It works for me!
Offline
Faith in Jesus works for me - it's exciting. I love the Bible and believe all of it - though there is mystery. There is mystery everywhere though, right? I am a incredibly happy believer in Jesus. I'm not a theologian, I just believe in Jesus.
I understand you can't make anybody believe in Jesus and the Bible, and I don't personally try to do that. But I highly recommend it from my experience with it. I can't get enough of the Bible or Jesus. I can't imagine trying to navigate through life without it at this point in my life.
I don't think Jesus or God is a thing you can prove to somebody. I heard about it a large percentage of my life and it didn't mean anything to me until a certain point - then that all changed.
So do you guys think that I'm fooling myself, not really happy, you don't believe me, or do you really think I can't be as happy or enlightened as you - are you evangelistic in that sense or what? What is the purpose of this site? Do you have something better to offer? If so, what is your gospel?
- Login to post comments
- Login to post comments
I am cutting and pasting this 2 Timothy passage because I do not have the time to look up the 'fruit of the Spirit' right now for the express purpose of overbearingly 'brow-beating' you (Foz) with some of the New Testament
Fonzie -- If you'd follow what others say on the internet. Adherents (making a personal proclamation and devotion) of any Faith are usually 
A&E,
To one who has faith no proof is necessary. To one who doesn't - no proof is sufficient.
You haven't been raised from death to life through faith in Jesus Christ - all things made new, metamorphosis. If you believed in Him and entered through the door these questionings and doubts would be calmed like the stormy sea when Jesus calmed it. Since you haven't these things remain remote to you.
Nor have you laid out the results of your search for what's good and wise for man to do the short days of his life. Have you found lasting meaning in pleasure, laughter, stuff? I've found the Way to eternal life - and it's already started in me....the presence of God in Christ 24/7. He has paid the debt I could never pay (especially in prison of sin), broke the trap and set me free. I'm not building my spiritual house using treated lumber good for 25 years or so - but eternal materials: the wisdom of God which is only foolishness to those who are too smart by half, the wise of this world, those enamored by the contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge and led by the lies of the devil that lead nowhere.
Courage to bail out there A&E.
This is a false dichotomy. People with faith use proof all the time and those without 'faith' believe in all sorts of sensibly provable truths. The fact is you have no proof for the keystone of your doctrine.
No historical fall means no original sin, no loch of fire, no need for jesus to exist. And there is no historical proof. It's just a bald assertion piggybacking on an ad hominem fallacy.
You'd think the bible authors would have proof but no. Just irrational insults and threats. How telling that is.
Pretty sure you are appealing to consequence here. Believing in god makes you feel better. Then there's the ad hominem. The wisdom of the world is false knowledge based on lies told by the devil. Do you ever fly in planes, Fonzie? Do you drive a car? Use a PC? Wear a wristwatch? Do the devilish fundamentals of empirical science work perfectly well in all areas of your life but the one area you'd prefer them to keep out of? I thought so.
Well, I've had the courage to reject a doctrine based not on proof but on threat. Believe the assertions of priests or die. How morally consistent and rational monotheism is, Fonzie. Believe assertions or die.
What other hypotheses use such arguments? What fun if the theory of evolution called for you to believe or die, believe or be tortured. Would you think this species of argument sensible and moral then?
Personally, I don't believe you deserve to die, Fonzie. Nor would I worship an idea of a god or support any world view that argued you did.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
A & E,
The proof of it centers around the fact that God became man in the Person of Jesus Christ, lived the Only Life that perfectly fulfilled the mark of the law of God (for the loser's bracket: fallen man). Then He willingly gave His life as the ultimate Sacrifice. He Who had no sin took our sin upon Him - became sin for us and paid our debt. His death was the death of death. The law of sin and death had nothing on Him. He rose from the dead three days later and 40 days later ascended to the Father and on the day of Pentecost poured out the Holy Spirit on the apostles and the church was born. The power that raised Him from the dead is at work at those of us who are raised from death to life in Him.
I saw myself as threatened when I realized I was a lost sinner - but that day I was born anew in Him. I have experienced and am experiencing what I'm talking about. You are free to mischaracterize it then take shots at your mischaracterization to your loss.
