In fairness, have you personally carefully weighed the evidence of all the major world religions in a thoughtful, systematic, and sober minded way and concluded all of these are false except for Christianity, or have you been specifically thoughtful to your faith and slightly more dismissive of others? I don't think you would be unique or unserious if it is the latter, but it is IMHO a fair question. From my personal upbringing, Christianity, I have had a lot of very thoughtful time thinking through Christianity and fairly shallow and uninterested thoughts on Hinduism, Wicca, etc. going as far as to dismiss them as ridiculous without much further thought.
Meaning Without God
17,387 Views |
240 Replies |
Last: 8 mo ago by Rocag
Malibu said:
In fairness, have you personally carefully weighed the evidence of all the major world religions in a thoughtful, systematic, and sober minded way and concluded all of these are false except for Christianity, or have you been specifically thoughtful to your faith and slightly more dismissive of others? I don't think you would be unique or unserious if it is the latter, but it is IMHO a fair question. From my personal upbringing, Christianity, I have had a lot of very thoughtful time thinking through Christianity and fairly shallow and uninterested thoughts on Hinduism, Wicca, etc. going as far as to dismiss them as ridiculous without much further thought.
In fairness, none of that has any bearing on the presuppositions we're discussing.
One could easily ask if I've determined my sex, gender, or sexual orientation the same way. Have I done that for my political positions? It seems more like anti-knowledge masked as humility. It's not a test for truth or an investigation of it; it brings nothing to bear on whether a thing is or isn't true, it just asks if the investigator has absolute knowledge and punts on the evaluation of it.
kurt vonnegut said:
This is all written as though there are some laws of existence to which God is 'subject to' rather than 'author of'.
If God wanted to be in the presence of sin, surely He could? To say 'no' is to suggest some larger cosmic law that even God cannot violate.
God does have one rule: God must be God
If God wanted to create a race of people not inherently bound for Hell, surely He could.
God did create a race of beings that are not bound for hell: animals, plants, etc. Life without sapience or any spiritual substance. God is perfectly good, and goodness must be shared- so He created spiritual beings to be with him. However, perfect goodness also dictates that spiritual beings must be allowed to choose to be in communion with God, otherwise it would basically be a form of rape.
If God wanted to forgive us our sins without sending his son, then surely He could. Again, unless there is some cosmic law that God is bound to that says that "Created agents can only be forgiven their sins by a Creator if the Creator should send its son to live amongst those agents and be brutally murdered."
Ultimately there are two types of beings in creation: God and not-God. God is perfectly holy, not-God is not. The difference between perfectly holy and not is infinite. Us, as finite not-God beings could not hope to bridge an infinite gap. So, infinite God decided to bridge the gap for us. Since God is perfectly just, the consequences of sin must be acknowledged and rectified. God, in his mercy, took the consequences upon himself on the Cross, so that his perfect justice might be satisfied.
To the trappings of dying on a cross- there probably is no requirement for that specifically, but Jesus did need to become flesh to cross that infinite gulf. I think the cross was/is used because it represents very well what our relationship with God is like: God shows who he is, and we reject him utterly. Easter however shows us that no amount of rejection can alter the truth: God is.
If God wants everyone to go to Heaven, then it will be so. If God wants annhilation instead of eternal torture, it will be so. So yes, if anyone goes to Hell to be tortured for eternity, this is 110% the will of God.
God cannot force people to Heaven, because heaven is total communion with God's perfect goodness. For annihilation vs. ECT, I can agree that this is ultimately God's choice. God has the power to uncreate. For me it's a question of which is the greater mercy, a terrible existence or non-existence
Every rule that exists is God's rule. If that is not the case, then your God is merely a god and not The God.
You're correct and I agree. Something is true or it is isn't, and the amount of time we have considered whether it is true or not is irrelevant to how truthful it is.
In the case of this thread, you and others appear to be making a case to those of us that don't believe should consider as evidence ways that God has spoken to you (or even ourselves in ways that we may not recognize). Given that other religions make similar claims with similar sincere revelation of God's personal revelation, but would contradict each other if both revelations are true, how do we evaluate these claims?
In the case of this thread, you and others appear to be making a case to those of us that don't believe should consider as evidence ways that God has spoken to you (or even ourselves in ways that we may not recognize). Given that other religions make similar claims with similar sincere revelation of God's personal revelation, but would contradict each other if both revelations are true, how do we evaluate these claims?
AGC said:
Everything before the comma is just as problematic; you accept your own presuppositions as fact without any evidence. So what if there are a bunch of religions and gods? Please prove each and every one was invented by humans.
And why would the existence of multiple stories negate all of them? That's not even how basic history works - two sides of the same war have different tales and both may have truth in them, one truer than the other. It doesn't make both narratives wrong.
I'm sorry, who do you think invented the thousands of other religions, if not humans? Aliens? Did Spyderman get you?
