That Religion Thing?

EuropeanSon

Insect Overlord wrote: »

If you're going to post something really worthwhile, and then suffix it with a comment like that, then maybe you should. Seriously, what has that got to do with anything here? FFS.

I'm sorry if you got annoyed. I'd really rather not dwell on it, and not start discussing it, but I was made profoundly unwelcome when last I was here. I was merely asking that people consider my post on it's merits, rather than on the fact that it came from me. Alas, asking seems to have produced the opposite effect.
My phrasing was perhaps a bit strong, but I was informed by this forum in a vote, implicitly, that it would be better if I didn't exist, so I'd hope you'd excuse my premature defensiveness with regard to that.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

philologos wrote: »

The law doesn't sanction that in that verse. The law simply determines when the Sanhedrin the legislative council should step in.

You're jumping through hoops to avoid realizing that the god of the old testament condoned slavery. And I'm sure William Wilberforce and other Christian abolitionists did the same.

I believe that all people deserve to be punished for what they have done wrong throughout their lives. I don't know where you will end up, because I don't know if you will reject God forever. Jesus has stood in our place and He has saved us if we are willing to accept it. I'll quote a passage for you and let you come to your own conclusion:

But if I was to get hit by a car this afternoon having not accepted Jesus as my saviour, what would happen to me?

EuropeanSon

philologos wrote: »

I wouldn't call myself "religious" I'd refer to myself solely as Christian. I find the concept of religion lends itself to judgemental Pharasaic attitudes rather than liberation which is essentially what Christianity is about. If you read the New Testament you'll see that Jesus was one of the most thorough critics of religion of his age.

There is certainly a "the manner of practice of" missing from that last sentence, after "critics of" and before "religion". Trying to say Christianity isn't a religion is just plain nonsensical.

I decided to accept Christianity for myself as a teenager. I read the Bible and decided that it made good sense, I was challenged and inspired by God. Before this point the best description for me would be agnostic.

I don't regard Christianity as science, it is something different (and ultimately more important IMO) than science. Ultimately the question still exists, why is there something rather than nothing? The idea that there is a Creator is still not ludicrous even if I decide to disregard the formal theisms.

Very much missing the point, here. You were aware of the existence of religion, examined it, and then accepted it. This is very different to coming to the conclusion, of your own accord, that a supreme being exists. If nobody had ever thought that there might be a supreme being who created everything, do you think that you, of your own accord, would reach this conclusion?

The fact that you think that I would rant at you for asking a question is absurd. It would be profoundly unchristian of me to treat you in that way. Why do you even expect that?

I didn't think you would. I'd prefer to leave this particular point at that.

Namlub

EuropeanSon wrote: »

My phrasing was perhaps a bit strong, but I was informed by this forum in a vote, implicitly, that it would be better if I didn't exist, so I'd hope you'd excuse my premature defensiveness with regard to that.

If you felt that you were 'impicitly' being informed that you shouldn't exist by winning that award, why did you put it in your sig at the time?

EuropeanSon

Namlub wrote: »

If you felt that you were 'impicitly' being informed that you shouldn't exist by winning that award, why did you put it in your sig at the time?

A knee jerk reaction, to refuse to admit I was bothered by it. Now, can we please get back on topic? Or at least PM me if you want to continue this discussion, this is a very uninteresting direction for this thread to go down.

philologos

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

You're jumping through hoops to avoid realizing that the god of the old testament condoned slavery. And I'm sure William Wilberforce and other Christian abolitionists did the same.

I believe God is God. I gave you a response, and indeed a link to an entire thread where I've dealt with the topic of slavery. Wilberforce's work towards the abolition of the slave trade was very clearly inspired by Christianity. I'd really advise you to take a look at Amazing Grace or read some of his writings.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

But if I was to get hit by a car this afternoon having not accepted Jesus as my saviour, what would happen to me?

If one needs to believe in Jesus to be saved, how can one be saved without Him? - I hope that all people will come to know Him and what He achieved for mankind on the cross, but it is up to you to make that decision for yourself.

