razeontherock
Well-Known Member
Such is not the case. (But when in doubt go with John
)FALSE. A generation could be 13 years, or several hundred. Yet other not so fine points you've never considered ...
Upvote
0
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Why doesn't God reveal himself in a logical, evidence-based manner?
- Thread starter Captain Thunderpants
- Start date
- Status
Such is not the case. (But when in doubt go with John
)FALSE. A generation could be 13 years, or several hundred. Yet other not so fine points you've never considered ...
drich, I have never told God he should be doing this or that. I am simply asking if God is sincere, why does he insist on an action that is so damaging to his own credibility? It seems like we're dealing with a supreme being who, having given us the faculties of logic and reason, insists on us discarding them and reducing ourselves to nonsensical idiots before he will deign to show himself to us.
I see you've decided to sidestep the issue of the Gospel of Mark being tampered with. Shame on you to bring such a lazy attempt of a dismissal into this conversation. If you want to continue this conversation with me, know you will be held to a higher standard.
My good man, it seems you are silly enough to think that if a text isn't in the Bible, it must be a secular text. I walk past a Christian bookshop on my way to work every weekday morning, and it's filled with books that are, surprise, not part of the Bible! It's strange to see a supposedly Christian bookshop stocking so many secular books, don't you think?
In all seriousness... there are a number of criteria that historians and scholars apply to a text in order to determine whether it's a religious text or otherwise. Your theory that all non-Biblical texts are secular is... *ahem* interesting at best.
It's a surprise then that Christians were just as ignorant as everyone else was about black holes, the Big Bang, string theory etc. until 20th century scientists came along and discovered them. The fact is that when the Bible is proven to be horribly, irrevocably wrong about matters of science, Christians will invariably rush to the defense using claims such as "the Bible isn't meant to be a science textbook" or "such things aren't important, God's message is". Yet when some parts of the Bible can be reinterpreted with new meanings in the light of new scientific discoveries, the same Christians rush to claim that science was just validated by the Bible.
Do you really believe that if the Bible was truly handed down by all-powerful, all-knowing supreme being, it would need to be defended by such tenuous and far-fetched stretches of intellectual dishonesty? Would the word of an omnipotent and omniscient God really contain so many errors that require such flimsy and dubious rationalizations? Think about it.
Your previous arguments seemed to imply that people who reject Christianity simply don't want to believe. I'm just pointing out the fact that even those who accept and believe in God don't necessarily find Christianity logical.
Upvote
0
I was waiting for someone to come along and say that.
Actually, I have considered it. It's just extremely unlikely. Even then, we know for a fact that your hypothesis is not what actually happened because we also know for a fact that Matthew omitted generations in a deliberate attempt to keep the number of generations in three sets of fourteen, so as to further bolster Jesus' messianic credentials. When one needs to falsify facts in order to promote an agenda, that's an extremely damning indictment against that said agenda, especially when the falsified facts are presented in a text that is advertised as divinely-inspired and absolutely true.Keep in mind, of course, that both Matthew and Luke explicitly state that the lineages they present are that for Joseph, and not Mary. In the end, even if the number of generations and the genealogy lines are correct, they have nothing to do with Jesus because Jesus was not of Joseph's bloodline.
Hi bling, thanks for the reply.
I would like further clarification on why you think knowledge puffs up the individual while faith gives one humility. I would like to put forth the proposal that your claim isn't generally true. Some of my friends are PhDs, and they're among the most humble people I know, for true knowledge only reveals to one how much one has yet to learn. On the other hand, we've seen in this thread itself how faithful people can too be afflicted by pride in copious amounts.
I would also like further clarification on your claim that people have trouble accepting charity. In my country, in fact, there is a problem of people who simply depend on welfare without trying to seek work (I suppose that might be a problem elsewhere, too). I would propose that the only reason it is difficult for learned people to seek God is because God refuses to reveal himself via logic and reason. Which was why I created this thread.
What do you think?
Last edited:
Upvote
0
I studied Chemistry in graduate school and have learned one thing “the more you know the more you realize you do not know”. In that respect knowledge can be very humbling (you’re actually realizing how much you do not know and cannot explain.) But if I truly do know something (in this case “know” the Christian God does exist) and do not have to trust in God’s existence, I would have something to take pride in knowing.
f']Do you agree with the concept “knowledge is power”? If so can you not take pride in your power over those that are powerless?
