Undecided

[Doveaman]

I have met so many weird eggs on this forum, that I won't take anything for granted.

Yes, I know what you mean. If we follow the way of love (which is God by the way ) we can't go wrong.

Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up. - 1 Cor 8:1.

I have to keep reminding myself of this scripture because I often find myself feeling a bit puffy.

 

[lucaspa]

Perhaps thats my problem, the more I learn the less I believe in Jesus. When I am reading on evolution for example there is documented proof. There is fossil, genetics and strong ideas. When I think or read about Jesus, I see no proof. Why dont christians hold themselves to the same burden of proof as scientists. They still called evolution a theory for lack of complete information, shouldnt christianity be scrutinized as much?

What you call "proof" is what I would call "overwhelming evidence". But what is "evidence". All evidence is personal experience: what we see, hear, taste, smell, touch, or feel emotionally. IOW, evidence is always, eventually, based in our senses and experience of the universe.

Science limits itself to a special subset of personal experience/evidence: Personal experience that is the same for everyone under approximately the same circumstances. This is called "intersubjective experience". We can all look at the fossils, look at the DNA sequences, etc.

BUT, most of our lives are lived without intersubjective experience, but instead our own personal experience. We live with food that tastes good -- to us. Movies that are entertaining -- for us. People that we get along with. But in all those cases not everyone has the same experience. Some people will dislike just about any food. Some people will dislike any given movie. And not everyone will get along with any given person.

What Christians do is 1) either have their own personal relationship with the risen Christ (or God) or 2) trust the personal experiences of people who claim such relationship.

And yes, through a lot of history, there have always been Christians who treated Christianity as a theory. That's one reason there are so many denominations of Christian. But in all those cases, the Christians eventually decided that the personal experience was enough to convince them.

It sounds, Brewserx, that you don't have personal experience of God. It also sounds like you don't trust the personal experience of the people discussed in the gospels. In that case, then you are going to doubt the existence of God, Christ, and the validity of Christianity.

But science is NOT a reason to doubt Christianity. Science is agnostic. It cannot comment on whether God exists or Jesus resurrected. Science says neither "yes" or "no", but the very neutral "no comment".

 

[lucaspa]

I'm sorry, but Biblical faith is based on proof. In fact, Biblical faith is proof. Your interpretation is way off.
Nope.

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. - Heb 11:1.

I seems to me that Heb 11:1 is not that different from the dictionary definition for faith: ""Belief that is not based on proof."

Hebrews talks of "evidence" but not of "proof". Yes, faith is based on evidence but not proof.

To me, to have faith is to have a personal relationship with God

And right here you have contradicted your claim that "Biblical faith is proof". Notice that you have omitted the Bible entirely for faith. Faith, as you described it, is not the Bible, but that personal relationship with God. That relationship is your evidence, not the Bible!

Biblical faith (Christian faith) is a real substance that serves as indisputable evidence for the existence of God. I like to call it the sixth sense since it is the means through which we experience God.

I'm trying to figure out why you call this "Biblical faith". What you describe can be obtained without the Bible. Let's face it, Paul didn't have the Bible but had this type of faith. So did Stephen. So did Luke. So did any Christian before 70 AD when Mark was written!

Even though one can have this faith relationship and then lose it, for the atheist, it is not just merely losing this faith relationship; it is that the atheist no longer believes in the God he is supposed to have had this faith relationship with. He claims he was in a faith relationship with God, but now he no longer believes this God ever existed.

You are making this more complicated than it needs to be. Instead, atheists are people who do not have, and have never had, a personal relationship with God. Their evidence is different from your evidence.

Some Christians do not have a personal relationship with God. Instead, they trust the accounts of others. That's OK. I think the atheists you are referring to (ones who claim to have been Christian) started out as this type of Christian. Later, they lost their trust in the accounts of others. Faced with a contradiction between the personal experience of others and our own personal experience, we almost always go with our own personal experience. No matter how many people tell me Brussels sprouts taste good to them, they can never convince me that Brussels sprouts taste good. My personal experience trumps.

You do the same thing. No matter how many atheists tell you they have no personal experience of God or that your personal experience is due to something other than God, you aren't going to agree with them. Your personal experience trumps -- for you.

