The Stuff Jesus Never Did.

Turtwig

PDN wrote: »

Disappointing, Malty, in that you've previously been prepared to discuss Christian beliefs in this forum in a relatively fair-minded way without such trollish comments.

Our belief is based on the testimony of eye witnesses, which makes it no more blind than believing in many historical events.

Our belief is also based on our own experiences of God (answered prayer etc), which makes it no more blind than many other beliefs that are shaped by our experiences.

Em, apologies firstly, I've been having an awful torrid few days lately so if this came down too hard apologies, because it is mainly my fault for not clarifying fully.

I'm not saying that you guys are blind fools in that you don't have any evidence or reasons for believing. What I'm saying is that most of your evidence is essentially blind evidence in that it's indirectly relying on the testimony of others and you have no foolproof method of testing it directly;in that sense it is blind...similar to (but not identical to) love maybe?.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that no matter what one's religion is, the reasons they give for belief are pretty much entirely dependent on personal testimony be it their own's or someone else's.
If that makes any sense...

philologos

Malty_T wrote: »

I guess what I'm trying to say is that no matter what one's religion is, the reasons they give for belief are pretty much entirely dependent on personal testimony be it their own's or someone else's.
If that makes any sense...

You really ought to read some Christian apologetics.

Turtwig

Jakkass wrote: »

You really ought to read some Christian apologetics.

I have and I intend to read more (some of other faiths too, but they seem to be harder to find:(). Trouble is that in essence every point they make all fall back to one set of books...

stevejazzx

The problem is not how big a miracles is, but why a 'God' who is also a 'creator', would have himself in front of his creation, performing miracles. There is no conceivable reason why this 'being' would want, need or desire to impress or convince the beings he created. After all, this being, who possesses complete future knowledge of everything, could simply undo the need for these miracles to be carried out. Now if these events were set in motion and had to occur for some cosmic reason, then he could have set in place an alternative 'cure' for these peoples or places, whom it is claimed he healed. What that rather complicated sentence means is that there is no reason for Jesus having to carry out these miracles personally, unless of course you think he needed to impress the people he created? If he just did it because likes praise then it makes no sense why he is so remote nowadays and relies on praise only from believers. If he did it to convince people then why stop? If he did to show off then why not an inter galactic planetary dance juggling stars traveling at the speed light while simultaneously solving math problems that he himself created when he was his own father? The problem with the miracles of the bible that Malty had trouble expressing his dissatisfaction with, is that they seem limited to be the imagination of middle eastern Arabs a couple of thousand years ago. The ultimate show was reincarnation, a feat by way, that was fairly common back then and whose origins stretch back long before Jesus.

PDN

stevejazzx wrote: »

The problem is not how big a miracles is, but why a 'God' who is also a 'creator', would have himself in front of his creation, performing miracles. There is no conceivable reason why this 'being' would want, need or desire to impress or convince the beings he created.

So you, as a finite being (with extremely limited powers and knowledge), feel qualified to decide on what would be any conceivable reasons for an infinite, ominpotent and omniscient being to take whatever course of action He wanted? Do you at least see why nobody here is likely to share your own opinion of your fitness to make such exalted pronouncements?

stevejazzx

PDN wrote: »

So you, as a finite being (with extremely limited powers and knowledge), feel qualified to decide on what would be any conceivable reasons for an infinite, ominpotent and omniscient being to take whatever course of action He wanted? Do you at least see why nobody here is likely to share your own opinion of your fitness to make such exalted pronouncements?

Is this your way of saying that God works in mysterious ways?

But lets say for a moment that your right you have also disqualified yourself [everyone] as representing anything in verbal/descriptive terms that Jesus did? You can't say it's OK for you to represent his ideas using relative human terms and then deny that any similar logic be used when it is to the detriment of such. This is the 'cake and eat it' syndrome I believe.
Either we're all equally ignorant or fair usage of relativism applies for both positive and negative interpretations. You'll say that yours are based on scripture, if that's the case then this contradicts your opening gambit that this Deity is completely unknowable and ineffable. Your reductionist argument therefore is that Jesus is perfectly understandable through scripture yet completely unknowable through science. The problem is that this 'understandable' Jesus leaks out because no other option exists. If this scriptural element of Jesus/God is knowable, correct, understandable etc. then this data leaks out and supplies us with the possibility of speculation vis a vis said deities motives in other areas, one of which would be miracles. Ironically it is your teaching that allows me to speculate with some purpose on the propositions of the deities motives. Without your interpretation your opening gambit might indeed stand.

PDN

stevejazzx wrote: »

Is this your way of saying that God works in mysterious ways?

If an infinite omnipotent and omniscient being exists then it is logically inevitable that some of what He does would undoubtedly be mysterious to limited finite beings such as ourselves. You might as well expect a woodlouse to understand everything that Albert Einstein wrote.

