Question for Christians

[Goshin]

same here. maybe it's just in my head - or maybe it isn't. i understand how personal experience can lead a person to believe that there is a God. in some cases this may be a perfectly logical conclusion.

but how can you logically conclude that the Bible is the correct account of the supernatural ?

i mean if we assume that the supernatural exists we still have absolutely no reason to believe that there exists, anywhere, a correct account of what it is. we don't even know if our president is a natural born American yet we are arrogant enough to think we know God.

and if we assume that a correct account does exist - then how do you conclude that of all the accounts Bible is the correct one ?

First, let us entertain the idea that there is a God, who created the universe and brought humanity into being. (Let's not quibble over method at this point - evolution vs creationism, a seperate argument.)

Let's further assume that God cares about the sentient beings He created. If he were indifferent to us, then it wouldn't matter.

If we entertain the idea of an omiscient, omnipotent Creator God who cares about His "children", then does it not follow that He would have something to say to us, about Himself and his plans for us? I think it does. Does it not furthermore follow that an omniscient, omnipotent God could see to it that the essense of His message was preserved and kept, regardless of manuscripts and translations and etc? I think it does.

I have examined the religious beliefs and writings of a number of cultures. To me, the Bible is the one that stood out God's message to His children. This is a question of faith, not proof, but I would invite you to look into it. It is my belief that if you read the Bible with an open heart and and open mind, you will find a message from God for you within it.... if you are genuinely seeking God.

Good luck and happy seeking. :mrgreen:

 

[Jerry]

i understand that belief requires no evidence ... so do you believe EVERYTHING anybody tells you?

Only if it works for me.

or only when it's written in the Bible?

Tashah'a a Jew, so she's not likely to believe something simply because the christian bible says so.

As for me, again, if it works for me then yeah.

how do you know when to ask for evidence and when not to?

I ask for evidence when I want a conclusion supported, and I do not ask for evidence when I choose to accept a premise.

"God exists" is a premise, not a conclusion, so I know that I don't need to ask for evidence. I could if I wanted, but I don't have to.

 

[1069]

Tashah'a a Jew, so she's not likely to believe something simply because the christian bible says so.

What's the Torah?
It's just the old testament, right?
Isn't that also the same bible the Christians use?
Do the Christians simply disregard the books of Genesis through Deuteronomy?

 

[First Thought]

do you have any evidence to support this ?

Do they need evidence? We're talking about faith, here.

 

[Oftencold]

right so imagine a person is in a museum looking at a painting and suddenly he sees the devil in the painting ! and the devil is looking into his soul. the person turns around and stabs another person next to him in the eye to *save him* from having the devil looking into his soul as well.

do you think there is a problem with such a situation ?

Aside from it never happening to a sane person? There are a number of problems.

However, If there is a God, He also supplied us with a large mass of neural tissue just behind the eyes, and between the ears. I assume it is there for a purpose.

I attempt to use my own in relationship to my studies of Scripture.

Look, you seem to be pretty intelligent, and unlike so many here you're being fairly respectful in asking religious questions. We all were trained in school to ask extreme, "what-ifs" like you did in your illustration above.

I believe that we are taught to think that way for political reasons. Note that we aren't taught to ask, "what is your party's candidate, whose every policy you support, turns out to be a lying megalomaniacal madman with tyranny and murder is his heart," even though that scenario has happened to people.

Further, one of the tenants of the Bible is that God usually communicates to Man very quietly -- not always, but usually. If you are really interested, you are going to have to "show willing," and do more than stand still asking questions of others, you'll have to make an active search. Communion is not a spectators' sport.

The Ushers will now pass the offering plate.

 

[Goshin]

What's the Torah?
It's just the old testament, right?
Isn't that also the same bible the Christians use?
Do the Christians simply disregard the books of Genesis through Deuteronomy?

It's a lot more complicated than that. A lot more.

Do you really want to get into that much comparative theology contrasting Judaism and Christianity, or can we just say it's different and leave it there?

 

[Jerry]

What's the Torah?
It's just the old testament, right?
Isn't that also the same bible the Christians use?
Do the Christians simply disregard the books of Genesis through Deuteronomy?

Since NEUROSPORT has "Question for Christians", he needs to be aware that that specific post was questioning a Jew, and so any answer he receives will be from the Jewish perspective.

 

[moe]

What's the Torah?
It's just the old testament, right?
Isn't that also the same bible the Christians use?
Do the Christians simply disregard the books of Genesis through Deuteronomy?

Yes the OT is the Torah. Or it would be more accurate to say it contains the Torah. The first 5 books, and then the prophets and then the writings. More specifically Christians refer to the OT as the Old Covenant that has been replaced by the new covenant of the New Testament.