EuropeanSon wrote: »

There is certainly a "the manner of practice of" missing from that last sentence, after "critics of" and before "religion". Trying to say Christianity isn't a religion is just plain nonsensical.

It is strictly a religion, it differs in many ways from both the caricature of religion being a strict observance of rituals and from other religions. I choose not to identify as "religious" but rather as "Christian". I don't feel religious fits me very well as I'm not a hyper-legalist nor am I very ritualistic. Surely I have the right to define myself as I feel is most appropriate?

EuropeanSon wrote: »

Very much missing the point, here. You were aware of the existence of religion, examined it, and then accepted it. This is very different to coming to the conclusion, of your own accord, that a supreme being exists. If nobody had ever thought that there might be a supreme being who created everything, do you think that you, of your own accord, would reach this conclusion?

Even deists who rejected formal theism regarded the existence of God as logical. Voltaire, Spinoza, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin. Some of the most avowed secularists of the 18th century still believed in God.

This also makes a key mistake in terms of making the assumption that belief is a man-made thing. I can't make that assumption as I would hold that we know about the God of Christianity because He revealed Himself to us, most fully in His Son Jesus. I think even if nobody had any idea of divinities that He would still reveal Himself to us because He loves us and longs to know us.

Again I don't agree with the idea that I should defend "religion" as a general concept, because I imagine that there is much of "religion" as a general concept that I disagree with as a Christian.

Pygmalion

philologos wrote: »

This also makes a key mistake in terms of making the assumption that belief is a man-made thing. I can't make that assumption as I would hold that we know about the God of Christianity because He revealed Himself to us, most fully in His Son Jesus. I think even if nobody had any idea of divinities that He would still reveal Himself to us because He loves us and longs to know us.

Were you to grow up in a predominantly Hindu area and not heard of Jesus do you think the Christian god would have revealed himself to you, or would you be sitting here saying the same things, but about a different (set of) god(s)?

If one needs to believe in Jesus to be saved, how can one be saved without Him? - I hope that all people will come to know Him and what He achieved for mankind on the cross, but it is up to you to make that decision for yourself.

There are people who go their entire lives without hearing about Jesus, can these people not be saved?

philologos

Pygmalion wrote: »

Were you to grow up in a predominantly Hindu area and not heard of Jesus do you think the Christian god would have revealed himself to you, or would you be sitting here saying the same things, but about a different (set of) god(s)?

You're committing a the genetic fallacy here.

Most of my friends are atheists and agnostics, does it follow that they are atheists and agnostics because many in society are or because such views are more widely available and respected in Irish society rather than in other societies?

It is more likely that someone will become a Muslim in Ireland than it is that someone will become a Christian in Saudi Arabia because of the freedom of religion and the availability of Islamic resources in Ireland. On the other hand the Bible is banned in Saudi Arabia.

It largely comes down to the availability of resources. Given the availability of resources then people can make their own minds up as to what they believe.

This argument will become an irrelevancy over the next few decades as Christians outside of Europe and North America already make up the majority of Christians. Why are they Christians? Was it because their parents were Christians? Not in the majority of cases. Was it because Christianity was widely respected in their societies? No, it's despised in many cases.

Pygmalion wrote: »

There are people who go their entire lives without hearing about Jesus, can these people not be saved?

There are many people. I would say is I don't know and there is a grey area surrounding this. You can take a search in the Christianity forum of when we've discussed this in the past.

In a theological sense if you've heard of the Gospel and you have rejected Christianity then you have rejected God in turn. If you haven't rejected God because you haven't heard of him that's an entirely different kettle of fish. I presume this is a reason why there is more missionary activity happening in Central and South East Asia.

partyatmygaff

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Needless to say

There are a whole lot of things that cannot be proven. Mathematics for example. It is not based on absolute proof. It relies on axioms that are generally accepted to be true despite there being no absolute proof.

I don't have time to get into the argument on religion at the moment, but reading back up through the thread I saw this and had to comment on it.