The existence of multiple stories does not negate all of them. I never said that to be the case. In fact, I said very deliberately that I thought it was reason for why we ought to be skeptical. I was very clear that it was my opinion and that you were welcome to disagree.
I've come to dislike our discussions. I like having my positions challenged and I like the debate, but when you keep inventing **** I never said, it makes for very frustrating conversation. I really wish you would read the words I type rather than what you think I mean. I've hinted at it before, but I'll say it outright now - I think often times you responses are horribly dishonest.
kurt vonnegut said:AGC said:
Everything before the comma is just as problematic; you accept your own presuppositions as fact without any evidence. So what if there are a bunch of religions and gods? Please prove each and every one was invented by humans.
And why would the existence of multiple stories negate all of them? That's not even how basic history works - two sides of the same war have different tales and both may have truth in them, one truer than the other. It doesn't make both narratives wrong.
I'm sorry, who do you think invented the thousands of other religions, if not humans? Aliens? Did Spyderman get you?
The existence of multiple stories does not negate all of them. I never said that to be the case. In fact, I said very deliberately that I thought it was reason for why we ought to be skeptical. I was very clear that it was my opinion and that you were welcome to disagree.
I've come to dislike our discussions. I like having my positions challenged and I like the debate, but when you keep inventing **** I never said, it makes for very frustrating conversation. I really wish you would read the words I type rather than what you think I mean. I've hinted at it before, but I'll say it outright now - I think often times you responses are horribly dishonest.
I'm sorry you read them that way. That's not the way they're typed or intended. I detach emotion when engaging here and rework responses many times to remove things that would distract from the point. I delete entire paragraphs before posting.
There are in Christianity other powers and principalities, other spiritual beings than God that have been given dominion over the world or parts of it in hierarchy. Those beings directing worship at themselves and twisting or distorting a true creation story would be an explanation, especially for why so many are similar.
But we run into the familiar problem: if you don't believe in the spiritual it doesn't satisfy. Nor can you go back in time and evaluate these claims, witnessing the start of them or walking in the footsteps of those present.
How am I 'terribly dishonest' in a manner that isn't simply my refusal to agree with you?
Edit: Who does skepticism serve if one knows the truth? Who could possibly say, 'yes I've truly experienced and evaluated all religions past and present and know this to be the only true one'? Is that not a terrible burden to put on anyone to believe what they do, to say they're incapable of knowing? How is that not condescending in its own right? I don't take offense, I understand what you mean, but truly it's not extending any social graces.
Edit 2: a call to skepticism I'm torn on. If one knows the truth, why must one be skeptical (unless one believes truth to be unknowable)? Why is humility being skeptical?
What I think we're both saying is that you're not the only person claiming to know the truth with certainty. There are equally sincere claims to this knowledge that contradict your own, and if those other folks are right, by trusting you, my eternal soul may be in grave peril.
It's of course impossible to go through the entire list of claims that have catastrophic consequences for my soul if I'm wrong and treat each with equal reverence and consideration, there's tons of crackpots, but starting with the major and minor world religions with above 5% human market share seems like an achievable goal. But we're still left with contradictory claims of divine revelation, and asking the skeptic to trust yours but not theirs requires something of substance.
It's of course impossible to go through the entire list of claims that have catastrophic consequences for my soul if I'm wrong and treat each with equal reverence and consideration, there's tons of crackpots, but starting with the major and minor world religions with above 5% human market share seems like an achievable goal. But we're still left with contradictory claims of divine revelation, and asking the skeptic to trust yours but not theirs requires something of substance.
What type of evidence would be significant for you in regards to the truth claims made in the Bible?
I don't know what that means or what it has to do with whether or not God is subject to rules that limit Him.Quote:
God does have one rule: God must be God
Quote:
God did create a race of beings that are not bound for hell: animals, plants, etc. Life without sapience or any spiritual substance. God is perfectly good, and goodness must be shared- so He created spiritual beings to be with him. However, perfect goodness also dictates that spiritual beings must be allowed to choose to be in communion with God, otherwise it would basically be a form of rape.
If there are billions of people suffering in Hell, it is because God created the rule that says that people that do 'x' will suffer torment for eternity. And because it is a rule that God made, it is unquestionably good. And, since we humans are all sinners, and not perfectly holy like God, and undeserving of salvation except through the mercy of God - If you should find yourself in Hell when you die, that will be good. By your definitions of good, it will be good that you are in Hell for eternity.
It's impossible to directly observe the events of 2,000 years ago, and especially claims involving miracles. It would be useful if not impossible if the miracles described in the Bible as commonplace were commonplace today. Claims that these miracles are occurring today should raise eyebrows, but are worth considering. However, these aren't unique to mainstream Christianity. As an example, I have been doing a lot of yoga lately and started reading "Autobiography of a Yogi" which goes through some the history of how Yoga started and got larger in the US. Interesting read, but loaded with Hindu claims of levitation, human translucence, creation of scents from thin air, that the author just describes in matter-of-fact that's what happened on that Tuesday when I was walking down the street. Or Joseph Smith's seeing stones.Agilaw said:
What type of evidence would be significant for you in regards to the truth claims made in the Bible?