Well, for atheists it's the same thing. Their personal experience trumps -- for them.

 

[rockaction]

Some Christians do not have a personal relationship with God. Instead, they trust the accounts of others. That's OK. I think the atheists you are referring to (ones who claim to have been Christian) started out as this type of Christian. Later, they lost their trust in the accounts of others. Faced with a contradiction between the personal experience of others and our own personal experience, we almost always go with our own personal experience. No matter how many people tell me Brussels sprouts taste good to them, they can never convince me that Brussels sprouts taste good. My personal experience trumps.

I disagree with your broad assessment of de-converted Christians. I, for one, believed I had a relationship with God. I tried as hard as I could, from my end, to have a relationship with God. It felt very real to me for a very long time. It wasn't "empty" feelings or a lack of a relationship that made me an atheist. I simply realized, as time wore on, that I had no real reasons to believe in a personal God. When I look back, it's easy for me to see now that I was deluded, and that all the positive feelings were merely psychological.

You do the same thing. No matter how many atheists tell you they have no personal experience of God or that your personal experience is due to something other than God, you aren't going to agree with them. Your personal experience trumps -- for you.

Well, for atheists it's the same thing. Their personal experience trumps -- for them.

This is very true. Personal experience is very subjective, and it's no one's business to argue about someone else's experiences. But personal experience is not transferable, so it's not good for anyone else.

 

[razzelflabben]

Yes, I know what you mean. If we follow the way of love (which is God by the way ) we can't go wrong.

Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up. - 1 Cor 8:1.

I have to keep reminding myself of this scripture because I often find myself feeling a bit puffy.

amen

 

[razzelflabben]

What you call "proof" is what I would call "overwhelming evidence". But what is "evidence". All evidence is personal experience: what we see, hear, taste, smell, touch, or feel emotionally. IOW, evidence is always, eventually, based in our senses and experience of the universe.

Science limits itself to a special subset of personal experience/evidence: Personal experience that is the same for everyone under approximately the same circumstances. This is called "intersubjective experience". We can all look at the fossils, look at the DNA sequences, etc.

BUT, most of our lives are lived without intersubjective experience, but instead our own personal experience. We live with food that tastes good -- to us. Movies that are entertaining -- for us. People that we get along with. But in all those cases not everyone has the same experience. Some people will dislike just about any food. Some people will dislike any given movie. And not everyone will get along with any given person.

What Christians do is 1) either have their own personal relationship with the risen Christ (or God) or 2) trust the personal experiences of people who claim such relationship.

I''m not sure your point, doesn't any personal relationship fit this model...

And yes, through a lot of history, there have always been Christians who treated Christianity as a theory. That's one reason there are so many denominations of Christian. But in all those cases, the Christians eventually decided that the personal experience was enough to convince them.

are you suggesting that because I have a presonal relationship with my husband, that he doesn't exist because you don't have the same relationship? Wouldn't it be instead, evidence of things that you don't know about him? I really have to be missing something because this doesn't seem to be making sense.

It sounds, Brewserx, that you don't have personal experience of God. It also sounds like you don't trust the personal experience of the people discussed in the gospels. In that case, then you are going to doubt the existence of God, Christ, and the validity of Christianity.

But science is NOT a reason to doubt Christianity. Science is agnostic. It cannot comment on whether God exists or Jesus resurrected. Science says neither "yes" or "no", but the very neutral "no comment".

I don't know, I'm just trying to track here, can you shed light for me? Thanks

 

[Doveaman]

I seems to me that Heb 11:1 is not that different from the dictionary definition for faith: ""Belief that is not based on proof."

That’s the way it seems to you, but that’s not what it is.

Hebrews talks of "evidence" but not of "proof". Yes, faith is based on evidence but not proof.

Faith is not based on evidence, faith is the evidence:

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. - Heb 11:1.

Faith is the substance of things hoped for, and that faith substance is the evidence of things not seen. The "hope" for the “things not seen” is based on the evidence of faith.

The faith provides the facts (proof), and those facts are the evidence of the things hoped for but not yet seen.

And right here you have contradicted your claim that "Biblical faith is proof". Notice that you have omitted the Bible entirely for faith. Faith, as you described it, is not the Bible, but that personal relationship with God. That relationship is your evidence, not the Bible!

