Spirituality
22 Apr 09
27 Apr 09
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywill….===========================
[b]===========================
These aren’t the same questions.
=============================== [/b]
They are two questions related to the existence of the two.
===================
When and where did I do this? -certainly not in my last post.
==========================
Not in your last post. Some time ago.
===== ...[text shortened]... al reason for believing in God.
I'm not going to expend energy debating about Santa Claus.
These aren’t the same questions.
===============================
They are two questions related to the existence of the two.
..…
But they STILL aren’t the same questions. And what relevance does this have to what I just said?
…Did you answer the question WHY something exists instead of nothing?
The existence of the universe is a LOGICAL reason for believing in God.
..… (my emphasis)
No it isn’t. Just for starters, how do you know there is a “WHY”?
And I would like to know what you mean by “WHY” in the above context -I mean, in everyday English, I may say “I can explain WHY” something is so (such as “WHY storms produce lightning” etc) without implying the existence of a conscious entirety but is that exactly the SAME kind of “WHY” you mean above or do you mean some kind of more narrow meaning of the word “WHY” in the above that NECESSARILY implies the existence of a conscious entirety? -if the former then even if there IS a “WHY” above then there is no logical reason why a god should have anything to do with it BUT if the latter then that question would beg the question how do you know there is a “WHY”?
…. I'm not going to expend energy debating about Santa Claus.
…
Of course -you don’t want the logical inconsistency to be exposed
-The same kind of “logic” you use to justify your assertions that there is a “God” can, hypothetically, be used to justify assertions that there is a “Santa“.
27 Apr 09
4 edits
Originally posted by jaywill========================
[b]========================
But rather there is no more LOGICAL reason to believe one than the other is true) -would you deny this fact?
===========================================
Yes I would deny it.
Jesus Christ said He was God, but also acted like God, and is solidly established in human history.
Sure, a lot of people ...[text shortened]... o. Not a lot of people put on the demonstration that Jesus Christ put on.
Do you deny this ?[/b]
But rather there is no more LOGICAL reason to believe one than the other is true) -would you deny this fact?
===========================================
Yes I would deny it.
..…
Ok. continue:
…Jesus Christ said He was God, but also acted like God, and is solidly established in human history.
..…
My assertion says nothing nor claims anything about “Jesus Christ”. So this has no relevance.
I don’t deny there was a “Jesus Christ” but that doesn’t equate to me not denying there is a “God”.
….Sure, a lot of people could make a claim to be God and do. Not a lot of people put on the demonstration that Jesus Christ put on.
Do you deny this ?
…
He preached peace and love -I don’t deny this nor am I against this -I am all for peace and love. Is that all you mean by “demonstration” above? (not meaning here to imply preaching peace and love is “insignificant” -I wouldn't say that) -if not, exactly what else do you mean?
27 Apr 09
1 edit
Originally posted by Proper KnobThis may just be semantics but personally I wouldn’t ever define any mere HUMAN as being a “god” even if he was extremely powerful and everyone else says he is a god because that just isn’t what I mean by the word.
Which God are we talking about here?
Allah, Thor, Yahweh, Wodan, Ishvara, Bhagavan, Wodan, Vishnu, Krishna, Nirankar, Aten, Odin, i could go on and on and on?
As for any human that claims to BE a god; I would assume he is either:
1, is lying
or
2, is extraordinarily arrogant
or
3, he means something different and much more mundane by the word “god” (such as merely a person with a lot of political power etc).
27 Apr 09
4 edits
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton===================================
[b]========================
But rather there is no more LOGICAL reason to believe one than the other is true) -would you deny this fact?
===========================================
Yes I would deny it.
..…
Ok. continue:
…Jesus Christ said He was God, but also acted like God, and is solidly established in human history.
..…[ ...[text shortened]... re to imply preaching peace and love is “insignificant&rdquo😉 -if not, exactly what else do you mean?
My assertion says nothing nor claims anything about “Jesus Christ”. So this has no relevance.