The poster seems to think that reliance on axioms make mathematics untrue. Not so.
In what follows, you don't need to understand any maths to follow the argument.

There are 8 axioms for a vector space, for example. Any set with two binary operations which satisfies all 8 of these axioms is a vector space. From here we prove things about vector spaces. This does not make what we have proved about vector spaces untrue. Vector spaces are what they are defined to be by the axioms.

There is a theorem that says that each vector space has a unique 0 element. This theorem is true. Any object that satisfies the axioms we specified has a unique 0 element.

I hope you see that axioms aren't baseless logical arguments and nor are they really assumptions. They're closer to conditions in a definition.

EuropeanSon

philologos wrote: »

It is strictly a religion, it differs in many ways from both the caricature of religion being a strict observance of rituals and from other religions. I choose not to identify as "religious" but rather as "Christian". I don't feel religious fits me very well as I'm not a hyper-legalist nor am I very ritualistic. Surely I have the right to define myself as I feel is most appropriate?

Religion:
1. The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods

2. Details of belief as taught or discussed

3. A particular system of faith and worship

4. A pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance

None of these definitions include "hyper-legalism", or a necessity to be "very ritualistic". Those things are traits exhibited by some religious people, but are not traits of or requirements of religion as such.

Even deists who rejected formal theism regarded the existence of God as logical. Voltaire, Spinoza, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin. Some of the most avowed secularists of the 18th century still believed in God.

Missing the point once more. Or avoiding it, perhaps. These people all lived in an environment in which religion was a widely accepted explanation for the unexplainable phenomena, therefore this point is essentially irrelevant to the point at hand.

This also makes a key mistake in terms of making the assumption that belief is a man-made thing. I can't make that assumption as I would hold that we know about the God of Christianity because He revealed Himself to us, most fully in His Son Jesus. I think even if nobody had any idea of divinities that He would still reveal Himself to us because He loves us and longs to know us.

Has he revealed himself to you personally? I assume you haven't personally had conversations (ie. dialogue, so prayer doesn't count) with God, and therefore this point is again irrelevant to the point, which is about whether or not you would come to the conclusion that a God must exist given the absence of the widespread beliefs in him that are held in our society.

Again I don't agree with the idea that I should defend "religion" as a general concept, because I imagine that there is much of "religion" as a general concept that I disagree with as a Christian.

What of the above definitions do you disagree with?

philologos

EuropeanSon wrote: »

Religion:
1. The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods

2. Details of belief as taught or discussed

3. A particular system of faith and worship

4. A pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance

None of these definitions include "hyper-legalism", or a necessity to be "very ritualistic". Those things are traits exhibited by some religious people, but are not traits of or requirements of religion as such.

All I am saying to you is that I don't identify as "religious" necessarily. At university I was given a survey about how faith influences my values. It asked me "How religious do you think you are?". I put a 1 out of 10 because that's honestly how I would answer the question. I don't think of myself as religious.

Those definitions sound fine, but the connotations that surround the word "religious" aren't what I would consider myself to exhibit as a human being.

EuropeanSon wrote: »

Missing the point once more. Or avoiding it, perhaps. These people all lived in an environment in which religion was a widely accepted explanation for the unexplainable phenomena, therefore this point is essentially irrelevant to the point at hand.

If you're asking if we lived in a society where there was no such thing as any creed, then I can't answer that question obviously because I don't know what it is like to live in such a society. I suspect what has happened to date would happen.

EuropeanSon wrote: »

Has he revealed himself to you personally? I assume you haven't personally had conversations (ie. dialogue, so prayer doesn't count) with God, and therefore this point is again irrelevant to the point, which is about whether or not you would come to the conclusion that a God must exist given the absence of the widespread beliefs in him that are held in our society.

In a personal way through life experience yes. What I've seen of Jesus in my inquiry in the Bible has spoken into my life and has made me see things differently. I believe from the second that I decided to follow Him that He has been speaking into my life decisions transforming me by doing so. By revealed in my last quote I believe that God revealed Himself to prophets which ultimately brought about the Scriptures.