Thanks for reminding me, in your own words, of what I said.

I'm trying to figure out why you call this "Biblical faith". What you describe can be obtained without the Bible. Let's face it, Paul didn't have the Bible but had this type of faith. So did Stephen. So did Luke. So did any Christian before 70 AD when Mark was written!

By “Biblical faith” what I mean is faith as the Bible defines it, not as the dictionary defines it. Biblical faith is defined not only by the claims made by Biblical authors, but also by the lives lived by those same Biblical authors, lives that were lived as a reflection of the faith relationship Christ had with His Father, a faith relationship Christ expressed through His unconditional love for mankind. "And He has given us this command: Whoever loves God must also love his brother." - 1 John 4:21.

Some Christians do not have a personal relationship with God. Instead, they trust the accounts of others. That's OK.

That’s OK only if it’s just a little child who is being introduced to God by their parents, which would mean that the child is trusting in the parents and not in God. As the child grows he or she will need to move beyond that mere trust in parents because faith, as the Bible defines it, is trusting in God, not in others. It is not about goat following sheep, or even about sheep following sheep, faith is about sheep following shepherd:

"I am the good shepherd; I know My sheep and My sheep know Me — just as the Father knows Me and I know the Father — and I lay down My life for the sheep. - John 10:14-15.

 

[Gawron]

Posted by rock action:

“If this God was real and sent me to hell, I'd ask him A) why he didn't write a better book and B) why he created a universe where the smartest people all agreed that it could exist without him.”

You ask for sympathy in post number 61, and then post this?

Actually, I suppose I should be grateful. Your comment B supports a claim I have been making for some time now, in that many of the enlightened reject God because they have come to believe they are to intelligent to believe in him. Then, of course, they want to be included in the clique of the enlightened so they too can look down of those stupid God people.

Posted by ranunculus:

“As I told you the first time you posted this qoute : I don't know what you mean.”

The meaning of the question is contained within the question. At this point it seems one of two things must be true. Either you are incapable of understanding the question as it is so simply worded, or you are attempting subterfuge in an attempt to create a condition where you can employ the race card against me.

“Manifesto? an atheist manifesto? Now you're just embarrasing yourself.”

I suppose you oppose this notion because you want us to believe that atheist are not a group and have no beliefs. But the term manifesto is defined as “a public declaration of principles, policies, or intentions, especially of a political nature.”

The quote from ERV is certainly a public declaration of principles and intentions, and contains political overtones. Here are other examples.

An Atheist Manifesto

Quote:

“Only the atheist recognizes the boundless narcissism and self-deceit of the saved. Only the atheist realizes how morally objectionable it is for survivors of a catastrophe to believe themselves spared by a loving God while this same God drowned infants in their cribs. Because he refuses to cloak the reality of the world’s suffering in a cloying fantasy of eternal life, the atheist feels in his bones just how precious life is—and, indeed, how unfortunate it is that millions of human beings suffer the most harrowing abridgements of their happiness for no good reason at all.”

End Quote. Link: http://www.truthdig.com/dig/item/200...ist_manifesto/

Only the Atheist recognizes what idiots the believers are. Only the atheist sees how evil God really is because some died in a catastrophe and others didn’t.

The following was posted with a disclaimer, but was listed under the same title.

The Atheist Manifesto

Quote:

“However, the Bible and other religious manuscripts, which naturally have much to do with God, have, in a great many cases, been proved wrong about something or other. And when the word of God (the Bible), mighty God who knows the supreme truths and has comprehension of things we never will, is proven wrong somewhere, then you know that something is wrong. Refusal to give up one’s holy book is natural, but it must be done.”

End Quote. Link: Atheist Manifesto

Rejection of the holy book must be done.

An Atheist Manifesto

Quote:

Many ask what difference does it make whether man believes in a God or not.

It makes a big difference.

It makes all the difference in the world.

It is the difference between being right and being wrong; it is the difference between truth and surmises -- facts or delusion.

It is the difference between the earth being flat, and the earth being round.

It is the difference between the earth being the center of the universe, or a tiny speck in this vast and uncharted sea of multitudinous suns and galaxies.

It is the difference in the proper concept of life, or conclusions based upon illusion.