The response is to the love of God. You can focus on the threat if you want - and that would be worthwhile if it motivated you to submit yourself to God. But if you want to mischaracterize the gospel as a threat rather than the Gift of God - you just show you miss the point. Like the Pharisees you're well and don't need a Physician.
I do deserve to burn in hell - but I have accepted the Righteousness of God - a gift received through faith in the grace of God. The benefits given to Christ are shared with me. The love of Christ has set me from from the law of sin and death.
Ultimately, the fall must have actually happened in the course of human history for christianity to make sense. How can we know if it did? What proof is there that humans are born suffering genetic evil?
And how can your perfect god have become an imperfect man? God could not take a broken human form.
I wonder Fonzie. In so many of your posts you repeat an attempt at conversion. Is this endless testimony part of your personal get out of gehenna free card?
Of course I focus on the threat. If there is no threat there is no gospel. What did jesus die to save you from, Fonzie? Is jesus saving you from god's intention to burn you alive eternally for the crime of being born?
God is meant to be perfectly just and even with my imperfect and subjective sense of right and wrong I can see he imposes extreme human justice untempered by a shred of human empathy.
For your edification, a fallacious argument based on argumentum ad baculum (appeal to force) generally proceeds as follows:
If x (AE) accepts P (atheism) as true, then Q (Fire Lake). Q is a punishment on x. Therefore, P is not true.
This form of argument is an informal fallacy, because the attack Q may not necessarily reveal anything about the truth value of the premise P. This fallacy has been identified since the Middle Ages by many philosophers. This is a special case of argumentum ad consequentiam, or "appeal to consequences".
Then there's ad homimen (argument against the man). Instead of addressing my points you argue I am spouting human wisdom which you say is the work of the devil because I was born into sin and am evil/proud/blind/etc.
Funny, ain't it, that the central planks of christianity are a pair of irrational arguments that exist in the absence of any actual proof.
Better still, every time you attempt to refute me, you just repeat the same two arguments. That AE is evil, that AE will be burned alive for disagreeing.
You can't very well decry my focus on the central threat of christianity as missing the point then trot out a line like this and not expect an eye-roll.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
A & E,
Obviously I wasn't there for the original fall of man. You notice the Bible starts out not "proving" God as you demand but "assuming" God. I haven't had the problem you present of "proving" God, proving the fall, etc. I had more the problem of being oblivious to it all because I hadn't experienced the power of the Word of God myself. There came a time when I saw something in Christians I wanted though I didn't know what. I started reading the Bible myself from the first and at a certain point the lights were on and though I knew very little about what the Bible said I understood I needed the salvation that was in Christ. I was born again and looking back it is exactly as described. I became born again, a baby in Christ and started to bounce around and grow up, falling and floundering around in the school of hard knocks - suffering school. God disciplines every son He receives - it's different than public school.
So my "proof" of the original creation and fall of man is reached through the "door" of salvation in Christ. I wasn't at all concerned about the questions you bring up or the proving of them. I didn't even think about them. I just realized my condition before God in the light that came on through reading the Word of God and it was painful to see. There was a healing process - like lancing boils of conscience and healing.
There was a time (let's call it by that time a spiritual teen rather than a babe in Christ) you would be right that part of my sharing the gospel was wrongly perceived by me as involved in my salvation (by works) and was tainted with that selfish ulterior motive because I didn't understand at that time the good news of the gospel: the fact that it is a gift received by faith due to the grace of God. Keep in mind there's a devil trying to deceive at every turn and mess you up as well. Sheep wouldn't survive except for the SHEPHERD. Nothing is mixed with it as far as paying for our sins. The glory is all God's. I'm not trying to share it with you in order to pay for my salvation. I'm trying to share it with you like the ULTIMATE TIP - so great it can't be described: salvation by faith in Christ.
The natural way of thinking is that salvation is something we pay for with good works. The Bible explains that as a legalistic approach to salvation which is a unhappy trip indeed because the law was given to show us all we need God. We can't be justified by works of the law. It's a frustrating trip.
In the same way the principle applies to you. You can't solve the spiritual question yourself. In your arguments you place you as above this question, above the Bible, above God, above the cross of Christ and the whole question of fall of man, etc. You are wise in your own eyes. I never had that problem. It was easy for me to see I was a fool, so I can't GPS you out of that (ha). If you are honest with yourself you can see your life and work is not perfect - nor your reasoning.