=================================== [/b]
I think Christ is relevant to the existence of God. There must be God if there is the Son of God. And you should know that that is Christ's claim on history.
That is the impact He has on history - a man who claimed and acted as THE Son of God. It's harder to dismiss than the concept of Santa Claus.
So I find the existence of God more of a logical conclusion than that of Santa Claus.
=================================
I don’t deny there was a “Jesus Christ” but that doesn’t equate to me not denying there is a “God”.
===================================
You don't deny there was a Jesus Christ. Sure, I agree that that does not insist that you believe in God, obviously.
For me it would be harder work to come up with reasons to explain His impact on human history given the non-existence of God than it would to explain His influence because of the reality of God.
===========================
….Sure, a lot of people could make a claim to be God and do. Not a lot of people put on the demonstration that Jesus Christ put on.
Do you deny this ?
…
He preached peace and love
===============================
It is not adaquate to only select or emphasize certain aspects to His teaching and pretend that others were not taught.
It is inadaquate to selectively only single out that "Jesus preached peace and love." He continually taught of God as His Father and His utter oneness with the Father, to that point that to see Him was to see the Father.
It seems that you have some kind of Humanistic filter which only wants to recognize that Jesus just talked about peace and love. How about when He said that He came to cast fire on the earth?
==============================
-I don’t deny this nor am I against this -I am all for peace and love.
===============================
Maybe your New Testament only consists of "The Golden Rule". There is quite a bit more in mine. There is resurrection of Jesus. And there is His claim that He has the authority to lay down His life and to take it up again.
These are things which only God can do. That is go through death and decide to come out of it again. These are the actions of one who has an indestructible life - like an eternal and all powerful God.
================================
Is that all you mean by “demonstration” above? (not meaning here to imply preaching peace and love is “insignificant&rdquo😉 -if not, exactly what else do you mean?
===================================
Preaching peace and love is not insignificant. But the peace He preached is a peace that comes from reconcilation to a completely righteous God. And the love He preached included the love of God to save sinners from a rightoeus judgment against their sins.
Peace there is because of reconcilation to God.
Love there is the divine love which cause the God to send His only begotten Son to be our Savior.
I think you should remove your filter and pay attention to a whole lot else that is written there in the New Testament.
27 Apr 09
3 edits
Originally posted by jaywillI think Christ is relevant to the existence of God.
[b]===================================
My assertion says nothing nor claims anything about “Jesus Christ”. So this has no relevance.
=================================== [/b]
I think Christ is relevant to the existence of God. There must be God if there is the Son of God. And you should know that that is Christ's claim on history.
filter and pay attention to a whole lot else that is written there in the New Testament.[/b]
..…
Yes, of course you do. But my question is specifically and only about “God” and not “Christ”.
…For me it would be harder work to come up with reasons to explain His impact on human history given the non-existence of God than…
..…
What kind of historical “impact” are you referring to here? Can you give me a specific example of his impact on human history that would “require explanation” if there was no God?
….It is inadaquate to selectively only single out that "Jesus preached peace and love." He continually taught of God as His Father…
…
-well nobody is perfect.
…. Preaching peace and love is not insignificant.
…
-yes, that is what I said in a round-about way.
…
But the peace He preached is a peace that comes from reconcilation to a completely righteous God. And the love He preached included the love of God to save sinners from a rightoeus judgment against their sins.
…
-both these above assertions make the presumption that there is a “God” without demonstrating there is a “God” How does he “demonstrate” that there is a “God”?
….Peace there is because of reconcilation to God.
Love there is the divine love which cause the God to send His only begotten Son to be our Savior.
…
This assertions presumes there is a “God” without demonstrating there is a “God” .
By the way, there is nothing stopping a person from both promoting and having peace and love without believing and there is nothing stopping a person from both promoting and having peace and love if there was no god. So no “god” is necessary for peace and love.
….I think you should remove your filter
…
I don’t have this “filter” -I just asked you what you were referring to because I wasn’t sure.
