| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/09/2007 10:17:25 AM · #76 |
Send me $9.95US to my PayPal account, and I will tell you the real truth.
Crayon, could the messinger be a she? Many governments would probably lock up the person and do research on the alien/radical. The past is not really different, the essence of humanity has not changed at all, only the environments we create. So people in the past were not more vulnerable. I wonder what country this messinger would appear in?
The essence of many religions is Good vs Bad and the consequences. Puns-intended: Just like these past challenges. At first I was going to enter a photo in the "Bad" Challenge, but it wasn't good enough for the Bad. So I did one completely new for the "Good" Challenge, but it's doing bad anyway.
This Forum-thread, reminds me of an article in the Smithsonian about ET life. It showed a flaw that humans always envisioned life as we know it, all aliens have appendages, eyes, heads, etc. Sure we're lmited by what we see or know, but there is much unknown, and even currently incomprehendable. So be it. |
|
|
|
02/09/2007 10:23:07 AM · #77 |
again, i see what your getting at Matthew,
but thats where faith steps in and one has to say that he or she does or does not believe in the word of God.
its just a matter of whether you believe that the bible is true, and there are many many reasons TO believee that it is true.
i think where most people get messed up and stop is the fact that they can't find all the answers, and they can't find whether or not its really true or not
God didn't call us to investigate it all and find the answers and prove everything else wrong in order for him to exist in our minds
he called us to faith, which is leading a life not by sight
there is lots of evidence of a God, and that Jesus is God, and there are also many things that counter that and make it seem not possible
again, thats where faith steps in
i guess what im trying to get at, is that we dont need proof of anything to follow Jesus. a lot of people don't and won't ever understand that though. they think its silly and its understandable
|
|
|
|
02/09/2007 11:19:14 AM · #78 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Since Christianity began, how many NEW religions have there been, that are widely accepted by a large following? I wouldn't count the Mormons in this, because they are an offshoot of Christianity. I can only think of a couple offhand, and they go WAY back also. There's definitely been a dearth of "new" religions that catch on. Why is that?
R. |
Good marketing. Along with anti-competitive business practices.
Message edited by author 2007-02-09 11:34:47.
|
|
|
|
02/09/2007 11:21:15 AM · #79 |
Heh, Crayon, your profile pic looks particularly feminine. I'm not sure I'm ready to believe you are a guy. ;)
A few thoughts:
A) Only one person in the history of the written word had claimed to be God and had success in gaining followers for any significant period of time or outside his circle of cultural influence. I find that interesting.
B) Even 2000 years ago there were believers and doubters. I don't think it would be any different today.
(John 10: Then came the Feast of Dedication at Jerusalem. It was winter, and Jesus was in the temple area walking in Solomon's Colonnade. The Jews gathered around him, saying, "How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly."
Jesus answered, "I did tell you, but you do not believe. The miracles I do in my Father's name speak for me, but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me..."
C) The return of the Son of God I am expecting will not be subtle. Therefore I, like many, would be quite skeptical of someone claiming to be the Son of God. I don't think there is going to be much doubt if/when Jesus returns.
Message edited by author 2007-02-09 11:21:41. |
|
|
|
02/09/2007 12:18:37 PM · #80 |
Your question brought this passage in Mark 13 to my mind:
"3As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives opposite the temple, Peter, James, John and Andrew asked him privately, 4"Tell us, when will these things happen? And what will be the sign that they are all about to be fulfilled?"
5Jesus said to them: "Watch out that no one deceives you. 6Many will come in my name, claiming, 'I am he,' and will deceive many. 7When you hear of wars and rumors of wars, do not be alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come."
and then...
"21At that time if anyone says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ[c]!' or, 'Look, there he is!' do not believe it. 22For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform signs and miracles to deceive the elect—if that were possible. 23So be on your guard; I have told you everything ahead of time."
And finally, this nugget is included in Matthew's account of the same conversation:
" 26"So if anyone tells you, 'There he is, out in the desert,' do not go out; or, 'Here he is, in the inner rooms,' do not believe it. 27For as lightning that comes from the east is visible even in the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man."
Emphasis added of course. I know that may just be so much preaching and Bible hooey for a lot of folks, but for myself as a Christian it is thrilling stuff. |
|
|
|
02/09/2007 12:27:37 PM · #81 |
Originally posted by EvanH:
God didn't call us to investigate it all and find the answers and prove everything else wrong in order for him to exist in our minds
he called us to faith, which is leading a life not by sight |
But proclamations of faith don't further the debate. For those that are not god-believers, what you are doing here is advancing a circular argument: God exists because God has given us the ability to question his existence; God exists because I believe in God. I know you innately understand this, and that your experience of your faith is what matters most. But all this is a non-argument in the face of the question distilled to its most fundamental element: does God exist?
