Faith in Christ is Completely Logical

[Dr. Strange]

To be perfectly honest, I do not understand many of your posts. I didn't want to say that through fear of offending you, however, I do not want you to think I am ignoring you either.

The only way you will offend me is if you deny, make up or, falsify sound biblical teaching. I am trying to ask you to identify terms that you have used. You may fully understand those terms, in your own way, but if I am too hold a sincere discussion regarding biblical texts we must understand each other's usage of biblical symbols or agree on such usage. To understand me you must ask questions. I try to explain but all too often my understanding and explanations may fall short of explaining so you can address the issue.

My background on theology is completely founded on Paul Tillich's Systematic Theology. Given what you've said so far, I doubt that you have even heard of Tillich. And this is where you may find your search for something that challenges what you have come to believe.

For me, when I was introduced to Tillich, I found his theology exactly what I had come to believe the Bible to say. Needless to say, I have studied Tillich very critically. Many have embraced his theology but many more have rejected it. His theology is that ground breaking and at the same time returns early basic biblical symbolism. His theology is Christ centered.

Nothing I can say will change your mind unless you embrace that which will show you differently. That will not happen unless you can maintain a long dialogue. Are you up for the challenge. Keep in mind that I do not believe any perception of man's can even come close to God. With that said, my discourse is about Christian history.

I do not believe that Jesus is divine. I believe as Tillich puts it, Jesus as the Christ. Simply stated, Christianity glorified Jesus. Again, man's perception. I also, lead to a belief that there is no God. Science has now given me the perception of a creation out of nothing. That goes along with my belief that if there was a Creation then, that Creation was perfect as God is perceived to be perfect and does not need, nor will God interfere with his perfect Creation. Hence, God is not involved in mankind's life. I believe that all mankind has that which Jesus taught, God's Spirit as is mentioned in Genesis 1:27. The image of God is man's archetype whether there is a God or not.

A discussion that challenges should begin with Genesis 1:27. It is there that the Bible's message begins. All understanding of Christian ethics begin with 1: 27. Understand the basics and everything else in the Bible falls into place including what I call misconceptions put forth by corrupted translations and doctrine.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Au contraire mon ami, I interact with the Holy Ghost every single day. Right now as I write I feel his influence as to what I should say. The Holy Ghost, Jesus Christ and God maybe separate individuals but they act as one. The Holy Ghost knows me so that means that God knows me to. He know my prayers, my weaknesses, what makes me happy or sad, the intent of my heart and my desires, both in spirit and in body. He knows me enough to be able to anticipate my next decision.

What on earth does "Iow tangability" mean?

You know yourself best. What makes you so sure it's not your inner voice for which a personality has been adopted?

Also. ..

In other words, tangability. Meaning...

A physical face to face interaction, such as your pointing to Jesus and Peter as knowing each other physically as opposed to a relationship void of any physical interaction where such a thing leads me to think it's only in a persons mind by which he or she can interpret as they wish.

 

[1robin]

My point regarding you and Tillich is that you would dismiss his greatness and theology. Be my guest, look into his life and theology.

Why don't you give me the best paper he has written instead of expecting me to review decades of scholarship and en entire life story first? And why don't you wait for me to make up my mind before you give up? BTW what did he say that would offend my Baptist sensibilities?

As for the science, you stated that no science to date says that something comes out of nothing. I simply showed you the science that does. Accept that science or not, your choice. Others may find value in it.

No you did not because that is an impossibility that pretty much everyone on earth concedes except for a few kooks who produce science fiction. I even showed you how claims by even the estimable Hawking to that are not just fantasy but just plain stupid. It is not even that science has never ever proven, justified, or discovered a single thing ever has ever could or ever will come from nothing but that it comes with all kinds of causal components that give great clues into what type of cause produced it. Even in the weird world quantum where particles pop into existence they are always proceeded by a natural cause.

You can waste a bunch of time on this if you want but nothing has no properties of any kind and stands in causal relationships with nothing. It literally is no-thing and does not exist to produce anything.

As for denigrating Christians with the use of science, that is not the purpose of science. You got angry because that is what you felt. Maybe you should re-examine your faith.