Not sure what you mean that "it's impossible to directly observe the events of 2000 years ago"?
Observing Christ performing miracles and resurrecting from the dead would put to rest many questions on whether Christianity is specifically true. To me personally, Christ's miracles do not need to be true for the message of Christ and Paul to be profound, and 'divine.'
You observing these things or others observing such things and documenting what they saw?
AGC said:kurt vonnegut said:AGC said:
Everything before the comma is just as problematic; you accept your own presuppositions as fact without any evidence. So what if there are a bunch of religions and gods? Please prove each and every one was invented by humans.
And why would the existence of multiple stories negate all of them? That's not even how basic history works - two sides of the same war have different tales and both may have truth in them, one truer than the other. It doesn't make both narratives wrong.
I'm sorry, who do you think invented the thousands of other religions, if not humans? Aliens? Did Spyderman get you?
The existence of multiple stories does not negate all of them. I never said that to be the case. In fact, I said very deliberately that I thought it was reason for why we ought to be skeptical. I was very clear that it was my opinion and that you were welcome to disagree.
I've come to dislike our discussions. I like having my positions challenged and I like the debate, but when you keep inventing **** I never said, it makes for very frustrating conversation. I really wish you would read the words I type rather than what you think I mean. I've hinted at it before, but I'll say it outright now - I think often times you responses are horribly dishonest.
I'm sorry you read them that way. That's not the way they're typed or intended. I detach emotion when engaging here and rework responses many times to remove things that would distract from the point. I delete entire paragraphs before posting.
There are in Christianity other powers and principalities, other spiritual beings than God that have been given dominion over the world or parts of it in hierarchy. Those beings directing worship at themselves and twisting or distorting a true creation story would be an explanation, especially for why so many are similar.
But we run into the familiar problem: if you don't believe in the spiritual it doesn't satisfy. Nor can you go back in time and evaluate these claims, witnessing the start of them or walking in the footsteps of those present.
How am I 'terribly dishonest' in a manner that isn't simply my refusal to agree with you?
Edit: Who does skepticism serve if one knows the truth? Who could possibly say, 'yes I've truly experienced and evaluated all religions past and present and know this to be the only true one'? Is that not a terrible burden to put on anyone to believe what they do, to say they're incapable of knowing? How is that not condescending in its own right? I don't take offense, I understand what you mean, but truly it's not extending any social graces.
Edit 2: a call to skepticism I'm torn on. If one knows the truth, why must one be skeptical (unless one believes truth to be unknowable)? Why is humility being skeptical?
I think the dishonesty is in the form of the obvious misrepresentations of what I say. If the misrepresentations are unintentional, then I apologize. But, more often than not, I feel like I read your responses and think "Who is he talking to? I haven't said any of this!".Quote:
I'm sorry you read them that way. That's not the way they're typed or intended. I detach emotion when engaging here and rework responses many times to remove things that would distract from the point. I delete entire paragraphs before posting.
How am I 'terribly dishonest' in a manner that isn't simply my refusal to agree with you?
Take this statement of yours: "And why would the existence of multiple stories negate all of them?" Unless you can find somewhere where I made that argument, you have to admit that it is a strawman.
Quote:
There are in Christianity other powers and principalities, other spiritual beings than God that have been given dominion over the world or parts of it in hierarchy. Those beings directing worship at themselves and twisting or distorting a true creation story would be an explanation, especially for why so many are similar.
But we run into the familiar problem: if you don't believe in the spiritual it doesn't satisfy. Nor can you go back in time and evaluate these claims, witnessing the start of them or walking in the footsteps of those present.
To be sure that I am not misrepresenting you, are you saying that ALL religions are based on the influence of legitimate spiritual beings other than God? Or just some unknown quantity?
Quote:
Edit: Who does skepticism serve if one knows the truth? Who could possibly say, 'yes I've truly experienced and evaluated all religions past and present and know this to be the only true one'? Is that not a terrible burden to put on anyone to believe what they do, to say they're incapable of knowing? How is that not condescending in its own right? I don't take offense, I understand what you mean, but truly it's not extending any social graces.
Edit 2: a call to skepticism I'm torn on. If one knows the truth, why must one be skeptical (unless one believes truth to be unknowable)? Why is humility being skeptical?
It is, as you pointed out, a terrible burden to require that someone obtain the impossible level of absolute knowledge before claiming to know something to be true. I see two approaches to this dilemma. One is to waive away the requirement for absolute knowledge and say that pretty good knowledge is good enough. The other way is to avoid claims of absolute knowledge.
