Welcome!

By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.

SignUp Now!
  • Welcome to Talk Jesus Christian Forums

    Celebrating 20 Years!

    A bible based, Jesus Christ centered community.

    Register Log In

Atheism

Status
Not open for further replies.
You appear to have moved your goal posts from "Christianity has a history of impeding knowledge that contradicted certain interpretations of scripture" to "No Christian has every contributed to our knowledge of the world."

Individual Christians have certainly made amazing scientific contributions. What I'm pointing out is that, while many Christians have found a way to reconcile science with faith they most often do so not by trying to use scripture to inform reality, but by using reality to inform their understanding of scripture. Unfortunately, most Christians throughout history don't seem to have particularly liked this approach and so Christianity has a very long and tragic history of suppressing knowledge and inquiry.

It was not until we followed Galileo's advice that, "in the discussion of natural problems we ought to begin not with the Scriptures, but with experiments and demonstrations." that the scientific revolution began. The Christian church cannot claim responsibility for a movement towards empiricism and away from mysticism that it fought from the outset and, in truth, is still trying to fight today.




Lurker

I would state that is because religion and specifically the Bible does not argue of natural problems other than the state of mans fallen nature. The Bible's message is clear - God created man, man screwed the pooch, and God needed to bail him out. The mechanisms behind the scenes are not discussed since the problem domain is - how does God redeem man. This is not a problem of science.

There is some intersection only because science wants to prove that man does not need God (for whatever reason) since the early 1900s. The Bible does not state how God formulated and implemented gravity, or even if He allowed its natural progression since creation. It states that when He created the universe that it was good. He was pleased. Then man came and it became hosed.

The Christian then has the audacity to state the God was only able to fix the situation by coming down into the world and taking the punishment that we all deserve upon Himself.

This is not a science problem, but a demonstration of Grace that transcends our ability to comprehend.
 
I must laugh, or else I will become cynical at people who want to blame Christ for evil, even when this evil is obvious at its source.

I seem to recall saying that "Christians" were involved in developing Germany's pre-WWII racial policies, not "Christ".

You can make every argument you want to blame Christians for eugenics, but you would be wrong sir.

Except, of course, that I'm not. Hitler never mentions Darwin, but he mentions God. . .a lot. If you've ever read Mein Kampf you cannot help but note how he repeatedly invokes not a scientific or evolutionary right of the strong to oppress and destroy the weak, but of a divine, God-given, superiority.

“Warning voices were raised in the 18th and 19th centuries when Liberalism began to destroy the peoples of Europe. Gobineau recognized with sure perceptiveness the danger of race mixing. H. St. Chamberlain followed him, as did many others, above all F. K. Günter, who wrote The Racial Nature of the German People.

“We owe to these Nordic scientists this revolutionary knowledge: Humanity is not equal. Just as plants and animals are of different types, so too are people. Each of these types inherits certain characteristics, which distinguish it from all other types, from all other races. Racial differences are physical, spiritual, and intellectual. The most important differences are in the spiritual and intellectual areas, in life styles. Racial science is further supported by advances in genetics. Nordic scientists probed ever deeper into the secrets of life and nature. Gregor Mendel was the first to discover the laws of genetics, opening the way to understanding one of God’s greatest secrets, the nature and continuation of life.

“Genetics tells us that characteristics are passed unaltered from generation to generation, and that spiritual and other characteristics are inherited along with physical ones. The environment can only influence what is already present in the genes. Unlike animals, a person does not have a single environment, but also lives in the cultural world of his race and people. This too determines the development of his inherited traits. His culture comes from his inheritance. Therefore, the race to which we belong determines the life we are born into, and the life we pass on.”

1943 pamphlet Der Reichsführer SS/SS-Hauptamt​

Both Chamberlain and Gabineau were Christians who rejected biological evolution in addition to Darwin’s personal convictions race. In Gabineau’s case, he had developed the underpinnings of scientific racism prior to Darwin’s publication of his theories. The line from Gabineau to Nazi policy is very clear, and the line from Chamberlain’s Nordic theories directly to Hitler is undeniable.

