Offshoot discussion of "what religion are you" thread

[HOBBIT]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
1.Ah, so those who don't believe the same way you do are phonies?




2.Therefore, as there can be NO evidence, it is automatically false?

1.yes
2.no, just not very likely.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
Ah, so those who don't believe the same way you do are phonies?

No - just misguided.

Therefore, as there can be NO evidence, it is automatically false, or you automatically discount the possibility?

No - if there is no evidence and there is evidence for other explanations - then it is HIGHLY UNLIKELY.

[Eruviel Greenleaf]

Good gods, I'm beginning to find myself siding more with Gwai on this one! And that said, well, it would be pointless to repeat what Gwai has said, so I'll just say I really like the quote from Dracula in his sig., the one from Van Helsing. I just read that part yesterday

[GrayMouser]

Actually, I personally enjoy arguing about religion so much that most of my missionary friends try to avoid discussing it with me!
In all the old hippie houses I lived in, we used to love having JWs come to the door- get a good fiery discussion going.

The best defense is a good offense.

Seriously, as far as pushy proselytisers go, if you knew someone had a fatal disease, and you knew they were taking the wrong medicine, would you refrain from telling them out of politeness?
That's their position- they're trying to help.

You can argue with them or (courteously at first, but with more and more justified expressions of rudeness), just tell them to shove off- it's no reason to get upset.

[GrayMouser]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Are you a parent?
Can you see something like "Yeah, I know I was wrong, but I still will refuse to willingly and joyfully subject myself to You in a proper creation/creator relationship." ?
(not that anyone would ever use such an awkwardly worded phrase, but can you see the idea behind it?)


Do you think that the rest of the Buddhist philosophy makes sense? What I've always had problems with is the absense of a strong GOOD, and the absense of a help out side of ourselves. That's part of what I really like in Tolkien's writing - there's such, I don't know, meat to it - there are STRONG goods (I can't express myself well here...).

Now nirvana is to be released from the cycle of suffering - but released to ... what? There is no god outside of ourselves. Frankly, nirvana seems rather ... boring to me (no offense intended to Buddhists!) compared to the strong joys of heaven. And following the Eightfold Path is in our own strength - what makes us think we can ever reach perfection on our own resources, when we see ourselves failing time after time?

Now Christians cannot be saved by their own efforts, but after salvation, there is plenty of good work to do with our own effort, and those that "run the race" well are rightly praised and commended.

Yeah, I'm a parent- I was specifically thinking of my second son, who's the type who would spend two days building a brick wall just to bang his head against.

And yes, the origin of the positive sense of good in Buddhism, or Eastern thought in general, does seem to me to be a problem.

Logically, they should have a more consistently neutral approach- love should be just as much an obstacle to enlightenment as hate.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally posted by Eruviel Greenleaf
1) Good gods, I'm beginning to find myself siding more with Gwai on this one! And that said, well, it would be pointless to repeat what Gwai has said, 2) so I'll just say I really like the quote from Dracula in his sig., the one from Van Helsing. I just read that part yesterday

1) Wonders never cease.
2) Yeah, it's a great quote. Van Helsing rules!

[Eruviel Greenleaf]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
1) Wonders never cease.
2) Yeah, it's a great quote. Van Helsing rules!

1) So there must be gods/God out there somewhere, ne?
2) Yeah he does! So does Mina.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

1) Obviously.
2) Oh, yeah, Mina is AWESOME! She never was treated very well in any of the adaptations; thousand times better in the book.

[Lief Erikson]

I'm able to post a little bit in this topic, but I won't be able to for long. I've seen some interesting posts, and I'd like to respond to the most recent one that I consider quite good and expressive of different thoughts, but which I don't think has received complete responses on all of its points.

Originally posted by jerseydevil
It goes by experience. Everytime people have said we've discovered the largest or the smallest item - something else is found.

Absolute Truth has nothing to do with science or belief - if has to do with what is. Whether we know it or not or have discovered it or not - there is an absolute truth and it's already out there.

I agree with this part of your post completely. Science is always changing and discovering more. The Absolute Truth has nothing to do with belief, either, though I would say that science is related to it. What exists in the physical room does absolutely exist- our interpretations of science can be very faulty, though. And the instruments by which we learn about science. Our judgements based upon what we see are almost certainly flawed because they can be drawn from faulty vision or faulty analysis of the evidence, based upon us not understanding the truth about the evidence. Which basically comes back to faulty vision. However, we can constantly improve and learn more, and we always have been. Aren't we a great species .

Originally posted by jerseydevil
It's not going to be found by reading a book that no one knows who wrote though. The truth will only be found by searching for it scientifically.

You can't get to absolute truth - unless you die and there ends up being a heaven - then that will be the only way you can find absolute truth.