But in Christ and in fellowship with Him I get to know Him (not exhaustively for sure - that will take an eternity) - but in Him I have no question about anything God does or has done. So the fall of man is the way it happened. Period. Case closed.
I notice you conveniently avoid laying out the picture plan of your world view complete with meaning of life and death and charting where wisdom is to be found, what motivates and lifts you, what propels you onward and upward to your goal.
Yes, well you can see that assuming the first premise is fraught with peril. If you assume the first premise of the bible there's no reason you might not assume the first premise of anything else - the Koran or the Bhagavad Gita with equal justification. Assuming the first premise simply declares something about your personal measure of proof, it does not prove a perception of objective truth.
I understand what you are saying, however, that in your life accepting the christian doctrine relieved your mind and explained to you some issues you'd been going through. Put things in some sort of order for you. However, while all this is good from a personal perspective, it doesn't prove the objective truth claims of the genesis story and most important to me, the story of the fall, the means by which all men became toxic and deserving of eternal torture for something they had not actually done at the point of their birth.
I wonder about many aspects of original sin, including the logic of unborn humans being guilty of something they have not actually done. When you define all the terms involved, the story becomes quite senseless. But regardless. I generally think you appeal to consequence here, Fonzie. Believing these stories made sense to you and that felt good and so, in your opinion, the stories must be true. That's fine but it's irrational. I have some irrational beliefs, too, but generally I try to be open about them.
Look, I favour works, simply because they are an expression of what's inside a person. You can say anything kind you like but it means nothing if you act in a nasty way. Even little children recognise this fundamental. In experiments, they identify with kind, sharing puppets (who look like they do) and dislike puppets who are not nice to others. This judgement of aberrant social behaviour is fundamental to humans.
Moving on, I think it's inevitable that when thinking about a conceptual problem one is forced to rely on one's personal comprehension, to elevate personal reason to a position of ultimate judgement. There's irony there obviously because this means everyone's personal truth is subjective, governed by our overall intellectual horsepower, cramped by our lack of context, level of education, biased by experience, upbringing and fears. I think the point you make is an excellent one - human perception of truth is always biased at multiple levels. But while this point applies to me, it also applies to you.
For this and other reasons, I tend to elevate those parts of truth that are not subjective as being the best paths to gaining an insight into reasonable beliefs about existence. But I would not argue for certainty on any side. Those who argue for certainty, in my opinion, are quite probably wrong. On this topic it seems to me your absolute beliefs are very much faith-based, which while being nice for you, is not such a great thing for those of us destined for the cosmic Krupp ovens. Not that I think these exist, but you must, and that's disturbing. You are prepared to take my guilt and eternal torture on bald assertions written by nobody knows who and supported by no proofs but faith.
Are there any circumstances under which you would accept this method of judgement in your actual life? Bald assertion supported by faith? For instance, a policeman who said in court at your trial: "I heard around the place Fonzie was evil and deserved to be burned alive for being born and, well, my gut feeling is that what I heard is just, you know, true."
I don't have a boxed solution, Fonzie. I am filled with questions and doubts. I love people, places. Being part of the universe's self awareness is a vibrant thing. The godly folk cannot trademark wonder. That's a human characteristic and you cannot keep it to yourselves. As are all the other human things religion stole. Kindness, empathy, human communion. There's spooning. The feel of the sun, the lure of distant water, motorcycling in autumn. A rush of endorphins. But I think the meaning of life from a human perspective is that we can give life meaning.
I think there is no great anthropomorphic truth out there. At a biochemical level I think life is an entropic system that carries free energy from the sun to a state of equilibrium - in this case to a background temperature of T=2.735 degrees above absolute zero. Having said all this, I think religions do have positive aspects to them. If they excise the threats and bigotry I will be happily support them as outlets for communal wonder and togetherness. And for singing.
As for wisdom and whatnot, since the invention of writing, we're all part of a collective 'brain' with the thoughts and labours of millions of minds at our mouse clicking fingertips. Motivation - well. I need to pay off my house. My business can't work without me. My mother is sick and needs me. My partner is pregnant. I'm curious by nature. Like most humans, I am over-governed by habits.