28 Apr 09
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton======================
[b] I think Christ is relevant to the existence of God.
..…
Yes, of course you do. But my question is specifically and only about “God” and not “Christ”.
…For me it would be harder work to come up with reasons to explain His impact on human history given the non-existence of God than…
..…
What kind of historical “impact” are ...[text shortened]... I don’t have this “filter” -I just asked you what you were referring to because I wasn’t sure.[/b]
What kind of historical “impact” are you referring to here? Can you give me a specific example of his impact on human history that would “require explanation” if there was no God?
==================================
For starters, a man whose life has caused Western civlization to divide time into two portions, BC and AD, suggests that this life was very significant.
==========================
-well nobody is perfect.
==============================
Well, here again, it is seriously considered that there was someone perfect. It is surmised that human perfection just may have found its expression in the man for whom we divide history in Western civilazation into Before Christ and "In the Year of our Lord."
Just maybe there is someone who is perfect - Jesus Christ. He seems to occupy a class all His own. The second most likely candidate for human perfection, I think, doesn't even come close.
=============================
-both these above assertions make the presumption that there is a “God” without demonstrating there is a “God” How does he “demonstrate” that there is a “God”?
=================================
Not really. I am discribing WHAT Jesus taught.
I am speaking of His concept of peace. I assume you want to accurately discribe what Jesus taught.
=====================
This assertions presumes there is a “God” without demonstrating there is a “God” .
===============================
This too is the correction of your rather surface only view of what was taught by Jesus.
28 Apr 09
Originally posted by jaywill…======================
[b]======================
What kind of historical “impact” are you referring to here? Can you give me a specific example of his impact on human history that would “require explanation” if there was no God?
==================================
For starters, a man whose life has caused Western civlization to divide time into two portions, BC and AD, ...[text shortened]...
This too is the correction of your rather surface only view of what was taught by Jesus.[/b]
What kind of historical “impact” are you referring to here? Can you give me a specific example of his impact on human history that would “require explanation” if there was no God?
==================================
For starters, a man whose life has caused Western civilization to divide time into two portions, BC and AD, suggests that this life was very significant.
..…
How does that answer my question above? -I mean, how does “this life was very significant” (which is a bit vague) “require an explanation” if there was NO God any more than if there WAS a God?
Remember that my question was in response to your comment:
….…For me it would be harder work to come up with reasons to EXPLAIN His IMPACT on human history GIVEN the non-existence of God than…
..…
..… (my emphasis)
-which seems a peculiar statement to me because it begs the question:
what kind of “IMPACT” on human history are you referring to above that is “hard to EXPLAIN” if there is NO God but would NOT be “hard to EXPLAIN” if there IS a God? (hence my original question)
….This too is the correction of your rather surface only view of what was taught by Jesus.
…
I wasn’t trying to refer to what he “taught”.
01 May 09
Originally posted by SwissGambitWhat exactly do you mean by "good and evil (as a system)"?
What exactly do you mean by "good and evil [b](as a system)"?
I think I'll stick with the word I chose - innocent - especially when the very first definition I find is:
1 a: free from guilt or sin especially through lack of knowledge of evil : blameless <an innocent child>
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/innocent
Sure, they w ...[text shortened]... it clarification of what exactly sprang into existence on the planet that fateful day.[/b]
"Good and evil" as described by the first book in the Bible, is a system of thinking which was in antithesis to the system of thinking first given man for his survival on the planet while in the Garden.
The first system incorporated eating from all but one tree within the Garden, and the daily interactions with the Creator, with but one caveat: do not eat from the one tree.
"Good and evil" is a system which is responsible for all kinds of religious activity present even in the world today, with its denials and false sense of piety--- giving an appearance of righteousness but further from it than even outright ignorance. The very first act of the "good and evil" system of thinking (beyond hiding) was an attempt to cover what God had called good: the man and the woman's nakedness.