God has given us examples of people having knowledge of His existence that had not first humbly accepted His Forgiveness/Love (the Jews going through the Red Sea or even Adam and Eve) and it did not help them. The Jews (and Adam and Eve) have been humbled many times to offset their privileged knowledge of Him.
If people are depending on their own ability to prove the existence of God they are being self reliant, and not relying on God, which is what they need to be doing. If you have had success through your own ability to proof the existence of God or solve other issues you have, why give up on self and trust in a god for help?
Another aspect I did not bring up. The way the system works now is those that “trust” (faith) in a benevolent God are saved and the lowliest mature adult person on earth can trust in a benevolent Creator (in fact the poor uneducated seem to find this easy than the rich and educated). If the system required “knowledge” of God, only those that studied and learned would pass that test, it would be a salvation system based on “works”.
Another problem: If we all “knew” the Christian God did exist, what do we do with that knowledge? How does it help us fulfill our earthly objective (God is not looking for your acknowledgement)? The agnostics and atheist I have talked with: do not feel it would change their lives, some would be agree toward God (since they do not know now they can have their own little peace), and/or it would just upset them.
God has really made Himself known (not beyond the greatest skeptic’s unsupported doubt) with every living thing (how could life come about from just random chemicals [this is not supported by science]). God is the easiest thing to believe in and is something all mature adults can do and have a reason to do at some point in their life.
There are lots of reasons people will for the wrong motivation beg for money, but are not asking for charity (they feel society owes them, they feel rich people will feel better about taking advantage of the poor by giving, rich people have lots of excess money, they will pay it back when and if they get on their feet, begging is the way to make a living).
It is very hard to humbly accept charity from a giver that has made a huge sacrifice to give the gift. It is not “natural” to truly be humble, because we have a needed survival instinct, that makes us self aware and somewhat self centered. We are for good reason taught and encouraged to be self reliant as we mature and quit begging. Combine these with healthy egos and we produce pride. Pride works against humility, but humility is needed to correctly accept God’s charity. Charity is the only way Godly type Love can be obtained, since it is a huge gift (totally undeserving and unconditional).
Upvote
0
This is a very mind-bending thing. Jesus speaks of God as his Father, yet he says those who have seen Jesus have seen the Father. He also said he and the Father are one, yet he lived according to the Father's will, not his own. Very fascinating indeed.
Upvote
0
Again, I cannot say I agree. Taking pride in knowledge itself is a very foolish thing. It's what you do with your knowledge that matters.
Knowledge is power in the sense that, with knowledge, one is empowered to do things that one could not without the necessary knowledge. As for whether I could take pride in my power, it would depend on whether the things I accomplish using that power are worthy of being proud about.
Stories which make no sense. I don't accept the claim that God showing himself would turn people from him. Rather, it would shore up his credibility immensely. I think it's safe to say that, were it possible to conclusively, definitively prove that God exists (as you made an attempt to below), you would hardly be so quick to dismiss the need for that knowledge.
Because just because we can find God, doesn't mean that we're capable of doing everything else by ourselves. You're making a rather curious leap of logic that just because we can prove God means we'll become full of ourselves. How does it follow that discovering a supreme being who created the universe, is far more powerful than we could ever understand (let alone become), and whom we're all ultimately accountable to going to make us proud? In fact it's going to have exactly the opposite effect. True knowledge is a very humbling thing. You'll be hard-pressed, for instance, to find an astrophycisist who is not humbled by the vastness of the universe and the minute insignificance of our own segment of the galaxy. A tank full of water makes only a dull noise when struck; it's invariably the empty ones that rattle the loudest.
You make it sound like God proving himself would be a difficult thing for us to understand. It's not. All God has to do is show himself in a scientifically verifiable manner. Even the poor and uneducated would have no problems with understanding that. It's an open-and-shut case, really.
There are people who'll be upset by anything. More importantly, there are a lot of people who are upset that God is tearing his own credibility to shreds by refusing to show himself.
Actually, life coming about from just "random chemicals" is pretty well-supported by science. There are plenty of plausible scientific models in the field of abiogenesis that puts forth viable explanations of how life arose (the problem is, however, we don't know which model is the correct one yet since they're all viable). The argument you present is an argument of incredulity. It relies not on evidence, because there isn't any, but on the listener being ignorant and awed enough to accept that the explanation you offer is the only possible one. The problem with this strategy is that, once another viable explanation is proposed, your whole argument falls apart. Which is exactly what is happening in this case.
Well, you're basically just speculating on people's motives now. I could do the same, but that'd get the discussion nowhere, so I won't.