As for by visions or anything else, no I haven't experienced Him in that way.

EuropeanSon wrote: »

What of the above definitions do you disagree with?

None, but I don't think they are actually precise enough.

Pygmalion

philologos wrote: »

You're committing a the genetic fallacy here.

Most of my friends are atheists and agnostics, does it follow that they are atheists and agnostics because many in society are or because such views are more widely available and respected in Irish society rather than in other societies?

It is more likely that someone will become a Muslim in Ireland than it is that someone will become a Christian in Saudi Arabia because of the freedom of religion and the availability of Islamic resources in Ireland. On the other hand the Bible is banned in Saudi Arabia.

It largely comes down to the availability of resources. Given the availability of resources then people can make their own minds up as to what they believe.

This argument will become an irrelevancy over the next few decades as Christians outside of Europe and North America already make up the majority of Christians. Why are they Christians? Was it because their parents were Christians? Not in the majority of cases. Was it because Christianity was widely respected in their societies? No, it's despised in many cases.

My point wasn't really that you're a Christian because many others are Christian, my point was that you're a Christian because Christianity was one of the religions you were exposed to, and after evaluating some number of them you decided it was the most sensible choice (I gather this from your posts, anyway).

Had you grown up in a situation without being exposed to these beliefs, however, you presumably would either be a member of a different religion, or of none at all.

It was supposed to be a lead up/example of the next part of my post, asking whether people who hadn't heard of Jesus could be blamed for not following him, which you addressed.

There are many people. I would say is I don't know and there is a grey area surrounding this. You can take a search in the Christianity forum of when we've discussed this in the past.

Perhaps when I don't have an exam to be studying for :P

In a theological sense if you've heard of the Gospel and you have rejected Christianity then you have rejected God in turn. If you haven't rejected God because you haven't heard of him that's an entirely different kettle of fish. I presume this is a reason why there is more missionary activity happening in Central and South East Asia.

If following Jesus is a requirement to being saved, it essentially means that many people in the world (those who go through life without knowledge of him) can't be saved at all, as they don't have the choice to accept him, a form of less-literal pre-determination.
If, on the other hand, those who don't actively reject Jesus can be saved, in other ways, isn't introducing the concept of Jesus to these people increasing the chances that they won't be saved?

Can I ask, Philologos, whether you get your faith in God from second-hand accounts (such as scripture), or from deducing that the Universe must have had a creator, and calling this God?

(Just so I know whether to jump in to this discussion or not)

bogshepherd

Pygmalion wrote: »

It does tend to equate to knowing what Science is, on the other hand, which was what that was in relation to.

not really, the study of scientific concepts is different to studying "what science is".... i could study biology till the cows came home, using every scientific practice under the sun and still not be able to give a definition or adequate explanation of what science is!

philologos

Deleted User wrote: »

Can I ask, Philologos, whether you get your faith in God from second-hand accounts (such as scripture), or from deducing that the Universe must have had a creator, and calling this God?

(Just so I know whether to jump in to this discussion or not)

I believe that the Scriptures are true. I believe they are reasonable from thinking about the nature of reality also. I'm quite philosophically minded so I think this may have lent something to my curiosity.

philologos

Pygmalion wrote: »

My point wasn't really that you're a Christian because many others are Christian, my point was that you're a Christian because Christianity was one of the religions you were exposed to, and after evaluating some number of them you decided it was the most sensible choice (I gather this from your posts, anyway).

Had you grown up in a situation without being exposed to these beliefs, however, you presumably would either be a member of a different religion, or of none at all.

It was supposed to be a lead up/example of the next part of my post, asking whether people who hadn't heard of Jesus could be blamed for not following him, which you addressed.

You're pretty much saying that if Christianity weren't available would I have been a Christian? The probability seems to suggest that it would have been low. I have heard of peoples testimonies who have become Christian without any interaction by Christians so I wouldn't rule it out either (mainly in Islamic societies via visions / dreams).