No science I have ever seen is a challenge to Christianity and even the part some wish would be a challenge is all concentrated in the most theoretical and unknown end of the discipline. That was not my point. It is the claim or suggestion that Christians are not scientific (when we have dominated science), that we are not intellectual in out beliefs, or that we oppose science that I was rejecting as pure garbage. I am not angry, nor was I. I work in a defense lab and stay too busy to care too much about anything in this forum, not that I would get emotional if I had all the time in the world. Since your premise was invalid your last conclusion was just silly. (actually it would have been silly if the preceding claim was true)

Well that was one for the books.

 

[Storm]

What makes you so sure it's not your inner voice for which a personality has been adopted?

Not to speak for anyone else, but this question always amuses me. It's just such a stark reminder of how alien the whole a/ theist debate is to me....

In truth, it's been so long since that question mattered to me that I can't even remember why it did.

 

[Serenity7855]

You know yourself best. What makes you so sure it's not your inner voice for which a personality has been adopted?

Also. ..

In other words, tangability. Meaning...

A physical face to face interaction, such as your pointing to Jesus and Peter as knowing each other physically as opposed to a relationship void of any physical interaction where such a thing leads me to think it's only in a persons mind by which he or she can interpret as they wish.

Are you suggested that all Christians are schizophrenic. I might be and Robert might be as wel, but Kryptid and savagewind as well. Not very likely is it. Then if you multiply that by millions of Christians the likelihood that they are all schizophrenic is pretty slim. Aside from that, if you are introspective, as I am, and in control of your inner self, you know when something external enters your mind, especially when you receive knowledge that you did not actually have, being told to do something you do not want to be told to do. But to be honest, it makes no difference what I say to you, or what pearls I throw at your feet, you are one of those who have invested too much time in your disbelief to accept the smallest bit of evidence in favour of the existence of divinity. There are none so blind as those who REFUSE to see.

I am sorry, but I cannot find a definition on the Web anywhere for tangability. Are you sure that this word exists.

 

[savagewind]

Tangibilty. Capable of being touched. I am not schizophrenic but I think schizophrenics believe they are able to touch and feel their imaginings. In the movie A Beautiful Mind the main character had a roommate who wasn't real. Isn't it?

 

[Serenity7855]

Tangibilty. Capable of being touched. I am not schizophrenic but I think schizophrenics believe they are able to touch and feel their imaginings. In the movie A Beautiful Mind The main character had a roommate who wasn't real. Isn't it?

That is "tangibility" not "tangability", or is that what he means?

 

[savagewind]

That is "tangibility" not "tangability"

I know. He spelled it wrong. I spell wrong many times and I see you spell wrong sometimes too. I like your post.

 

[Serenity7855]

I know. He spelled it wrong. I spell wrong many times and I see you spell wrong sometimes too. I like your post.

I do spell words wrong, a lot, so I am not being critical of his spelling. I genuinely took it to be "tangability" but now I can see that it could just be an error. I think that he might have used the wrong word, thus, catching me off guard.

 

[savagewind]

He spells like I do. It sounds like an a. I use google all the time. When in doubt google it. It is the best speller eva. If I look smart to anyone it isn't me. It's Google.

 

[Sonofason]

So what's really and actually going on?

Clearly, what is going on is you are not telling the truth, in that you suggest that something is going on which you cannot possible show to be true, and that is because of course it is not true.

 

[Storm]

Are you suggested that all Christians are schizophrenic.

Of course he's not. Being hyperdefensive really doesn't help your case.

 

[Serenity7855]

He spells like I do. It sounds like an a. I use google all the time. When in doubt google it. It is the best speller eva. If I look smart to anyone it isn't me. It's Google.

Dito

 

[Serenity7855]

Of course he's not. Being hyperdefensive really doesn't help your case.

So, the suggestion that I am hearing voices in my head, and assigning personalities to them, is not an indication that i might be schizophrenic, or similar. I should not try and defend that, is that what you are telling me. If you are, then I would have to disagree with you.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Clearly, what is going on is you are not telling the truth, in that you suggest that something is going on which you cannot possible show to be true, and that is because of course it is not true.

