The God or Not God Discussion

[TheFinalWord]

There is historical evidence of plenty of prophets like how Jesus is described in the bible. The comparison to the tooth fairy isn't to Jesus. It's to a god.

 

In Christianity, Jesus is God.

[TheFinalWord]

My point, is using those types of tactics (tooth fairy, etc.) is equally as frustrating to the theist (mainly Christians on this forum). If there is going to be progress in this discussion, I think we can probably both agree that using strawmen and ad hominems is not going to advance discourse any more than Christians saying "in the name of atheism." I can grant you that for the sake of discussion. Can tooth fairy be granted to us? Or is it going to continue to be claimed that we do not know our own beliefs?

[Weezy1973]

Here is the bottom line:

 

To a tolerant, tactful, emotionally intelligent person, this would not be a battle of the snarks and logical fallacies. Because said person who has faith would be fine with others not believing, and said person who is an atheist would not have a problem with someone else believing.

 

I will never convince a snarky atheist that I am not stupid and irrational. And a snarky, condescending atheist will never convince me they are more intelligent.

 

We disagree. People disagree every day. I have no plans to fly an airplane into a building or resurrect the inquisition or beat up a gay person. I assume no atheists have plans to take my Bible away or force me to recant under threat of beheading.

 

In real life, most people of varying beliefs or lack thereof live side by side pretty well. Only on the internet does our....choice not to do that become so heated.

 

So, contrary to what you might think, I'm actually very tolerant to religious beliefs. I actually think religion can provide a benefit to those that believe. It can certainly be comforting and give meaning to people.

 

I used to volunteer at a suicide help line and we would have to try to get the caller to provide something that helps them cope in, what can only be described as the darkest time of their life. Very often they said prayer, and when they did, I knew they would be okay. If nothing else, religion provides some people with hope.

 

That being said, it doesn't mean it's true. And those are different questions. Do any gods exist? That's a question about truth. Can believing in a god help someone cope in times of need, or even deal with the reality that everybody they know and love will die. Including themselves? That's a different question.

[Weezy1973]

My point, is using those types of tactics (tooth fairy, etc.) is equally as frustrating to the theist (mainly Christians on this forum). If there is going to be progress in this discussion, I think we can probably both agree that using strawmen and ad hominems is not going to advance discourse any more than Christians saying "in the name of atheism." I can grant you that for the sake of discussion. Can tooth fairy be granted to us? Or is it going to continue to be claimed that we do not know our own beliefs?

 

But to a Christian, "Jesus is God", is completely meaningless to a non-Christian. The conversation from the non-religious is "as if we don't have any prior belief". In other words, if we didn't have a prior belief (a priori) what does the actual universe tell us? Do any gods exist?

 

When we say an atheist doesn't believe in any gods like they don't believe in the tooth fairy, it's an attempt to get theists to understand. So if a theist can understand that they don't believe in tooth fairies, and what that's like (i.e. to not believe), perhaps they can understand what it's like to not believe in any gods. Because it's the same feeling and holds the same importance to an atheist.

[TheFinalWord]

So, contrary to what you might think, I'm actually very tolerant to religious beliefs. I actually think religion can provide a benefit to those that believe. It can certainly be comforting and give meaning to people.

 

I used to volunteer at a suicide help line and we would have to try to get the caller to provide something that helps them cope in, what can only be described as the darkest time of their life. Very often they said prayer, and when they did, I knew they would be okay. If nothing else, religion provides some people with hope.

That being said, it doesn't mean it's true. And those are different questions. Do any gods exist? That's a question about truth. Can believing in a god help someone cope in times of need, or even deal with the reality that everybody they know and love will die. Including themselves? That's a different question.

 

Good point. It doesn't mean it's true. But it is mainly just your opinion and others on here that Christians mainly believe in God because it gives us hope.

 

I have tried to state on this forum, that is not the main reason for belief for a lot of people, though it may be one. However, it is continuously used as an explanation to explain away reasons why people have faith. Why? It comes across as, "those poor Christians are not quite as intellectual, but it gives those simpletons hope so let them have it out of pity."