Pygmalion wrote: »

Perhaps when I don't have an exam to be studying for :P

I finished them today, but I wish you the best

Pygmalion wrote: »

If following Jesus is a requirement to being saved, it essentially means that many people in the world (those who go through life without knowledge of him) can't be saved at all, as they don't have the choice to accept him, a form of less-literal pre-determination.
If, on the other hand, those who don't actively reject Jesus can be saved, in other ways, isn't introducing the concept of Jesus to these people increasing the chances that they won't be saved?

I'm basing my thinking on John 14:6 that Jesus is the way the truth and the life and nobody comes to the Father except through Him.

I don't believe that introducing Jesus increases the likelihood that they won't be and besides I believe that there are tangible benefits in individuals lives right here, right now in believing in the Gospel. It isn't just a ticket to heaven it is a way of living and a way of viewing the world that changes peoples lives forever.

I remember the process that I went through and it would be profoundly selfish of me to keep something as crucially important from anyone.

I've seen people over the past few years who have had no faith become Christians, it does happen and I believe it can continue to happen once people come to realise that religious institutions are different from the Gospel.

bogshepherd

philologos wrote: »

I believe that the Scriptures are true.

I dunno dude I wouldn't be too reliant on the scriptures. I'm not challengin ur beliefs, dont get me wrong, but when people draw from the scriptures to back up religious arguements I think its important to consider some of the crazy stuff in there, examples below:

Deuteronomy 23:1
No one whose testicles are crushed or whose male organ is cut off shall enter the assembly of the Lord.

Psalm 137:9 Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.

philologos

bogshepherd wrote: »

I dunno dude I wouldn't be too reliant on the scriptures. I'm not challengin ur beliefs, dont get me wrong, but when people draw from the scriptures to back up religious arguements I think its important to consider some of the crazy stuff in there, examples below:

Anyone can isolate passages out of context. I'm interested in seeing what God has to say in full to mankind and how that inspires and changes lives. I've come across Psalm 137 before here in the Atheism and Agnosticism forum. I'm thankful for many people on boards.ie for giving my faith the examination it mightn't have received elsewhere.

bogshepherd

Well its not out of context because at the end of the day it's in there. So if you want to follow what he says in full then thats part of it.

I've met this arguement before about how these passages are taken out of context, but what does that mean "out of context"... I mean can they be put in a context where they make sense?

Like if the scriptures say "turn the other cheek" on one page and "slay thy enemy" on another page then is it right to say that the latter is just a phrase out of context. Eg. you could take a load of positive phrases to do with god and his teachings and I could say "well now they are just passages taken out of context"

As the follow-up to my leading question, philologos, I'm going to make the claim that we both believe that what our senses tell us is true, and that what we see, touch, hear, smell and taste is representative of a physical world around us.
I think I'm justified in assuming this of you since you obtained your beliefs through reading scripture, using your sight.

In that case, I'd like to ask if you agree with the scientific method, since it also relies on using our senses, but also on logic, which I am sure you have no problem with.

Oh, yes, and these personal questions have a point, I'm just being careful to ascertain where we agree philosophically before making that point.

philologos

bogshepherd wrote: »

Well its not out of context because at the end of the day it's in there. So if you want to follow what he says in full then thats part of it.

By in context I mean that in order to understand a sentence you need to look at what lies around it. That passage is referring to the requirements of the Levitical priesthood who would serve in the Jewish Temple and before that in the Tent of the Lord's Presence. Since the Jewish Temple has long since been destroyed, and that we are told that Jesus Himself was the ultimate sacrifice for our sins (meaning that sacrifices no longer have to take place in the Temple) that this has been fulfilled. That's what in context means. It means understanding each individual passage in light of the whole.