It was a nebulous threat for them.
Obviously, you are free to stick with your dictionary definitions of terms and your misconceptions of what the Bible plainly teaches, but you will remain as frustratingly far from the truth as you are right now. Your projections of unsophisticated ignorance and knowing malfeasance toward man and God, respectively, are both ill-placed and at complete odds with the record.
True, life was the only thing Adam and the woman knew, but your rendering of the story suggests that this 'other thing' (described by God as a double death) could have been misconstrued by the two as perhaps life plus... something even greater. However, life in the Garden was abundant, pressed down and overflowing. By no means was the double death put to them in terms which could have lead to anything but a conclusion of something undesirable.
By way of complimentary truth, why else would the serpent need to offer an alternative reason for God's missive to not eat of the one tree? Even the serpent represented the double death as something negative, insisting that eating would not result in death and suggesting instead that God had ulterior motives in the prohibition. Whether from God Himself or from their adversary, death was clearly represented and understood by man as something less than desirable.
01 May 09
7 edits
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton===================================
[b]…======================
What kind of historical “impact” are you referring to here? Can you give me a specific example of his impact on human history that would “require explanation” if there was no God?
==================================
For starters, a man whose life has caused Western civilization to divide time into two portions, BC an ...[text shortened]... only view of what was taught by Jesus.
…
I wasn’t trying to refer to what he “taught”.[/b]
For starters, a man whose life has caused Western civilization to divide time into two portions, BC and AD, suggests that this life was very significant.
..…
How does that answer my question above? -I mean, how does “this life was very significant” (which is a bit vague) “require an explanation” if there was NO God any more than if there WAS a God?
===================================
It should not be vague. Significant is simply another word for impact here.
Now BC and AD as a division of world history shows the impact of Christ's life. This should be elimentary. It does not prove God's existence. It does argue that this singulal human life was tremendously influencial.
Secondly, AD (the year of our Lord) shows that many people were convinced of the Deity of Christ. At least they were convinced of the Divine lordship of Jesus Christ. That does argue for His ability to convince people not only of the existence of God but that He is representative of God as "our Lord".
Jesus made an extremly strong case for either being God Himself and/or in some way coming from the origin of God as His manifestation, or else some ancient time watchers would not divide history of civiliation into before His coming and during His existence.
The year of our Lord implied the resurrection and contiinued life of this man. It conforms to His concluding words in Matthew's Gospel - "Behold I am with you always, even unto the consummation of the age."
"Our Lord" being with us always making these times, years of "our Lord" show that some have believed He is divine , thus they've been convinced that God exists. I think they are right. He does.
Of course people may say "He is not my Lord. I do not believe in Him." That does not make God not exist. And I think the testimony of this One makes a stronger case for God's existence than the testimony of those saying His coming was no big deal and there is no God.
If Jesus was not Son of God He certainly deserves an Academy Award for acting like the Son of God. I choose to believe He is Son of God and my Lord.
================================
Remember that my question was in response to your comment:
what kind of “IMPACT” on human history are you referring to above that is “hard to EXPLAIN” if there is NO God but would NOT be “hard to EXPLAIN” if there IS a God? (hence my original question)
========================================
Theories like the Passover Plot, Mass Hullucinations, Swooning on the Cross rather than dying and being raised from the dead, legend inventing, mythology, Paul's imaginative concoction, and any number of counter explanations for the existence of the Christian Gospel, I think, are harder to justify then the truthfulness of the Gospel.
And the message of the Gospel certainly contains the existence of God. It is easier for me to believe that the God the Gospels speak of is real than it is to believe the conspiracy theories.
That is what I mean by "hard to explain".
In First Corinthians Paul said that the resurrected Christ appeared to 500 people, most of who were still alive at the time of his writing. This letter was written the congregation in Corinth around A.D. 59. If most of these witnesses were still alive they could have protested to the church in Corinth if Paul was not telling the truth.
