Christless Christianity

[ayani]

God did not write the bible, people did. Reading the bible is not communiciating with god. Writing back and forth, as in old fashioned letter corrispondance is communicating. That's like saying my favorite author Terry Prachett communicates to me through his books that I've read.

well, not quite. at least, not from my perspective.

the Bible was certainly penned by men, yet Biblical Christians take it to be a divinely inspired account of how God has worked in human history, what He is like, and how we ought to respond to Him.

it records the events of history past, yet still informs us as to our own nature, human nature, and how and what God is communicating to us through His Word. it rebukes, informs, corrects, inspires, encourages, blesses, and humbles the reader who reads it as such.

 

[slave2six]

well, not quite. at least, not from my perspective.

Yada yada yada. My perspective. Your perspective. That's why we have actual physical things that provide proof. That's why every human of every culture accepts proof through actual physical things. The only people who do not accept proof through actual physical things are infants and mental patients.

All the ethereal and personal opinion stuff is vacuous, completely without merit and ultimately meaningless...

 

[Heneni]

Yada yada yada. My perspective. Your perspective. That's why we have actual physical things that provide proof. That's why every human of every culture accepts proof through actual physical things. The only people who do not accept proof through actual physical things are infants and mental patients.

All the ethereal and personal opinion stuff is vacuous, completely without merit and ultimately meaningless...

Well now....did you formulate the theory of relativity? Did you study science yourself before you believed what the scientists told you was true? You are believing what scientists tell you, you are not believing what you yourself have discovered and studied. You are relying on their 'thesis', books and doctorates of thousands of scientists to prove to you that what they say is real is real. In fact, i bet you actually dont read scientific journals much and just believe what you see in the news and what your school teacher told you, and what the discovery channel tells you. And they rely on other scientist, or TV or magazines or word of mouth,to validate their theories by further study and experiments. YOU believe science not because YOU have formulated one single physical law and yet you rely on scientists to bring you your 'facts'.

 

[blueman]

well, not quite. at least, not from my perspective.

the Bible was certainly penned by men, yet Biblical Christians take it to be a divinely inspired account of how God has worked in human history, what He is like, and how we ought to respond to Him.

it records the events of history past, yet still informs us as to our own nature, human nature, and how and what God is communicating to us through His Word. it rebukes, informs, corrects, inspires, encourages, blesses, and humbles the reader who reads it as such.

Agreed. I would rank the Bible against any other liteary work of history. Due to the fact that it reveals a supernatural God intervening in a natural world that He created rubs some people the wrong way. They just cannot get their arms around this being a possibility. They look through a naturalistic lense and cannot fathom or understand the work of God to carry out His purpose for mankind.

 

[Hidden]

I am aware that it is a belief TODAY in christianity to have a personal relationship with christ. However there is no biblical support for this belief, nor has it been a part of christianity for long. It's only in the last century of two that this idea has been taught, or so I've been told. The head of the religious studies program at my college once put forward a large extra credit assignment. If one true passage confirming this belief could be found in the NT we'd be garanteed an A, because after years of searching and studying he could not find this, nor could any scholar he knew. If you do have a solid verse I'd love it if you'd give the passage. I'd enjoy sending it to my old proffesor. However the passage you listed prior to this does not seem to indicate one should expect a personal relationship with the one you call christ. Do you have a passage that does not require some creative interpreting to fit your meaning?

God is my Heavenly Father as He adopted me as His Son, making me co-heirs with Christ. Therefore, I have a personal relationship with God through Jesus Christ; it can't get more personal than that. :rainbow1:

For you did not receive a spirit that makes you a slave again to fear, but you received the Spirit of sonship. [ Or adoption] And by him we cry, "Abba, [ Aramaic for Father] Father." – Rom 8:15

Because you are sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, "Abba, Father." Gal 4:6

The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world. He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him. He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him. But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God. – John 1

Heirs with Christ

So then, brothers, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh. For if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live. For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the Spirit of adoption as sons, by whom we cry, “Abba! Father!” The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, then heirs—heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him. - rom 8

 

[slave2six]

Well now....did you formulate the theory of relativity?

The formula is not an opinion but a proof.

 

[Kurt31416]

Agreed. I would rank the Bible against any other liteary work of history. Due to the fact that it reveals a supernatural God intervening in a natural world that He created rubs some people the wrong way. They just cannot get their arms around this being a possibility. They look through a naturalistic lense and cannot fathom or understand the work of God to carry out His purpose for mankind.