People complain about saying that people are clearly taking stuff out of context but actually this method is used in any good form of reading and in any good form of humanities study. I would fail any philosophy essay that I gave on Plato's Republic that took individual lines and twisted them without considering the whole dialogue that Socrates happens to be in. That's logic, and yes it applies to the Bible too.

bogshepherd wrote: »

I've met this arguement before about how these passages are taken out of context, but what does that mean "out of context"... I mean can they be put in a context where they make sense?

The one I've given you above. Read the whole chapter of any Bible passage and if you still don't understand get a commentary.

bogshepherd wrote: »

Like if the scriptures say "turn the other cheek" on one page and "slay thy enemy" on another page then is it right to say that the latter is just a phrase out of context. Eg. you could take a load of positive phrases to do with god and his teachings and I could say "well now they are just passages taken out of context"

That depends on where the passages lie. Jesus fulfilled the Law of Moses so His teaching supersedes what has already gone. That's why Christians differ from Jews.

philologos

Deleted User wrote: »

As the follow-up to my leading question, philologos, I'm going to make the claim that we both believe that what our senses tell us is true, and that what we see, touch, hear, smell and taste is representative of a physical world around us.
I think I'm justified in assuming this of you since you obtained your beliefs through reading scripture, using your sight.

Actually, our senses can commonly deceive us. Philosophers have been very skeptical about the senses but they are the most reliable tool we have. Descartes and George Berkeley would be two figures that would be most notable. Plato would have believed that what is most true is the unseen.

Deleted User wrote: »

In that case, I'd like to ask if you agree with the scientific method, since it also relies on using our senses, but also on logic, which I am sure you have no problem with.

I don't see why the scientific method poses any issue to my beliefs. Many Christians are scientists. Science has its limitations. Most scientists will even recognise this. Science isn't a philosophy. Philosophy isn't a natural science. We have to realise that certain disciplines serve us better than others in differing respects.

Deleted User wrote: »

Oh, yes, and these personal questions have a point, I'm just being careful to ascertain where we agree philosophically before making that point.

I'm anticipating the very worst of a "science goes against Christianity" argument. Please delight me in saying that you're not going to do this.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

philologos wrote: »

If one needs to believe in Jesus to be saved, how can one be saved without Him? - I hope that all people will come to know Him and what He achieved for mankind on the cross, but it is up to you to make that decision for yourself.

I'll take to mean I'll go to hell. Do you believe that is right?

bogshepherd

philologos wrote: »

That depends on where the passages lie.

sorry now but if the scriptures do represent what god said or whatever, and we're supposed to believe in what they say then I don't think it does depend on where the passages lie, even if one was written during the time of moses and the other was after jesus they still contradict eachother and just go to show the scriptures are just the writings of people who interpreted the idea of god in completely different ways. One guy says one thing, another guy says something else.... Now we're led to believe that god is gentle and forgiving, so did he just change in personality since his days of throwin children against the rocks?

philologos

bogshepherd: If I went through all your posts on boards.ie taking one line from each and compiling them do you think that would give you the best reading?

Indeed, I could quotemine every single post you make and by doing so make you look a certain way. The best way to learn about what you are saying in that line is to read your whole post. Likewise the best way to learn about what a verse in the Bible is saying is to read the entire chapter and ultimately the entire book to determine what place it has in the Bible (the Bible is a library of books rather than a single book).

So yeah, if I want to understand what the writer of anything is getting at, I don't just pick lines out, I read the whole chapter. It's the way that any person intelligently reads I don't see why we need to make an exception for the Bible do you?

If you really want to understand about Christianity I'd thoroughly advise you to read the whole Bible.

As for Psalm 137, read my post. The Psalms are poetry written by the Jewish people at varying points in their history taking note of their relationship with God, their ups, their downs, their difficulties. Psalm 137 is written when the Jewish people are in exile in Babylon.