Of course it's possible to show what truth is. Just stay perfectly silent and refrain from embellished and fabricated nuances to what you observe and experience. That's the real actual truth. God dies in the silence and understandably you will have a difficult time accepting the hard actual fact of the matter.

 

[Twilight Hue]

That is "tangibility" not "tangability", or is that what he means?

It was a typo. But I'm sure most understood it as being such.

 

[Twilight Hue]

So, the suggestion that I am hearing voices in my head, and assigning personalities to them, is not an indication that i might be schizophrenic, or similar. I should not try and defend that, is that what you are telling me. If you are, then I would have to disagree with you.

No I don't think Christians generally suffer schizophrenia with some exceptions when things get too far out of hand. Everyone has that inner voice in varying degrees, and it's not unusual to adopt a persona to it. Remember, I was a Christian once and viewed it as being the Holy Spirit just as you do.

There simply came a time where I just no longer saw any real distinction that can be made as far as inner voices go, and of what is perceived to be the voice of the Holy Spirit that would set things apart other than emotional preferences, which to me, wasn't enough to convince that any deity was actually there guiding and directing. Rather it was the normal and natural function of the brain.

 

[Dr. Strange]

Why don't you give me the best paper he has written instead of expecting me to review decades of scholarship and en entire life story first? And why don't you wait for me to make up my mind before you give up? BTW what did he say that would offend my Baptist sensibilities?

Here I go:

Paul Tillich>Quotes> Quotable Quote

“In this respect fundamentalism has demonic traits. It destroys the humble honesty of the search for truth, it splits the conscience of its thoughtful adherents, and it makes them fanatical because they are forced to suppress elements of truth of which they are dimly aware”

―Paul Tillich
tags:fundamentalism
Read more quotes fromPaul Tillich
Quote by Paul Tillich: “In this respect fundamentalism has demonic trai...”

Introduction to Paul Tillich’s Systematic Theology
This begins Paul Tillich's Systematic Theology, Introduction, p. 3.
Introduction to Paul Tillich’s Systematic Theology | living through death

There are so many books that I'd recommend for you to start with without struggling to understand his Systematic Theology. I believe that I can find these books on the internet for you.
http://www.napts.org/assets/newsletters/NB381.pdf

The History of Christian Thought

Tillich: Urgrund and Urbild

https://www.google.com/search?q=Pau...ient=ubuntu&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8

Look for his books online. Here read about the book, The New Being ( Paul Tillich, The New Being ).

Way to much to throw at you at one time. The best critical analysis I've read comes from Donald J. Keefe, S.J., Thomism and the Ontological Theology of Paul Tillich, A Comparison of Systems. " Thomism and the Ontological Theology of Paul Tillich: A Comparison of Systems - Donald J. Keefe - Google Books

"Any useful critique of Tillich's theological affirmations must be developed from within his circle of theological reasoning. The failure to understand this starting point must involve a failure to appreciate what he intends to do, and a consequent rejection of what he does do." Ibid., p.144.

"Such judgments as these raise the fundamental question of the criteria whereby a theological system may be distinguished from one which is not theological. Tillich, as no other theologian, has stated these criteria and integrated them with his system to the point that much of the adverse criticism brought against it stems from a rejection, at least implicit, of those criteria. But if it is not shown that the criteria which Tillich employs are inadequate in themselves, their rejection becomes arbitrary, a matter of taste." Ibid., p. 146.

Top Ten Theological Works of the 20th Century?
Top Ten Theological Works of the 20th Century? - Crisis Magazine

 

[Sonofason]

Of course it's possible to show what truth is. Just stay perfectly silent and refrain from embellished and fabricated nuances to what you observe and experience. That's the real actual truth. God dies in the silence and understandably you will have a difficult time accepting the hard actual fact of the matter.

That's an interesting opinion. It's a shame that's all that it is.

 

[Twilight Hue]

That's an interesting opinion. It's a shame that's all that it is.

Like I said, this has nothing to do with any personal opinion. It's the direct reality of the matter as it stands.