Here we get into disagreement. If there is a God, then surely he can provide a way for us to reach absolute truth, if he's interested in doing it . Who's to say he can't do it through a book?

Also, you're contradicting yourself by saying that the truth can only be found by searching scientifically. You said above-and I agreed with you-that the absolute truth will almost certainly never become completely known to us through scientific investigation. We can get a glimpse of the truth, and we can look with ever increasing clarity. However, we invariably make serious mistakes and our vision will very likely remain seriously obscured.

Also I disagree that we don't know which people wrote the Bible. Only parts of it is there any uncertainty, and with the gospels, I am prepared to back that opinion up.

Originally posted by jerseydevil
So you believe that because you haven't built a DVD player that it would be reasonable fo you to assume that their are little people acting it out? Do you think there is a little perosn inside your can opener that turns it? or have you looked to make sure there isn't a gnome in there?

I agree with you here, completely. Ignorance can lead to serious mistakes. It has in the past and still does.

Originally posted by jerseydevil
By the way - the hearsay on how something works in the REAL world is a lot more reliable than the hearsay contained in a book that no one knows who wrote. You seem to haev no problem beliefing that hearsay.

The gospels are considered valid in almost all historical and archaeological details. The gospel writers were careful to write detailed accounts which have been verified by archaeologists and historians. The text manuscripts of the gospels are so early that it is impossible (unless one hasn't examined closely the evidence) to believe that legend has seriously contaminated the gospels. We can put the witnesses through tests to ensure their reliability.

Originally posted by jerseydevil
We will have enough knowledge and scietific proof to make an INTELLIGENT decision.

We will do the best we can.

Originally posted by jerseydevil
You can't really provide evidence because it is only based on a BELIEF that their is a god. What evidence is there that there is. If you can't supply evidence of that then intelligent design is nothing more than evolution and religion and the concept of god is nothing but a fairty tale.

God never intended to have his existence proved by physical evidence. Though actually, by examination of the physical evidence, many skeptics, atheists and scientists have come to faith.

You really ought to read "The Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel if you want to gain some insight into what the evidence for Christ's existence really is. If you want to question any of the assertions I have made however, about the witnesses available, the manuscripts, or the evidence, I am willing to respond.

[Lief Erikson]

I hope you respond today, if you're planning to respond, because after today, I'm going to be gone for about five days. Which means that there'll be too many pages for me to find your response, by the time I get back. I'm not trying to be at all impatient, just letting you know of the technical difficulties .

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
I agree with this part of your post completely. Science is always changing and discovering more. The Absolute Truth has nothing to do with belief, either, though I would say that science is related to it. What exists in the physical room does absolutely exist- our interpretations of science can be very faulty, though. And the instruments by which we learn about science. Our judgements based upon what we see are almost certainly flawed because they can be drawn from faulty vision or faulty analysis of the evidence, based upon us not understanding the truth about the evidence. Which basically comes back to faulty vision. However, we can constantly improve and learn more, and we always have been. Aren't we a great species .

Yes - we evolved into a great animal. As for evidence - there is always some unknown elements. Just because pieces of a crime scene may be missing - doesn't mean that you can't make an intelligent decision on what happened. If we had to have all the evidence out there to make a conviction - no one would go to jail. That however is not the same as having blind faith without any evidence of a god.

Here we get into disagreement. If there is a God, then surely he can provide a way for us to reach absolute truth, if he's interested in doing it . Who's to say he can't do it through a book?

There is no proof that the book is by a supernatural being. It could be mostly by some insane lunatic from thousands of years ago. You can't say it's not nor can you proof that it is the word of "god". As I have said repeatedly - a 1000 years from now they may dig up the Silmarillian and believe that it was a bible and an ancient religion. it would be reasonable - without the knownledge that we have about the book.

continued....

[jerseydevil]

Also, you're contradicting yourself by saying that the truth can only be found by searching scientifically. You said above-and I agreed with you-that the absolute truth will almost certainly never become completely known to us through scientific investigation. We can get a glimpse of the truth, and we can look with ever increasing clarity. However, we invariably make serious mistakes and our vision will very likely remain seriously obscured.

i don't contradict myself. The only way to search for the truth is through scientific means. Science makes a lot of mistakes - but then the hypothesis changes, the theories change and we get closer to the truth. Your vision is seriously obscured because you have this NEED to believe in a god - therefore everything around you has to be the result of some higher power which is no more than a belief.

Also I disagree that we don't know which people wrote the Bible. Only parts of it is there any uncertainty, and with the gospels, I am prepared to back that opinion up.

The Bible is much more than just the new testament. Creationism is based on the first book - which is Genesis. Majority of the bible is completely unknown as to who the authors are. The Book of Revelations is now being questioned as to who wrote that even. The Discovery Channel and the History Channel both have a lot of shows on how the bible relates to history.