Hitler’s particular form of racism demanded that the races be separate, something that Darwin’s explicit view of common ancestry contradicted. Which is why Hitler rejected the biological theory of evolution and instead embraced a pseudo-mystic version of some social darwinian concepts incorporated into Chamberlain’s nordic theory. Instead of embracing Darwin, the Nazi’s burned his books.

Guidelines from Die Bücherei 2:6 (1935), p. 279
6. Writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism (Häckel).
(library.arizona.edu/exhibits/burnedbooks/documents.htm]When Books Burn: Lists of Banned Books, 1933-1939)

Consequently, the link between Chamberlain, a Christian who rejected Darwin’s biological theory of evolution, is quite direct and well documented.

“Chamberlain himself lived to see his ideas begin to bear fruit. Adolf Hitler, while still growing as a political figure in Germany, visited him several times (in 1923 and in 1926, together with Joseph Goebbels) at the Wagner family’s property in Bayreuth.[25] Chamberlain, paralyzed and despondent after Germany’s losses in World War I, wrote to Hitler after his first visit in 1923:

“‘Most respected and dear Hitler, … It is hardly surprising that a man like that can give peace to a poor suffering spirit! Especially when he is dedicated to the service of the fatherland. My faith in Germandom has not wavered for a moment, though my hopes were – I confess – at a low ebb. With one stroke you have transformed the state of my soul. That Germany, in the hour of her greatest need, brings forth a Hitler – that is proof of her vitality … that the magnificent Ludendorff openly supports you and your movement: What wonderful confirmation! I can now go untroubled to sleep… May God protect you!‘[25]

“Chamberlain joined the Nazi Party and contributed to its publications. Its primary journal, the Völkischer Beobachter or Racial Observer, dedicated five columns to praising him on his 70th birthday, describing The Foundations as the “gospel of the Nazi movement.”[27]

“Hitler later attended Chamberlain’s funeral in January 1927 along with several highly ranked members of the Nazi party.[28] Chamberlain’s ideas were influential in particular to Alfred Rosenberg, who became the Nazi Party’s in-house philosopher.”
(en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Houston_Stewart_Chamberlain%23The_impact_of_The_Foundations]Houston Stewart Chamberlain - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

No other religion on the planet believe that all men are equal and free under God, and promotes liberty at the hand of the tyrant.

Are you trying to say that Christianity is a religion that holds all men are equal and free under God and promotes liberty at the hand of the tyrant? Curious that it took two thousand years and a group of mostly deists to find this new interpretation. Why was such a notion hidden from the pious prayers of so many millions who lived and died prior to the American Revolution?

My answer is that it was the cultural influence of the enlightenment that gave us such notions and, once they had taken root, we looked to Christianity for those bits and pieces which would reinforce this notion so that now, several centuries removed, we imagine that our religion formed our culture when in reality our culture has molded our religious views.



Lurker​
 
1) Of course all men are free under Christ - the essential message of Christianity is that the fall in sin is made 'whole' by Christ.

2) I disagree with your analysis of Germanic roots being Christian regarding Eugenics. As Mendel was definitely a Christian, going from Mendel to Mengele is a big stretch. Social Darwinism or Neo-Darwinism was de-rigeur in Nazi Germany. Hitler stated that he was a Christian, this is true. Not everyone who proclaims Christ as Lord is a Christian however. The devil himself quotes scripture to God to indict all of us.

In some private conversations that were published recently by his secretary -
"National Socialism and religion cannot exist together....

"The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity....

"Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things."
3) I would certainly state that liberty is a foundation of Christianity, for we are free in Christ. I am a Christian anarchist - I am obedient to the authority given to me in life (my wife, my parents before marriage, those spiritually teaching me, etc..), but I think the government is a bunch of hosers. In fact the Lord Himself stated it was not wise for His people to have a king.