In the older Samaritan version of the Written Law, God never actually talks or does things exactly. It's always very abstract. It doesn't have the other errors like God being plural and so on.

 

[Amill]

Well now....did you formulate the theory of relativity? Did you study science yourself before you believed what the scientists told you was true? You are believing what scientists tell you, you are not believing what you yourself have discovered and studied. You are relying on their 'thesis', books and doctorates of thousands of scientists to prove to you that what they say is real is real. In fact, i bet you actually dont read scientific journals much and just believe what you see in the news and what your school teacher told you, and what the discovery channel tells you. And they rely on other scientist, or TV or magazines or word of mouth,to validate their theories by further study and experiments. YOU believe science not because YOU have formulated one single physical law and yet you rely on scientists to bring you your 'facts'.

Well for one, scientists aren't claiming that people will eternally burn for not accepting their theories. And their evidence....
1. is criticized by scientists all over the world
2. is actually productive, bettering people's lives. We witness the science in action.
3. is actually open to the public
4. has the possibility of being refuted by new evidence

What motive is there to lie about General Relativity? Not only would the entire scientific community have to unite in one giant conspiracy for some unknown purpose, but the intellectuals that live among us and have also witnessed the evidence, and have looked into the science, would also have to be in on it as well. And why don't we see evidence against relativity? That's one thing that differentiates science from religion. Scientific claims actually have the possibility of being discarded after they're refuted and falsified. Religious men, however, need only to bring up the word faith, to aid in the defense of religious claims.

Science involves trust. We have gained trust in science from all the amazing things we've seen it lead to. We gain trust in science because the evidence is reproducible. We gain trust in science because we know how science works, we know how it can be refuted, and we can see when scientific claims become falsified.

Religion involves faith based on words or on evidence that isn't reproducible, that isn't falsifiable, that isn't shared and cannot be seen by everyone.

I choose science because it is falsifiable, productive, doesn't care about followers, doesn't use fear as a tool of persuasion, and is less likely to harbor hidden agendas and personal motives. I put my trust in science, and the experts that have and do spend their lives in the pursuit of a truth that can be seen by all.

 

[slave2six]

Scientific claims actually have the possibility of being discarded after they're refuted and falsified. Religious men, however, need only to bring up the word faith to aid in the defense of religious claims.

Yes, yes, yes, and amen! That is precisely the entire argument in two sentences. Excellent!

 

[Humanistheart]

Agreed. I would rank the Bible against any other liteary work of history. Due to the fact that it reveals a supernatural God intervening in a natural world that He created rubs some people the wrong way.quote]

Many religious works depict a supernatural god, many include a creation story. Your's has no more evidence to support this supernatural connection than any other religion.

 

[Humanistheart]

Nice summary. Facts are rather troubling to the Christian faith. Nice job.

Yes, I did notice the issue of jesus being a false messiah was completly ignored.

 

[Heneni]

choose science because it is falsifiable, productive, doesn't care about followers, doesn't use fear as a tool of persuasion, and is less likely to harbor hidden agendas and personal motives. I put my trust in science, and the experts that have and do spend their lives in the pursuit of a truth that can be seen by all.

You trust scientist to do the legwork for you, and you just believe them without checking it out yourself? You believe that scientists are all moral and have pure motives? You believe they persue truth? Is that why scientists become scientists....to persue truth. And is that why you are happy to go to them, for your daily bread, because you trust in their methods, morals, and motives? You trust man to be honest with you? Ok.

 

[elisheba]

If the world trusts science so much - why don't they act on proven scientific facts ? Why do they put asphalt on the roads when they know that there is less rainfall where there are paved roads ? Why do they use and promote air-conditioning when they know that it causes air molecules to become positively charged thereby letting more pollutants in our bodies ? Why do they promote birth control when they know that the earlier a woman starts having children and the more she has -- reduces her risk of breast cancer ? etc, etc.

 

[Amill]

You trust scientist to do the legwork for you, and you just believe them without checking it out yourself? You believe that scientists are all moral and have pure motives? You believe they persue truth? Is that why scientists become scientists....to persue truth. And is that why you are happy to go to them, for your daily bread, because you trust in their methods, morals, and motives? You trust man to be honest with you? Ok.