The latter is hardly practical in everyday living. If my wife asks where my car keys are at, and I respond to say that such knowledge is impossible, I am not being helpful or practical. If I tell her that they are on the kitchen counter to the right of the sink (because thats where I usually leave them) I have opted for 'pretty good knowledge is good enough'. It is possible they are not there where I left them. I could have made a mistake. The kids could have moved them. But, to be unable to answer the most mundane of questions without absolute knowledge is paralyzing. And so, for this mundane example, why should I object to 'pretty good knowledge is good enough'?
It would be wonderful if the people that designed and built airplanes had absolute knowledge of all things related to flying and to all possible environmental conditions the plane could encounter. When you get on a plane, you accept that the engineers, builders, pilots, flight control do not have absolute knowledge. You accept that they have pretty good knowledge. But, our standards of 'good enough' changes as the stakes increase. Should we be satisfied with the maintenance crew that says "Eh, I'm sure this plane is okay, we don't usually find things that need fixing"? Or flight control personnel that don't check the weather because, well, its probably fine. Or do we consider the potential for disaster and decide that a higher level of investigation and knowledge are required before sending hundreds of people into the air? It is less acceptable for a maintenance crew member to waive away further investigation to claiming a plane is okay in the same manner I would waive away further investigation to claiming to know where my keys are. If I'm wrong about my keys, no one dies.
The purpose and meaning of all of existence is not a mundane example. And the eternal fate of human beings is not mundane. What Christianity proposes to be at stake when we consider what to believe and how to live is nothing short of infinite. Of all things we claim to have knowledge of, should religious claims not be held to the highest standard of all? Maybe not to the impossible level of absolute knowledge. . . but surely to as high a standard as humanly possible.
To waive away the claims of other religions while not reviewing your own claims with an equally intense skepticism is to treat the question of knowledge about God and salvation openly with bias.
You propose a worldview whereby spiritual beings not only make efforts to deceive us into false beliefs, but 70% of the people alive today are deceived. And some huge percent of all humans to have ever lived have been deceived. And you propose a worldview with a possibility of infinite repercussions against those have been deceived. If any of us has reason for skepticism, surely its you? Is it not? How do you know that you are not deceived? Are you so certain of your own faculties and your own abilities as to be absolutely certain that you are correct? And are you so certain of the insincerity or stupidity of all non-Christians that you can say you know for certain they are wrong.
Understand something . . . I have zero issue with the Christian that says that they believe in the existence of the Christian God and Jesus, but who also takes the position that they could be wrong and that absolute knowledge is an unachievable goal. What makes me uneasy is the Christian that believes in those same things and KNOWS for absolute certain that they are right and who knows it with such certainty that they are able to discard all opposing views immediately.
Is there not humility in being skeptical of your own faculties and your own abilities? There are far more capable and intelligent people than me who have studied religion and language and history and philosophy and have concluded Christianity to be correct. There are also comparable persons who have concluded Islam to be the true religion. And Hinduism. And atheism. And agnosticism. And on and on. I draw much of my skepticism and humility from the observation that the most brilliant minds in the world cannot answer these questions.
We are talking about the most important questions of existence. And questions that have been argued about forever by the brightest minds and will continue to be argued about forever by the brightest minds. If ever there is a situation that calls for humbling act of not claiming absolute knowledge, surely this is it, right?
If God wanted to be in the presence of sin, yes, he could, but that would go against his nature and character. That would be like saying, "If you wanted to beat your wife, surely you could." You would never do that because it goes against your nature and character (I'm assuming).kurt vonnegut said:Rex Racer said:You say this as if God sends non-believers to Hell.Quote:
I know that many Christians have evolving beliefs about Hell. But, if Hell awaits non-believers in death, then I want nothing to do with your God.
God is a being of pure love, light, and goodness. He is a just God. He cannot abide sin and will not be in its presence. Since we are all sinners, we have no way to reconcile ourselves to God, and would all be bound for Hell if not for the next paragraph.
But God loved us so much, that he sent his son, Jesus, to die once for all. We need only confess with our mouth Jesus Christ is Lord, and believe in our heart God has raised him from the dead in order to be reconciled to God.
He could not have made it any easier for us to be reconciled to Him. He does not wish for anyone to go to Hell. It is, however, true that many will end up there.
This is all written as though there are some laws of existence to which God is 'subject to' rather than 'author of'.
If God wanted to be in the presence of sin, surely He could? To say 'no' is to suggest some larger cosmic law that even God cannot violate.
If God wanted to create a race of people not inherently bound for Hell, surely He could.
If God wanted to forgive us our sins without sending his son, then surely He could. Again, unless there is some cosmic law that God is bound to that says that "Created agents can only be forgiven their sins by a Creator if the Creator should send its son to live amongst those agents and be brutally murdered."
If God wants everyone to go to Heaven, then it will be so. If God wants annhilation instead of eternal torture, it will be so. So yes, if anyone goes to Hell to be tortured for eternity, this is 110% the will of God.
Every rule that exists is God's rule. If that is not the case, then your God is merely a god and not The God.