It is the difference between verified knowledge and the faith of religion.

It is a question of Progress or the Dark Ages.

The history of man proves that religion perverts man's concept of life and the universe, and has made him a cringing coward before the blind forces of nature.

If you believe that there is a God; that man was "created"; that he was forbidden to eat of the fruit of the "tree of knowledge"; that he disobeyed; that he is a "fallen angel"; that he is paying the penalty for his "sins," then you devote your time praying to appease an angry and jealous God.

If, on the other hand, you believe that the universe is a great mystery; that man is the product of evolution; that he is born without knowledge; that intelligence comes from experience, then you devote your time and energies to improving his condition with the hope of securing a little happiness here for yourself and your fellow man.

End Quote. Link: An Atheist Manifesto

I underlined a couple of passages to illustrate another point made earlier, but the main point here is that yes, what ERV posted is an atheist manifesto, and if you read through the others cited you will find her ideals expressed, just without the foul-mouthed venom.

Posted by ranunculus:

“If you believe that there are aliens out there, you're nuts.”

Soooooo, you believe that life on this planet evolved, but even given the vast nature of the universe to believe that life may have evolved by the same sacrosanct process on some other planet makes one “nuts”? Indicates you don’t have too much faith in evolutionary theory.

But I see the point you are trying to make. A space alien has never walked up to a scientist and said hello, therefore, until one does and a scientist publishes the results, you will not exercise any wonder or imagination or reasonable deduction or even think about the possibility.

As for this comment posted by me earlier in the thread…

“How can you guys be so intellectually enlightened and superior while at the same time incapable of drawing an inference or extrapolating to a conclusion based on compiling evidence all at the same time?”

…..true, it did not begin with if but rather how. Regardless, if you can’t read this comment and understand what is really being said, then there is no point in trying to discuss anything with you any longer. And given the gross distortions and misrepresentations of my comments by you in post number 120, this is probably the most reasonable conclusion to draw.

 

[rockaction]

Posted by rock action:

“If this God was real and sent me to hell, I'd ask him A) why he didn't write a better book and B) why he created a universe where the smartest people all agreed that it could exist without him.”

You ask for sympathy in post number 61, and then post this?

Actually, I suppose I should be grateful. Your comment B supports a claim I have been making for some time now, in that many of the enlightened reject God because they have come to believe they are to intelligent to believe in him. Then, of course, they want to be included in the clique of the enlightened so they too can look down of those stupid God people.

Someone sounds defensive! First of all, in part B, I stated that the smartest people in the world (scientists) have a picture of the universe that could have existed without a God intervening. We don't need God to explain anything in the natural world, basically. Evolution explains diversity, and cosmology has plausibly explained a universe that could have originated from quantum fluctuations (a universe from nothing). Abiogenesis is making great strides in explaining the origin of life. There is still a lot of work to be done, but the rate at which we are discovering new knowledge makes the "God of the gaps" shrink further and further. Why would you want to relegate your picture of God to that of gaps?

You can claim all you want that God exists, but you're adding God on top of a working natural world.

I see no evidence of a personal God. I think the Bible is a product of primitive man's yearnings to understand the world. It's a shame that we're limiting ourselves to that narrow perception of the universe. The universe is far more amazing and complicated than we ever dreamed...the Bible doesn't do it justice. I can't believe that a God who created this would care about some of the petty things he cares about in the Bible.

 

[sandwiches]

Blah blah blah An Atheist Manifesto blah blah blah...

Atheist is a person who doesn't believe in a god. Period. Saying a group of people are atheists mean they all share ONE THING and ONE THING ONLY: They don't believe in a god.

Whether some atheist or most atheists share other aspects is irrelevant, unless you're in agreement with the hundreds of different so-called "Christian manifestos" out there. Just to give you an idea of what these "manifestos" claim Christian believe or should believe:
Christians can't be socialists

Christians must support socialism
Christians can't be communists
Christians can't be liberals
Christians can't be homosexuals
Christians have to be white
Christians must be against globalization
Christians are against all killing
Christians are against murders
Christians are against all wars
Christians must support righteous wars
Christians must accept Joseph Smith as a prophet
Christians must believe the Bible literally
Christians must take some parts of the Bible literally and others metaphorically
Christians must follow the Pope
Christians must NOT follow the Pope
Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera...