Obviously the Jews believe no such thing. Christians do believe the old testament but many do not even read it. We view it as more of a historical record that leads to the present New Testament. With that of course means that Jews and Christians have entirely different interpretations of the prophecies etc contained in the OT.

Moe

 

[Sammyo]

Religious belief requires no evidence. It is a metaphysical endeavor.

That means that no religion should ever claim to be "right".

 

[Sammyo]

With that of course means that Jews and Christians have entirely different interpretations of the prophecies etc contained in the OT.
Moe

Also, the NT was written with the OT in mind, so it's no surprise that it "matches up" with it how it does. It's not proof of prophecy fulfilled, it's proof of prophecy made fulfilled in mythical writing.

 

[Sammyo]

No, that means you should not feel logically obligated to take such as claim as being valid.

Well, that goes without saying, but if religion is in the realm of the metaphysical, then it also follows that a particular religion shouldn't claim to be right, as metaphysics cannot demonstrate that which is pronounced.

 

[Jerry]

Well, that goes without saying, but if religion is in the realm of the metaphysical, then it also follows that a particular religion shouldn't claim to be right, as metaphysics cannot demonstrate that which is pronounced.

"We're right" is a premise assumed which we base sociological theories upon, it is NOT a conclusion claimed to be supported by the natural sciences.

Of coarse you shouldn't accept the conclusion "we're right"...we don't either.

 

[Sammyo]

"We're right" is a premise assumed which we base sociological theories upon, it is NOT a conclusion claimed to be supported by the natural sciences.

Of coarse you shouldn't accept the conclusion "we're right"...we don't either.

I have no idea if you're right or wrong in your assumptions because i don't know the antecedent to the pronoun "we," as you use it. I do know that it's silly for people to act like any religion is "right" above other non-proven myth or method of living.

 

[scourge99]

Regarding this whole evidence thing: I think probably everyone who is a person of real faith has their own "evidence"...but it is a personal form of evidence that would likely mean little to anyone else.

Here is where I fully disagree. This is often used excuse for those who know they're evidence, even personal forms, cannot stand up to impartial analysis.

Many things have happened in my life that could not have been chance.

How many "coincidences" happen in a lifetime? How many are truly "miraculous" as oppossed to improbable?

For example, there is nothing special about the number 536587452356 yet what are the chances that I would type that exact number out of all the possible numbers?? Is it a miracle?

Many of these things happened in a certain moment, in a certain way, that pointed me toward the belief that God is real and is the God of the Bible. The board's militant atheists will consider this self-delusion or some other dismissive term.

I don't dismiss your claims. I analyze them and return an honest answer. You may very well have encountered a God but I think people owe it to themselves to think it over or consult others before jumping to conclusions of such consequence.

That's their problem; I know what I believe and why I believe it, but my "proofs" would likely not mean anything to another person because they are part of my own life experience, not theirs.

I disagree. Telling others your experiences or reasoning gives an impartial opinion on the matter free from your own personal biases and emotional attachments. Unless, of course, someone is claiming gnosis....

I could tell you about the time I needed $800 to keep from having my mortgage foreclosed, and how I unexpectedly obtained the money a few days before the deadline. I could tell you about a couple of near-fatal accidents that I survived unscathed because of seemingly impossible "coincedences" coming together just so. Moreover, I could tell you of many people who were so far gone on a path of self-destruction that virtually everyone had given up on them, whose lives were turned around and changed utterly when they put their faith in Jesus. I could tell you of an agnostic woman I tried to persuade to recieve Christ, and despite my best arguments I got nowhere with her...then I prayed for her, and how the next day she called me, in tears, wanting to know how to recieve Jesus' atonement and become a Christian.

I want to know how any of this is proof of:
1) Divine intervention.
2) your God.

Those of you who have already decided that there is no God, or that he is not the God of the Bible, will likely be unmoved by any of this.

Couldn't anyone turn it around on you as well?

Those of you who have already decided that there is a God, or that he is the God of the Bible, will likely be moved by any of this

You might cite times in your own life when "coincedence" had worked in your favor, or bring up examples of hypocrites to counter my examples of miraculous turnarounds, etc.

and how does that invalidate the skepticism and alternative answers? It appears you acknowledge the weakness of the evidence and experiences but willfully dismiss it with a wave of the hand.

"Seek and you will find." If you are looking for God you will likely find Him. If you aren't, you probably won't.

Some people have, many continue, some give up, some claim to have found other Gods. Be wary of the seduction of the indefensible and unfalsifiable.

 

[Jerry]

I have no idea if you're right or wrong in your assumptions because i don't know the antecedent to the pronoun "we," as you use it.