The gospels are considered valid in almost all historical and archaeological details. The gospel writers were careful to write detailed accounts which have been verified by archaeologists and historians. The text manuscripts of the gospels are so early that it is impossible (unless one hasn't examined closely the evidence) to believe that legend has seriously contaminated the gospels. We can put the witnesses through tests to ensure their reliability.

Again the bible is more than just the new testament - and the items recalled in it may or may not have happened. You can know the writer - but you still can say whether they distorted the truth.

God never intended to have his existence proved by physical evidence. Though actually, by examination of the physical evidence, many skeptics, atheists and scientists have come to faith.

That's very convient. You see - that BELIEF. Science is based on OBSERVATION. You can not tell me you observe god - it is just your interpretation of the world - that is all. But you can not provide any evidence of a god.

You really ought to read "The Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel if you want to gain some insight into what the evidence for Christ's existence really is. If you want to question any of the assertions I have made however, about the witnesses available, the manuscripts, or the evidence, I am willing to respond.

I believe there was a min named Jesus - I do not believe he was the son of a god though or that there is a god. what evidence can you provide that he made the dead rise and the lame man walk or that he turned water into wine?

[Giroth]

um....this doesn't quite answer,but for ONE thing,he brought my grandma back to life.She died years ago,abut since she still hada family to take care of,God let her go back to
earth to help them.The doctors were amazed,because she had,in fact,died.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
As I have said repeatedly - a 1000 years from now they may dig up the Silmarillian and believe that it was a bible and an ancient religion. it would be reasonable - without the knownledge that we have about the book.

I may be wrong, but doesn't the Silmarillion have a foreword?

[Sheeana]

Yeah, but that might not necessarily survive the archaeological record. Realistically, it would take extreme conditions for mere fragments to survive. If it survived for that long - unlikely - it would be VERY unlikely that the forward would survive. Take that, Mr. Pendantic Git.

[olsonm]

Originally posted by Sheeana
Yeah, but that might not necessarily survive the archaeological record. Realistically, it would take extreme conditions for mere fragments to survive. If it survived for that long - unlikely - it would be VERY unlikely that the forward would survive. Take that, Mr. Pendantic Git.

Doesn't that also mean it would be unlikely for anything to survive, making this whole disscussion rather academic? -The Real Mr. Pedantic

[Lief Erikson]

Mmm, jerseydevil, you don't seem to have asked me what my evidence was, but assumed what it was. Which means I still have it to give .

That's wonderful about your grandma, Giroth . It's incredible what faith can do.

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Yes - we evolved into a great animal. As for evidence - there is always some unknown elements. Just because pieces of a crime scene may be missing - doesn't mean that you can't make an intelligent decision on what happened. If we had to have all the evidence out there to make a conviction - no one would go to jail. That however is not the same as having blind faith without any evidence of a god.

As I said earlier, science is very important, we can draw conclusions, and we can act upon those conclusions. However, all we are doing is making our best crack at it. More is always being discovered, but there's no way we'll discover all there is to know.

I completely agree that science is utterly different from blind faith. Atheists always assume that Christians rely on blind faith .

Originally posted by jerseydevil
There is no proof that the book is by a supernatural being. It could be mostly by some insane lunatic from thousands of years ago.

Except that archaeology supports most post-Solomon Old Testament events. Of course that doesn't show that it's a supernatural being, I'm simply showing that it's hardly a lunatic.

If you're going to find out about the spiritual side though, it's not very wise to go to science to look for your answers. Science can show us things about the physical. If you're going to learn about the spiritual though, it's logical that you'd have to do that by spiritual means. Not all spiritual experiences are merely "inside your head" either. I've seen pictures of New Ageists levitating off the ground. There are Christians with the gift of faith, who have been gifted with miracles. There is even evidence from several sources for Jesus' miracles. There is no reason to doubt the Biblical gospels, but the Jewish leaders (opponents of Jesus and his teachings) would have shot down his miracles if there was no evidence for them. Instead, as it says in the gospels, they saw some of the miracles themselves, as did thousands of others, so the Sanhedrin couldn't argue with their occuring.

The Jewish leaders' writings from that time period say Jesus was a sorcerer. Other writings say that he practiced magic and "led many astray". The epistles also exist, supporting the gospel accounts of the Resurrection. The epistles historical validation is archaeological and attested to by documents of the period. The early accounts of Jesus' ministry and success, death on the cross, the swift spread of the church, and their message of the Resurrection are evidenced by multiple sources. Two historians of the time, Tacitus and Josephus, (who are both considered reliable by modern scholars) both briefly speak on this subject. There are Roman accounts of the early spread of the church, their message, and their willingness to undergo severe persecution for their faith. Heck, we even have corroborating accounts of the sky becoming dark at the time of Jesus' death.

