Faith in Christ is Completely Logical

[Cephus]

Instead, I will discontinue argument on this matter as it as become a vile distraction from the OP.

But mostly because you're losing.

 

[Sapiens]

Of course.

Religion isn't science, though (not that I hold with secondhand revelation). Science isn't criminal law. Criminal law isn't music. Music isn't history.

See, this is where people lose me. These are all wholly separate fields with completely different methods and standards, as is required by their radically different goals.

I agree, and when religionists stop trying to feed children and anyone else within earshot complete and utter lies about the universe that can lead the listener to dangerous conclusions and attitudes, effecting not just themselves, but also me, and all life on the planet ... then I will have no reason beyond my personal dislike of ignorance on display in the agora to oppose them.

 

[Dr. Strange]

My faith does not assure me of anything. I know there is a God because of the inner witness of God. That is fact and gnosis, gnosis as in knowledge, knowledge of him, knowledge of his son. Faith means conviction, as in the conviction of the person and is outward... it shows the change of the person. We do not believe in something we don't know, which is impossible, we believe in something we know.

Do you? It is perhaps bigger than you think

See above

see above

I am not sure what your point is to all this. If Yahshuah divine? Yes. But he was a man when he walked the earth. That does not mean that his inner Self, which is identified with him, is not God. Even we can have the spirit of God with us. Though in us is not necessarily seen as in the physical body, though in some ways it will be.
I will take you back to man's perception in regards to what you've stated above about the "physical body" and man's "spirit."

1 Timothy 3:16; "Wonderful, indeed, is the mystery of our faith, as we say in professing it: "He was manifested in the flesh, vindicated in the spirit; Seen by the angels; preached among the Gentiles, Believed in throughout the world, taken up into glory.""

3: 16 imparts exactly what you've said and question about my understanding. What it says is important to understanding that the Christian faith most generally accepts this passage to mean the Jesus is divine. My contention with that assumption is that the passage is the Church telling you that Jesus is divine, when in reality exegesis on this passage goes much deeper than what is read literally. What is divine in Jesus is that Jesus was able to do what no other prophet or patriarch of the OT could do, teach that the "Image of God" is God's Spirit. It is after Jesus' death that the Church (here meaning that development of Christianity) made Jesus the Christ. This is what Christianity is, a doctrinal, progressive belief.

There is no fault in the Bible as the Bible is true to its own reality. By that I mean there is more than one reality, so each version, as each God (reflective) is true to its own Self. The Self is reflective. I do not know what else to say as I do not see what it is you are asking for all those comments.

I has taken me 40 years to come to my disbelief in a God and believe me, countless hours of study. Let it be said that in that moment that a singularity expands as, what is called the Big Bang, there are two possibilities; 1. An intelligent being produced out of nothing that singularity or, 2. As science puts it, that singularity could come from nothing. It is not unreasonable for science to be correct in saying that what you call Creation (capital C indicating God) is just creation. As much as I understand about the Bible, about theology and Tillich's Systematic Theology and hence, my understanding of the original meaning of faith, my faith is truly very weak. Let it be said that if Christianity was not such a mixed bag of beliefs, faith would be strong. But then there is science that must be addressed.

Now, all said, that does not mean that what the Bible teaches is not relevant to mankind. Nor does it say that the Bible does not instruct us to live a spiritual life that is indeed likened to our created likeness. Whether that likeness is the "Image of God" or what each and every human being already has as a part of their being.

What is your position on God?
Where does everything come from?
If you don't believe, I assume you did before.

I'll start with your last three questions.

1. My position is leaning towards, no God because of science and my understanding of the Bible, of Tillich's theology, of Thomas Aquinas philosophy, of my understanding of Church history.
2. Everything comes from nothing.
"In the first century BCE, the Greek philosopher Lucretius wrote that "Nothing can be created from nothing" and this assertion exerted a powerful influence over subsequent philosophers. For a long time, science just did not have a good explanation for the existence of all the matter in the universe and it was assumed that the existence of matter was just a given, an initial condition that we just had to accept and proceed from there. Religious people seized on this "How can something come out of nothing?" question to try and argue that the very existence of the universe violated of the law of conservation of energy and implied the existence of a creator who can violate such laws. In other words, it was a Deep Mystery that science has no explanation for and that could only happen by the will of a creator."