I should have been more specific about motives. All scientists have personal motives, but you'll rarely find scientists whose motives are dishonest, fraudulent, or to lie to people. People with those kinds of motives get weeded out, shunned by other scientists, and never heard of again. But personal motives still based on the pursuit of truth, however, only strengthen science. Scientists will go out of their way, or spend much time trying to find evidence for their ideas and to prove other hypotheses and theories wrong. This only adds to the normal criticism and skepticism claims receive, and when the hypotheses fail to be debunked they become more and more plausible.

I don't trust 1 scientist, but when thousands of experts in a particular field support a certain proposition or theory, I generally will too. Because I know generally how science works, I see how much crap claims and hypotheses have to go through by other scientists. But most importantly of all, scientific claims can be DEBUNKED and thrown out. Blank excuses are not tolerated, so if a hypothesis or claim is still floating around, that means it hasn't been debunked yet. And like I said, we can see science in action. It's obviously something we gain trust in over a period of time. Why else would people go to hospitals?

I don't trust 1 man to be honest, but when there are thousands of educated and experienced experts supporting a claim that has not been debunked, and has visible evidence that's open to the public as well as producing things that help the progress of mankind, yes I do trust it. But that doesn't mean I'm not skeptical of scientific claims, and blindly believe anything a scientist mutters.

 

[Humanistheart]

You trust scientist to do the legwork for you, and you just believe them without checking it out yourself? You believe that scientists are all moral and have pure motives? You believe they persue truth? Is that why scientists become scientists....to persue truth. And is that why you are happy to go to them, for your daily bread, because you trust in their methods, morals, and motives? You trust man to be honest with you? Ok.

You are ignorant to the sceintific process. But as to your last line, it's you who trust in man to be honest. You put faith in the concepts in the bible, and men wrote the bible.

 

[slave2six]

Originally Posted by Amill
choose science because it is falsifiable, productive, doesn't care about followers, doesn't use fear as a tool of persuasion, and is less likely to harbor hidden agendas and personal motives. I put my trust in science, and the experts that have and do spend their lives in the pursuit of a truth that can be seen by all.

You trust scientist to do the legwork for you, and you just believe them without checking it out yourself? You believe that scientists are all moral and have pure motives? You believe they persue truth? Is that why scientists become scientists....to pursue truth. And is that why you are happy to go to them, for your daily bread, because you trust in their methods, morals, and motives? You trust man to be honest with you? Ok.

I was with Amill until that bit about truth. Science isn't interested in moral ideals such as truth. It is interested in science. Oppenheimer wasn't enthralled with making a nuclear bomb. What he relished about the Manhattan Project was the purity of the science. Most scientists are like that. Elegance in mathematics is a beautiful thing (and actually necessary if anyone is going to take your theories seriously) but the elegance is not the end-game of mathemeticians. It is simply a necessary byproduct of excellent math.

I think what Amill was saying is that, unlike religion, science is based on the idea that we simply don't know a lot of stuff and that what we do "know" may be advanced upon or even proven wrong. For example, Newton had no concept of time-space and so it was impossible for him to deduce that gravity is in fact the bending of time-space. This does not make his observations false but they are now somewhat outmoded because science first accepted his theories then built upon them.

Religion has no such allowances for alterations to its creeds and dogmas and those who challenge a religious institution is ostricized, named a heretic, and (historically speaking) either made an outcase or killed. Science doesn't ahve such issues.

 

[Humanistheart]

I was with Amill until that bit about truth. Science isn't interested in moral ideals such as truth. It is interested in science. .

Science reveals facts. Facts are truth. Science is intersted in truth. The truth that this world operates on. The various scientists all have thier own motives, some perhaps less than pure, but their work is checked, doubled checked, run through vigorous screening, etc etc.

 

[slave2six]

Originally Posted by slave2six
I was with Amill until that bit about truth. Science isn't interested in moral ideals such as truth. It is interested in science.

Science reveals facts. Facts are truth. Science is interested in truth. The truth that this world operates on. The various scientists all have their own motives, some perhaps less than pure, but their work is checked, doubled checked, run through vigorous screening, etc etc.

Not as a set of morals. When I said "moral ideals" I was speaking of the definition of truth that is "a transcendent fundamental or spiritual reality" not "the body of real things, events, and facts." This was in response to Heneni's statement:

You believe that scientists are all moral and have pure motives? You believe they pursue truth?

Again, I contend that scientists pursue facts (which is one definition of truth) but do not have a moral agenda.