Also, I think the original question had to do very precisely with the existence of "god" - not necessarily the one found in the bible, and certainly not Jesus. Most of the debate in this thread has undertandably been sent in the direction of Christian belief, but I don't think that's what was necessarily being asked about. |
|
|
|
02/09/2007 12:37:41 PM · #82 |
But all this is a non-argument in the face of the question distilled to its most fundamental element: does God exist?
i see what your saying.
what i was getting at was that I believe you don't need an answer to step out in faith. I mean its faith! haha. its not having all the answers before you put your full trust in something.
In regards to your question about researching whether or not there is a God or not...
someone earlier in this dicussion brought up a book by Lee Strobel. The name of it is The Case for a Creator.
It really shows that science actually proves there is a creator instead of disproves the fact, like many believe.
I suggest you check it out. The author was an athiest turned Christian but the book does not talk about Christian views very muchh. Just pure scientifical evidence that there is a creator. |
|
|
|
02/09/2007 12:43:43 PM · #83 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Also, I think the original question had to do very precisely with the existence of "god" - not necessarily the one found in the bible, and certainly not Jesus. Most of the debate in this thread has undertandably been sent in the direction of Christian belief, but I don't think that's what was necessarily being asked about. |
No other world religion has claimed to have God incarnate on earth. (Actually, I would have to qualify that to say ancient pantheistic or pagan religions would have.) No widely practiced religion of today, other than Christianity, makes that claim. |
|
|
|
02/09/2007 12:46:42 PM · #84 |
Originally posted by EvanH:
what i was getting at was that I believe you don't need an answer to step out in faith. I mean its faith! |
Exactly. :) Which is precisely the problem for many people.
As long as one isn't proselytizing, or hurting anyone, or insisting that discourse stop altogether because it offends their faith, or off-handedly dismissing every contrary opinion as "wrong" because it isn't theirs, there is nothing wrong with espousing faith, or deeply believing in something. But that's not the same thing as debating the existence of God. :)
Originally posted by EvanH:
Just pure scientifical evidence that there is a creator. |
I'm sorry, but, although I admittedly have never heard of nor read this particularly book, I find this statement something of an oxymoron. :) |
|
|
|
02/09/2007 12:49:27 PM · #85 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Louis:
Also, I think the original question had to do very precisely with the existence of "god" - not necessarily the one found in the bible, and certainly not Jesus. Most of the debate in this thread has undertandably been sent in the direction of Christian belief, but I don't think that's what was necessarily being asked about. |
No other world religion has claimed to have God incarnate on earth. (Actually, I would have to qualify that to say ancient pantheistic or pagan religions would have.) No widely practiced religion of today, other than Christianity, makes that claim. |
Mm-hm. Not to speak for him/her, but I think crayon wasn't limiting his scenario in this way though. |
|
|
|
02/09/2007 12:54:16 PM · #86 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
..., but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me..."
|
Exactly, sheep. |
|
|
|
02/09/2007 12:55:47 PM · #87 |
Originally posted by EvanH:
It really shows that science actually proves there is a creator instead of disproves the fact, like many believe. |
Hmm - if it could be proven, there would be no need for faith/belief/superstition. I would recommend the God Delusion as a good counterpoint.
In particular, the argument referred to in "The Case for a Creator" (intelligent design) has been very thoroughly debunked, and there is no evidence that supports it - if there were one piece of convincing evidence, it would be Nobel time for the finder. There isn't. ID is only called a science by its few proponents - it is generally regarded as pseudoscience (non-science dressed up in scientific language to fool non-scientists into believing that it has some scientific validity).
|
|
|
|
02/09/2007 12:57:28 PM · #88 |
I'm sorry, but, although I admittedly have never heard of nor read this particularly book, I find this statement something of an oxymoron. :)
okay...but you just admitted you haven't read the book...so you dont' really know what his research has found hehe
read it and see. there is wayy too much evidence for a creator if you actually research it |
|
|
|
02/09/2007 12:59:14 PM · #89 |
Originally posted by nova:
...
"21At that time if anyone says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ[c]!' or, 'Look, there he is!' do not believe it. 22For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform signs and miracles to deceive the elect—if that were possible. 23So be on your guard; I have told you everything ahead of time."
|
If I was going to start a religion (or expand my teapot religion), I too would warn against false gods. Basic "start your own religion" 101 (every other religion warns the same thing!).
|
|
|
|
02/09/2007 01:00:48 PM · #90 |
Originally posted by EvanH:
I'm sorry, but, although I admittedly have never heard of nor read this particularly book, I find this statement something of an oxymoron. :)
okay...but you just admitted you haven't read the book...so you dont' really know what his research has found hehe
read it and see. there is wayy too much evidence for a creator if you actually research it |
I admit it, and now that Matthew has said its seminal argument is "intelligent design", I don't have to read it. :) |
|
|
|
02/09/2007 01:01:18 PM · #91 |
Hmm - if it could be proven, there would be no need for faith/belief/superstition
proven wasn't the right word i guess. But there is strong scientifical evidence that there was a designer/creator.