But lets say for a moment that your right you have also disqualified yourself [everyone] as representing anything in verbal/descriptive terms that Jesus did? You can't say it's OK for you to represent his ideas using relative human terms and then deny that any similar logic be used when it is to the detriment of such. This is the 'cake and eat it' syndrome I believe

However, I expect even our proverbial woodlouse would see the gaps in your logic.

What I said was that you and I, as finite beings, cannot expect to understand every conceivable reason God might have for doing something.

You now want to claim that means that we cannot understand anything that God does.

Let's put that in logical form:

A cannot understand everything that B does.
Therefore A cannot understand anything that B does.

Now, think carefully before you answer. Is that really an argument you want to advance?

Either we're all equally ignorant or fair usage of relativism applies for both positive and negative interpretations. You'll say that yours are based on scripture, if that's the case then this contradicts your opening gambit that this Deity is completely unknowable and ineffable.

Who said this Deity is completely unknowable and ineffable? What I said was that you cannot know every possible reason the Deity may have for doing anything.

Turtwig

PDN wrote: »

You now want to claim that means that we cannot understand anything that God does.

Actually I don't think he was claiming that.

Your reductionist argument therefore is that Jesus is perfectly understandable through scripture yet completely unknowable through science

I actually think 'science' is the wrong term there, but I can't think of one more suitable at the moment:o

stevejazzx

PDN wrote: »

If an infinite omnipotent and omniscient being exists then it is logically inevitable that some of what He does would undoubtedly be mysterious to limited finite beings such as ourselves. You might as well expect a woodlouse to understand everything that Albert Einstein wrote.

But you lose context. Einstein didn't create the woodlouse and ask it to worship him. You can't offer comparisons that lose so much objectivity.
Also the woodlouse being an insect lacks the mammalian cognitive function that differs us from the rest of creation.
But lets forget that and go with your analogy - the human created by the deity can contemplate the deity even if such contemplations are hopeless and again they get much closer than the woodlouse does to understanding Einstein because they are at least aware of what they are attempting. Also, whereas we have scripture, Einstein has not provided the woodlouse with a 'relativity for idiots' manual.

pdn wrote:

However, I expect even our proverbial woodlouse would see the gaps in your logic.

Preverbial woodlouse see gaps in my logic?

pdn wrote:

What I said was that you and I, as finite beings, cannot expect to understand every conceivable reason God might have for doing something.
You now want to claim that means that we cannot understand anything that God does.

Someone once that said selective understanding to suit a predisposed bias is really just self affirmation of ones own prejudice.

pdn wrote:

Let's put that in logical form:

A cannot understand everything that B does.
Therefore A cannot understand anything that B does.

Now, think carefully before you answer. Is that really an argument you want to advance?

I can't bite on your straw man offer, it's simply not what I said.
Here's a summary - the knowable parts of God create data leakage which can be used to suppose the unknowable parts. Therefore arguments claiming some parts cannot be known at all are compromised.

pdn wrote:

Who said this Deity is completely unknowable and ineffable? What I said was that you cannot know every possible reason the Deity may have for doing anything.

I agree. I said that we make estimates based on what is known, which is what theologians attempt, is it not? And this is what I did in trying to decipher why this deity performed miracles in person in front of his own creation. Then you said I/we are essentially too limited to know such things, at which I pointed out that we claim to know other things on an even grander scale like his purpose for us and his ideas in regards to moral structure (I could go on ad infinitum). Then I said that if we can know these huge things then it gives us at the very least a platform to presuppose other things about the deity. Now you're saying that the knowable and unknowable are mutually exclusive and I'm disagreeing.

Soul Winner

Malty_T wrote: »

Your post above is probably the single most reason I don't believe in your version of events.

Well I can only say thank God that doesn't mean it's wrong.

Malty_T wrote: »

God created me, just so I could believe in Him?

No. He created man for His purposes not man's purposes. I'm not sure what you are doing in the Christianity forum if all you going to do is respond with post like this. Well that is why I don't believe etc etc. News Flash: We don't care what you believe in. We are here to tell you what Christians believe. And if you're not interested in that then I suggest clicking on another forum that will interest you.

Malty_T wrote: »

I wonder does Barrack Obama care if I believe in Him or not?

God doesn't care if you don't believe in Him. If He exists at all then it is not Him who is loosing out if you don't believe in Him. If God exists then He is not looking for friends. He came to seek and save that which was lost. He is not taking a popular vote on it. You either recognize your need of Him and respond in the way that He wants you to or you burn - simple as. Now before you come back and say that you would never believe in a God like that let me tell you this. God doesn’t care! I’m tired of the idea from non-believers that God is begging them to believe in Him. He couldn’t care less, He only cares about those who recognize Him for who He is and trust their lives to Him.

PDN

stevejazzx wrote: »

I agree. I said that we make estimates based on what is known, which is what theologians attempt, is it not? And this is what I did in trying to decipher why this deity performed miracles in person in front of his own creation.

No, that is not what you said.

You were not drawing an inference from that is known. You were basing an argument on the unknown - namely your failure to see a conceivable reason why God would do something. That is a fundamentally flawed and illogical position.