So, in much the same way that none of the "Christian" manifestos speak for all Christians, neither do any of those "atheist" manifestos. There is no 'atheist agenda.' It's just your paranoia whispering in your ear.

 

[Gawron]

And where did you draw the bullet points for this manifesto from? I at least posted the links, one has to wonder if you simply made yours up.

However, google christian manifesto and here is one example of what you will find.

Politics or Religion? Christian Manifesto's Primary Target is President Barack Obama

Quote:

Right-wing Christian leaders are making a concerted push to gain thousands of new signatures for their hate-filled Manhattan Declaration.

Described by New York Times religion reporter Laurie Goodstein as "an effort to rejuvenate the political alliance of conservative Catholics and evangelicals that dominated the religious debate during the administration of President George W. Bush.....

End Quote. Link: Politics or Religion? Christian Manifesto's Primary Target is President Barack Obama

Seems the targets of the left never change.

 

[sandwiches]

And where did you draw the bullet points for this manifesto from? I at least posted the links, one has to wonder if you simply made yours up.

However, google christian manifesto and here is one example of what you will find.

Politics or Religion? Christian Manifesto's Primary Target is President Barack Obama

Quote:

Right-wing Christian leaders are making a concerted push to gain thousands of new signatures for their hate-filled Manhattan Declaration.

Described by New York Times religion reporter Laurie Goodstein as "an effort to rejuvenate the political alliance of conservative Catholics and evangelicals that dominated the religious debate during the administration of President George W. Bush.....

End Quote. Link: Politics or Religion? Christian Manifesto's Primary Target is President Barack Obama

Seems the targets of the left never change.

It seems the point escaped you. Do you espouse all the ideas in the so-called Christian manifestos in the internet? Do you think that any one manifesto is representative of all Christians?

 

[Gawron]

I want you to provide the primary source you used to post your list which supports your claim that Christians must be white, or can't be homosexual, or can't be liberal.

 

[sandwiches]

I want you to provide the primary source you used to post your list which supports your claim that Christians must be white, or can't be homosexual, or can't be liberal.

I want you to answer my question: Would you accept any of those Christian manifestos and agendas you can find yourself on Google as being representative of all Christians, yes or no?

 

[Gawron]

Until you can show that those ideals were and are promoted by Christians and or Christian organizations, they are not representative of anything.

 

[sandwiches]

Until you can show that those ideals were and are promoted by Christians and or Christian organizations, they are not representative of anything.

We agree then that the nonsense about manifestos is just that. Nonsense and that they do not represent every member of the group the author belongs to. So, now that we're done with the paranoid blathering about atheist agendas and manifestos, we can all be happy we made some progress.

 

[Gawron]

We haven't agreed on that at all. Tell me, when someone writes and then post a dissertation, or writes a book entitled An Atheist Manifesto, who do you the primary target audience is?

 

[sandwiches]

We haven't agreed on that at all. Tell me, when someone writes and then post a dissertation, or writes a book entitled An Atheist Manifesto, who do you the primary target audience is?

Irrelevant. The target audience of an opinion piece about atheism doesn't make your paranoid idea of an atheist agenda any more real.

 

[Gawron]

And your denials don't make it any less real. But since you refuse to answer any questions put to you, continuing in this thread is pointless.

 

[AV1611VET]

And your denials don't make it any less real. But since you refuse to answer any questions put to you, continuing in this thread is pointless.

"Higher" academia teaches these guys to ask, ask, and keep on asking questions.

Every question answered should breed @ least two more questions.

If you tell them something, then start answering their questions ad nauseum, then you're "teaching".

If you make a statement, then refuse to answer questions after that, then you're "preaching".

I've noticed over the years that the digression of [a full] conversation goes in four downward steps:

1. Joe quotes a passage from Scripture & questions begin.
2. Joe is reduced to answering the questions -- no longer with Bible quotes -- but with basic doctrine.
3. More questions force Joe to descend to giving his own opinions and 'pet theories' on the subject.
4. The conversation ends in ridicule, ad hominems, or /thread.

I said "a full" conversation, because a partial conversation goes like this:

1. Joe quotes a passage from Scripture & ridicule and ad hominems begin.