All these things and a gazillion others encourage the living of a life. Even if you argue jesus is your entire meaning, he never says anything directly to you. Whether you accept this or not, you are your own god, Fonzie. The holy spirit is your own conscience. I'm not appreciably different to you, bar an alternate set of labels.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
A & E,
You favor works which are an outward expression of a form of "rightness" that maintains you feeling somewhat "right" about yourself - I say "somewhat" because you are "filled with questions and doubts" (rightly so). You can never have peace with any form of "earning" a state of "rightness". This experience to the Jews was in the form of not being able to live up to the law of Moses - but it is universal that man cannot pay for his debt before God with works. An honest man thus has doubts and questionings. These are put to rest by the righteousness which is not by works but rather rests on faith in Jesus' Sacrifice and not just reformation (change of life) but transformation, metamorphosis. You have a sketchy religion you have sort of thrown together and you comfort yourself saying in essence "absolute truth doesn't exist" - or, "it's this way with everybody". You are thus guarding yourself from the real thing, the gospel of Christ. A person can be (in his own view) a "good person" - and look like a good person. This is a barrier that keeps him from realizing his true state before God. He doesn't need a Physician - he tells himself he's not sick. The many "doubts and questionings" get a righteous label on them as if they're a good thing and everybody has them. The good news of the gospel is that Jesus puts the storms of doubts to rest and stays with you dealing with them while you grow in faith.
"COLLECTIVE BRAIN" - the compiled thinking of man, faith in "what the majority thinks", "herd mentality". If you tie all the thinking of mankind together and none of them have the answer apart from God you still don't find it. The thinking of man has an impressive appearance and a show of eloquence - but is empty of God's wisdom. Don't put your faith in the thinking of man.
JESUS DOESN'T SPEAK DIRECTLY TO ME - The Word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, able to pierce to the division of bone and marrow, discerning the purposes of the heart. When the Word of God comes alive in you, when it meets with faith in you, He does speak to a person in his heart. The Word of God in Moses' day were written on stone - today He writes on the heart.
The bottom line is that what I believe - (that Jesus is the Son of God (like He claimed), died for our sins, rose the third day, dwells in us, the Bible is all the Word of God - men wrote led by the Spirit) - you don't. It's thus foolishness to you stem to stern. You might pick some teachings cafeteria style that are "ok by you" but you don't accept the Bible as the Word of God and absolute truth - maybe that there is ANY absolute truth. You don't, I do. You try to explain my problem in believing this - I try to put your stance in Bible context. To me it fits you to a tee. You have me in a frame on the wall like a dart target and it doesn't concern you except as a diversion from biking to the lake on a sunny day.
If you believed that Jesus IS the Son of God and died for your sins it would all be different.
I have seen guys say they could never see how anybody could believe that gospel stuff etc. then when the fire of faith was lit they said the opposite - they couldn't see how anybody could NOT believe in Jesus. This happened this year in fact with a friend of mine that is no dumb cookie.
I have no desire for someone to burn in eternal hell. I have no desire for men to continue to accept lies from the devil. Some men (again insert Bible verse here) love to live the lie, love darkness and share that fondness with cockroaches. Understand I am not God and don't aim to pronounce judgment on people - I do aim to share the tip that lies are lies and conversely salvation by faith in Christ has been mischaracterized and spun by the spinners. I am sharing the truth I aim to submit to and see as immoveable truth, absolute truth. Involved in that admitted faith are things I don't understand but bridge through faith.
I think you do things through faith as well. Your faith is in your theory which would have several things that rest on fresh air that you have accepted with the window of acceptance open in your mind. Why? There was something there that interested you or you liked? I don't obviously know. But there are things you accept on faith - that certain people are your faithful friends for instance.
My faith in God grows and grows. It is supported by more understanding and experience. Unlike what you describe it doesn't come from feeling. The body doesn't necessarily "feel" good. I'm sure Paul's body didn't feel good when he was getting beaten and stoned and left for dead - or...when he was "pommeling" his body to bring it into subjection. Like I said and you refute - these things are spiritually discerned. I KNOW God through my fellowship with Him and my understanding gained from the Written Word - all harmonious. I also discern my faults and continual need for God and the cleansing blood of Christ. I have that promised cleansing as I walk by the Spirit not by the flesh. You would have to look up the difference in those things to know what you're rejecting.