Everything else you have posted is waffle and an evasion of that rather clear point.

Turtwig

Soul Winner wrote: »

No. He created man for His purposes not man's purposes. I'm not sure what you are doing in the Christianity forum if all you going to do is respond with post like this. Well that is why I don't believe etc etc. News Flash: We don't care what you believe in. We are here to tell you what Christians believe. And if you're not interested in that then I suggest clicking on another forum that will interest you.

I am here because I find Christianity interesting and want to learn more about it..
(And to defend you guys from folk that attack the religion on false assumptions)

Well I can only say thank God that doesn't mean it's wrong.

Indeed, doesn't mean it's right either;)
I don't know that's all.

God doesn't care if you don't believe in Him. If He exists at all then it is not Him who is loosing out if you don't believe in Him. If God exists then He is not looking for friends. He came to seek and save that which was lost. He is not taking a popular vote on it. You either recognize your need of Him and respond in the way that He wants you to or you burn - simple as. Now before you come back and say that you would never believe in a God like that let me tell you this. God doesn’t care! I’m tired of the idea from non-believers that God is begging them to believe in Him. He couldn’t care less, He only cares about those who recognize Him for who He is and trust their lives to Him.

If He doesn't care whether I believe in Him or not, why is that I have to believe in Him to be saved. Isn't the true Hero the one who saves His enemy as well as his friend?
However, I think your interpretation of Him not caring is wrong.

PDN

Malty_T wrote: »

However, I think your interpretation of Him not caring is wrong.

I agree.

The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance. (2 Peter 3:9)

stevejazzx

PDN wrote: »

No, that is not what you said.

Yes it is [was]

pdn wrote:

You were not drawing an inference from that is known. You were basing an argument on the unknown - namely your failure to see a conceivable reason why God would do something.

I like it when you prove my point for me.
I (or anyone attempting a negative interpretation of biblical text) cannot concieve of any reason for Gods actions yet positive interpretation can take any line or form it pleases and when it does I cannot use that data to comment on other elements of the dieties nature? Of course I can, I have to be able to, otherwsie the positive data is meaningless. Hence the more that is revealed through scripture the more we can assimilate about the overall meaning. This is logical because we're using 'good' data i.e the genaerally agreed principles of Christianity. The fact that this data can be used to cast questions over the apparent logic of the deities actions in other areas does not confrim these (perhaps) sometimes negative assumptions/conclusions but it does at least beg for some kind of resolution or explanation. Now you are most correct, if this being were completely mysterious this would be a futile excercise but in fact the opposite is true, we actually know a great deal about him - according to Christianity of course.

pdn wrote:

That is a fundamentally flawed and illogical position.

I really don't see how. I am gathering data based on what is known and using to make assumptions on what is unknown in the hope of resolving the two. Of course that is why I am an atheist because in my opinion the two seem irreconcilable.

pdn wrote:

Everything else you have posted is waffle and an evasion of that rather clear point.

Everything else? Why not everything? After all, your replies in this post state 'flawed logic' and evasion. You could have grouped them into one complete write off. Instead it seems, you got half way through and said hmm 'I'm not getting into that'. There are 3 reasons for this
1) The point is too complex for you to either accept or acknowledge
2) You are unwilling to look past your own belief
3) You feel unequivocally correct with no motive for continuation

If the answer is 3 then I am surprised you have not chosen to completely tear apart my post highlighting the waffle and illogic. In fairness to me, in this post you simply restate my inability and incorrectness without saying why exactly.

I think my point is a rather excellent one which you are unable to deal with but I welcome a breakdown of the actual text and a refutation. I am in this for debate and although I am sure you see an underlying motive from me just to irritate you, I assure you that is not the case.

PDN

stevejazzx wrote: »

Everything else? Why not everything? After all, your replies in this post state 'flawed logic' and evasion. You could have grouped them into one complete write off. Instead it seems, you got half way through and said hmm 'I'm not getting into that'. There are 3 reasons for this
1) The point is too complex for you to either accept or acknowledge
2) You are unwilling to look past your own belief
3) You feel unequivocally correct with no motive for continuation

If the answer is 3 then I am surprised you have not chosen to completely tear apart my post highlighting the waffle and illogic. In fairness to me, in this post you simply restate my inability and incorrectness without saying why exactly.

Tbh I don't think your rather verbose post merits the effort. You appear to be unable to understand a few very simple principles, so everything you post is on a totally flawed foundation.

Put simply.

Steve does not, and cannot understand, much of what an infinite God might do or why He might do it. Therefore, any argument based on "I can't think of any conceivable reason why ..." is irrelevant. It has no bearing on the likelihood or not of God doing something. It is like a colour blind man asserting that no other colours can exist because he cannot conceive of any colours other than black or white.

However, that in no way hinders God from revealing to man some of His purposes and plans. And, if God chooses, He can do so using human language and concepts.

in other words (where A=man and B=God)

A only has knowledge of a small part of B. Therefore any inferences that A might draw as to the whole of B are hopelessly flawed.