I submit 1 Samuel 13 for your edification -
But when they said, “Give us a king to lead us,” this displeased Samuel; so he prayed to the LORD. And the LORD told him: “Listen to all that the people are saying to you; it is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king. <sup class="versenum" id="en-NIV-7378"></sup> As they have done from the day I brought them up out of Egypt until this day, forsaking me and serving other gods, so they are doing to you.<sup class="versenum" id="en-NIV-7379"></sup> Now listen to them; but warn them solemnly and let them know what the king who will reign over them will claim as his rights.”​
Samuel told all the words of the LORD to the people who were asking him for a king.<sup class="versenum" id="en-NIV-7381"></sup> He said, “This is what the king who will reign over you will claim as his rights: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers.<sup class="versenum" id="en-NIV-7384"></sup> He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants.<sup class="versenum" id="en-NIV-7385"></sup> He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants.<sup class="versenum" id="en-NIV-7386"></sup> Your male and female servants and the best of your cattle<sup class="footnote" value="[<a href=&quot;#fen-NIV-7386c&quot; title=&quot;See footnote c&quot;>c</a>]"></sup> and donkeys he will take for his own use. He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves.<sup class="versenum" id="en-NIV-7388"></sup> When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, but the LORD will not answer you in that day.”
4) I do further agree that Christian involvement with government is sketchy. I think its sketchy now. War has somehow become a Christian value? What kind of crap is this (if you pardon the expression)? Further, I have no answer as to why Christians fail to remove the state from their presence. The state can do nothing but pervert our values and fundamental principles regarding life and liberty.

5) But, one thing is clear - even as the Christian should submit to God above all else, including the state - the state hates the Christian because of our fundamental understanding that all men come to the Throne of God as equals.

The primacy of the message is in no doubt - Only by Christ are we saved, not by anything we could possibly do on this earthly realm. We are saved by faith and by Grace. Thus we are Christians.
 
Last edited:
Interesting discussion, but I think it is a mistake to try and defend "Christianity" as a historical, political entity. People and politics are corrupt. They will use whatever vehicle serves their interests best. The fact that countless dictators, kings, kingdoms etc have highjacked Christianity for their own ends proves nothing. It does not prove that Jesus is in any way responsible for the destruction wreaked in his name. And lets face it, there has been some absolutely disgusting stuff said and done in his name.

If you study the teachings of Jesus it should not take long before you see that what Jesus was saying and what the Nazis (or whoever poliitico-religious organisation you care to choose) were promoting are light years apart. The problem is of course that what passes for Christianity today, is also very far from what Jesus taught. So while I would not defend the record of Christianity today, I do still defend Jesus and what he taught, even though his name has been misused and abused.
Jesus taught a form of socialism, non-materialism and communal-ism, which was practiced by the early Christians, and if modern Christians ever got the courage to go back to that, they could turn the World upside-down (again)! And perhaps there would be less atheists! (no offense Lurker).
 
2) I disagree with your analysis of Germanic roots being Christian regarding Eugenics. As Mendel was definitely a Christian, going from Mendel to Mengele is a big stretch.

Yet going from Chamberlain and Gabineau to Hitler is a straight and well documented line. The facts of history simply are that Christians laid down the foundations of "scientific racism" based on their religious views long before Darwin.

Not everyone who proclaims Christ as Lord is a Christian however. The devil himself quotes scripture to God to indict all of us.

No true Scotsman?

In some private conversations that were published recently by his secretary
Careful, you seem to be quoting from a notoriously poor source - the Trevor-Roper edition of Table Talk.​
"A major controversy has arisen from the text of the Table Talk concerning what it reveals about Hitler's private religious views, due to the fact that supposedly overt declarations of Hitler's atheism are repeatedly quoted from the Trevor-Roper edition in various media, reflecting a wider movement to depict Hitler as an atheist.[1] Historian Richard Carrier has shown that much of this (the only English) edition is actually a (poor) translation of Genoud's French instead of the German original. He also argues, based on a comparison with the original German text, that the French of Genoud is fraudulent, so that in many cases no one "who quotes this text is quoting what Hitler actually said."[2][3] Many of the quotations used to assert Hitler's anti-Christianity are from this unreliable Genoud-Trevor-Roper translation. Albert Speer, who was the Minister of Armaments and War Production for Nazi Germany, confirmed the authenticity of Henry Picker's "Table Talk" transcripts in his 1976 memoirs.[4] Carrier states, "It is clear that Picker and Jochmann have the correct text and Trevor-Roper's is entirely untrustworthy."[2]"​
(en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler's_Table_Talk#Controversy_about_Hitler.27s_comments_on_religion)​