"We" is the group the individual making the claim happens to belong to.

I do know that it's silly for people to act like any religion is "right" above other non-proven myth or method of living.

If they say "we're right" as a conclusion, I agree.

 

[Oftencold]

Be wary of the seduction of the indefensible and unfalsifiable.

Very good advice, if for example, someone is overly impressed with their own cleverness.

Not that I’m pointing fingers, you understand.

 

[Goshin]

Here is where I fully disagree. This is often used excuse for those who know they're evidence, even personal forms, cannot stand up to impartial analysis.

How many "coincidences" happen in a lifetime? How many are truly "miraculous" as oppossed to improbable?

For example, there is nothing special about the number 536587452356 yet what are the chances that I would type that exact number out of all the possible numbers?? Is it a miracle?

I don't dismiss your claims. I analyze them and return an honest answer. You may very well have encountered a God but I think people owe it to themselves to think it over or consult others before jumping to conclusions of such consequence.

I disagree. Telling others your experiences or reasoning gives an impartial opinion on the matter free from your own personal biases and emotional attachments. Unless, of course, someone is claiming gnosis....

I want to know how any of this is proof of:
1) Divine intervention.
2) your God.

Couldn't anyone turn it around on you as well?

Those of you who have already decided that there is a God, or that he is the God of the Bible, will likely be moved by any of this

and how does that invalidate the skepticism and alternative answers? It appears you acknowledge the weakness of the evidence and experiences but willfully dismiss it with a wave of the hand.


Some people have, many continue, some give up, some claim to have found other Gods. Be wary of the seduction of the indefensible and unfalsifiable.

Too tired to give this an in-depth answer right now. In brief: as I said, these experiences mean a lot to me, but won't mean much to others...as exhibited by your response. I shouldn't have bothered with providing any examples, people who aren't intrested in seeing beyond the material rarely do anything other than scoff. Second, I'm not trying to present "evidence" in the sense of scientific or logical evidence of the existence of God, that isn't how faith works. If your mind and heart are not open to God, nothing I can do will make you see.

If you're not intrested in actually seeking God, in the spiritual sense not the scientific, then you just aren't. I'm not going to chase you down with a tract or try to beat you over the head with it. Ignore me and do your thing.

 

[Jerry]

For example, there is nothing special about the number 536587452356 yet what are the chances that I would type that exact number out of all the possible numbers?? Is it a miracle?

I notice in that number that your hand is centered on 5, keeps returning to 5 after a grouping to recenter, chooses numbers groupings which are next to each other on the key pad between returning to 5, and generally moves counter clockwise around the keypad.

 

[scourge99]

Too tired to give this an in-depth answer right now. In brief: as I said, these experiences mean a lot to me, but won't mean much to others

I'm sure they do. If they didn't then you wouldn't have taken the time to post them.

...as exhibited by your response. I shouldn't have bothered with providing any examples, people who aren't intrested in seeing beyond the material rarely do anything other than scoff.

its not scoffing. Its my honest take on the matter. If someone pointed out coincidences to you claiming it was Odin or a Hindu God then you might have an idea where I'm coming from. (and yes, I have seriously talked to someone who thinks Odin exists.)

Second, I'm not trying to present "evidence" in the sense of scientific or logical evidence of the existence of God,

Of course not. I wasn't expecting that.

that isn't how faith works.

How does faith work in your opinion? I ask because different people have different understandings of what "faith" is just like they often have different concepts of who/what God is.

If your mind and heart are not open to God, nothing I can do will make you see.

With all due respect: If your mind and heart are not open to God's non-existance, nothing I can do will make you see existance as it presents itself.

If you're not intrested in actually seeking God, in the spiritual sense not the scientific, then you just aren't.

I am willing and always have been. However, I have only a finite life. I can't play these "keep trying until it works" games with every religion I come across.

I'm not going to chase you down with a tract or try to beat you over the head with it. Ignore me and do your thing.

I'm not asking you too. I enjoy religious experience stories and reasoning.

Personally, I've never had an experience I can claim is divine. I've had coincidences occur and "overwhelming feelings" but nothing that I can rationally or spiritually attribute to any God. And that is not for a lack of trying, but I'm sure that is your judgment nonetheless despite the fact you know nothing of my past.

 

[Oftencold]

Personally, I've never had an experience I can claim is divine.

Of course you have. You have no idea how common such things are.

However, people with agendas you might profit by questioning, have taught you to see the Creation as an accident, yourself included.

But you know this to be true on some level, or you’d have little incentive to convince others. If you were convinced on all cognitive levels, you’d be able to accept that people with the contrary position are incorrect, and as accidents unimportant and defective, and soon to be deleted utterly by death.