It is striking that Paul would be so bold to write a thing like that if he knew that it could be easily dismissed as not true. There is no record of a protest. Skeptics may reason that Christians hide or destroyed such counter testimony. That's pure speculation.
I don't think the theory of 500 people have the same hullucination at the same time is too credible sounding.
Here's the passage I speak of:
"For I delivered to you, first of all, that which also I received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures; And that He was buried, and that He has been raised on the third day according to the Scriptures.
And that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve;
Then He appeared to over five hundred brothers at one time, of whom the majority remain until now, but some have fallen asleep.
Then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles.
And last of all He appeared to me also ..." (1 Cor. 15:3-8)
The evidence for a miracle having taken place is strong. The one upon whom the miracle occured, namely Jesus, predicted it and taught it as an act of God.
Do you have a better explanation how a man was tortured to death and after burial appeared alive to five hundred disciples at one time?
01 May 09
6 edits
Originally posted by jaywill…
[b]===================================
For starters, a man whose life has caused Western civilization to divide time into two portions, BC and AD, suggests that this life was very significant.
..…
How does that answer my question above? -I mean, how does “this life was very significant” (which is a bit vague) “require an explanation” if there was fter burial appeared [b] alive to five hundred disciples at one time?[/b]
===================================
For starters, a man whose life has caused Western civilization to divide time into two portions, BC and AD, suggests that this life was very significant.
..…
How does that answer my question above? -I mean, how does “this life was very significant” (which is a bit vague) “require an explanation” if there was NO God any more than if there WAS a God?
===================================
It should not be vague. Significant is simply another word for impact here.
..…[/b]
Ok -let me rephrase the question then:
How does “this life had great impact” “require an explanation” if there was NO God any more than if there WAS a God?
….Now BC and AD as a division of world history shows the impact of Christ's life. This should be elimentary. It does NOT prove God's existence.
..… (my emphasis)
Correct -that’s because its irrelevant to the existence/non-existence of a God.
….Secondly, AD (the year of our Lord) shows that many people were convinced of the Deity of Christ. At least they were convinced of the Divine lordship of Jesus Christ. That does argue for His ability to convince people not only of the existence of God but that He is representative of God as "our Lord".
… (my emphasis)
So he convinced a lot of people that he is representative of “God” -how does this relate to the probability of there EXISTING a “God“?
If five billion people were convinced by a man who claims to be “the son of Santa” that there was a Santa, would that make an EXISTENCE of a Santa any more probable?
…. Jesus made an extremely strong CASE for either being God Himself and/or in some way coming from the origin of God as His manifestation, or ELSE some ancient time watchers would not divide history of civiliation into before His coming and during His existence. … (my emphasis)
Did this “extremely strong CASE ” you speak of above consist of a LOGICAL argument?
-if so, exactly what was this LOGICAL argument and how does it logically follow from “some ancient time watchers divide history of civiliation into before His coming and during His existence” that “Jesus made an extremely strong LOGICAL argument (IF that is what you mean?) for either being God Himself and/or in some way coming from the origin of God as His manifestation”?
…
Theories like the Passover Plot, Mass Hullucinations, Swooning on the Cross rather than dying and being raised from the dead, legend inventing, mythology, Paul's imaginative concoction, and any number of counter explanations for the existence of the Christian Gospel, I think, are harder to justify then the truthfulness of the Gospel.
And the message of the Gospel certainly contains the existence of God. It is easier for me to believe that the God the Gospels speak of is real than it is to believe the CONSPIRACY theories.
That is what I mean by "hard to explain".
… (my emphasis)
No “CONSPIRACY theories” are necessary to “explain” why the Gospel says God exists if God doesn’t exist -if God doesn’t exist then those parts of the Gospel that says God exists can be “explained” simply by saying “they are incorrect” -no “CONSPIRACY” theories needed!
Therefore, there is nothing "hard to explain" here.
….In First Corinthians Paul said that the resurrected Christ appeared to 500 people, most of who were still alive at the time of his writing.