B can reveal parts of Himself to A. These may refer to all of B without being flawed at all since these revelations are based on B's full knowledge of Himself, not on A's lack of knowledge.

Excelsior

It is worryingly common that the older I get, the more cartoons I find that make my point better than I can. Jesus did lots of "godlike" things but they always served as signs pointing towards his mission.

To expect cancer cures and the like descends into showbusiness:

stevejazzx

pdn wrote:

Put simply.
Steve does not, and cannot understand, much of what an infinite God might do or why He might do it. Therefore, any argument based on "I can't think of any conceivable reason why ..." is irrelevant.

It is not entirely unreasonable to expect some consistency from the God we do know to the God we don't? I don't get how knowing so much about him is not an advantage in trying to work out the rest which, in a very non verbose manner, is all I've been trying to tell you.

pdn wrote:

It has no bearing on the likelihood or not of God doing something. It is like a colour blind man asserting that no other colours can exist because he cannot conceive of any colours other than black or white.

No, not really. A blind man has no book with references or explanations of the colors. Humans have a wealth of text revealing God, the blind man has not got such. If he has a story about a rainbow then perhaps he could have an idea of yellows and blues and with some merit it should be pointed out.

pdn wrote:

However, that in no way hinders God from revealing to man some of His purposes and plans. And, if God chooses, He can do so using human language and concepts.

This is the part you're taking me up on incorrectly. I never said that God was hindered. I said that if he reveals portions of his nature through scrupture then it helps us understand his overall nature better, even if that overall element is utterly beyond us (although this seems inconsistent with the first part) it is still an advantage to know the basics.

pdn wrote:

in other words (where A=man and B=God)

A only has knowledge of a small part of B. Therefore any inferences that A might draw as to the whole of B are hopelessly flawed.

Imagine this a=knowable b=utterly beyond our scope or frame of reference nonetherless part of c's essence
c=god

If c reaveals a, then c diminshes the effect of b.

pdn wrote:

B can reveal parts of Himself to A. These may refer to all of B without being flawed at all since these revelations are based on B's full knowledge of Himself, not on A's lack of knowledge.

Ok, but noone said the revelations were flawed, in fact, in this excercise we are gong on the assumption that the revelations are entirely accurate. The point remember is to use the good 'data' from revelaed text. This data is useless if it is flawed but of arguable use in revelaing further information, if it is accurate.

So the difference is that you claim, that no matter how much god reveals to us, his overall nature is still completely out of our grasp. I say that we're in a better place than we would be if we knew nothing at all. This position affords us some speculation of the entity's nature in areas that are not revealed like his motives for wanting the entire set up to begin with.
Although speculating on this 'beings' motives might seem to you a futile exercise, because the being is so infinite, to me it seems logical to at least imagine these things, given that historically he has communicated with us on human terms. he has as you point out allowed us to understand him in a way congruent with our nature.
Also, the fact that the end endgame of this beings creation is already known should prompt us to consider the 'why'. If the why is can never be known then it seems at odds with idea of there being an endgame where we are judged. The logic being that if we are ultimately judged then there was ultimately a point to the whole thing, if there wasn't why the judging? If you say that is for God to know and not for us to ever understand then why the explanations to date of various other parts of his nature and plan?
This is the reason why I think that this type of specualtion is not entirely futile is, so much is already known so surely more is knowable?

PDN

stevejazzx wrote: »

Ok, but noone said the revelations were flawed, in fact, in this excercise we are gong on the assumption that the revelations are entirely accurate. The point remember is to use the good 'data' from revelaed text. This data is useless if it is flawed but of arguable use in revelaing further information, if it is accurate.

But lets say for a moment that your right you have also disqualified yourself [everyone] as representing anything in verbal/descriptive terms that Jesus did?

Maybe you should try to work out what you want to say. Then say it clearly without contradicting yourself. Then others can comment.

robindch

Excelsior wrote: »

To expect cancer cures and the like descends into showbusiness

Are you saying that people shouldn't expect to be cured if they have serious health problems?

This does seem to suggest that you accept -- albeit indirectly -- that the results of the Templeton-funded study from a few years back would have been pretty much expected.

stevejazzx

stevejazzx wrote:

Originally Posted by stevejazzx
Ok, but noone said the revelations were flawed, in fact, in this excercise we are gong on the assumption that the revelations are entirely accurate. The point remember is to use the good 'data' from revelaed text. This data is useless if it is flawed but of arguable use in revelaing further information, if it is accurate.

stevejazzx wrote:

But lets say for a moment that your right you have also disqualified yourself [everyone] as representing anything in verbal/descriptive terms that Jesus did?

pdn wrote:

Maybe you should try to work out what you want to say. Then say it clearly without contradicting yourself. Then others can comment.

I am totally baffled, perhaps you have quoted the wrong bit, the bit you have quoted me on doesn't in any way refer to your higlighted bit? I don't think you've followed my attempted argument at all well. At least dismiss it when you've grasped it. I never said the revelations were flawed, that phrase was used by you! and in fact my argument here depends on them being correct. I have explained that in my last post. perhaps you need to take your own advice re: figuring out what you want to say?