I would certainly state that liberty is a foundation of Christianity, for we are free in Christ.​
So. . .it took a group of nominal deists two thousand years after Christ's death to figure that out? Isn't that rather convenient for you?​
I do further agree that Christian involvement with government is sketchy. I think its sketchy now.​
Religious involvement with government has always been "sketchy".​
Further, I have no answer as to why Christians fail to remove the state from their presence. The state can do nothing but pervert our values and fundamental principles regarding life and liberty.​
Well. . .er. . .not really. It can also provide lots of services and benefits in this grand thing we like to call "civilization".​
the state hates the Christian because of our fundamental understanding that all men come to the Throne of God as equals.​
"The state" is just a group of people, most of whom we elect, and most of whom are Christians. Why on earth do you think this group of mostly Christians hate "the Christian"?​
The primacy of the message is in no doubt - Only by Christ are we saved, not by anything we could possibly do on this earthly realm. We are saved by faith and by Grace. Thus we are Christians.​
I certainly hold that message in doubt, thus my questions concerning it not the least of which is why Christians have just plain old gotten so many things wrong throughout history from the earth's relation to the rest of the universe to the basic issues of human rights. If the bible is an instrument of divine truth why have its most pious adherents been so wrong?​
Lurker​
 
I certainly hold that message in doubt, thus my questions concerning it not the least of which is why Christians have just plain old gotten so many things wrong throughout history from the earth's relation to the rest of the universe to the basic issues of human rights. If the bible is an instrument of divine truth why have its most pious adherents been so wrong?

You're kidding right? You stereotype the entire Christian people because of a handful of those "adherents" you claim to be wrong? Are you serious? That is chidlike thinking.

Why are you here again? You're obviously not here to learn, nor respect our community. So obviously YOU got it all "wrong" here. You do not respect our community, the motto and forum rules.
 
I am not one to actually enjoy debates about religion, but this has been an interesting journey that some of us can maybe agree to. I think it is worth to note the bottom line here:

Those without faith cannot prove that God does not exist.

Those with faith cannot prove that God does in fact exist.

No scientific theory supports the existence or non existence, but logic supports the two statements above.

Observe this: There are a countless amounts of things that the bible does not explain in details. Whether it be certain actions in life to the world around us, the bible isn't about dinosaurs or brushing your teeth. Science has yet to provide iron clad theories for a countless amount of things as well, science doesn't understand everything. Science cannot tell us exactly how many stars are in the universe, or at what rate it expands. It cannot prove that there are other lifeforms (kind of like us) on other planets. These are all merely just examples though, no need to nitpick lol.

This is a subject where people have to agree to disagree, or it will just get worse and worse.

As Christians, we have to accept the fact that we cannot prove God's existence to others, that is God's job. Arguing details and theories will sadly get us nowhere when it comes to a debate against atheism or unbelief in God. We must also take notice to the fact that God appeals to each and every person differently. We all believe for a variety of different reasons, and (in my opinion) God exploits this. He provides us comfort when thinking about what happens after death. He provides us with company when we feel alone. He provides us with courage when facing the world and hard times in it. It varies from Christian to Christian on the exact points of why they believe. Of course these things could change in time, and even more reasons be added to it.

As Scientists and logical people, we have to accept the fact that we cannot prove that God does not exist. It is a rule in this field that anything is possible. Einstein thought that it would be impossible to surpass the speed of light. We surpassed the speed of light using a particle recently. I am not saying that science is always wrong, but I am saying that scientists and logical people should be OPEN to the idea of at least some sort of "Higher Power". It is a logical choice to assume so.

I am a believer. I am a logical person. I adapt both to one another without destroying or arguing about it. I do not claim that science isn't real. I believe that God created science so we can learn about his creations in detail. So we can unearth the past, and learn from the mistakes of past humanity. This makes sense to me. That makes sense to you. We are different, and will forever be so. There is no reason to actually "debate". I think a good solution would be to state ones opinion, and discuss it. As a Christian love will be your motive, show people you care! Listen to them, you do not deny God by listening and loving! As a scientist or a logical person, gather massive amounts of information! I like to do both. :)

Agree to disagree.
 
More bald assertions. Do you have an example? We could start a new thread on it if you'd like. A lack of knowledge is something I can help you with; a desire to be wrong is not.