As to original sin - Jesus placed a child among the disciples and said of such are the kingdom of heaven - their angel always beholds the face of God. The child takes the wheel of life though and traffic being what it is in this congested wicked world - his lack of driving experience and the devil's lies (like Eve's) he is destained to wreck.
As to your explanation of you and your explanation of me - I think this proverb sums it up: "All the ways of a man are justified in his own eyes - but the LORD weighs the spirit." (notice I don't weigh it); however - "A rich man is wise in his own eyes but a poor man with understanding will find him out".
I don't accept that I'm my own god or that I think my faith is my proof positive, The God I believe in is real. The fact that you're unconcerned about God and the gospel doesn't represent proof it's untrue either. There are plenty of "so sure" and "so wrong" examples.
It seems to me to that you are applying the ad hominem again - insult, not proof. My honest recognition of doubt seems to prove in your eyes that I am in the thrall of satan and I blind myself to this with platitudes about doing the right thing and riding to Dove Lake.
Of course, you cannot know absolute truth, either. Though you deny this and have no personal doubts at all. Interesting. The difference in our positions seems to be that you insist your faith's assertions are absolutely true, while I recognise there is no way for a person to be absolutely certain about the fundamental questions of life, or even to understand their natures in very great detail. Our inner eye is a flexible but frail instrument that cannot recall the contents of a single book accurately.
Further I would never judge another person on the basis of their ideas and feelings about the meaning of things. I would, however, judge them on the basis of their socially harmful behaviours. It's curious that your religion seeks to de-couple acts from goodness and attach goodness entirely to belief in a specific doctrine. It seems to me that this idea is one that serves the hegemony of a cult, not the morality of a man.
And though you deny it, it seems to me that you are happy to judge people for imaginary crimes that have no bearing on behaviour. And this is what you would say is 'perfect' justice. It's a curious thing. What other ideas do you believe come with the penalty of eternal immolation? Marxism? Socialism? Libertarianism? Fallibilism? Dogmatism? These ideas and others fundamentally impact on a person's native epistemology but unless they impact negatively on behaviour, they are no cause for judgement.
When you say god is real you need to define your first premise. What is god? Then you need to define 'real'. Generally, real beings have mass in space and time. If god is a real being then we should be able to detect him as having mass in space and time. But if he does not meet these criteria then you need to explain the workings of the 'real' supernatural world, how is works, how it contains god and how god interacts with this real world.
Personally, Fonzie, I don't mind a bit of an appeal to complexity. Every good hypothesis started as an appeal to complexity. To wit, the question is insoluble so my opinion is possibly true. Of course, the hypothesis then needs to be proven with data or it remains unproven. Of course, in this case, rather than offering proof you go for the ad hominem again and suggest that the fact I have no interest in things about god does not prove there is no god. So it's not that I'm right, or that you need to prove truth claims, it's that I'm lazy.
I just had to pull this out because I wanted lurkers to enjoy it.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
Double Post
A & E,
Well, I certainly hope you get it all figured out - whatever "it" is, whatever "figure" is and whatever "out" is. I didn't mean to insult you and didn't think I did in my "to the man" answer. And I don't mean to insult you in this answer and don't think you've insulted me and it's ok if you have, because I would like to hear what you have to say without being hampered about concern for secret setoffs. And I'm going to proceed the same way.
It might have been "you are wise in your own eyes" that was at least one example of what you took as insult. What I mean is you are making use of faith - only it is faith in yourself rather than submitting your thinking to the Bible. I define that as this: as you meet principles in the Bible (as an illustration I mean, as if you did) that contradict your thinking and come to understand the difference then realizing you are wrong and changing. If you view yourself as wise and the Bible as foolish that wouldn't happen and I would point out to you that if that is the case (from our discussion I conclude it is) then you view yourself as wiser in your own eyes than what the Bible has to say (which you don't have faith in or the God Who claims to have written it). I don't think it's an insult to share what I see as honestly true with you. There is a proverb: "Faithful are the wounds of a friend, profuse are the kisses of an enemy". There are many examples of people taking things wrong even when they are well presented. People took Jesus wrong - said He had a demon, was a drunkard and wine-bibber. He is Perfect. That you took me as insulting you doesn't prove it true. I think however it IS true that you don't have faith in me or my answers - which would color things differently in your world.