Turtwig

Excelsior wrote: »

Jesus did lots of "godlike" things but they always served as signs pointing towards his mission.

To expect cancer cures and the like descends into showbusiness:

Jesus is supposed to be All Knowing, yet he demonstrated NONE of that knowledge, why didn't He make a clear prediction of the movement of the Stars, the appearance of scary fireballs in the sky etc etc..

To expect cancer cures? Do you really think that cancer was a major cause for concern back then?
How bout appendix problems?
Heart Defects?
Diabetes?
Small Pox?
The Flu?
Asthma?

Given the timeline, the diseases that Jesus cured are more than likely ones that we no longer even worry about today.
More to the point though, did He actually cure anything of note?
I'd imagine the methods of diagnosis back then were veryyyyyy primitive.

PDN

Malty_T wrote: »

Jesus is supposed to be All Knowing,

Actually He isn't. God the Son, in becoming the man Christ Jesus, voluntarily laid aside some of His divine attributes. For example, as a man He could only be in one place at one time, so He was not omnipresent. He expressly stated that He did not know the date of the Second Coming, so He was not omniscient.

MrPudding

Malty_T wrote: »

More to the point though, did He actually cure anything of note?

He cured Lazarus people of death. Surely that is noteworthy?

MrP

Turtwig

MrPudding wrote: »

He cured Lazarus people of death. Surely that is noteworthy?

MrP

Could have just been some sort of beta blocker??;)

PDN

Malty_T wrote: »

Could have just been some sort of beta blocker??;)

Reattached a severed ear too. It's interesting, though, to hear that Malty doesn't think blindness or being paralysed are much to worry about nowadays.

Turtwig

PDN wrote: »

Reattached a severed ear too. It's interesting, though, to hear that Malty doesn't think blindness or being paralysed are much to worry about nowadays.

Yeah, admittingly I'm just being the annoying devils advocate now:p..

Many forms of blindness are only temporary..
Same too for paralysis.
I'm just saying that the people at that time could easily have misdiagnosed a rare but perfectly normal skin disorder as leprosy..
Same principle applies for other diseases too

Anyways, back on topic.
I'm wasn't originally questioning whether or not He performed these miracles..what I was question is why He didn't do unquestionable predictions, although it seems you answer that by saying he gave up omniscient

stevejazzx

PDN wrote: »

Actually He isn't. God the Son, in becoming the man Christ Jesus, voluntarily laid aside some of His divine attributes. For example, as a man He could only be in one place at one time, so He was not omnipresent. He expressly stated that He did not know the date of the Second Coming, so He was not omniscient.

Out of curiousity was not God not not in heaven when Jesus was on earth? Are they not always connected spirtiually? I know they're the same being but I always imagined they were simultaneously omnipresent and omniscient but that Jesus chose not to use some these divine attributes while he was a man, nonetheless he was always connected to the father who always retained such. Do you mean to say that God was not in heaven while jesus was on earth? If so I never realised that was the case.

PDN

stevejazzx wrote: »

Out of curiousity was not God not not in heaven when Jesus was on earth? Are they not always connected spirtiually? I know they're the same being but I always imagined they were simultaneously omnipresent and omniscient but that Jesus chose not to use some these divine attributes while he was a man, nonetheless he was always connected to the father who always retained such. Do you mean to say that God was not in heaven while jesus was on earth? If so I never realised that was the case.

I think it is a fundamental mistake to view heaven as being a location 'up there' somewhere. I think of it as more of another dimension.

God the Father and God the Holy Spirit were certainly in heaven during the Incarnation of Jesus Christ. But the point I am making is that most Christians (at least those who take time to think about it) do not believe that Jesus knew everything.

Zombrex

Excelsior wrote: »

It is worryingly common that the older I get, the more cartoons I find that make my point better than I can. Jesus did lots of "godlike" things but they always served as signs pointing towards his mission.

To expect cancer cures and the like descends into showbusiness:

My issue would be that Jesus always did things that would actually be repetitively easy to fake, ie to convince people you were doing them even if you weren't.

If Jesus wasn't a trickster he seemed to limit himself to performing the sort of cheap tricks that every other cult leader, before or after, did.

A Christian can argue that God is under no obligation not to look like a trickster, but to me I would hope that God, given that he is supposed to be interested in as many as possible being saved from damnation, would have taken this into consideration

wolfsbane

Malty_T wrote: »

Yes, if He told us quite clearly where, when and how it would come round then it would be very hard to question. If He did this for quite a few things then it would be even harder, if He did this for a lot's of things then the results would speak for themselves.

As of now, though believers will no doubt go down my throat over this, your belief is essentially blind.

You mistake the condition of your spirit. You are not the honest, impartial judge you think you are, but one who is an enemy of God when all culture and self-image are removed. Just like us all, by nature. Though one rise from the dead to testify of God's truth, you would find an alternative explanation.