God actually did create a race of people that were not inherently bound for Hell. It wasn't until they sinned by disobeying him that they became bound for Hell.
God's very nature and character is divine love and justice, and he sent his son to die for us BECAUSE of that great love and need for justice. It was the only sacrifice big enough to satisfy his disdain for sin. That's just who God is.
You might not like that, and you might not want to follow God because of it. You're certainly far from alone in that feeling.
I never bought the "presence of sin" argument. It just makes no sense. Is god not present on earth? Is he not aware of every square inch as if he was standing next to you? Same for every inch of heaven and hell. What escapes his perfect awareness?
For a human to tolerate or not tolerate something due to being in their presence makes sense. Our presence and our keen awareness are linked. There is no such distinction for god.
For a human to tolerate or not tolerate something due to being in their presence makes sense. Our presence and our keen awareness are linked. There is no such distinction for god.
Okay, he won't tolerate it.Aggrad08 said:
I never bought the "presence of sin" argument. It just makes no sense. Is god not present on earth? Is he not aware of every square inch as if he was standing next to you? Same for every inch of heaven and hell. What escapes his perfect awareness?
For a human to tolerate or not tolerate something due to being in their presence makes sense. Our presence and our keen awareness are linked. There is no such distinction for god.
Man's sin created a gulf between him and God. Jesus's sacrifice and resurrection bridged that gulf.
Except he does, the earth is in his presence
And this Earth is going to pass away and be created anew in his time.Aggrad08 said:
Except he does, the earth is in his presence
Rex Racer said:
God actually did create a race of people that were not inherently bound for Hell. It wasn't until they sinned by disobeying him that they became bound for Hell.
Does that mean it is in God's nature to allow for eternal torment for the sin of disagreement?
Hard to be a martyr unless you are totally sure in your beliefs. Christ was either insane, a conman, or the Son of God.kurt vonnegut said:AGC said:kurt vonnegut said:AGC said:
Everything before the comma is just as problematic; you accept your own presuppositions as fact without any evidence. So what if there are a bunch of religions and gods? Please prove each and every one was invented by humans.
And why would the existence of multiple stories negate all of them? That's not even how basic history works - two sides of the same war have different tales and both may have truth in them, one truer than the other. It doesn't make both narratives wrong.
I'm sorry, who do you think invented the thousands of other religions, if not humans? Aliens? Did Spyderman get you?
The existence of multiple stories does not negate all of them. I never said that to be the case. In fact, I said very deliberately that I thought it was reason for why we ought to be skeptical. I was very clear that it was my opinion and that you were welcome to disagree.
I've come to dislike our discussions. I like having my positions challenged and I like the debate, but when you keep inventing **** I never said, it makes for very frustrating conversation. I really wish you would read the words I type rather than what you think I mean. I've hinted at it before, but I'll say it outright now - I think often times you responses are horribly dishonest.
I'm sorry you read them that way. That's not the way they're typed or intended. I detach emotion when engaging here and rework responses many times to remove things that would distract from the point. I delete entire paragraphs before posting.
There are in Christianity other powers and principalities, other spiritual beings than God that have been given dominion over the world or parts of it in hierarchy. Those beings directing worship at themselves and twisting or distorting a true creation story would be an explanation, especially for why so many are similar.
But we run into the familiar problem: if you don't believe in the spiritual it doesn't satisfy. Nor can you go back in time and evaluate these claims, witnessing the start of them or walking in the footsteps of those present.
How am I 'terribly dishonest' in a manner that isn't simply my refusal to agree with you?
Edit: Who does skepticism serve if one knows the truth? Who could possibly say, 'yes I've truly experienced and evaluated all religions past and present and know this to be the only true one'? Is that not a terrible burden to put on anyone to believe what they do, to say they're incapable of knowing? How is that not condescending in its own right? I don't take offense, I understand what you mean, but truly it's not extending any social graces.
Edit 2: a call to skepticism I'm torn on. If one knows the truth, why must one be skeptical (unless one believes truth to be unknowable)? Why is humility being skeptical?I think the dishonesty is in the form of the obvious misrepresentations of what I say. If the misrepresentations are unintentional, then I apologize. But, more often than not, I feel like I read your responses and think "Who is he talking to? I haven't said any of this!".Quote:
I'm sorry you read them that way. That's not the way they're typed or intended. I detach emotion when engaging here and rework responses many times to remove things that would distract from the point. I delete entire paragraphs before posting.
How am I 'terribly dishonest' in a manner that isn't simply my refusal to agree with you?
Take this statement of yours: "And why would the existence of multiple stories negate all of them?" Unless you can find somewhere where I made that argument, you have to admit that it is a strawman.Quote:
There are in Christianity other powers and principalities, other spiritual beings than God that have been given dominion over the world or parts of it in hierarchy. Those beings directing worship at themselves and twisting or distorting a true creation story would be an explanation, especially for why so many are similar.
