you think that this being would be able to communicate with a man in such a way that the man would be able to distinguish this communication from his own imagination?

If not, why?

 

[Davian]

Also Chriliman, it will be helpful to put yourself in Davian's shoes and look at all this from where he stands.

Davian thinks that you and I imagine that we hear from God. He does not think that God actually communicates with us because he does not believe that there exists a God who communicates with us.

So from his perspective when we say things like "God gives us understanding", or "God communicates to us that thus and so", he reasons that what really is going on is that we are imagining that this is taking place or that we are hearing or sensing nothing more than that which is of our own creation in our own minds.

That would be the most parsimonious explanation, given the evidence at hand.

So him asking the questions that he does seems reasonable.

<gasp!>

It seems to me then, that the real issue at hand is whether or not there exists a “supreme self” or person—omniscient, omnipotent, and all good who possesses at least these four metaphysical attributes i.e. —simplicity, timelessness, immutability, and impassibility who communicates with man. For if such a being does exist, then it is certainly plausible that this being could communicate with man in such a way that said communication would be distinguishable from one's own imagination. So to answer his questions, we must go back to the beginning and provide evidence for the existence of this being, and then upon that foundation we would need to build a case that this being is not merely some causal entity "out there" such as deists would envision, but rather, a being that communicates with man and is intimately concerned with his affairs.

There's a first time for everything.

 

[Davian]

If there existed a being who was the greatest possible being, do you think that this being would be able to communicate with a man in such a way that the man would be able to distinguish this communication from his own imagination?

If not, why?

As an ignostic, I will stop you at "being".

Define what you mean by "being".

The only "beings" I am aware of are human beings, living breathing, consuming, excreting organisms that depend on a brain, at a minimum, to maintain their "being" status (a headless body kept alive by artificial means would doubtless lose their status as a "being").

 

[paulm50]

Logically that would makes sense wouldn't it? If God holds the truth and I'm in direct connection with Him then I would reasonably be able to determine who else is in direct connection with God because they would value the exact same truth that I value. And time and time again I'm able to determine who is a true believer in Christ and who is just claiming to believe in Christ. The truth is very powerful. No one comes to God accept through Christ.

Are you suggesting god talks to you?

I get understanding that I would otherwise never have if I didn't believe in God.

Prove that understanding isn't just your train of thought and imagination.

The problem with believers seeing things, is. It's proven they see things they want to see.

One example. They put a log in Loch Ness and let it float into the middle of the Loch. The reported sighting skyrocketed with people claiming to have seen Nessie. This accounts for sightings at Area 51, people see military planes and think they've seen UFO's.

 

[paulm50]

Seems to me instead of arriving at truth, you arrived at a false dichotomy.

Just because people kill each other in the name of religion, it does not follow that God is happy about this.

If he's unhappy he could stop it without killing anyone. So how do you arrive at he is unhappy. Being that he's god.

Who claimed this?

The people who wrote bibles. Read them and see how he was quick to interfere.

This is a loaded question. It assumes God does nothing. Why do you think that?

What do you see him doing to stop the killing?

Following a strong leader is not necessarily a bad thing is it? Leading those too weak to lead others is not necessarily a bad thing is it?

It depends what the leader is saying. If he's saying go kill all the people in that town, he's bad. If he's saying go care for all the people in that town, he's good.

You agree that Jesus is so attractive and so altogether lovely that this loveliness like a great magnet, will pull you unto Himself and show you great and marvelous things you did not know were possible?

If you agree with this then why are you not a follower of Jesus?

Because of all the people who are in between us, because I can't believe he was more mortal. I follow a lot of what he said.

Reject a lot of Paul's writings and all of John's. The OT for me is pure fable.

 

[paulm50]

You have something against words? And what do you mean by proof anyway?

Prove to me Genesis is correct, along with that would be Exodus and Job. Otherwise they're just words.

It has. So have other things.

What has been proven?

Even if this were the case, what does it show? That Christianity as a worldview is false? No.

That religion/blind faith is used more for evil than good.

Maybe it was. So what?

It's no longer required. Unless one wants to slaughter people in the Middle East to gain the oil fields.

You are talking to Christians here, not members of ISIS.

I'm talking about religions and blind faith. I could go back to a time when religion was used to kill others.

I could spend all day railing against the deeds of ISIS too. They just recently decapitated a number of my brothers in Tripoli.

Are you claiming Christians never kill, hurt, harm oppress, in the name of their religion?

They believe they are doing God's will I suppose. Or maybe they are doing it to spread fear among Christians. What is the philosophical issue here? What is the philosophical issue being addressed here? How is this a philosophical issue?

GWB claimed he was on gods mission when he invaded Iraq, some christians are killing doctors because of religion, oppression of gays, women, the accumulation of wealth by christian churches and ministers. RCC insistence on not using condoms, etc. I can go on.

Jesus was a man who owned little more than the shirt on his back. He didn't need this to convey his message.

And before you reply that's only the RCC. Look to your local church, and to all the sects that require donations. There's no business like the faith business. And the genocide carried out by Christians in the last 1600 years, weakens all the words in a book.

 

[paulm50]

Also Chriliman, it will be helpful to put yourself in Davian's shoes and look at all this from where he stands.

Davian thinks that you and I imagine that we hear from God. He does not think that God actually communicates with us because he does not believe that there exists a God who communicates with us.

So from his perspective when we say things like "God gives us understanding", or "God communicates to us that thus and so", he reasons that what really is going on is that we are imagining that this is taking place or that we are hearing or sensing nothing more than that which is of our own creation in our own minds.

So him asking the questions that he does seems reasonable.

Here's the problem with us believing god communicates with you. We believe it's your imagination formed by the bible and your understanding of the bible. We add this to all the people claiming god talks to them as they proceed to get richer, go to war or gain more power, and wonder why he tells them to ask for money, go kill people or gain power to rule over you.

Top of that list has to be TV evangelists and Popes.

It seems to me then, that the real issue at hand is whether or not there exists a “supreme self” or person—omniscient, omnipotent, and all good who possesses at least these four metaphysical attributes i.e. —simplicity, timelessness, immutability, and impassibility who communicates with man. For if such a being does exist, then it is certainly plausible that this being could communicate with man in such a way that said communication would be distinguishable from one's own imagination. So to answer his questions, we must go back to the beginning and provide evidence for the existence of this being, and then upon that foundation we would need to build a case that this being is not merely some causal entity "out there" such as deists would envision, but rather, a being that communicates with man and is intimately concerned with his affairs.

For me this is simple.

Religion has been used to do more harm than good over the last 5,000 years. Christianity has done more than it's fair share.

The existence of god, has to lead to his unwillingness or inability to show himself. Or worse still, he's happy to see all the different religions and sects fight it out. The Earth is a form of giant Hunger Games, or Colosseum to him.

This is a god who it's claimed is powerful enough create the Earth and everything on it, cause a flood of the world, wipe out two cities, cause plagues, part the Red Sea, tumble the walls of Jericho, cause a virgin birth, rise from the dead, and more. And will bring the end of days.

But. Allows satan to rule. And in the balance of good and evil over the last few millennia, it's clear who's on top.

 

[paulm50]

If there existed a being who was the greatest possible being, do you think that this being would be able to communicate with a man in such a way that the man would be able to distinguish this communication from his own imagination?

If not, why?

He told GWB to invade Iraq, Joshua to kill everything in Jericho, and I'm sure a lot in between. Including the 30 years War. As for TV Evangelists and popes who claim to speak to him and the answer is always in their favour. Too long a list to start.

So I ask you, tell us what god says to you. If it's that you're or the bible are right, that doesn't cut it.