Upvote
0
drich0150
Regular Member
- Mar 16, 2008
- 6,407
- 437
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
and yet you are still:
If you are not telling God how to conduct himself, then tell me again what you are asking, and how this is not telling God to meet your standards.
Nice try, but you might want to try again. I allowed your dismissal of the book of Mark for the sake of this argument at one point. I also told you, you still have 3 other separate accounts to speak for before you can dismiss the biblical account as a whole. It seems you are still trying to distract me with this weak argument. I am hoping that their is more to this effort than a series of strawmen fallacies, distraction/redirection and weak attempts at dismissing evidence you have not or are not able to directly confront.
You asked for a secular account. When the church complied scripture and left out these "lost texts" it made these works extra-biblical or secular texts by definition.
What an argument. Anything said about Christ, that confirms His life death and resurrection, no matter who wrote or for what purpose is somehow automatically deemed "Christian," and yet you demand secular proof of Christ?? How can their be secular proof, if you have reclassified all of the secular proof as religious? Where is the logic you claim to worship now? What type of self righteousness constructs a straw man, and then identifies this fallacy as historical fact?
If you do not believe this to be true then please, state a comprehensive list of acceptable parameters that would validate a secular text that confirms the biblical account of Christ's birth, life, death and resurrection.
If you actually take the time to study some of the "Forgotten text" you will find the reason some of it was omitted was because it was written in a historical/documentary fashion without a tie to a known member of the church.
What is with you an the quick dismissal? It is almost like you have closed your mind to anything you do not have "faith" in. like the way you alluded to, but did not define your mysterious "criteria" of historical texts.
Are you Muslim? Mormon? JW? by chance?
Relevance?
Yes
Man you are good at building an argument that misrepresents you opponents position and then attacking that position rather than addressing what you opponent is actually discussing. Even so it is getting old to try and speak with such a closed mind.
Please if you can, point one out. (I ask that you personally find one and do not leave a link to someone else's work unless you want that I do the same.)
Why do you equate all faiths with logic? As I pointed out earlier with my paragraphs on the lost texts. Even with your professed faith IN Logic you do not seem to be bound to it. Given the circle of logic you have so much faith in. (Their is no secular record of Christ
)"We" believe what/who we want to serve.
Upvote
0
It seems that the textbook defense you were trained in only teaches you to rebuke others for telling God how to conduct himself, and when that is not what people are doing you're lost for an answer and desperately try to put words into people's mouths so you can revert back to your textbook defense. Fact is, I don't have the right to tell anyone else to meet my standards, much less a supreme being, and I'm not going to waste my time on trying. God can do anything he feels like as far as I'm concerned. However, his actions (or lack thereof) are going to raise questions if they're not consistent with what he claims to want, which is what I'm asking here.
More sidestepping. I'm afraid if you want a proper response from me, you'll need to earn it by actually responding to the question first.
Nice try, but you might want to try again. I allowed your dismissal of the book of Mark for the sake of this argument at one point. I also told you, you still have 3 other separate accounts to speak for before you can dismiss the biblical account as a whole. It seems you are still trying to distract me with this weak argument. I am hoping that their is more to this effort than a series of strawmen fallacies, distraction/redirection and weak attempts at dismissing evidence you have not or are not able to directly confront.
I've already explained this to you. A text is deemed religious or otherwise if it fulfils a set criteria determined and agreed upon by scholars and historians, not whether it mentions Jesus or whether it appears in the Bible. Josephus' (forged) works mention Jesus, yet no one in his or her right mind is claiming that it's a religious text. The Prophet Muhammad and Siddartha Gautama, too, appear in a variety of texts by ancient historians that nobody are deeming as religious texts. It seems that your entire argument is based on both ignorance and a strange antagonism against the academia, the reasons for which you probably know best yourself and I won't speculate on.
The reason for the quick dismissal is quite simple: I dismiss what is obviously nonsense, and your argument that historians automatically classify any text that mentions Jesus as a religious text is obviously nonsense. As for the "mysterious" criteria you ask me to define, I'm hoping you're not asking me to teach you the entire historical method. You can do your own research if you're genuinely interested in finding out the truth instead of sticking to your hopelessly flawed understanding.
The relevance is that the Bible is chock-full of scientific inaccuracies, while the parts where it "validates" science are simply parts that are reinterpreted in the light of new discoveries in an attempt to lend credence to the Bible. Far from being a leader of scientific knowledge, the church is more often than not an obstruction to scientific progress (though one that is far less powerful and dangerous than it used to be centuries ago, fortunately). Your attempts at claiming that the Bible "proves" black holes, string theory, the Big Bang etc. are interesting, but more so as a story and less so as a fact.