I'm getting rather off-topic, I realize. But in any case, I think you must see that it doesn't make sense to claim the spiritual realm doesn't exist based upon the scientific method's inability to prove it. If you're going to look at evidence for the spiritual realm, it is best to use a different way. And since you haven't sought God yourself in the way he says you must to reach him, how can you know he doesn't exist?

Another evidence: Christians testify and have testified ever since the foundation of the early church as to the fact that God is accessible, and that they know him. There are books out on Prayer and its power.

The fact that there are so many books out on spiritual power does say something. These authors wouldn't have such success if all they did was expose our own lacking.

[HOBBIT]

The fact that there are so many books out on spiritual power does say something. These authors wouldn't have such success if all they did was expose our own lacking.

why is this? ppl want something to believe in so they buy those books. it doesnt mean that prayer works - they want it to work.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
You can't say it's not nor can you proof that it is the word of "god". As I have said repeatedly - a 1000 years from now they may dig up the Silmarillian and believe that it was a bible and an ancient religion. it would be reasonable - without the knownledge that we have about the book.

Again, except for the historical and archaeological validation. The Book of Mormon, I grant you, is rather like that. Joseph Smith claimed that it was the most correct book on the earth. However, none of its cities have been located, no people, places, nations or names have been found, no artifacts, scriptures or inscriptions either.

With the New Testament and much of the Old Testament, the situation is totally different. The Old Testament is corroborated by Assyrian and Babylonian accounts. The Hittite civilization was discovered because of Biblical archaeological research. That's only one example- there are far more.

Originally posted by jerseydevil
i don't contradict myself. The only way to search for the truth is through scientific means. Science makes a lot of mistakes - but then the hypothesis changes, the theories change and we get closer to the truth. Your vision is seriously obscured because you have this NEED to believe in a god - therefore everything around you has to be the result of some higher power which is no more than a belief.

Sorry, but to me this sounds like pure atheism speaking, without proof. The only way to seek truth being science pre-supposes the absence of a spiritual realm. The rest of the argument seems to me to be purely opinion. Oh, except that I agree with your third sentence . The opinion that my vision is obscured because I need to believe in God is purely opinion. It is just as easy for me to say my own opinion, that the opinion of many Atheists is biased against Christianity because they don't WANT to believe in God . Besides, many of the New Testament people that turned to God were skeptics (like James and Paul) and many of the people who turn to Christianity now were skeptics, skeptics that have had miraculous experience with God and now believe in him. Also sometimes skeptics who examined the evidence trying to disprove Christianity, and ended up believing it because of the evidence that when they started out, they were so sure didn't exist.

Originally posted by jerseydevil
The Bible is much more than just the new testament. Creationism is based on the first book - which is Genesis. Majority of the bible is completely unknown as to who the authors are. The Book of Revelations is now being questioned as to who wrote that even. The Discovery Channel and the History Channel both have a lot of shows on how the bible relates to history.

Unfortunately, I'm not well informed enough yet on the authorship of many of the other books of the Bible. I intend to become so, though .

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Again the bible is more than just the new testament - and the items recalled in it may or may not have happened. You can know the writer - but you still can say whether they distorted the truth.

Originally posted by jerseydevil
That's very convient. You see - that BELIEF. Science is based on OBSERVATION. You can not tell me you observe god - it is just your interpretation of the world - that is all. But you can not provide any evidence of a god.

Through faith, the miraculous spiritual power of God is revealed to us. It seems a little ridiculous to say that all Christian accounts are lies, that recount their born again experiences, their continued miraculous experiences, and the fact that they go on all throughout those individuals' lives. Christianity is not mere belief. Please believe me when I say that that is a misconception. Christianity does involve belief, yet it is belief based upon a solid foundation.

Originally posted by jerseydevil
I believe there was a min named Jesus - I do not believe he was the son of a god though or that there is a god. what evidence can you provide that he made the dead rise and the lame man walk or that he turned water into wine?

I seem to have just given, in this post and the last one, some evidence about miracles. There are eyewitness accounts for those specific miracles, and there are many reasons to believe the eyewitness accounts.

[Lief Erikson]

I probably didn't give enough evidence for you to give up your atheism, but if you really want to know, you'll look at it yourself. Trying to use scientific tools to make judgements on the spiritual presupposes the nonexistence of the spiritual, and is bound to fail.

It's your choice whether or not you believe Jesus is the Son of God. Just please make sure that you've read the defenses of Christ, before you make a judgement about him. The "Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel (a former Atheist) is the book I'd advise, if you want a good idea of what there is, concerning the New Testament. For the Old Testament you'd have to go to different sources, if you're interested enough in that. But I'd actually suggest the Old Testament is less important for you to look into at first than the New Testament.