As to blind faith - as PDN points out, we don't just think and 'hope' God's word is true, we KNOW it. We know it because the Spirit of God revealed it to us and we have seen many proofs in answers to prayer.

It is not merely a matter of choosing to believe the testimony of men long dead - the Spirit confirms their witness in our hearts.

Turtwig

wolfsbane wrote: »

You mistake the condition of your spirit. You are not the honest, impartial judge you think you are, but one who is an enemy of God when all culture and self-image are removed. Just like us all, by nature. Though one rise from the dead to testify of God's truth, you would find an alternative explanation.

As to blind faith - as PDN points out, we don't just think and 'hope' God's word is true, we KNOW it. We know it because the Spirit of God revealed it to us and we have seen many proofs in answers to prayer.

It is not merely a matter of choosing to believe the testimony of men long dead - the Spirit confirms their witness in our hearts.

You see the funny thing is, some Muslims, Jews, Hindus, share the same level of opinion as you do on an entirely different thing. Furthermore, some Romans,Greeks, Mayans, also had a similar level of belief. Personal experiences, can be oh so misleading and one should not easily dismiss the mind's ability to delusion itself. I'm trying to remain impartial to all this, I just hope that you're trying to do the same.

I gotta ask though, can I really be an enemy of God if I'm simply trying to understand Him and by asking you the questions I ask you, are you not strengthening your relationship with him? So How can I be His enemy if I helping him have stronger friends?

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

As to blind faith - as PDN points out, we don't just think and 'hope' God's word is true, we KNOW it. We know it because the Spirit of God revealed it to us and we have seen many proofs in answers to prayer.

How do you "know it" better than all the other religions who believe their god(s) have personally revealed themselves to them and provided justified for this through the answering of prayers?

POINTBREAK

The Christians among you should take into account the serious things God or Jesus never did.

1) Neither God nor Jesus ever mentioned the Trinity.

2) Neither God nor Jesus ever mentioned Original Sin.

Original sin is quite a good example, since in Genesis when God was dishing out the punishments he failed to mention what is now firmly entrenched in the Christrine doctrine.
The Trinity was voted in during the 4th Century.

PDN

POINTBREAK wrote: »

The Christians among you should take into account the serious things God or Jesus never did.

1) Neither God nor Jesus ever mentioned the Trinity.

2) Neither God nor Jesus ever mentioned Original Sin.

Original sin is quite a good example, since in Genesis when God was dishing out the punishments he failed to mention what is now firmly entrenched in the Christrine doctrine.
The Trinity was voted in during the 4th Century.

Kindly try to stay on topic. If you want to start a thread on the Trinity or on Original Sin then we can discuss them.

MrPudding

Malty_T wrote: »

You see the funny thing is, some Muslims, Jews, Hindus, share the same level of opinion as you do on an entirely different thing.

Not just other religions, but even other branches of christianity. Catholics, for example are wrong. It matters not that they have the same conviction of belief as Wolfie, they are wrong.

MrP

postcynical

MrPudding wrote: »

Not just other religions, but even other branches of christianity. Catholics, for example are wrong. It matters not that they have the same conviction of belief as Wolfie, they are wrong.

MrP

Funny there is a lot of sympathy amongst different Christians. If another Christian claims to have a personal relationship with Jesus then I've no reason to disbelieve them, in fact I'd have reason to doubt them being a Christian if they didn't.

Also about conviction of belief, I read plenty of erroneous arguments from people who are convinced(deluded IMO) they have control of logic when trying to support their preconceived ideas.

Oh, and for the record, Catholics are right;)

Pompey Magnus

PDN wrote: »

But the point I am making is that most Christians (at least those who take time to think about it) do not believe that Jesus knew everything.

But do you not believe that Jesus was fully God and fully man? How can God be ignorant? Surely by your way of thinking he would instead only be partly God and partly man?

PDN

Charco wrote: »

But do you not believe that Jesus was fully God and fully man? How can God be ignorant? Surely by your way of thinking he would instead only be partly God and partly man?

Not at all. God is perfectly able to choose to veil His own knowledge if He so desires.

POINTBREAK

Malty_T wrote: »

Firstly, apologies if a similar thread already exists. I would have searched but alas there's no option to search

Anyways,

One thing that always puzzled me about when God decided to come to earth in human form. He didn't really do anything 'Godlike'. The God of the Old Testament had no reservations in showing his power. Not only that but his actions were witnessed by thousands, even if only recorded by a few. Jesus on the other hand did comparatively nothing.
Go on tear me apart

Hi Malty. It depends which branch of Christianity you belong to. Catholics believe the Old Testement was basically just a bunch of stories and that everything was wrongly attributed to God because there was no other way of explaining it. Thunder, lightning, storms, floods, volcanos etc where all Gods doing. Some Christian Fundamentalist sects believe that scripture is 100% true and correct. The Earth was created 6000 years ago etc. So you cant really compare Jesus with the OT God.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

God is perfectly able to choose to veil His own knowledge if He so desires.