…
How do you know that these written accounts of what happened so far back in time are correct?
-it would be perfectly plausible that as these stories were passed-on from one generation to another they were not copied accurately and errors (some accidentally made and probably some deliberate made for political reasons) crept in.
….Do you have a better explanation how a man was tortured to death and after burial appeared alive to five hundred disciples at one time?
…
Yes -it didn’t happen -He was tortured to death, yes, but never appeared alive afterwards let alone to “five hundred disciples at one time” -that is my better explanation.
02 May 09
Originally posted by FreakyKBHThe bottom line here, whether eating the fruit created a new system of thought, or just gave the humans knowledge of concepts that already existed, is that you cannot hold someone morally culpable for an offense if they do not know their action is morally wrong.
[b]What exactly do you mean by "good and evil (as a system)"?
"Good and evil" as described by the first book in the Bible, is a system of thinking which was in antithesis to the system of thinking first given man for his survival on the planet while in the Garden.
The first system incorporated eating from all but one tree within the Garden, and the ...[text shortened]... eath was clearly represented and understood by man as something less than desirable.[/b]
It's obvious that you don't know what the word 'nebulous' means. I invite you to look it up, and then try responding again.
02 May 09
Originally posted by Proper Knob===================================
Which God are we talking about here?
Allah, Thor, Yahweh, Wodan, Ishvara, Bhagavan, Wodan, Vishnu, Krishna, Nirankar, Aten, Odin, i could go on and on and on?
Which God are we talking about here?
Allah, Thor, Yahweh, Wodan, Ishvara, Bhagavan, Wodan, Vishnu, Krishna, Nirankar, Aten, Odin, i could go on and on and on?
=======================================
We didn't get into that yet. I think we are just talking about God as a Being for whom a greater cannot be thought.
02 May 09
2 edits
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton=================================
…
===================================
For starters, a man whose life has caused Western civilization to divide time into two portions, BC and AD, suggests that this life was very significant.
..…
How does that answer my question above? -I mean, how does “this life was very significant” (which is a bit vague) “require an explanation” if the wards let alone to “five hundred disciples at one time” -that is my better explanation.
Correct -that’s because its irrelevant to the existence/non-existence of a God.
===================================
It is relevant that the people who invented the classification would disagree with you that it is irrelevant to the existence / non-existence of God. Other wise they would not have invented the distinction of before Christ and in the years of the Lord's continued presence.
Your saying "I don't recognize this Jesus Christ as MY Lord" doesn't make the non-existence of God somehow more rational.
I suggest that perhaps this designation of this Individual as such a pivatol marker in civilization, being termed by many as "Our Lord" could be because His words about Himself, as Lord, were true.
It doesn't prove it. But I don't think you can so easily dismiss the words and deeds of Christ concerning Who He is coupled with His ability to convinced a civilization to divide history according to His coming. Maybe He was believed to that point because He actually has that status as Son of God, the Lord.
Essentially, I am saying that a flippant dismissal of the matter is not too convincing a argument for your view that God does not exist. I haven't yet seen an alternative explanation for this impact from you.
Instead of a flippant dismissal of Before Christ and In the Year of Our Lord, offer an alternative as to why, out of millions of individual's in human history, this Person should be so convincing as to trigger that kind of status.
=====================================
So he convinced a lot of people that he is representative of “God” -how does this relate to the probability of there EXISTING a “God“?
=======================================
Do you use the same kind of logic for, say, Darwinism? Do you also say "Just because Charles Darwin convinced a lot of people that macro evolution occured does that encrease the probability of the existence of such a process?"
Don't you say "Probably he was right"? Or perhaps, "Of course he was right".
I am saying that Christ Himself pursuaded a civilization of His Divine Lordship as Son of God. It is logically possible that He deceived so many. But I find such conspiracy theories less probable than the probability that He was truthful.
==================================
If five billion people were convinced by a man who claims to be “the son of Santa” that there was a Santa, would that make an EXISTENCE of a Santa any more probable?