Lurker - I'm sorry to disappoint you in saying that I am not here to be a Creationist or Intelligent Design apologist, nor do I care to be. In this thread, or another. If you really care to delve into the various proofs / evidence / white-papers / thesis / books / website...those are readily available at your fingertips or your local public or university libraries. I've read books on these subjects, sat through lectures, etc...and you know the arguments too, I presume. These aren't bald assertions, and your argument isn't really with me anyways.

Yes Lurker, you've repeated that last sentence before. I understand the dis from you - it fits with what I'm beginning to ascertain of your standard m.o. with those who see things differently than you. As for me, I can assure you that I do not have a desire to be wrong...and I'll disagree with you from a statement you said several pages back, that you believe there are people that truly have such a desire. That is either a naive statement, or a showing of complete misunderstanding of the true and most real nature of human beings. If there are people who "have a desire to be wrong", it's probably a defensive mechanism to protect themselves from something that is very real to them...but I do not believe there is anyone in humanity who truly and deeply has a desire to be wrong.


Certainly ideologies and politics influence scientists, but the process of science is built to be largely self-correcting by focusing so much importance on evidence. The failure of movements like Intelligent Design and skeptics of climate change is not due to ideology and/or politics - it's due to an utter lack of evidence supporting them.

This is naivety on your part, and I feel that is more than simply my opinion, Lurker. Again, if you really want to understand why I say that, the information is at your fingertips, or in you local community, all around you, and I'm not going to play apologist here.

Yes, the stated idea of science is "built to be largely self-correcting" by focusing on evidence, etc...and in large part, it does a good job at doing that. But, just as the idea of government has deviated so greatly from it's observable functionality, science too, falls short from its stated goal.

And to go full-circle here, the reason for this, is humans. We filter everything through these relatively small brains that we have, limited in their ability to ascertain full-knowledge of things...not due to their lack of function, but our limited perspectives. Your life is a vapor. Many before you, and many who will come later. And in this vapor of your life, to think you can know (i.e., scientifically prove) how things took place 6,000, or millions-and-millions of years ago (I don't particularly care which of those may be true) when you weren't there, and no one alive today was either....is simply asinine. No matter what "case" or "proof" you think you have.

I'm out on this...but hope you may stop lurking and enter into the larger offering of the forum discussions.
 
You're kidding right? You stereotype the entire Christian people because of a handful of those "adherents" you claim to be wrong? Are you serious? That is chidlike thinking.

What would happen if you were transported back in time 100 years? 200 years? 500 years? 1000 years? It's undeniable that if you were to do so and walk into any church espousing many of those doctrines and beliefs you think are so orthodox, conservative, and safe that you would be considered blasphemous, heretical, or at the very least severely wrong.

I certainly do not hold all Christians as liable for the errors of an outspoken few, but the larger pattern of error is clearly there. From science to theology, there simply is no consistent line of thinking on all but the most general of issues from the early church to today. Women's rights, slavery, heliocentrism, divorce, human rights; on all these issues and more Christianity had hundreds of years to an inerrant message from God to guide it and yet our views today on all these issues are quite distinct from the common "Christian" view centuries or even decades ago.

Why are you here again? You're obviously not here to learn, nor respect our community.

I'm here because I have questions. I'm sorry those questions may be difficult or that we may run into trouble expressing our own ideas clearly but I certainly don't see that as a failure to learn.

You do not respect our community, the motto and forum rules.

Disagreement does not equal disrespect. Nor am I aware of a forum rule that I am violating. If I am, please let me know what, specifically, that is so I can address it. Thanks.




Lurker
 
I am not saying that science is always wrong, but I am saying that scientists and logical people should be OPEN to the idea of at least some sort of "Higher Power". It is a logical choice to assume so.

I completely agree. What I'd like to know is how you know that the God of evangelical Christianity is that higher power.



Lurker
 
Hello IL.

How do we know God exists?

Like I said before, through revelation.

Seek and you will find God.

Knock and the door will open for you IL.

You sought knowledge in Science and you gained
knowledge in Science. Similar process.

God is Spirit, He is not made from the furnaces of stars.

Because God is Spirit, He is not temporal, not within time, eternal.

There are no physical restraints on the Spirit.

Ever wondered why so much of the Bible is miraculous?