But we run into the familiar problem: if you don't believe in the spiritual it doesn't satisfy. Nor can you go back in time and evaluate these claims, witnessing the start of them or walking in the footsteps of those present.
To be sure that I am not misrepresenting you, are you saying that ALL religions are based on the influence of legitimate spiritual beings other than God? Or just some unknown quantity?Quote:
Edit: Who does skepticism serve if one knows the truth? Who could possibly say, 'yes I've truly experienced and evaluated all religions past and present and know this to be the only true one'? Is that not a terrible burden to put on anyone to believe what they do, to say they're incapable of knowing? How is that not condescending in its own right? I don't take offense, I understand what you mean, but truly it's not extending any social graces.
Edit 2: a call to skepticism I'm torn on. If one knows the truth, why must one be skeptical (unless one believes truth to be unknowable)? Why is humility being skeptical?
It is, as you pointed out, a terrible burden to require that someone obtain the impossible level of absolute knowledge before claiming to know something to be true. I see two approaches to this dilemma. One is to waive away the requirement for absolute knowledge and say that pretty good knowledge is good enough. The other way is to avoid claims of absolute knowledge.
The latter is hardly practical in everyday living. If my wife asks where my car keys are at, and I respond to say that such knowledge is impossible, I am not being helpful or practical. If I tell her that they are on the kitchen counter to the right of the sink (because thats where I usually leave them) I have opted for 'pretty good knowledge is good enough'. It is possible they are not there where I left them. I could have made a mistake. The kids could have moved them. But, to be unable to answer the most mundane of questions without absolute knowledge is paralyzing. And so, for this mundane example, why should I object to 'pretty good knowledge is good enough'?
It would be wonderful if the people that designed and built airplanes had absolute knowledge of all things related to flying and to all possible environmental conditions the plane could encounter. When you get on a plane, you accept that the engineers, builders, pilots, flight control do not have absolute knowledge. You accept that they have pretty good knowledge. But, our standards of 'good enough' changes as the stakes increase. Should we be satisfied with the maintenance crew that says "Eh, I'm sure this plane is okay, we don't usually find things that need fixing"? Or flight control personnel that don't check the weather because, well, its probably fine. Or do we consider the potential for disaster and decide that a higher level of investigation and knowledge are required before sending hundreds of people into the air? It is less acceptable for a maintenance crew member to waive away further investigation to claiming a plane is okay in the same manner I would waive away further investigation to claiming to know where my keys are. If I'm wrong about my keys, no one dies.
The purpose and meaning of all of existence is not a mundane example. And the eternal fate of human beings is not mundane. What Christianity proposes to be at stake when we consider what to believe and how to live is nothing short of infinite. Of all things we claim to have knowledge of, should religious claims not be held to the highest standard of all? Maybe not to the impossible level of absolute knowledge. . . but surely to as high a standard as humanly possible.
To waive away the claims of other religions while not reviewing your own claims with an equally intense skepticism is to treat the question of knowledge about God and salvation openly with bias.
You propose a worldview whereby spiritual beings not only make efforts to deceive us into false beliefs, but 70% of the people alive today are deceived. And some huge percent of all humans to have ever lived have been deceived. And you propose a worldview with a possibility of infinite repercussions against those have been deceived. If any of us has reason for skepticism, surely its you? Is it not? How do you know that you are not deceived? Are you so certain of your own faculties and your own abilities as to be absolutely certain that you are correct? And are you so certain of the insincerity or stupidity of all non-Christians that you can say you know for certain they are wrong.
Understand something . . . I have zero issue with the Christian that says that they believe in the existence of the Christian God and Jesus, but who also takes the position that they could be wrong and that absolute knowledge is an unachievable goal. What makes me uneasy is the Christian that believes in those same things and KNOWS for absolute certain that they are right and who knows it with such certainty that they are able to discard all opposing views immediately.
Is there not humility in being skeptical of your own faculties and your own abilities? There are far more capable and intelligent people than me who have studied religion and language and history and philosophy and have concluded Christianity to be correct. There are also comparable persons who have concluded Islam to be the true religion. And Hinduism. And atheism. And agnosticism. And on and on. I draw much of my skepticism and humility from the observation that the most brilliant minds in the world cannot answer these questions.
We are talking about the most important questions of existence. And questions that have been argued about forever by the brightest minds and will continue to be argued about forever by the brightest minds. If ever there is a situation that calls for humbling act of not claiming absolute knowledge, surely this is it, right?
If you believe He was/is the Son of God, there is no compromise. No moral relativism.
It is either true or not. Speculating that it "could" be true but so could all other beliefs is incompatible with being a Christian in my opinion.
I am not dissing your beliefs. Just explains the Christian viewpoint.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
dermdoc said:
Hard to be a martyr unless you are totally sure in your beliefs. Christ was either insane, a conman, or the Son of God.
If you believe He was/is the Son of God, there is no compromise. No moral relativism.