 

I actually think you are highly intelligent and an honest person Weezy. I am not saying this to insult you, because I think you are one of the few on here that is genuinely open-minded. Just opining as to how these statements are perceived by Christians.

 

A lot of us have thought through our beliefs, do not have all the answers, but are open-minded and empathetic for the non-belief of others. If we can all grant one another a bit of grace it will go a long way.

[TheFinalWord]

But to a Christian, "Jesus is God", is completely meaningless to a non-Christian. The conversation from the non-religious is "as if we don't have any prior belief". In other words, if we didn't have a prior belief (a priori) what does the actual universe tell us? Do any gods exist?

 

When we say an atheist doesn't believe in any gods like they don't believe in the tooth fairy, it's an attempt to get theists to understand. So if a theist can understand that they don't believe in tooth fairies, and what that's like (i.e. to not believe), perhaps they can understand what it's like to not believe in any gods. Because it's the same feeling and holds the same importance to an atheist.

 

It is meaningless to you as much as comparing belief in a tooth fairy to Jesus (our God) is to a Christian. So your point is not going to go anywhere with a Christian. It is up to you if you want to take my advice or not. It comes across as silly and a bit intellectually dishonest. We all know the difference between the two.

[Weezy1973]

It is meaningless to you as much as comparing belief in a tooth fairy to Jesus (our God) is to a Christian. So your point is not going to go anywhere with a Christian. It is up to you if you want to take my advice or not. It comes across as silly and a bit intellectually dishonest. We all know the difference between the two.

 

Okay. Fair enough. Let me take a different tact.

 

Muslims believe the Koran is the true word of the creator. And those that aren't Muslim will be destined to eternity in damnation.

 

How much time, effort, and energy, do Christians spend considering the possibility that they might spend eternity in damnation unless they convert to Islam?

[TheFinalWord]

Okay. Fair enough. Let me take a different tact.

 

Muslims believe the Koran is the true word of the creator. And those that aren't Muslim will be destined to eternity in damnation.

 

How much time, effort, and energy, do Christians spend considering the possibility that the might spend eternity in damnation unless they convert to Islam?

 

I have spent time on it myself. I cannot speak for other Christians. Though I agree, Christians should do more to understand why they believe what they believe.

 

Mainly what you are asking is how can we be confident in our salvation. There are a number of ways, but perhaps more specific to this situation comes from Paul's letter to the Galatians. In that letter, Paul stated that if anyone, even an angel from heaven, declares a different gospel than what he and the other apostles declared, they are accursed by God.

 

I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you to live in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse!

Islam preaches a different gospel, and originated from an angel preaching to Muhammad in a cave (First Revelation). The biblical data strongly warns against believing any man or even an angel that preaches a different gospel than taught by the apostles.

 

Please note, I am not saying this to offend any Muslims on the forums, only giving my personal justification for my security in the doctrine of salvation espoused by Christ and His apostles.

[endlessabyss]

I have spent time on it myself. I cannot speak for other Christians. Though I agree, Christians should do more to understand why they believe what they believe.

 

Mainly what you are asking is how can we be confident in our salvation. There are a number of ways, but perhaps more specific to this situation comes from Paul's letter to the Galatians. In that letter, Paul stated that if anyone, even an angel from heaven, declares a different gospel than what he and the other apostles declared, they are accursed by God.

 

I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you to live in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse!

 

Islam preaches a different gospel, and originated from an angel preaching to Muhammad in a cave (First Revelation). The biblical data strongly warns against believing any man or even an angel that preaches a different gospel than taught by the apostles.

 

Please note, I am not saying this to offend any Muslims on the forums, only giving my personal justification for my security in the doctrine of salvation espoused by Christ and His apostles.

 

 

I just wanted to say you are one of my favorite posters on this forum.

 

 

Not only are you well versed, but you respond to critics very respectfully.

 

 

Even though you may get aggravated by some of the mocking that goes on in some of these threads, you still react very calmly, and with respect to all who have a difference of opinion, even if they convey their opinion in a condescending way.