Is that an implication of omnipotence?

I sense another contradiction but inches away.

PDN

POINTBREAK wrote: »

Hi Malty. It depends which branch of Christianity you belong to. Catholics believe the Old Testement was basically just a bunch of stories and that everything was wrongly attributed to God because there was no other way of explaining it. Thunder, lightning, storms, floods, volcanos etc where all Gods doing. Some Christian Fundamentalist sects believe that scripture is 100% true and correct. The Earth was created 6000 years ago etc. So you cant really compare Jesus with the OT God.

Not true, actually.

Some liberal Catholics (and some liberal Protestants) see the Bible as being such a bunch of stories. Many other Catholics (and many other Protestants) believe that the Bible to be essentially true, but not perhaps 100% correct. And many Catholics (and many Protestants) see the Bible as being 100% correct.

Some people (both Protestant and Catholic) who see the Bible as being 100% correct also believe the world to be 6000 years old etc, while many others of them believe the world to be billions of years old. (If anyone wants to discuss that further then there is a big thread called 'The Bible, creation and Prophecy' where you can discuss that to your hearts' content.)

One thing all these three groups of Protestants and Catholics have in common is that they identify Jesus with the God of the Old Testament.

Always happy to correct any misconceptions posters may have picked up along the way!

PDN

robindch wrote: »

Is that an implication of omnipotence?

I sense another contradiction but inches away.

No, it's simply something we know as a result of revelation. You don't have to be omnipotent in order to choose to limit yourself from knowing or doing stuff.

If you do want to start discussing things that are contradictions in your opinion then I would suggest a new thread to prevent this one getting dragged down the usual rabbit trails.

POINTBREAK

PDN wrote: »

Not true, actually.

Some liberal Catholics (and some liberal Protestants) see the Bible as being such a bunch of stories. Many other Catholics (and many other Protestants) believe that the Bible to be essentially true, but not perhaps 100% correct. And many Catholics (and many Protestants) see the Bible as being 100% correct.

Some people (both Protestant and Catholic) who see the Bible as being 100% correct also believe the world to be 6000 years old etc, while many others of them believe the world to be billions of years old. (If anyone wants to discuss that further then there is a big thread called 'The Bible, creation and Prophecy' where you can discuss that to your hearts' content.)

One thing all these three groups of Protestants and Catholics have in common is that they identify Jesus with the God of the Old Testament.

Always happy to correct any misconceptions posters may have picked up along the way!

Obviously when I said Catholic I meant the true followers of The One True Catholic and Appostolic Church. Those who follow the rules and doctrine of the Church. No Catholic can ever treat the OT bible as being literally true. Catholics who believe that the Earth is 6000 years old are people who call themselves Catholic but do not follow the teaching of the Church.
The relevance of this to this thread is the comparison being made between Old Testement God and Jesus. The "miracles" in the OT attributed to God are generally regarded as nothing more than stories and can not be compared with the miracles of Jesus. Catholicism is NOT a pick and mix religion.

Turtwig

POINTBREAK wrote: »

Obviously when I said Catholic I meant the true followers of The One True Catholic and Appostolic Church. Those who follow the rules and doctrine of the Church. No Catholic can ever treat the OT bible as being literally true. Catholics who believe that the Earth is 6000 years old are people who call themselves Catholic but do not follow the teaching of the Church.
The relevance of this to this thread is the comparison being made between Old Testement God and Jesus. The "miracles" in the OT attributed to God are generally regarded as nothing more than stories and can not be compared with the miracles of Jesus. Catholicism is NOT a pick and mix religion.

I'm sorry but in no where in the OT is the age of the Earth stated. It is an old myth, calculated by silliness of some pope who wasn't even believed at the time by those who had studied the earth. In fact, the earliest apologetics (though there was little need for them) basically said that 'In the beginning' could mean anything length or duration of time..

PDN

POINTBREAK wrote: »

Obviously when I said Catholic I meant the true followers of The One True Catholic and Appostolic Church. Those who follow the rules and doctrine of the Church. No Catholic can ever treat the OT bible as being literally true. Catholics who believe that the Earth is 6000 years old are people who call themselves Catholic but do not follow the teaching of the Church.
The relevance of this to this thread is the comparison being made between Old Testement God and Jesus. The "miracles" in the OT attributed to God are generally regarded as nothing more than stories and can not be compared with the miracles of Jesus. Catholicism is NOT a pick and mix religion.

And obviously when I said Catholic I meant the Roman Catholic Church with its headquarters in Rome and acknowledging the Pope as its spiritual leader. This organisation has consistently expressed its belief in the historicity of the Old Testament, while (just like almost all Protestants) recognising the need to distinguish historical narrative from other literary genre such as poetry or parables.

So any Catholic who views the Old Testament as a bunch of stories that didn't really happen is, in fact, failing to follow the rules and teachings of their church.

The Bible does not say that the earth is 6000 years old, as Malty has already pointed out. If you want to discuss this further then take it to the Creationism thread rather than dragging this thread off topic, thank you.