Answer: because God is Spirit, we are not.

Our Bible is not the work of human hands, it is the revelation
of Jesus Christ, this light shone in the darkness and the darkness
did not comprehend it.
 
If you really care to delve into the various proofs / evidence / white-papers / thesis / books / website...those are readily available at your fingertips or your local public or university libraries.

Already done - it was by understanding these subjects and more that I came to understand their error.

Yes Lurker, you've repeated that last sentence before. I understand the dis from you - it fits with what I'm beginning to ascertain of your standard m.o. with those who see things differently than you.

It's not meant to be a "dis", it's just a statement of what I will and won't try to do. I have a decent understanding of most of these topics and I'd like to think I'm pretty good at explaining them in a way most people can understand. What I won't bother with, however, is trying to explain something to you that you're unwilling to try and understand.

As for me, I can assure you that I do not have a desire to be wrong...

While I don't think you have some burning desire to be wrong for the sake of being wrong, I think you do have an emotional attachment to a position that is wrong which makes you reject contradictory evidence out of hand. Case in point, you seem to want to believe that scientists are being "black balled" for trying to get legitimate research on ID published yet I very much doubt you could give me a single valid example to back that assertion up. I'm sure that you really want to believe that as it would line up nicely with your current view of science, but is that desire based on anything other than confirmation bias?

[/quote]
Yes, the stated idea of science is "built to be largely self-correcting" by focusing on evidence, etc...and in large part, it does a good job at doing that. But, just as the idea of government has deviated so greatly from it's observable functionality, science too, falls short from its stated goal.
[/quote]

Is this assertion just a "feeling" of yours or is it actually based on some kind of evidence?





Lurker
 
How do we know God exists?

Like I said before, through revelation.

Seek and you will find God.

Knock and the door will open for you IL.

I've been honestly seeking to understand God for years, and none of what I have found has led me to believe that Christianity has some divine monopoly on truth. Is my revelation as valid as yours? Why or why not?

Ever wondered why so much of the Bible is miraculous?

Answer: because God is Spirit, we are not.

Lots of religious texts contain miraculous events. . .does that mean that their deities are also "spirit"?

Our Bible is not the work of human hands, it is the revelation
of Jesus Christ,

Yes, I've heard you (and others) say this over and over. What I'd like to figure out is how I can know that the Christian God is actually the creator of the universe and how I can know that the Bible actually is His revelation. I seem to be thwarted in answering both these questions by the fact that the universe doesn't seem to need a creator (or at least not a creator with most of the characteristics of the Christian God) and that the Bible is wrong about lots of stuff a Creator-God would know.





Lurker
 
I completely agree. What I'd like to know is how you know that the God of evangelical Christianity is that higher power.



Lurker

I can't say that I know, because I cannot prove it. I do however know I believe in it. Knowing and believing are two different things in my opinion. When you know something, it gives constant evidence of its existence. Since I have established already that there is no up front evidence, (like how science can explain why the earth revolves around the sun, and the moon around the earth) I cannot claim that "I know". I believe for my own personal reasons which end with me being happy in my belief. I hope this answered your question.
 
Dear Itinerant Lurker.

Your questions are very good questions, very similar to the questions
I asked myself when subjected to the Biblical presentation.

World religions fall into two broad categories, Biblical in origin and non Biblical. This is an enormous subject to deal with so I will be brief.

So, Catholicism, Protestantism, Fundamentalism, Islam, Judaism as well as numerous sects and variations on those mentioned. Will approximately be seen as having the Bible in some part as the origin of the religion.

Non Biblical religions are many and varied, Hinduism, Buddhism, Shintoism, etc. India has over 1000 religions on its own.

I read parts of the Hindu equivalent of the Bible the Bhagavad (one of three), this was in no way comparable to the Bible. I thought is was easily dismissed as human ideas on paper.

Buddhism is a philosophy, so will not be included in this discussion.

Shintoism: folklore, history and mythology, also not included.

So we are left with the heavyweights, all trace back to the Bible in some form. If you had more Biblical understanding IL I could differentiate the Biblical religions for you. But, alas your knowledge is
limited. So I am restrained in what I can contribute at this stage.