I think I've been doing that this whole thread. Have you been reading my posts other than the ones where I specifically replied to you?
I don't. To repeat myself again, the point was raised to debunk your claim that people who reject Jesus are not interested in God. There are three main different interpretations of your God, if you don't count the different denominations of each of the three faiths (which total up in tens of thousands). Just another one of the numerous dilemmas that God refusing to show himself has resulted in.
Upvote
0
Given how none of those can be reliably verified except for the "living among us" part, yes.
Upvote
0
razeontherock
Well-Known Member
Now we get to the heart of the matter! You have never humbled yourself to be able to understand what they are getting at, so you therefore conclude that they are not comprehensible. You have never considered that millions of people before you have been able to understand just fine, and likely millions will also do so, after you.
Again, you show 100% the wrong attitude to approach any of this with, which perfectly explains your lack of understanding, cited above. The Bible calls this an "evil heart of unbelief," with myriad examples of how that works. (This is also the main thing a professing believer needs to focus on, BTW)
Everything you're saying can be summarized that you accept science as your G-d. Have you never considered what is meant by "666?" You embody it! It also describes the beast as being so large, that it is not recognized, even when in plain view ...
Why is that so important to you? And how will you handle His response to your demand, once it is made known?
Upvote
0
With regards to the story of the unbelieving Israelites; if the story is true, then the Israelites were very, very stupid. How do you explain constantly turning your back on a supreme being that has saved you time and time again when your false gods couldn't, not to mention having literally shown himself to you? The behavior shown here is quite nonsensical. Note that I never said that the stories are incomprehensible. Like everyone else, I understand what happened in the stories just fine. What I'm saying is that what happened in the stories doesn't make sense.
Now Christians try to use this nonsensical story to explain why God doesn't show himself. For this reasoning to be valid, the implication needs to be made that people today are as stupid and irrational as the Israelites as described in the story. Which I don't believe is the case. But even if the implication was true and we're really that stupid, what harm can God showing himself make? Those who've made up their minds one way or the other are going to stick to their respective decisions, but those who are waiting for religion to become consistent and make sense are going to sign up post-haste, the faith of believers will be strengthened hundredfold, and Christians will gain a very powerful new weapon in their evangelistic and missionary efforts. How can that be a bad thing?
That's not really surprising. Belief systems in general have a habit of labeling unbelievers with unflattering terms; it's one of the mechanisms for believers to cope with the fact that there is no evidence that justifies their beliefs, ergo the need to resort to emotional responses. I've realized that it's simply the act of confused people lashing out in an attempt to console themselves, and have stopped being offended by it long ago.
That depends on what you define as "important". I'm curious to hear how Christians answer the question, but if they can't, I don't think I'm going to lose sleep over it. As for what my response would be, that would depend on how God responds to my "demand" and the contents of his revelation.
Upvote
0
oi_antz
Opposed to Untruth.
He did show Himself, we killed Him. Jesus knew it before it happened:
Matthew 21:38
But when the vinedressers saw the son, they said among themselves, This is the heir. Come, let us kill him and seize his inheritance.
This is why various churches have been overrun by money hungry liars for the last 2,000 years.
Upvote
0
razeontherock
Well-Known Member
What you're saying, is that you refuse to be taught. You reject the Truth, and it appears to be because of pride. Just like Adam before you, and just like satan before him.
This is, you know, not particularly original.
ORLY? I've never seen one. And I can explain it just fine, and I would NEVER resort to what you're (awkwardly) alluding to, when Jesus Himself lays it all bare.
Why do you think we are called "the sheep of His pasture?"
What do you know about sheep? They are affectionate, loyal - and dumb. (Lots more to be learned, and a shepherd has an advantage here) Compared to the Almighty, the brightest of us is just that ... dumb.This idea will naturally be rejected by what the Bible sometimes refers to as "the flesh." And overcoming this natural knee-jerk reaction is what the Bible calls "humility." Good stuff, it is! May I suggest getting some?
And here you reveal that you haven't the foggiest notion what "Faith" is.
This has been revealed some 2000 years ago, and here you merely show you have never taken the time to read it. Yet you still feel qualified to form all these opinions on the subject? (Btw, it is in the negative, with clear reasons given. I'm not sure I've ever met anyone who likes that, it's just one of those things we learn to accept that we cannot change)
Upvote
0
razeontherock
Well-Known Member
This is in no way responsive to what I wrote. IOW, airplane joke; you missed it completely:
(Proverbs 28:1) The wicked flee when no man pursueth: but the righteous are bold as a lion."