===================================
Well, let's take Santa. In my experience, when my dad told me on Christmas eve that I better be good and go to bed, because he thought he heard some sleigh bells outside in the distance, I knew even as a child that he was just kidding. And I hadn't even reached adolescence.
Most people who talk about Santa Claus do not speak with much conviction as if they really are believers in Santa. It is more like "Let's go along with this gimmick for fun."
Now grant, some people may treat Christ the same way. But I think not too much. I know of no "billions" who believe in Santa who are adults. I may know of millions who are kind of "playing along" with a "fun" imaginative scenario obviosly designed to entertain the childish mind.
==========================
Did this “extremely strong CASE ” you speak of above consist of a LOGICAL argument?
============================
I think so indeed. Resurrection from the by Jesus, according to His prediction that this was an act that God would perform upon Him, is a strong logical case.
And He did present Himself for empirical examination - "irrefutable proofs":
"To whom also He presented Himself alive after His suffering by many irrefutable proof, appearing to them through a period of forty days and speaking to them concerning the kingdom of God." (Acts 1:3)
"And as they were speaking these things, He Himself stood in their midst and said to them, Peace to you. But they were terrified and became frightened and thought they beheld a spirit.
And He said to them, Why are you troubled, and why do doubts arise in your heart? See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself.
Touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you behold Me having.
And when He had said this, He showed them His hands and His feet. And while they still did not believe for joy and were marveling, He said to them, Do you have anything here to eat? And they handed to Him a piece of broiled fish. And He took it and ate before them." (Luke 24:36-43)
There is not only the logic of this way in which Christ submitted to physical examination. There is also the logic of the fulfillment of His previous words and of the prophetic words of the Hebrew Bible presented a evidence:
"And He said to them, These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all the things written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and Psalms concerning Me must be fulfilled.
Then He opened their mind to understand the Scriptures; And He said to them, Thus it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise up from the dead on the third day, and that repentence for sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem.
You are witnesses of these things." (Luke 24:44-49)
And of course at every step He said God His Father was involved. His resurrection is tied up with the existence of God.
That is an example of some of the logic used. And minds as smart as yours and smarter, have been persuaded, logically.
But that is not the only logic. There is also the logic of His indwelling presence to those who believe, His life changing power to those who obey while believing. While I admit that an unbeliever has no personal experience, yet, with this indwelling of the Spirit of Christ, to many of us the experience convinces us logically that we are indeed on the right track.
In my case of my former sinful life and my former inability to escape my sins, I am pretty sure that the changes within my heart do not have ME as their source. I conclude quite logically - "Jesus must have been telling the truth. His apostles must also have been telling the truth."
I don't understand the complaint "But there's no logic". There is logic to those who do not exclude the possibility of God from their reasoning about it.
Why should the default start position be "But we start knowing that there cannot be a God"? Why is that a more reasonable starting point to reason from?
02 May 09
2 edits
=================================
No “CONSPIRACY theories” are necessary to “explain” why the Gospel says God exists if God doesn’t exist -if God doesn’t exist then those parts of the Gospel that says God exists can be “explained” simply by saying “they are incorrect” -no “CONSPIRACY” theories needed!
Therefore, there is nothing "hard to explain" here.
=======================================
LOL. Well Andrew, I'm not really a heavy on philosophical kinds of debate. But I am reading about some philodophical systems.
I don't follow your thoughts totally. However, I think I could say that even with faith there is a logic. Faith is not totally devoid of logic.
I find a little amusing your attitude like "What is WITH all these illogical people"?
We met Jesus. You see, it is not simply our faith alone. It is our faith complimented by God's faithfulness.
Faith calls for faithfulness. God was faithful to the words of faith. So there are really two sides to the matter - Our faith and God's faithfulNESS.
=====================================
….In First Corinthians Paul said that the resurrected Christ appeared to 500 people, most of who were still alive at the time of his writing.