With our very limited ability to understand or detect that which surrounds us, I would be very hesitant to state that a creator is not needed as you stated.

Science could continue to study what we refer to as reality for a thousand years and still find no evidence for or against a creator.

IL you must occupy the more intelligent position of humility in these
areas. I had a background in Science before I started to read the Bible. It was a difficult process for a few years trying to understand
the concept of a spiritual God outside of time and space. As I understood more and more I became aware that I really was completely ignorant and ill equipped to grasp this God in an intellectual
manner.

Further, you will just have to submit as I did to a period of reading
of the New Testament. Once you become somewhat educated in the
NT then you will better understand who this God, Jesus Christ is.

As far as I am concerned Jesus Christ is the only fact that has occurred in human history of importance. All the rest is negotiable and debatable dependent on assumptions.
 
I read parts of the Hindu equivalent of the Bible the Bhagavad (one of three), this was in no way comparable to the Bible. I thought is was easily dismissed as human ideas on paper.

How so? There is the same tension between the one and the many found within trinitarian doctrines, and Hinduism contains theologies in which the individual surrenders oneself to "god" in what sounds awfully similar to an evangelical sermon,

"Abandoning all Dharmas, come unto Me alone for shelter; sorrow not, I will liberate you from all sins." -Bhagavada-Gita 18:66​

Surely had you grown up in an eastern-Hindu culture then these would seem to be divine words to you, and the Bible easily dismissed as human ideas on paper. How else can we explain the fact that the huge majority of people who grow in religious cultures seem to always believe their own belief system to be superior, and all others merely amusing collections of "human ideas"?

So we are left with the heavyweights, all trace back to the Bible in some form. If you had more Biblical understanding IL I could differentiate the Biblical religions for you. But, alas your knowledge is
limited. So I am restrained in what I can contribute at this stage.

That's quite an amusing assumption. I imagine that a Hindu or Muslim would tell you precisely the same thing about your lack of true understanding of their holy texts. It all sounds like no true Scotsman to me.

With our very limited ability to understand or detect that which surrounds us, I would be very hesitant to state that a creator is not needed as you stated.

I suspect that our understanding of our universe is quite a bit less limited than you think. We've done some pretty amazing things, we humans, and have come to understand some of the most fundamental aspects of our place in the universe. Limited though our knowledge may be, we have yet to find a need for a creator-god. This strikes me as a remarkable oversight for any creator.

IL you must occupy the more intelligent position of humility in these
areas. I had a background in Science before I started to read the Bible. It was a difficult process for a few years trying to understand
the concept of a spiritual God outside of time and space. As I understood more and more I became aware that I really was completely ignorant and ill equipped to grasp this God in an intellectual
manner.

I have no idea what you are trying to tell me to do. How, precisely, am I to "occupy the more intelligent position of humility"? Is that somehow different from telling me that I have to already believe the bible in order to believe it?

Further, you will just have to submit as I did to a period of reading
of the New Testament. Once you become somewhat educated in the
NT then you will better understand who this God, Jesus Christ is.

It's rather curious that you assume I haven't read the NT.

As far as I am concerned Jesus Christ is the only fact that has occurred in human history of importance. All the rest is negotiable and debatable dependent on assumptions.

I am far less interested in the fact that you believe Jesus Christ is God than I am in how you came to believe this as a fact.



Lurker
 
Last edited:
Already done - it was by understanding these subjects and more that I came to understand their error.

Then why are you here, Lurker...if you've already fully understood their error, and seemingly "closed the book" on it, as such?

What are you searching for, if you already know the answers? I don't personally believe you are here simply to gain "followers" in your way, or to gain the personal puffery you may get from winning a debate...although I could be wrong.

What doubt, in all your "understanding" do you still lack conviction on?


It's not meant to be a "dis", it's just a statement of what I will and won't try to do. I have a decent understanding of most of these topics and I'd like to think I'm pretty good at explaining them in a way most people can understand. What I won't bother with, however, is trying to explain something to you that you're unwilling to try and understand.

What have I been unwilling to try and understand from you, Lurker?