 

 

I personally need to work on that, and try to refrain from posting on these types of debates, because usually nothing good comes out of them, and it brings the worst out of me.

 

 

Much respect to you, good sir.

Edited June 14, 2015 by endlessabyss

[TheFinalWord]

I just wanted to say you are one of my favorite posters on this forum.

 

Not only are you well versed, but you respond to critics very respectfully.

 

Even though you may get aggravated by some of the mocking that goes on in some of these threads, you still react very calmly, and with respect to all who have a difference of opinion, even if they convey their opinion in a condescending way.

 

I personally need to work on that, and try to refrain from posting on these types of debates, because usually nothing good comes out of them, and it brings the worst out of me.

 

Much respect to you, good sir.

 

Thanks buddy

 

I'm a layman, but some of these topics I know a bit about. A couple years ago I went back and forth with a Muslim (not on LS) for about 20 pages. We both learned a lot, but it helped me to develop my own stance about Islam. I recommend you keep getting involved in threads if you can. Especially if you can find another poster (like Weezy) who is intellectually honest and seeking to get at the truth too It helps to refine your belief. But you are right if the discussions turn into ego battles, than it loses its ability to edify.

[mandymor]

God gave everyone free will, so your life is still your own. The decisions you make good and bad, whether you choose to believe or not believe in God, you are still in charge of your future. He is just there to help guide you if you have faith.

[Weezy1973]

It is meaningless to you as much as comparing belief in a tooth fairy to Jesus (our God) is to a Christian. So your point is not going to go anywhere with a Christian. It is up to you if you want to take my advice or not. It comes across as silly and a bit intellectually dishonest. We all know the difference between the two.

 

I actually want to speak to this once more. I'm not actually comparing the belief in a god to belief in a tooth fairy. Generally when I use the tooth fairy analogy, it's when religious people are claiming that atheism is a belief system just like religion. Or that atrocities are done in the name of atheism.

 

But atheism is the lack of belief in something. So to find an example of something that I suspect nearly everybody doesn't believe in, I say the tooth fairy. Try to imagine something you don't believe in (like the tooth fairy), and that's what it's like for an atheist not to believe in any gods.

 

It is by no means saying that believing in a god is the same as believing in the tooth fairy. I could, I suppose just as easily say, for those that believe Yahweh is the only god, they don't believe in Allah, or Vishnu, or Thor, or Ra. Try to think of how many of your actions come from not believing in those gods.

 

Feeding a poor man because you don't believe in Vishnu makes no sense. Actions don't happen because of things we don't believe in. Our actions happen because of things we do believe in. That's why saying atrocities have been done in the name of atheism is ridiculous. I hope that clarifies the point.

[Weezy1973]

I have spent time on it myself. I cannot speak for other Christians. Though I agree, Christians should do more to understand why they believe what they believe.

 

Mainly what you are asking is how can we be confident in our salvation. There are a number of ways, but perhaps more specific to this situation comes from Paul's letter to the Galatians. In that letter, Paul stated that if anyone, even an angel from heaven, declares a different gospel than what he and the other apostles declared, they are accursed by God.

 

I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you to live in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse!

Islam preaches a different gospel, and originated from an angel preaching to Muhammad in a cave (First Revelation). The biblical data strongly warns against believing any man or even an angel that preaches a different gospel than taught by the apostles.

 

Please note, I am not saying this to offend any Muslims on the forums, only giving my personal justification for my security in the doctrine of salvation espoused by Christ and His apostles.

 

So, in a different thread I spoke about how believers and non-believers sometimes talk past each other, quoting scripture is one way that believers do it.

 

Assuming (for the sake of argument) that either Islam or Christianity is the one true religion, how do we know which one it is?

 

It makes no sense to quote scripture. Essentially what you're saying is the Bible is true because it says so in the Bible. That's the very definition of a circular argument. And needless to say, the Muslim will find passages in the Koran that indicate that Islam is indeed the one true religion. So given that, how would one figure it out?