It is either true or not. Speculating that it "could" be true but so could all other beliefs is incompatible with being a Christian in my opinion.
I'm not sure what martyrdom has to do with anything. It is possible for a person to be 100% certain of something and 100% factually incorrect at the same time.
The claim that Jesus is the son of God is either true or not - just as you said. However, your level of certainty about the claim is NOT binary. There are more options other than "100% certain Jesus is the son of god" and "100% certain Jesus is not the son of God". For example, maybe someone is 80% certain. My uneasiness has to do with the extremes - those that are 100% certain.
I don't know that I would call disagreement a sin. You and I can disagree about various topics. That's not a sin, in and of itself.kurt Vonnegut said:Rex Racer said:
God actually did create a race of people that were not inherently bound for Hell. It wasn't until they sinned by disobeying him that they became bound for Hell.
Does that mean it is in God's nature to allow for eternal torment for the sin of disagreement?
But, yes, God will allow souls to go to Hell for rejecting the salvation that he offers through his Son. Absolutely.
Quote:
For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. - Romans 6:23
kurt vonnegut said:dermdoc said:
Hard to be a martyr unless you are totally sure in your beliefs. Christ was either insane, a conman, or the Son of God.
If you believe He was/is the Son of God, there is no compromise. No moral relativism.
It is either true or not. Speculating that it "could" be true but so could all other beliefs is incompatible with being a Christian in my opinion.
I'm not sure what martyrdom has to do with anything. It is possible for a person to be 100% certain of something and 100% factually incorrect at the same time.
The claim that Jesus is the son of God is either true or not - just as you said. However, your level of certainty about the claim is NOT binary. There are more options other than "100% certain Jesus is the son of god" and "100% certain Jesus is not the son of God". For example, maybe someone is 80% certain. My uneasiness has to do with the extremes - those that are 100% certain.
Does your uneasiness extend to the other end of the spectrum as well..those that feel 100% certain Jesus is not the Son of God?
kurt vonnegut said:dermdoc said:
Hard to be a martyr unless you are totally sure in your beliefs. Christ was either insane, a conman, or the Son of God.
If you believe He was/is the Son of God, there is no compromise. No moral relativism.
It is either true or not. Speculating that it "could" be true but so could all other beliefs is incompatible with being a Christian in my opinion.
I'm not sure what martyrdom has to do with anything. It is possible for a person to be 100% certain of something and 100% factually incorrect at the same time.
The claim that Jesus is the son of God is either true or not - just as you said. However, your level of certainty about the claim is NOT binary. There are more options other than "100% certain Jesus is the son of god" and "100% certain Jesus is not the son of God". For example, maybe someone is 80% certain. My uneasiness has to do with the extremes - those that are 100% certain.
There is no moral relativism with the Gospel in my opinion. You either believe Jesus was the Son of God or you do not.
Your statement about whether that belief is wrong or not is actually a totally different subject.
At the end of the day you have to believe something. Even moral relativism which can become a belief system of its own..
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
dermdoc said:kurt vonnegut said:dermdoc said:
Hard to be a martyr unless you are totally sure in your beliefs. Christ was either insane, a conman, or the Son of God.
If you believe He was/is the Son of God, there is no compromise. No moral relativism.
It is either true or not. Speculating that it "could" be true but so could all other beliefs is incompatible with being a Christian in my opinion.
I'm not sure what martyrdom has to do with anything. It is possible for a person to be 100% certain of something and 100% factually incorrect at the same time.
The claim that Jesus is the son of God is either true or not - just as you said. However, your level of certainty about the claim is NOT binary. There are more options other than "100% certain Jesus is the son of god" and "100% certain Jesus is not the son of God". For example, maybe someone is 80% certain. My uneasiness has to do with the extremes - those that are 100% certain.
There is no moral relativism with the Gospel in my opinion. You either believe Jesus was the Son of God or you do not.
Your statement about whether that belief is wrong or not is actually a totally different subject.
At the end of the day you have to believe something. Even moral relativism which can become a belief system of its own..
Imho it's either 100% belief or none..I don't think Jesus is going to say to us when we enter heaven "See…I am real…why were you unsure all these years?"
Rex Racer said:I don't know that I would call disagreement a sin. You and I can disagree about various topics. That's not a sin, in and of itself.kurt Vonnegut said:Rex Racer said:
God actually did create a race of people that were not inherently bound for Hell. It wasn't until they sinned by disobeying him that they became bound for Hell.
Does that mean it is in God's nature to allow for eternal torment for the sin of disagreement?
But, yes, God will allow souls to go to Hell for rejecting the salvation that he offers through his Son. Absolutely.Quote:
For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. - Romans 6:23
With all due respect, that verse says the wages of sin are death, not hell.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
88Warrior said:dermdoc said:kurt vonnegut said:dermdoc said:
Hard to be a martyr unless you are totally sure in your beliefs. Christ was either insane, a conman, or the Son of God.