While I don't think you have some burning desire to be wrong for the sake of being wrong, I think you do have an emotional attachment to a position that is wrong which makes you reject contradictory evidence out of hand. Case in point, you seem to want to believe that scientists are being "black balled" for trying to get legitimate research on ID published yet I very much doubt you could give me a single valid example to back that assertion up. I'm sure that you really want to believe that as it would line up nicely with your current view of science, but is that desire based on anything other than confirmation bias?

That is a fair enough point, I suppose. I have put my chips on something that goes far beyond head-knowledge. It is a relationship. It's incomparable to simply head-knowledge. Head knowledge won't save you, Lurker. I suppose it may make you feel smart, whether you are or aren't.

And believe me, or not, I could give you many example of the research/science behind the ID movement, as well Creationism. I am personally good friends with an authority on the subject. Probably has written some of the books on it, that you say you've read. I won't do that with you, Lurker, because I have zero interest in playing s.i.e.'s brain vs. Lurker's brain. That's an exercise in mental gyration that is worthless, and wouldn't bring us to a place that would be better than where we are here. If you want to mentally arm-wrestle creationist's / ID guys...I have no doubt you can find many that would love to do that. I'm not that guy.

Is this assertion just a "feeling" of yours or is it actually based on some kind of evidence?

No more than your assertion on the subject, Lurker.

I'm not asking for you to show/prove to me that you have evidence, that the scientific-community's consensus opinions haven't been influenced in the slightest by ideology or politics...because I know this is just your feelings on the matter, based on the filter that is your brain and perspective. To you, it feels like provable evidence. Which is why you would reject the notion that it is only a feeling.

Your problem, in my opinion, is that you can't/won't look past your cranium, towards wonder, et. al., You will forever be trapped under your small brain/filter/perspective to make your estimations of the world. (mine is small too...that is not a unique comment to you)

You will only go so far with that...but to others who look beyond themselves, it is a boring/narrow/crippled/arrogant perspective, that can't possibly have the capability to arrive at the larger truth of things. The truth is not in yourself...it is far larger than yourself. And no, you won't ever be able to prove that last statement in the lab. :wink:
 
How so? There is the same tension between the one and the many found within trinitarian doctrines, and Hinduism contains theologies in which the individual surrenders oneself to "god" in what sounds awfully similar to an evangelical sermon,

"Abandoning all Dharmas, come unto Me alone for shelter; sorrow not, I will liberate you from all sins." -Bhagavada-Gita 18:66​

Surely had you grown up in an eastern-Hindu culture then these would seem to be divine words to you, and the Bible easily dismissed as human ideas on paper. How else can we explain the fact that the huge majority of people who grow in religious cultures seem to always believe their own belief system to be superior, and all others merely amusing collections of "human ideas"?



That's quite an amusing assumption. I imagine that a Hindu or Muslim would tell you precisely the same thing about your lack of true understanding of their holy texts. It all sounds like no true Scotsman to me.



I suspect that our understanding of our universe is quite a bit less limited than you think. We've done some pretty amazing things, we humans, and have come to understand some of the most fundamental aspects of our place in the universe. Limited though our knowledge may be, we have yet to find a need for a creator-god. This strikes me as a remarkable oversight for any creator.



I have no idea what you are trying to tell me to do. How, precisely, am I to "occupy the more intelligent position of humility"? Is that somehow different from telling me that I have to already believe the bible in order to believe it?



It's rather curious that you assume I haven't read the NT.



I am far less interested in the fact that you believe Jesus Christ is God than I am in how you came to believe this as a fact.



Lurker

Lurker - your questions have been asked and answered 2000 years ago.. I refer you to Hebrews 11...

Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. *For by it the people of old received their commendation. *By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible.
 
Lurker - your questions have been asked and answered 2000 years ago.. I refer you to Hebrews 11...

Again though, doesn't this require me to already have faith in the Bible in order to know that it's true? That doesn't answer my question at all. I'm not asking how can I believe that the religious text I already have placed my faith in is real according to that text; I'm asking why I should put my faith in the reliability of that text in the first place.




Lurker
 
Dear itinerantLurker.

Why put your faith in the text?

I was astounded when I first read the NT.

It does go way beyond fiction.

I strongly doubt that man could ever compile a story so complex.

It is all based on Love, which is even more astounding.

I suppose you will have to just make up your own mind in the end IL.

Better men than you and I have bit the bullet regarding Jesus Christ.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top