Soul Winner

PDN wrote: »

I agree.

The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance. (2 Peter 3:9)

Yes that is true but not everyone will come to repentance and He is not going to wait until they do. His day is coming and it will be too late for the unrepneted to repent then. In short; God gets p*ss*d off. This trait is revealed throughout the scrupture.

"...To day if ye will hear his voice, Harden not your heart, as in the provocation, and as in the day of temptation in the wilderness: When your fathers tempted me, proved me, and saw my work. Forty years long was I grieved with this generation, and said, It is a people that do err in their heart, and they have not known my ways: Unto whom I sware in my wrath that they should not enter into my rest."
Pslam 95:7-11

"Wherefore (as the Holy Ghost saith, To day if ye will hear his voice, Harden not your hearts, as in the provocation, in the day of temptation in the wilderness: When your fathers tempted me, proved me, and saw my works forty years. Wherefore I was grieved with that generation, and said, They do alway err in their heart; and they have not known my ways. So I sware in my wrath, They shall not enter into my rest.) Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God." Hebrews 3:7-11

Sure His mercy endures forever, but those who are in need of it need to recognize their need of it and repent (turn from their way to God's way) and avail of His every enduring mercy. The Bible declares that not everyone will avail of it, in fact they'll get even worse right up to the end and then God will wipe them out. If you believe in the God of the Bible then this is what is revealed about Him.

PDN

Soul Winner wrote: »

Yes that is true but not everyone will come to repentance and He is not going to wait until they do. His day is coming and it will be too late for the unrepneted to repent then. In short; God gets p*ss*d off. This trait is revealed throughout the scrupture.

"...To day if ye will hear his voice, Harden not your heart, as in the provocation, and as in the day of temptation in the wilderness: When your fathers tempted me, proved me, and saw my work. Forty years long was I grieved with this generation, and said, It is a people that do err in their heart, and they have not known my ways: Unto whom I sware in my wrath that they should not enter into my rest."
Pslam 95:7-11

"Wherefore (as the Holy Ghost saith, To day if ye will hear his voice, Harden not your hearts, as in the provocation, in the day of temptation in the wilderness: When your fathers tempted me, proved me, and saw my works forty years. Wherefore I was grieved with that generation, and said, They do alway err in their heart; and they have not known my ways. So I sware in my wrath, They shall not enter into my rest.) Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God." Hebrews 3:7-11

Sure His mercy endures forever, but those who are in need of it need to recognize their need of it and repent (turn from their way to God's way) and avail of His every enduring mercy. The Bible declares that not everyone will avail of it, in fact they'll get even worse right up to the end and then God will wipe them out. If you believe in the God of the Bible then this is what is revealed about Him.

And of course that is true, not everyone will get saved. I wasn't posting the quote from 2 Peter to argue otherwise, I was posting it to demonstrate that you were wrong to say that God doesn't care about those who reject Him. He does care, and He wants them to repent.

Sam Vimes

Following on from the stuff Jesus never did, I'm assuming that as christians you all believe that prayer works at least some of the time and that miracles occur such as religious visions. These present a big problem for me and I'm wondering how you reconcile these beliefs with reality. It's not so much about what miracles god does perform but more about the ones he doesn't.

1. Why would god intervene in the natural world to, say, help you win a race but not to cure someone dying of cancer or help Elisabeth Fritzl to escape her father's basement?
2. Why would god intervene to cure one arbitrary person of cancer but not the other hundred in the same hospital, seemingly regardless of whether the one person that was saved was a "better" person than any of the others?
3. Rather than curing one arbitrary person, why not impart the knowledge of how to cure all disease ourselves?
4. Why does god only perform miracles that can easily be explained as coincidence or flawed human perception (in the case of religious visions)? Why is it that we all know that no matter how hard an amputee prays he's not going to grow his arm back?
5. Is belief in miracles compatible with the bible given that Jesus said "A wicked and adulterous generation looks for a miraculous sign, but none will be given it except the sign of Jonah."? This passage has been quoted to me many times when I have asked questions like this, even by people who themselves believe they have been given a sign. How is it that they have received a sign if they believe that our generation will not be given one?

My answer to all of the above questions explains all of the available facts: God is not doing anything but sometimes unlikely things happen and human perception is extremely flawed which leads people to believe that they have seen things that were really only tricks of the mind and confirmation bias leads them to only remember the one or two instances when they prayed for something and got it but forget the other thousand times they prayed and didn't get it. As far as I can see, the world as it exists today is completely incompatible with the idea of an all-loving, all-powerful god who intervenes to answer the prayers of his followers and perform miracles. The best answer I've been given to date to explain all the phenomena that don't match with this idea is "god works in mysterious ways" or some variant, which is really just another way of saying "I don't know".

Turtwig

My Thread

Must say though that point 3 by Sam was kinda one of my points

Sam Vimes

Malty_T wrote: »

My Thread

Must say thought that point 3 by Sam was kinda one of my points

I knew I'd seen it somewhere