"But the hope of religious people that they had finally found a safe niche for god where he no longer risked being flushed out by those pesky scientists has been dashed, just like all the other similar hopes of the past. The creation of the universe does not violate the law of conservation of energy. God is once again found to be superfluous."
Big Bang for beginners-13: Does the Big Bang theory violate the law of conservation of energy? | Machines Like Us
3. You assume correctly. But with "sound" understanding

p { margin-bottom: 0.1in; line-height: 120%; }a:link { }
"The Bible teaches that man is made in the image of God (Gen. 1:26-27). The image of God in man is not physical, but metaphysical, i.e., it refers to man's moral, spiritual, and intellectual capabilities; it also refers to man’s calling to exercise dominion in the world. Theonomy is a logical deduction from the biblical doctrine of man’s creation. If man is made in God’s image, and if he is charged to take dominion in God’s name, then he is under the rule of God’s law. Tillich’s metaphysics are problematic, but his logic is correct: When a man realizes his true being (a creature made in God’s image), he will repent of his autonomy and embrace theonomy."
p { margin-bottom: 0.1in; line-height: 120%; }a:link { }
Paul Tillich and Biblical Theonomy | Darash Press

 

[Sonofason]

I'm perfectly calm, you're just wrong. And whether or not my problem is with what you're saying is ALSO not your call.

Self-serving, thoroughly ignorant "assurances" of what I really think only serve to confirm my assessment.

Sorry, I've moved on.

 

[Sonofason]

In science eyewitness testimony is meaningless, all that counts is that which is verifiable. Recently, eyewitness testimony in court has been called into serious question; and shown, in a verifiable fashion, to be quite undependable.

How in the world can you report findings without first seeing the results? Must not a scientist first be a witness of the results of an experiment before reporting his findings?

What you have done is turned every scientific finding into hearsay.

 

[Sapiens]

How in the world can you report findings without first seeing the results? Must not a scientist first be a witness of the results of an experiment before reporting his findings?

That is, as you and I both know, totally fatuous and represents a willful pretense of ignorance of many posts in this very thread.

And you have the nerve to wonder why people get aggressive with you. It is often in direct response to this sort of passive aggressive crap with which you are overly enamored and dependent upon.

 

[Sonofason]

But mostly because you're losing.

Yeah that's it. I'm losing, and I don't want to play anymore.

 

[Sapiens]

Yeah that's it. I'm losing, and I don't want to play anymore.

Bye, best of luck in your future endeavors.

 

[Storm]

I agree, and when religionists stop trying to feed children and anyone else within earshot complete and utter lies about the universe that can lead the listener to dangerous conclusions and attitudes, effecting not just themselves, but also me, and all life on the planet ... then I will have no reason beyond my personal dislike of ignorance on display in the agora to oppose them.

Are you aware that I am a religionist? Because that's a very odd response in that context.

 

[Sapiens]

Are you aware that I am a religionist? Because that's a very odd response in that context.

No it is not, I agree with what you are saying that these areas of existence can be (in Steven J Gould's words) "non-overlapping magisteria." I also think that religion should skedaddle on out of areas that it either has never had any business in of that recent progress in human knowledge has evicted it from.

How does your being a religionist have any effect on that?

 

[Sonofason]

That is, as you and I both know, is totally fatuous and represents a willful pretense of ignorance of many posts in this very thread.

And you have the nerve to wonder why people get aggressive with you. It is often in direct response to this sort of passive aggressive crap with which you are overly enamored and dependent upon.

I honestly don't care why people get aggressive with me. I am opposed to them being aggressive with me for any reason whatsoever . I don't believe that anything I've said is fatuous. That would be your department. You know very well that a scientist, conducting an experiment, is a witness to his experiments. And his testimony, whether it be in the form of his lab reports, or a testimony before a grand jury should be considered evidence.

I'm sorry that my arguments make you so ill at ease. Perhaps you should find better arguments, and try to continue to avoid further polemic responses such as this. However, if you have nothing more than polemic responses, I suppose that will have to suffice. I'll just deal with it.