Personally, under such a system of thought, it seems to me that any effort at all would be a wasted of time. There could be no “you’ to experience any of it anyway, merely a web of chemical processes functioning somewhat like a computer, and programmed to produce an illusion of awareness.

(Though I have never heard an Atheist give a good explanation of exactly what is experiencing the illusion.)

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

The Biblical God claims to prefer followers to be simple-minded, meek, and obedient, like sheep and/or small children (maybe in the old days, they were meek and obedient :crazy3.
I doubt it's all a big complex test that you need to be a brainiac to figure out.
If any of it were real, that is.

This sounds more like liberalism to me..... :lol:

 

[scourge99]

Of course you have. You have no idea how common such things are.

No, it is common. What is also common is the vast differences in experiences and deities as well. Some claim to literally talk to their God(s), some claim to just "feel" a presence, some just had a coincidence that they attribute to their God(s). What many believers can't seem to come to terms with is how other people claim to experience deities other than their own.

However, people with agendas you might profit by questioning, have taught you to see the Creation as an accident, yourself included.

Despite your attempts to play arm chair psychologist, no one has forced anything onto me. I can't stop being an atheist anymore than I can stop believing the sky is blue. Its a conclusion arrived at as opposed to a presumption.

But you know this to be true on some level, or you’d have little incentive to convince others.

Its the conclusion I've arrived at through careful consideration of both my life experiences and objective empirical data. Its got nothing to do with HOPE or DESIRE which is the trap some (not all) believers have found themselves caught up in.

(I can explain the flaws of Pascal's wager if you wish)

If you were convinced on all cognitive levels, you’d be able to accept that people with the contrary position are incorrect, and as accidents unimportant and defective, and soon to be deleted utterly by death.

As explained above its not about willful denial. Its about a conclusion rendered via analysis.

Personally, under such a system of thought, it seems to me that any effort at all would be a wasted of time. There could be no “you’ to experience any of it anyway, merely a web of chemical processes functioning somewhat like a computer, and programmed to produce an illusion of awareness.[/quote]
1) Strawman - Atheist beliefs have nothing in common except a non-belief in God(s).

2) Non-Sequitor - even if I did believe this it has no bearing on the truth or untruth of your God and beliefs or mine.

(Though I have never heard an Atheist give a good explanation of exactly what is experiencing the illusion.)

And why do you presume they need an explanation? Does that somehow prove or cast doubt on something? Please explain.

 

[Sammyo]

Awesome post Scourge. Atheists need not explain anything in the way that believers must because of the default position of nonbelief held.

 

[Graffight]

Awesome post Scourge. Atheists need not explain anything in the way that believers must because of the default position of nonbelief held.

I'm not sure i understand this. Is seems like both sides of the isle are trying to "explain things", and carry the same burden of proof. The Christians are trying to prove that there is a God, and the Naturalist is trying to prove that we are here because of natural causes, or that God is not necessary. Both positions require an explanation, or else nobody would be trying to explain.

The bottom line is that if you want to hold anything you call a belief you absolutely must explain why you believe it. This will always be the case if you want to be intellectually honest about you belief....otherwise it winds down to laziness and blind faith.

 

[Sammyo]

I'm not sure i understand this. Is seems like both sides of the isle are trying to "explain things", and carry the same burden of proof. The Christians are trying to prove that there is a God, and the Naturalist is trying to prove that we are here because of natural causes, or that God is not necessary. Both positions require an explanation, or else nobody would be trying to explain.

The believer is trying to explain things according to a certain rule set that cannot be demonstrated/proved. The believer believes a whole grouping of things that cannot be proved and many of those things cannot be disproved.

The unbeliever or atheist need not explain anything at all because he simply does not believe that which the believer believes. If there were no believers, there'd be no non-believers. If you, as a believer, say that Bob had cheerios this morning, and i say that i do not believe this, i'm under no compunction to explain what Bob ate this morning. I simply do not believe that he ate Cheerios. I'm open to further information on the matter as it comes in.

The bottom line is that if you want to hold anything you call a belief you absolutely must explain why you believe it.

Yep. Atheists don't have a "belief," they simply don't believe the god-belief. The term a-theist, means NOT-theist, or not - believer. Atheists aren't making a god claim, they're saying that they don't believe other god claims.

This will always be the case if you want to be intellectually honest about you belief....otherwise it winds down to laziness and blind faith.

Belief in something not demonstrated is indeed laziness and blind faith. You're right on target, there. That's why atheism is the most reasonable and logical position since it withholds judgement for the time being until further evidence comes in. Religious belief is closed-minded because it ONLY allows evidence in that lines up with a preconceived notion. An atheist can consider any evidence whatsoever, no matter in which "direction" it seems to lean.