Upvote
0
drich0150
Regular Member
- Mar 16, 2008
- 6,407
- 437
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Just because you have figured out how to tell someone how they should conduct themselves or issue challenges in question form, does not mean you are asking questions. Reset and try again.
If you are truly looking for an answer to your question, reset yourself and go back to my original response dealing with this question.
You have entered a undefined variable into this discussion. you have only vaguely mentioned or alluded to an absolute standard that quite frankly may or may not exist. I am simply asking you for the same "proof" that you have so humbly sought of the bible and of God. If the variable you have introduced into this conversation is indeed real you should have absolutely no trouble at all pointing me to at least some reference material outlining the parameters you have spoken of.
If you can not then I am going to have to dismiss the whole of your work as conjecture largely based in a fictitious effort to dismiss what you can not openly confront.
Relevance? Your attempt to further rail road this conversation with the creation of yet another stawman fallacy is dually noted. I believe it has taken you no less than 6 straw men fallacies to get you this deep into a conversation. You seem to be in over your head. I say this because creating a consistent string of straw men, points to intellectual desperation. When one can not confront his opponent He creates one that loosely resembles his opponent and seeks to destroy the straw man that he created.
You have done this over and over and over and over and over and over again.
Why can't you simply address Christianity as it stands? why must you create a version of it and insist that i defend what you have created? Do you simply not know any better? or do you not know what Christianity is? Or worse yet has your pride demanded that you stick to a side of a conversation that you know you should let go?
Again I am just looking for some very simple guidance on the "Historical Method" used that classifies Religious texts from "Historical texts" that describe religious events. I mean after all we can reduce the "Scientific method" down into several easy to follow steps, maybe you could give me the first three steps... Or maybe I could guess..
If you are having difficulty finding anything you could just admit you made the whole thing up in an attempt dismiss something you were not prepared to address and did not think anyone would call you on it if you dressed it up enough...
*also*
It appears you have never studied any of the lost texts or their origins. Christianity (for the most part) has shunned these texts as being secular in origin for many different reasons. Most of which stems from a lack of a Christian message. Simply recording the life and times of Jesus is not enough to make a text "Christian."
Ah, no. I never said the bible proves any of these things. I simply pointed to your faith in science. A faith not unlike what it take to believe in scripture/God. Go back and try and read what is written rather than scanning for "Text book points" to attackNope.
God has not refused to show Himself.(In general) He simple refuses to show Himself to you, and the rest of us who do not Seek him on His terms.
Upvote
0
By "we", I'll assume you meant the Pharisees. The Jews apparently had good reason to do so; Jesus comes along and tries to offer a New Covenant in place of Mosaic laws, and claims to be the messiah even though he failed to fulfil a number of messianic prophecies. The Jews wanted Jesus dead because they saw Jesus as a heretical false prophet, not because they wanted to "seize his inheritance".
And again, Jesus' miracles, virgin birth, and resurrection are not corroborated by any reliable, secular historical record. It's very well to claim that this and that is true, but without the evidence it's just a story.
I'm pretty sure that's just you putting words into my mouth, because if you look back at my posts it's quite clear that that wasn't what I said. Are you saying that the Israelites repeatedly turning their backs to God despite all the signs and miracles he has given them and all those times he's saved them, strikes you as a particularly logical story?
Well, I've never seen God either.
But unlike you, I can tell you exactly where to look if you want an example: paragraph 3 of post #24.Well, you're more than welcome to speak for yourself, but it's simply absurd to draw any parallels between the society of today and the Israelites of the 3rd century. Religion is on the decline because education levels are rising, and God consistently fails to prove himself in a logical and reasonable manner.Why do you think we are called "the sheep of His pasture?"
So you're saying that your faith wouldn't be bolstered in any way whatsoever if God did reveal himself in the physical realm?
Even if so, you're speaking for yourself. There are a lot of people who will be convinced if credible evidence is offered.
Nothing that can be conclusively verified, I'm afraid.
Upvote
0
oi_antz
Opposed to Untruth.
Paul wrote of it happening in Titus:
I don't believe this problem was confined to Crete 2,000 years ago. There is evidence of false Christs and false prophets behaving in exactly the same manner today and Jesus said it would happen more intensely in the last days:
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