 

[Ingledsva]

But we don't ask them in here, do we? I could quite happily shake the dust from me.... but that would be them wouldn't it... haha

What does that have to do with the verse spoken of?

This is a debate site. That is obviously NOT what the verse is talking about - though the Christians that come in as bible thumping proselytizers, spamming us with sermons, probably fall under it, even here.

*

 

[Ingledsva]

It tells us always to have an answer. Go read again in our Bible

And that negates the given Bible verse, how?

It says if they don't receive you, or the message, LEAVE.

*

 

[Sonofason]

What does that have to do with the verse spoken of?

This is a debate site. That is obviously NOT what the verse is talking about - though the Christians that come in as bible thumping proselytizers, spamming us with sermons, probably fall under it, even here.

*

May I please see some examples of bible thumping proselytizing Christians, spamming you with sermons, that you are referring to? I'd like to determine for myself if this is a prevalent occurrence, or simply something you're presently conjuring up.

 

[Ingledsva]

1Peter 3.15 Always have an answer.

1. What does that have to with my reply?

2. You need to read the verses before posting.

1Pe 3:15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:

*

 

[Sonofason]

I am not here to convince anyone to receive or accept the Christian message. I'm here to dash and destroy the atheist message.

 

[Ingledsva]

The response, though to you, was to atheists. It is a religious forum, not an atheist one... therefore it is our house.

LOL! This is the General Religious DEBATES forum.

You have NO monopoly here.

*

 

[Sapiens]

I honestly don't care why people get aggressive with me. I am opposed to them being aggressive with me for any reason whatsoever . I don't believe that anything I've said is fatuous. That would be your department. You know very well that a scientist, conducting an experiment, is a witness to his experiments. And his testimony, whether it be in the form of his lab reports, or a testimony before a grand jury should be considered evidence.

I'm sorry that my arguments make you so ill at ease. Perhaps you should find better arguments, and try to continue to avoid further polemic responses such as this. However, if you have nothing more than polemic responses, I suppose that will have to suffice. I'll just deal with it.

Wow, and I thought you were leaving us, I guess we can't believe what you write, surprise, surprise, surprise.

Courts of law permit eyewitness testimony. A contemporaneous set of lab notes in a bound volume, with numbered pages, could be used as evidence in a court of law or to establish scientific precedence, but it could not be used in place of the peer review, independent observation or replication that are required to establish scientific "fact".

Again, that is something that has been pointed out to you in the past and you are, once again, displaying your penchant for self-convenient truculent willful ignorance.

I am not here to convince anyone to receive or accept the Christian message. I'm here to dash and destroy the atheist message.

You are the proverbial ant crawling up the leg of an elephant with rape on your mind. Try setting goals for yourself that are not so far out of your capacity so-as-to make you a public spectacle..

 

[Ingledsva]

I honestly don't care why people get aggressive with me. I am opposed to them being aggressive with me for any reason whatsoever . I don't believe that anything I've said is fatuous. That would be your department. You know very well that a scientist, conducting an experiment, is a witness to his experiments. And his testimony, whether it be in the form of his lab reports, or a testimony before a grand jury should be considered evidence.

I'm sorry that my arguments make you so ill at ease. Perhaps you should find better arguments, and try to continue to avoid further polemic responses such as this. However, if you have nothing more than polemic responses, I suppose that will have to suffice. I'll just deal with it.

Others have to be able to reproduce his results, or they are bogus.

*

 

[Sonofason]

Wow, and I thought you were leaving us, I guess we can't believe what you write, surprise, surprise, surprise.

Courts of law permit eyewitness testimony. A contemporaneous set of lab notes in a bound volume, with numbered pages, could be used as evidence in a court of law or to establish scientific precedence, but it could not be used in place of the peer review, independent observation or replication that are required to establish scientific "fact".

Again, that is something that has been pointed out to you in the past and you are, once again, displaying your penchant for self-convenient truculent willful ignorance.

If you recall, I said I don't want to play anymore. I did not say I don't want to debate anymore. I'm not planning on going anywhere just yet.

Evidence is evidence, which ever form it takes, however strong and however verifiable it may be.