I want to mention something I heard yesterday about an article in the NYT. It's an article about a respected Dutch social scientist and psychologist, a famed clinical sociologist named Diederik Stapel. He was renowned for his research, his surveys, his clinical data. It turns out that everything he did was a lie. Every research project, every published result was a fraud. The guy had a set of things he wanted foisted on society, things he wanted people to think and affect the way people interact with each other. He set about creating false studies that never happened, publishing the results. He did fifty five different studies and research papers and all of it was 100 percent lies based on his political preferences. He made things up from scratch and reported exhaustive hours of clinical research and interviews of thousands of people that never took place. I never heard of the guy before yesterday.
I'm sure some people put some faith in this guy's research. To me this is the tip of the iceberg of what you're up against with the collective thinking of men in this world. What you atheists conclude is "proven fact" - is still faith in something or someone.
I am glad I have been led through this maze of lies by the Good Shepherd and have found the Truth, the Word of God. I'm putting all my chips, resting all my weight, submitting all my thinking - trying to - to the Word of God. I can't know all the Truth - agreed - but I know What it IS and Who Wrote it, and I'm focused on trying to understand and apply it.
That's a beautiful picture and I'm glad I know THE ARTIST.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
A & E,
As to the definition of God... The definition comes to us in a living example form. God becomes a man - Jesus. The definition also comes in the form of why God becomes a man and what He does when He is a man. This plan was a mystery hidden for ages, one that the prophets themselves longed to look into. They didn't understand what the spirit was moving them to prophesy. In the Life and Death of Jesus Christ God defines Himself and holds the forces of evil, Satan and his demonic spirits up to open shame and defeat. They are shown to be what they are and God is shown to be what He is. The King of Kings wins the hearts of His subjects by dying to pay their debts, giving them the wedding garment of the Gift of Righteousness and preparing them for the great celebration of the Wedding Feast. This creation is heading for a Grand Finale.
I could say something to you that's true and if you don't want to deal with the truth of it you can say it's an insult and "ad hominem". When Jesus said, "an evil and adulterous generation seeks a sign but no sign shall be given to them but the sign of Jonah - for as Jonah was 3 days and 3 nights in the belly of the fish so the son of man will be 3 days and 3 nights in the heart of the earth" - they probably took it as "ad hominem" as well. I take it that I am wrong and He is right. I repented and believe the "sign" of Jonah and in the resurrection of Jesus Christ to an Indestructible Life. The difference is I have faith in Jesus (the Living Word) and the Word of God (the Written Word). The two are in perfect harmony. The Spirit of God lives in me and - just as the Word of God says - "who knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit within him?" the Spirit of God likewise enables me to understand the thoughts of God as expressed in the Written Word and the Living Word - who also dwells in me.
When you question and insult me is that "ad hominem"? ("I think it is ludic fallacy to suggest this data set...).
The principle I am presenting to you is "salvation by faith". "He who through faith is righteous shall live". The faith - more valuable than gold though tested by fire - is the proof. If you have faith - you have proof. If you don't have faith - you don't have salvation or proof.
Ad hom is when you attack the person not their argument. To describe your argument as irrational is not a personal attack on you. To describe me personally as part of an 'evil and adulterous generation seeking a sign' instead of addressing my argument is ad hominem. You are not obliged to denigrate my generation to prove me wrong.
You might instead say that my elevation of empiricism to the pinnacle of understanding is inconsistent given the veracity of empiricism can't certainly be verified empirically. You might argue from probability. You might accuse me of dogmatic scientism. You could elevate rationalism over sense data. You might tactically retreat to the unknowns of neurology. You have plenty of options available to you.
As I say, I don't care about ad hom one way or another. It's just not a valid form of argument and given it exists at the heart of christian doctrine, I find myself justified in pointing out that the first arguments in Genesis are irrational. Given the centrality of ad hominem in christian doctrine I guess it's not surprising to find you instinctively turn to it as well. It would just be more entertaining an argument if we conducted it at the extremes of human knowledge and comprehension.
Regardless of all this, at no time have you coherently described what god is. Though in failing to do so here you do introduce an interesting point - the partial/complete divinity of jesus. Would you argue that jesus was a man, or was god, or was both at once, by some mysterious means?