[Weezy1973]

Good point. It doesn't mean it's true. But it is mainly just your opinion and others on here that Christians mainly believe in God because it gives us hope.

 

I have tried to state on this forum, that is not the main reason for belief for a lot of people, though it may be one. However, it is continuously used as an explanation to explain away reasons why people have faith. Why? It comes across as, "those poor Christians are not quite as intellectual, but it gives those simpletons hope so let them have it out of pity."

 

I am truly sorry if that's the way it comes across. One thing I try not to do is single out one religion over any others. Christianity tends to come up the most because I live in a predominantly Christian country, and the posters on here are also predominantly Christian.

 

I actually don't think that people are religious because it gives them hope. I think that the vast majority of people are religious because that's how they were raised. Once beliefs become entrenched it is extremely difficult to change them (Google confirmation bias for psychological reasons why this is). If you look at a map of the distribution of religions, you'll see it's pretty much separated by geography. What causes someone to be a certain religion seems to be about what country and to what family they happened to born into, more than anything else. This pattern would explain why the distribution of religions is the way it is.

 

On the other side of the spectrum, when you look at prevailing scientific theories, they are pretty much accepted by all scientists in the field, regardless of where they live, because they are based on evidence, reason and logic. So that builds consensus. Religion on the other hand, does not have anything close to a consensus. In fact, there seems to be more and more denominations being formed as time goes on. You'd think if people were getting closer to the truth, there would be more evidence, which would build consensus.

 

I actually think you are highly intelligent and an honest person Weezy. I am not saying this to insult you, because I think you are one of the few on here that is genuinely open-minded. Just opining as to how these statements are perceived by Christians.

 

A lot of us have thought through our beliefs, do not have all the answers, but are open-minded and empathetic for the non-belief of others. If we can all grant one another a bit of grace it will go a long way.

 

I very strongly believe in freedom of thought, religion, speech and assembly and feel these form the basis of human rights. I would fight for people to be able to freely believe and worship whatever god or gods they want to. I don't mean to insult anybody of any religion, but acknowledge that it might happen, but it definitely is not by design. I think we should be able to debate and question ideas, and that's all I'm doing. If you're searching for what is true, questioning ideas seems like a good way to try to get there.

Edited June 14, 2015 by Weezy1973

[autumnnight]

So, in a different thread I spoke about how believers and non-believers sometimes talk past each other, quoting scripture is one way that believers do it.

 

Assuming (for the sake of argument) that either Islam or Christianity is the one true religion, how do we know which one it is?

 

It makes no sense to quote scripture. Essentially what you're saying is the Bible is true because it says so in the Bible. That's the very definition of a circular argument. And needless to say, the Muslim will find passages in the Koran that indicate that Islam is indeed the one true religion. So given that, how would one figure it out?

 

I can understand why this is an anathema to an atheist or agnostic. Why would someone use a Book you don't even believe in to talk to you about their beliefs? It's like using Winnie the Pooh to convince you Heffalumps exist (well, not really, but that was what came to mind).

 

Here's the thing: For a Christian specifically (I cannot speak to other faiths), the Bible is central to our beliefs. Yes, there is other historical evidence that Jesus existed, that other Biblical figures existed, that certain traditions or events existed/happened.

 

BUT the crux of the CHristian faith goes something like this:

 

God creted us in His image. God is holy and wanted perfect fellowship with us forever. We broke that fellowship by choosing to disobey and sin. Because God is holy and because of "the balance of life," if you will, sin must have consequences. The payment for sin must involve sacrifice.

 

So God, because He loved us and STILL wanted fellowship with us, sent His Son, Jesus. Jesus lived a perfect life and was crucified. Just like all those lambs and rams in the Old Testament were symbols of payment for sin, the One man who ever never sinned chose to die on our behalf.

 

He rose on the third day. He is eternal.

 

Because of what He did, if we confess our sins and believe in Him, we have eternal life too, and abundant life here (and abundant can have many definitions).

 

That is essentially what the Bible definition of Christianity is. And for a Christian, it is the Bible definition that counts. So while I could point you to historical references to Jesus' life or Solomon's reign or even the place where Jesus was crucified, it is impossible to really explain what we have faith IN without the Bible.