Duffy The Vampire Slayer: It's not my decision as to whether or not you go to heaven or hell. It is God and all His decisions are just. I am hoping that all people will come to know their God and realise that it doesn't have to be that way.

bogshepherd

ok well hold on now, lets say u go through all my posts and you take a line where i say "rapists should face the death penalty" and you quote me in some other thread where im saying that i don't believe in capital punishment, then you would show that im being hypocritical, no ifs or buts about it. I said it, end of story. You don't need to read the whole post to clarify, or put it in context or anything else to make an "intelligent" arguement about what i said.

and just like you say u might paint a certain picture of me by isolating specific lines from my posts, aren't we given a certain picture of god from the catholic church constructed from isolated phrases and passages, ie. readings, gospels, etc. they leave out all the other stuff, so shouldn't they give us the whole picture if they are supposedly teaching us about god. but they don't, because they contradict eachother.

philologos

bogshepherd: I don't know how the RCC orders its readings and so on as I'm a non-RC. I think ultimately that it is up for people to learn about God for themselves. The churches might be able to help and provide community but it is ultimately up to us to look into the Bible and give it a fair hearing. I'm not providing you any techniques that people don't already use in reading texts whether literary, philosophical, or so on. All I'm asking is that we give the Biblical text a fair hearing rather than pulling out one-liners rather than seeing what it is actually saying.

bogshepherd

The thing is, even if I read the bible carefully, many times and fully understood everything written inside it's still just a book, written by a number of different people with different opinions over a very long course of time. So in this way I don't think it is a reliable reflecion of God or his teachings, it's jsut what a load of different people have said about him, not necessarily what he or Jesus or anyone else said.

Just as my interpretation of God determines how I would preach about him, the same can be said for all the contributors to the bible. What I say about God or Jesus today could be written into a book along with what a load of other people said and 3 thousand years later people might rely on it as their basis for what to believe, but they would be wrong to do so.

Also how come there's no Buddhism option up there on the vote at the top?

philologos

philologos wrote: »

Actually, our senses can commonly deceive us. Philosophers have been very skeptical about the senses but they are the most reliable tool we have. Descartes and George Berkeley would be two figures that would be most notable. Plato would have believed that what is most true is the unseen.

I know this, I'm just wary of this getting in the way of a possible argument. I personally just accept that our senses are our only way of obtaining any information at all, so whether the external world exists or whether everybody experiences the same sensations, we can still assume the external world exists for practical purposes or discussion.
I'm only trying to pre-empt "our realities may be different, so for me, God may be real, but for you, he may not be". Not that I'd suspect you of such arguments.

I don't see why the scientific method poses any issue to my beliefs. Many Christians are scientists. Science has its limitations. Most scientists will even recognise this. Science isn't a philosophy. Philosophy isn't a natural science. We have to realise that certain disciplines serve us better than others in differing respects.

Neither do I. On this one, I was making sure you're not a young Earth creationist, as an example of somebody who I would not like to waste time debating with.

I'm anticipating the very worst of a "science goes against Christianity" argument. Please delight me in saying that you're not going to do this.

Not at all.
So, I suppose that you believe in God because you have studied the scriptures. Why do you choose to believe that God created the Universe though? Specifically, why require the Universe to have been created at all?
I'm sure you're familiar with the argument that if everything must be created, and we call the Universe's creator God, then something must have created God.
How do you explain away this paradox?

If you do not explain this paradox, and accept that perhaps God did not need to be present to create the Universe but still believe in God, why believe that God exists at all?

If God exists and has an influence on the Universe, making it behave in different ways, or prolonging our lives perpetually, shouldn't this be a measurable phenomenon?

And lastly, if God exists and doesn't influence the Universe in a way that we can measure, why does it matter if God exists or not, because God doesn't seem to be anything more than an abstract concept then, which we would be better off not spending time on.

I hope to find out how a sensible-seeming believer deals with these issues.

philologos

bogshepherd: You might say that, but I think that there is an overarching narrative to the Bible which couldn't be achieved by disparate authors over thousands of years in different places. As for the Gospels and whether or not they are accurate they were chosen precisely because they were the most contemporarious to Jesus and that there was good reason that they were used in the Christian community at the earliest from 15 years after Jesus.

We've been through a lot of that on this thread already though.