If you believe He was/is the Son of God, there is no compromise. No moral relativism.
It is either true or not. Speculating that it "could" be true but so could all other beliefs is incompatible with being a Christian in my opinion.
I'm not sure what martyrdom has to do with anything. It is possible for a person to be 100% certain of something and 100% factually incorrect at the same time.
The claim that Jesus is the son of God is either true or not - just as you said. However, your level of certainty about the claim is NOT binary. There are more options other than "100% certain Jesus is the son of god" and "100% certain Jesus is not the son of God". For example, maybe someone is 80% certain. My uneasiness has to do with the extremes - those that are 100% certain.
There is no moral relativism with the Gospel in my opinion. You either believe Jesus was the Son of God or you do not.
Your statement about whether that belief is wrong or not is actually a totally different subject.
At the end of the day you have to believe something. Even moral relativism which can become a belief system of its own..
Imho it's either 100% belief or none..I don't think Jesus is going to say to us when we enter heaven "See…I am real…why were you unsure all these years?"
Yep. I do not understand how you can believe "80%" in Jesus.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
There are other verses, such as Mathew 13:41-42:dermdoc said:Rex Racer said:I don't know that I would call disagreement a sin. You and I can disagree about various topics. That's not a sin, in and of itself.kurt Vonnegut said:Rex Racer said:
God actually did create a race of people that were not inherently bound for Hell. It wasn't until they sinned by disobeying him that they became bound for Hell.
Does that mean it is in God's nature to allow for eternal torment for the sin of disagreement?
But, yes, God will allow souls to go to Hell for rejecting the salvation that he offers through his Son. Absolutely.Quote:
For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. - Romans 6:23
With all due respect, that verse says the wages of sin are death, not hell.
41 The Son of Man will send forth His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all stumbling blocks, and those who commit lawlessness, 42 and they will throw them into the furnace of fire; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
But the death referred to here is eternal separation from God - a spiritual death.
Rex Racer said:And this Earth is going to pass away and be created anew in his time.Aggrad08 said:
Except he does, the earth is in his presence
Point still stands. The argument that god can't tolerate sin in his presence is clearly false
He is patient, but he is not going to tolerate it endlessly.Aggrad08 said:Rex Racer said:And this Earth is going to pass away and be created anew in his time.Aggrad08 said:
Except he does, the earth is in his presence
Point still stands. The argument that god can't tolerate sin in his presence is clearly false
88Warrior said:
Does your uneasiness extend to the other end of the spectrum as well..those that feel 100% certain Jesus is not the Son of God?
Absolutely.
Rex Racer said:He is patient, but he is not going to tolerate it endlessly.Aggrad08 said:Rex Racer said:And this Earth is going to pass away and be created anew in his time.Aggrad08 said:
Except he does, the earth is in his presence
Point still stands. The argument that god can't tolerate sin in his presence is clearly false
Seems like it's completely and arbitrarily up to him completely undermining your argument
kurt vonnegut said:88Warrior said:
Does your uneasiness extend to the other end of the spectrum as well..those that feel 100% certain Jesus is not the Son of God?
Absolutely.
So you're more agnostic than you are atheist?
dermdoc said:Yep. I do not understand how you can believe "80%" in Jesus.88Warrior said:
Imho it's either 100% belief or none..I don't think Jesus is going to say to us when we enter heaven "See…I am real…why were you unsure all these years?"
I'll offer what might be a stupid analogy that I could end up regretting - but it is the first thing that comes to mind.
I imagine an economist who studies hundreds of different economic policies or variations of policies with the purpose of achieving some goal. And after careful consideration decides on one policy as being the most likely to succeed toward that goal. The economist may feel a very high degree of certainty that their chosen policy is best, but its hard to imagine They would take the position that they believe they are unquestionably and absolutely 100% correct and that all other policies are simply wrong. Likely, the economist recognizes the limits to what models, historical data, or other tools can conclude. Similarly, I can image that the economist has a group of different economist whom he respects and has a high opinion of. Should they arrive at different conclusions, it might cause our first economist to consider a possibility that there is merit to their modeling and predictions.
Yeah, the analogy falls a part a bit under some inspection. But, what I'm trying to demonstrate is someone who confidently holds a belief, but acknowledges less than 100% certainty of their correctness due to natural limitations.
In the case of knowledge about the truth of meaning and purpose of existence, the nature of God, the truth of Jesus, that limiting factor is our fallible human brain.
For 100% certainty to be justified, I think I would argue for a requirement that your brain be infallible.
Featured Stories
See All
'Thank yOU?' A&M's outlook unaffected by disappointment at Auburn
by Olin Buchanan
27:51
10h ago
5.3k
12:07
9h ago
10k
Post Game Review: Auburn 43, No. 15 Texas A&M 41 (4OT)
by Kay Naegeli
1:54
1d ago
1.1k
Chace Sims locked in on playoff run while getting ready for Aggieland
by Ryan Brauninger