 

I cannot convince someone of the Bible's truth. I cannot convince someone of God's existence. They will either believe it or they will not. I do not think I am any "better" than someone who believes nothing or someone who believes something different from me. There is nothing at all superior about me. I do not believe in Christ because of who or what I am. I believe because of who He is to me, and who I believe He IS.

 

20+ years ago I gave birth to a child. I went to classes and read books and watched videos. But there was no way I could have known what giving birth was like until that spring morning I had my sweetheart. And I could tell you every detail and show you the birth video (which is not gross). But there is no way YOU would ever be able to climb inside my skin and head and heart and KNOW exactly what that was like.

 

I rambled a lot. But that is my sincere expression.

[TheFinalWord]

So, in a different thread I spoke about how believers and non-believers sometimes talk past each other, quoting scripture is one way that believers do it.

 

Assuming (for the sake of argument) that either Islam or Christianity is the one true religion, how do we know which one it is?

 

It makes no sense to quote scripture. Essentially what you're saying is the Bible is true because it says so in the Bible. That's the very definition of a circular argument. And needless to say, the Muslim will find passages in the Koran that indicate that Islam is indeed the one true religion. So given that, how would one figure it out?

 

You asked how much time does a Christian think about their security of salvantion compared to faiths that contradict the Christian doctrine of security. In that context, it does make sense to use the bible as a spiritual foundation to ascertain if the doctrine of salvation is in jeopardy. Paul's writings pre-date the Quaran, by hundreds of years . If Paul told us to not accept any doctrine other than what he and the other apostles taught, and we accept Paul was an apostle (a whole other topic), than we can compare data to data provided by the Quaran to evaluate our security. Please also note, that this type of debate is internal to Christians and Muslims. Using scripture is acceptable in this format and in fact it makes up the majority of formal debates between Christian and Muslim scholars (I can refer you to some if you are interested). Muslims accept the bible is true, just not the full revelation. So we have common starting ground.

 

In terms of using the bible, one thing you are going to have accept is that the New Testament is a source of historical evidence. That does not mean you have to accept it is true, but it is a source. Referencing the New Testament as a historical piece of evidence is not circular logic. You are essentially saying the greatest collection of historical documents in antiquity are rubbish in an argument. You are welcome to think that, but it undermines your credibility as a serious investigator. Large majority of historians accept Jesus lived and died (Historicity of Jesus). Do we have to debate that topic or can we work with accepted historical facts? I don't know what you will accept and not accept. A key question is, how do they know that? The main source of data is the bible.

 

There is no absolute 100% way to verify anything. I cannot even prove 100%, that you exist. You may be a figment of my imagination. At some point, you are going to have to determine what is reasonable enough for you. I have done that for myself.

Edited June 14, 2015 by TheFinalWord

[TheFinalWord]

Try to think of how many of your actions come from not believing in those gods.

 

One action I can think of is that I will debate with an Muslim that Allah is not the true God, precisely because I do not believe in Allah.

 

Reasons for behaviors are complicated from a psychological perspective; however, I know what you are trying to say, so I'm fine with that.

[Weezy1973]

I can understand why this is an anathema to an atheist or agnostic. Why would someone use a Book you don't even believe in to talk to you about their beliefs? It's like using Winnie the Pooh to convince you Heffalumps exist (well, not really, but that was what came to mind).

 

Here's the thing: For a Christian specifically (I cannot speak to other faiths), the Bible is central to our beliefs. Yes, there is other historical evidence that Jesus existed, that other Biblical figures existed, that certain traditions or events existed/happened.

 

BUT the crux of the CHristian faith goes something like this:

 

God creted us in His image. God is holy and wanted perfect fellowship with us forever. We broke that fellowship by choosing to disobey and sin. Because God is holy and because of "the balance of life," if you will, sin must have consequences. The payment for sin must involve sacrifice.