Faith in these terms is putting your trust into a certian religion, which I stated above that that particular book doesn't quiet address that idea.
The Case for Faith by Lee Strobel does address it I believe, but I have yet to read that one. |
|
|
|
02/09/2007 01:06:35 PM · #92 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Louis:
Also, I think the original question had to do very precisely with the existence of "god" - not necessarily the one found in the bible, and certainly not Jesus. Most of the debate in this thread has undertandably been sent in the direction of Christian belief, but I don't think that's what was necessarily being asked about. |
No other world religion has claimed to have God incarnate on earth. (Actually, I would have to qualify that to say ancient pantheistic or pagan religions would have.) No widely practiced religion of today, other than Christianity, makes that claim. |
Mm-hm. Not to speak for him/her, but I think crayon wasn't limiting his scenario in this way though. |
Yes, but my point is that the question may not have relevance outside of Christianity. Adherents to any other world religion may just respond, "Why would I even think that a man would be God? It makes no sense to me." Only Christians are looking for this man to arrive. So the answer to Crayon's question, outside Christianity, may 99% of the time be, "I'd think he's crazy." Why bother asking a question that has the same answer 99% of the time? That seems sorta boring to me. |
|
|
|
02/09/2007 01:10:39 PM · #93 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
No other world religion has claimed to have God incarnate on earth. (Actually, I would have to qualify that to say ancient pantheistic or pagan religions would have.) No widely practiced religion of today, other than Christianity, makes that claim. |
Is this important? No religion other than Hinduism has claimed to have a god with a face like an elephant. Ancient Greek mythology is being practised once again - does that have some greater substance merely because its gods were once in human form?
Or is popularity the important thing? At the time of the Roman Empire, as the most popular gods were Roman Gods in existence and others not? What about regionally - if all Aztecs believed in tçôtl and tçixiptla, were those the operative gods in Mexico/Columbia until the Spanish Conquest?
I am sorry - but this is an absurd argument.
|
|
|
|
02/09/2007 01:12:02 PM · #94 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
Is this important? |
Read the post above. We were likely typing at the same time. yes it is important because the question may not even make philosophical sense outside the Christian faith.
Message edited by author 2007-02-09 13:12:24. |
|
|
|
02/09/2007 01:13:49 PM · #95 |
Originally posted by EvanH:
Hmm - if it could be proven, there would be no need for faith/belief/superstition
proven wasn't the right word i guess. But there is strong scientifical evidence that there was a designer/creator.
Faith in these terms is putting your trust into a certian religion, which I stated above that that particular book doesn't quiet address that idea.
The Case for Faith by Lee Strobel does address it I believe, but I have yet to read that one. |
I had no idea people still believed in intelligent design. There's so much evidence to disprove it. I mean, even the pope jumped off that bandwagon. |
|
|
|
02/09/2007 01:16:19 PM · #96 |
Originally posted by EvanH:
Faith in these terms is putting your trust into a certian religion, which I stated above that that particular book doesn't quiet address that idea. |
No - but it tries to make supernatural religious beliefs sound plausible, which they are not.
Originally posted by EvanH:
The Case for Faith by Lee Strobel does address it I believe, but I have yet to read that one. |
There is a good critique here.
|
|
|
|
02/09/2007 01:16:41 PM · #97 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Matthew:
Is this important? |
Read the post above. We were likely typing at the same time. yes it is important because the question may not even make philosophical sense outside the Christian faith. |
Yep - ta.
|
|
|
|
02/09/2007 01:16:52 PM · #98 |
Originally posted by samhall:
I had no idea people still believed in intelligent design. There's so much evidence to disprove it. I mean, even the pope jumped off that bandwagon. |
There is no evidence to disprove ID. That's the issue. It is a non-scientific idea posed in scientific clothing.
You can prove me wrong though my providing some. |
|
|
|
02/09/2007 01:20:05 PM · #99 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
There is no evidence to disprove ID. That's the issue. It is a non-scientific idea posed in scientific clothing.
You can prove me wrong though my providing some. |
Yup - the best that science can do is demonstrate the almost infinite odds against it. Some people are perverse enough to believe in the infinitely unlikely.
|
|
|
|
02/09/2007 01:26:22 PM · #100 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
There is no evidence to disprove ID. That's the issue. It is a non-scientific idea posed in scientific clothing.
You can prove me wrong though my providing some. |
Yup - the best that science can do is demonstrate the almost infinite odds against it. Some people are perverse enough to believe in the infinitely unlikely. |
Being a man of science, my expert opinion would say we are quite far from proving that ID is "infinitely unlikely". Until we can fill all the gaps, there is plenty of room to slip in God. And we currently have some large gaps where God comfortably fits.
Like I said to Sam, you are welcome to prove me wrong.
Message edited by author 2007-02-09 13:27:12. |
|