…
How do you know that these written accounts of what happened so far back in time are correct?
====================================
I believe that it all adds up. It makes sense.
The death of Jesus is a very established historical fact. And that a band of cowaring disciples, hiding away for fear that they themselves might be next to be nailed on a Roman cross, were somehow turned into a team of witnesses giving up their comfort and lives to spread the news of Christ's resurrection, needs some explanation.
What would they gain for concocting a fantasy, wealth, fame, prestiege? Have you read Paul's second letter, say, to the Corinthians? This is a valuable document. It could be considered an autobiography of a Cristian apostle.
If you would read it perhaps you could point out what benefit Paul derived from pouring out his life for such a cause. It didn't put money in his pocket. He sacrificed his whole life in return for whippings, imprisonment, criticisms from his own congregations, theft, imprisonment, nakedness, sleeplessness, shipwreck, destitution, unfaithfulness of coworkers, intense opposition from religious folks, trials, rumors, lies, plots to kill him, ... etc.
I mean what benefit would he derive from what he did? A plausible explanation was that it was reality and it was worth spending his whole being to let the world know that Jesus was Son of God and man's Savior.
It is at least a strong possibility to consider. Cavalier dismissals don't impress me too much as any thing more than a kind of stubburness.
Harvard attorney Grealy (first name escpates me) approached the Gospels skeptically to examine how solid the evidence was for Christ's resurrection from a legal perspective and the rules of Evidence. His skepticism was turned into belief in Christ as a result. He was an expert on Evidence.
======================================
-it would be perfectly plausible that as these stories were passed-on from one generation to another they were not copied accurately and errors (some accidentally made and probably some deliberate made for political reasons) crept in.
=========================================
I'll come back to this latter. The evidence is that the New Testament that we possess today is about 98 or 99 percent free from substantial copiest errors which would render any major tenet of the Christian faith suspect as a latter amendation.
Yes there are thousands of copiest errors in the thousands of fragments or whole copies of the document. By far most of them are typos of no significant consequences to any major theme of the Gospel.
To repeat, there are indeed thousands of instances of typos in the many copies of this ancient document. People who care about it keep track of these errors, catolog them, date them, arrange them, sift through them very carefully. And the experts have found that none of them are so significant as to assume a major concept of the Christian faith is effected.
This is a big subject. Textural criticism has convinced many experts of the reliability of the New Testament as copy of the non-existent originals. This requires some long discussion which I can only post briefly here on this forum.
The writings of F.F. Bruce or Benjamin Warfield would be good books devoted to textural reliability of the New Testament. I have read A General Introduction to the Bible by Norm Giesler which went into the matter extensively.
=======================
….Do you have a better explanation how a man was tortured to death and after burial appeared alive to five hundred disciples at one time?
…
Yes -it didn’t happen
==============================
On your say so?
=========================
-He was tortured to death, yes, but never appeared alive afterwards let alone to “five hundred disciples at one time” -that is my better explanation.
==================================
Your view would be strengthened if you could produce first century testimony from one of these complaining that Paul was misled about what they saw.
Your view could be strengthend by explaining why Paul would write such a bold statement about something which could easily be fact checked with his contemporaries.
Your view could be strengthened by examining Paul's letters for indications that he was given to dishonesty or even mental problems.
Just saying "I say it didn't happen" means little.
It also strikes me as realistic that some people in the Corinthian church needed themselves to be assured of Christ's resurrection. This shows me that they were typical people to question the occurance of a miracle. The candid fact that Paul had to argue with them and refer to contemporary witnesses, I think is realistic if Christ did rise.
But aside from the New Testament, I don't think you told me how the universe could come into existence all by itself. And I don't think you have explained how the current evidence of the "Big Bang" argues for an eternally existent universe.
Now I think an act of 1.) Divine Will cause it to come into existence. And the ability of 2.) Divine unlimited power is responsible for it coming into existence.
Something, or more believably Someone outside of it and preexistent to it, willed it into existence.