 

So God, because He loved us and STILL wanted fellowship with us, sent His Son, Jesus. Jesus lived a perfect life and was crucified. Just like all those lambs and rams in the Old Testament were symbols of payment for sin, the One man who ever never sinned chose to die on our behalf.

 

He rose on the third day. He is eternal.

 

Because of what He did, if we confess our sins and believe in Him, we have eternal life too, and abundant life here (and abundant can have many definitions).

 

That is essentially what the Bible definition of Christianity is. And for a Christian, it is the Bible definition that counts. So while I could point you to historical references to Jesus' life or Solomon's reign or even the place where Jesus was crucified, it is impossible to really explain what we have faith IN without the Bible.

 

I cannot convince someone of the Bible's truth. I cannot convince someone of God's existence. They will either believe it or they will not. I do not think I am any "better" than someone who believes nothing or someone who believes something different from me. There is nothing at all superior about me. I do not believe in Christ because of who or what I am. I believe because of who He is to me, and who I believe He IS.

 

20+ years ago I gave birth to a child. I went to classes and read books and watched videos. But there was no way I could have known what giving birth was like until that spring morning I had my sweetheart. And I could tell you every detail and show you the birth video (which is not gross). But there is no way YOU would ever be able to climb inside my skin and head and heart and KNOW exactly what that was like.

 

I rambled a lot. But that is my sincere expression.

 

Thanks for this autumnnight. I actually do understand the Christian faith fairly well I think - I've been to church many times (and really like it) and I've also participated in something called Alpha (which I think is a course that a church will put on for people like me that have questions about Christianity). But like you said, it's nothing like actually being a Christian. It's like understanding it by reading a book.

 

You're actually one of the people I'm most concerned about offending - and I hope you understand I really don't mean to. I know that people's religion is a very personal thing, and often I separate myself from that and "attack" religion, so to speak. And I do understand that this can be hurtful - I'm just not sure how to be more sensitive about it. If I really don't think Christianity is the "truth", how can I express that without it being hurtful?

[Weezy1973]

You asked how much time does a Christian think about their security of salvantion compared to faiths that contradict the Christian doctrine of security. In that context, it does make sense to use the bible as a spiritual foundation to ascertain if the doctrine of salvation is in jeopardy. Paul's writings pre-date the Quaran, by hundreds of years . If Paul told us to not accept any doctrine other than what he and the other apostles taught, and we accept Paul was an apostle (a whole other topic), than we can compare data to data provided by the Quaran to evaluate our security. Please also note, that this type of debate is internal to Christians and Muslims. Using scripture is acceptable in this format and in fact it makes up the majority of formal debates between Christian and Muslim scholars (I can refer you to some if you are interested). Muslims accept the bible is true, just not the full revelation. So we have common starting ground.

 

Right, good point. I suppose I was just using Christianity and Islam as an example as those are the two most popular religions at the moment. I could have just as easily said Christianity and Scientology (for example). In which case, I suppose, using the Bible to discuss it would have less relevance.

 

In terms of using the bible, one thing you are going to have accept is that the New Testament is a source of historical evidence. That does not mean you have to accept it is true, but it is a source.

 

I do accept this - it is a source of historical evidence.

 

Referencing the New Testament as a historical piece of evidence is not circular logic.

 

...unless you're using it to try to prove that the Bible is true....

 

You are essentially saying the greatest collection of historical documents in antiquity are rubbish in an argument. You are welcome to think that, but it undermines your credibility as a serious investigator. Large majority of historians accept Jesus lived and died (Historicity of Jesus).

 

Agreed. But, to be clear, most seem to agree on these points - a man called Jesus lived and taught and was crucified. That's it. All the other stuff (like miracles for example) is not at all agreed upon. And there is hardly a consensus about the Bible in general amongst historians.

 

Do we have to debate that topic or can we work with accepted historical facts? I don't know what you will accept and not accept. A key question is, how do they know that?

 

Yes, of course we can accept historical facts - but, like I said there's hardly a consensus on almost all aspects of the Bible. I'm not saying there aren't some elements where there is a consensus, but the vast majority of it is still debatable. So any reliance on the bible as fact should be mitigated with some skepticism.