I've always found the Nicene ruction to be a fundamental thing. On one side the westerners insisted jesus was always and entirely the stuff of god and had always been god. On the other side the Arians argued, and I sympathise with their intuitive feeling, that without complete humanity the sacrifice of jesus had no meaning.
Would you argue that god the father was greater than I, as jesus quite plainly said that he was? Or that jesus was god and man entire?
Can faith - more succinctly belief - really be called proof? I would argue not. We could have a discussion about what we call proof. I'm sure that mostly, you require more than just another's belief to justify belief. I believe humans are colonies of single celled organisms all working in concert and that consciousness is an emergent property of a pair of electrical thresholds within living brains. Is my belief proof enough for you, Fonzie?
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
A & E,
I have worked for three heads of the philosophy department and discussed similar things with them with similar words and similar results. Just because you have a confusing array of words that give off the "appearance" of wisdom to the ignorant and unstable it doesn't mean you have a solid footing or an eternal plan. There is such a thing as "the contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge" and there's sophistry as well. Nice parade to nowhere.
Jesus was 100% man and was and IS 100% GOD. All things were created for and through Him and in Him all things hold together. If you reject His Words - the same Words will judge you in the last day.
You mentioned something about irrational arguments in Genesis. In my view of faith in God that's irrational and arrogant plus shows lack of fear of the LORD which is the beginning of knowledge and wisdom - a beginning you have yet to begin.
Maybe you want a god that is beneath your level of understanding rather than One you can't comprehend?
If you are your own God I have some questions for you:
Would you say you totally understand yourself and are able to prove yourself to yourself?
Is it within you to direct your steps - (rather than "not within you" as the Bible says).
Would you say you are "wise in your own eyes"?
Are all your ways justified in your sight?
Do you make yourself a great god or a lousy god?
What is a 'solid footing' in the context of bald assertions and unproven hypotheses? What is an eternal plan? Just because you say you have an eternal plan doesn't mean you have one. There's nothing sneakily fallacious about the points I call you on. You either have definitions that are comprehensible or you have bald assertions that can't be verified. The only sensible position is fallibilism, in my opinion. But you claim absolute objective knowledge with no supporting data.
No one has ever defined what a god is so you cannot know from your position as a human if jesus was or was not, 100 per cent of something you can't define and don't understand. Further, all men are born evil, deserving to die and can only be saved by the blood of the lamb. Jesus could not have been 100 per cent man. Even if he died for his own sins on the cross. A creature cannot be both 100 per cent man and without sin. Not according to the bible, anyway. All men are born into sin as the sparks fly.
This is bald assertion on a grand scale. How can a being that is 100 per cent man and undefined and unproven be known to hold all things together? What are all things? The universe is the set of all things. A set is not a thing that demands a cause. And you end with a rather unsubtle fallacious appeal to force. Believe or die! It's never far away, is it Fonzie.
What you are saying here is that my identification of irrational arguments by insult and threat that form the keystone of christian doctrine - original sin and divine punishment - are in fact irrational and arrogant. You go on to say that this criticism of the bible shows I don't fear god, so therefore I can't be wise. So my arguments have no merit. This is an ad hominem fallacy, which is irrational.
Define god.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
:: Helpful suggestion if you are going to quote verses quote them:
Ref. --
15 He (the Christ) is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For within Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities/'first-cause' or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. *17 *And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist. 18 And He is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead ..
((* Transcriber's N0TE : πρό -- either means placed before, in front of or a time before ))
Check the language (wording) ?? Either of you, it's up in the thread as a handy reference, something Foz should have already done.
Not that it needs to be said Fonzie but I am irritated reading this. Is it a good sign when I am the one saying it!? I dont care to get into how you are being irritating or the anatomy of an irritation, YOU JUST ARE !! I am detecting wording that is highly irritating (and it wasn't ever even specifically addressed to me, but to AE alone). Knock it off or kindly leave the board !! That is too harsh. I am sure being engrossed in the back and forth I am sure it was never intentionally meant to be either offensive nor irritating.
p.s. --
I am cutting and pasting this 2 Timothy passage because I do not have the time to look up the 'fruit of the Spirit' right now for the express purpose of overbearingly 'brow-beating' you (Foz) with some of the New Testament
_________
To guests & Bad badges (and professing christians) . . 2 Tim II :24 the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness. Titus 3:2b - to be gentle, and to show perfect courtesy toward all people.