 

There is no absolute 100% way to verify anything. I cannot even prove 100%, that you exist. You may be a figment of my imagination. At some point, you are going to have to determine what is reasonable enough for you. I have done that for myself.

 

I agree to a point. However, if what is reasonable for someone does not conform to your own standards, what do you do? And I don't mean this in any derogatory way, but I'll use it again. If someone determines it's reasonable to fly airplanes into buildings based on their faith, what is your reaction? If a holy text and faith are enough to base one's beliefs on that is.

[TheFinalWord]

Agreed. But, to be clear, most seem to agree on these points - a man called Jesus lived and taught and was crucified. That's it. All the other stuff (like miracles for example) is not at all agreed upon. And there is hardly a consensus about the Bible in general amongst historians.

 

Sure, well if there are agreed upon facts one can try to hypothesize which theory is more plausible. For example, we can look at the historical facts regarding the resurrection and evaluate one hypothesis (hallucinations) vs. the hypothesis that God did raise Jesus from the dead. None can ever be proven.

 

Even though we refer to it as "the bible", I would just say too its important to note that the bible is a collection of books.

 

Yes, of course we can accept historical facts - but, like I said there's hardly a consensus on almost all aspects of the Bible. I'm not saying there aren't some elements where there is a consensus, but the vast majority of it is still debatable. So any reliance on the bible as fact should be mitigated with some skepticism.

 

Agreed. We should be skeptical about everything. Paul even said to test everything and hold fast to that which is good. I would note that we also have to be careful we're not using a rubber ruler. In other words, as evidence accumulates, we continue to change the line for persuasion.

 

If someone determines it's reasonable to fly airplanes into buildings based on their faith, what is your reaction? If a holy text and faith are enough to base one's beliefs on that is.

 

By reasonable I mean what is one's standard for enough evidence to change one's mind. Given, it will never be 100%, is there a certain degree of evidence that would persuade you that God exists? Are those standards "fair" etc. ?

 

In terms of reasons for terrorism, as with most social science issues, a complex set of issues at play. I do not think it is just as simple as someone saying "the Quaran told me to do it" (can many of these people in terrorist groups read? Not sure of the literacy rates, which is a problem that occurred in Christian history too. Before Tyndale the bible was in Latin and therefore inaccessible to the layman)... It's a interaction of issues, which are beyond the scope of my ability to debate on any more than that of a total layman. One area we probably disagree is I do think there is a spiritual component to those issues, in that these people are deceived. However, spiritual deception (and salvation) are cooperative acts in that the human will has to align and be in agreement. This of course goes beyond the historical, cultural, economic issues that probably play into extreme Islam.

 

Sorry, a rushed response. In a hurry tonight my friend. Good chatting with you as always.

[pureinheart]

You're actually one of the people I'm most concerned about offending - and I hope you understand I really don't mean to. I know that people's religion is a very personal thing, and often I separate myself from that and "attack" religion, so to speak. And I do understand that this can be hurtful - I'm just not sure how to be more sensitive about it. If I really don't think Christianity is the "truth", how can I express that without it being hurtful?

 

I know this is for AN, but if you don't mind I'd like to say something... You are a doll BTW (I don't know your gender so forgive me if calling you a doll is uncool).

 

Dude/dudette, please don't be concerned about being offensive. I really don't think you know how to be offensive based on the couple of posts I've read of yours... say it like you want to say it. Most Christians have really thick skin and don't get offended easily... most of us expect to be hated anyway. I think the thing that causes Christians to get a little upset is hypocrisy.

[pureinheart]

This response is meant for the many posts I've read over the years from non believers...

 

In thinking what a sterile life it must be to have no faith, with everything you know having to have a background or proven. Personally, I could not handle a life without miracles and the belief thereof ... if I could only get a non believer to experience a miracle firsthand- to see it, feel it, touch it...

 

Miracles catch you off-guard, they are spontaneous and fill you with wonder and love for God and humanity...

[autumnnight]

I know this is for AN, but if you don't mind I'd like to say something... You are a doll BTW (I don't know your gender so forgive me if calling you a doll is uncool).

 

Dude/dudette, please don't be concerned about being offensive. I really don't think you know how to be offensive based on the couple of posts I've read of yours... say it like you want to say it. Most Christians have really thick skin and don't get offended easily... most of us expect to be hated anyway. I think the thing that causes Christians to get a little upset is hypocrisy.

 

Ditto. I can get...emotional about this sometimes. Part of it is because faith is important to me. And I'll confess, part of it is because there HAVE been some times not too long ago when I questioned a lot, and just got downright mad about what I thought God should be doing

[Weezy1973]

For example, we can look at the historical facts regarding the resurrection and evaluate one hypothesis (hallucinations) vs. the hypothesis that God did raise Jesus from the dead. None can ever be proven.

 

Right - but one of these is not that extraordinary (hallucinations) and the other is quite extraordinary. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. What evidence outside of scripture would one use to convince the non-Christian that Jesus was in fact raised from the dead?

 

Even though we refer to it as "the bible", I would just say too its important to note that the bible is a collection of books.

 

Yes, this is so interesting to me. I think I read somewhere that the gospels were actually written decades after Jesus died. So that alone should make one question the validity of what was written.

 

Agreed. We should be skeptical about everything. Paul even said to test everything and hold fast to that which is good. I would note that we also have to be careful we're not using a rubber ruler. In other words, as evidence accumulates, we continue to change the line for persuasion.

 

Also a good point. My question for what Paul said would be this - what did he mean by "good"?

 

By reasonable I mean what is one's standard for enough evidence to change one's mind. Given, it will never be 100%, is there a certain degree of evidence that would persuade you that God exists? Are those standards "fair" etc. ?

 

Yes indeed! This is pretty much what I'm asking in a nutshell. In my mind, logic, reason and evidence should be the basis of one's beliefs. But is that inherently better than using faith? Or believing in something because of tradition? In my mind that answer is yes (of course), but many don't agree with me.

 

In terms of reasons for terrorism, as with most social science issues, a complex set of issues at play. I do not think it is just as simple as someone saying "the Quaran told me to do it" (can many of these people in terrorist groups read? Not sure of the literacy rates, which is a problem that occurred in Christian history too. Before Tyndale the bible was in Latin and therefore inaccessible to the layman)... It's a interaction of issues, which are beyond the scope of my ability to debate on any more than that of a total layman. One area we probably disagree is I do think there is a spiritual component to those issues, in that these people are deceived. However, spiritual deception (and salvation) are cooperative acts in that the human will has to align and be in agreement. This of course goes beyond the historical, cultural, economic issues that probably play into extreme Islam.

 

Again, the terrorism example was just an example. Let's use other example of faith based beliefs that result in actions. My question is are these acceptable as they're based on faith? And if not, why not?

 

1. Jehovah's Witnesses who refuse to give a child in need a blood transfusion due to their faith.

2. A follower of Christian Science who doesn't bring their child to the hospital when needed because they believe in the power of prayer.

3. The religious family the performs female genital mutilation because of their faith.

4. The Christian fundamentalists that advocate for teaching their particular creation myth in science classes as opposed to evolution.

 

Are all of these things okay? If one has faith, do the behaviours derived from that faith not matter? And if the above are wrong, on what basis do we decide that?

[LookAtThisPOst]

For example, we can look at the historical facts regarding the resurrection and evaluate one hypothesis (hallucinations) vs. the hypothesis that God did raise Jesus from the dead. None can ever be proven.

 

Scripture and even Jesus himself addresses the question of his resserection being believed. Apparently, when he passed through the walls of the home where the Apostles were gathered, he had one of them place his hand in the hole in the speared rib area when he was killed on the cross and also someone stuck their fingers in the hole of where the stakes in his hands in which they where driven.

 

He said, "Blessed of those who have seen and believed, and blessed also are those who have NOT seen and believe." (This stuck with me.)

 

I'm sure he's referring to those who weren't witness to his rising from his tomb and none other those in that home had witnessed his Resurrection.