Let's talk about god

Karaka · Apr 17, 2016

depleted,

I'm don't really care one way or another what you want to do or not, nobody force you to participate. I was having an interesting talk with plenty of people, lots got said, well over 200 posts so far, i asked many questions, many answers were provided, i challenged those answers as they came, more clarifications came, and now i consider i have enough material to study and ponder that i need to take a breather and digest it all... not counting that you born again christians are not the only people I'm having this talk with at the moment, so yes, it is a lot for one person. what's your problem with that?
is your problem that i don't just agree with you?

what's the basic question you are refering to?
my basic question is: does God exists or not?

nobody can tell me I'm not doing my best to find out... I just don't take for granted that the god refered in the question is your christian God and i think i have legitimate reasons to do so. i also think i have legitimate reasons to reject top down knowledge through faith. I'm in process of chalenging those reasons to see if they stand scrutiny, i literally put them down in the arena with you lions to see if you could rip them to shred or not. now i'm taking some time to see what's the results, before keeping them or changing them.

you are a very late comer in this thread and i'd appreciate it if you wouldn't barge in and poor sarcasm on me, thanks

Miri · Apr 18, 2016

Hi Karaka,

If we get into Catholics on this thread it will soon be over 100 pages long. Lol
People have very strong feelings about Catholics on here so I don't want to
go down that path.

Just a very quick few points though, they believe in praying to Mary to ask her to
prayer to Jesus, they worship Mary, they believe in purgatory which is where your
spirit/soul is suppose to go after death as a second chance to make you turn good enough
to go and be with God. They believe when they have the communion, bread and wine
which is symbolic to Christians of Jesus' death on the cross, that the wine actually
becomes holy and turns into blood. None of this is stated in the bible. However some
Catholic Churches at least in the UK, are starting to put aside some of these things
are actually starting to read the bible for themselves rather than just relying on what the
Pope says.

As to the other denominations, I think it's a matter of reading the bible and deciding
where you sit in your own understanding and going to a church where you feel
God is leading you and where you feel you are getting good teaching.

The denominations came about due to the different emphasis on minor different parts of the
theology. But mostly they believe the same when it comes to the major doctrines.

So for example my first church was an evangelical Congregational church, I've also
visited other different types of churches of different denominations and have
various friends who go to other denominations. I have been going to an
evangelical independent Pentecostal church which exercises the gifts of the holy
spirit more so than some of the other denominations. All of the churches I have
been to believe the same thing, it's just that they may do church a little different from
each other due to the different doctrinal emphasis. But I always say to people
that I don't belong to a denomination, I belong to Jesus.

I would always suggest testing any church against the bible when it comes to
teaching. Very few other religions will tell you that, they will always insist their
place is right regardless of what you are taught. To Christians the bible is central
because fallible man can get it wrong.

Very few Muslims, Hindus, Mormon, etc will admit they sometimes get it wrong. They
will all tell you they believe the same thing and are consistently right no matter who is
doing the preaching, speaking etc, as they tend to be a little bit brain washed. But
Christians are encouraged to study the bible for themselves. I would encourage you to
do the same also. That's also probably why the different denominations came about
as instead of being brain washed by people, we are washed in the blood of the lamb.

You will also come across lively discussions on here because we are all learning, studying,
etc. But that's a good thing, we are not taught to believe something just because an
priest, Imman, Pope tells us we are encouraged to read the bible and seek God for
ourselves.

TheAristocat · Apr 18, 2016

Karaka said:

I would like to think that the Nazi personnel in charge of Auschwitz as well as Anne Frank could all live in harmony in eternal paradise with their God. Whenever someone does something I perceive as wrong against me, I wish them a good life, and I wish myself an even better one for enduring what they have done to me.

If those Nazi personnel repented and accepted the Gospel, then I believe God is up to the task of forgiving and saving them. The same goes for Anne Frank. But in the words of Luke 18:16...

God does have rules he adheres to, but he always finds a way to bend them to show mercy to those he sympathizes with. As we can see from Jesus preaching to the spirits of the dead. In the end, I trust his justice will satisfy my sense of logic and probably even my version of morality. There's no need to speak in hypotheticals and what-ifs.

Demi777 · Apr 18, 2016

Well lets turn this around now then. Does God not exist? Is there any prove for that?
Have fun

TheAristocat · Apr 18, 2016

Karaka said:

I grew up in a Baptist family. I thought Messianic Judaism was a better continuation of the foundational truths God gave Mankind and a better explanation for the content found in the New Testament. In other words, the Bible makes more sense to me now. I won't argue those points here, but that is what I believe.

Depleted · Apr 18, 2016

Karaka said:

Actually, yes, that was your question I was referring to. And, to put this in a different vein (on a subject I don't understand, so I can relate) what is happening here is something like this:
You: My kitchen drain is clogged. How do I unclog it?

Responser #1: Is it connected to the pipes from your bathroom?
Responder #2: What type of pipes do you have -- lead, PVC or copper?
Responder #3: Do you have a snake?
(and many more responses, but this is why it got so convoluted.)

You:
1. Does it matter if it's connected to the bathroom pipes? I just looked and it's..., so now what?
2. I've done some research on lead and PVC, but I don't know copper. Mine might be copper, so let me check into that and get back to you.
3. Eeek! There's a snake near my drain? Is it IN my drain? Could that be what's clogging it?

Responder #1: Well, if it's connected to the bathroom pipes it could be the trap at the thingamabob, in which case you use the doohickey, but since you have no clue what doohickeys are, you're lost forever unless you completely understand doohickeys right now, so I'll use the word doohickey enough that then you'll understand what doohickeys are.

Responder #2: Well, if it's copper you can use..., if it's lead, you can use..., if it's PVC you can use... That's how to unclog it. I personally have ____, and I had a clog once, and it was a total mess on the tiles in my bathroom. The way you fix the tiles is...

Responder #3: No not a reptile. It's a tool. You buy them at plumbing supply houses which are hard to find, but if you talk to a plumber he'll tell you they're a great place to go for a Christmas party because...

You: You can't just keep telling me I need a doohickey without explaining in minute details what a doohickey is. Stop talking down to me.

You: I've been checking more into copper pipes, and I found out... BUT, I'm asking people on other sites too, and I discovered that lead pipe has been... And then PVC pipe is....

You: I've done some research on plumbing supply stores. Some only carry a certain manufacturer's supplies, while others... but let me get back to you after I do more research.

Me: How badly is your pipe clogged if you want to go off on side topics this much?

I'm still asking.

Last summer a pipe did clog in my house, and I wanted to unclog it while hubby was still sleeping. I asked -- on this site. And I did get "advice" that simply didn't fit my question. And I got advice on proper etiquette for posting the question. I wanted my pipe unclogged, so I whittled out the who-cares stuff to get to the main question -- how to unclog a drain. Some did try to help me, so I focused on what they said.

Seriously, you're asking all the not-quite-there questions and searching a vast amount of sites for help on one topic, but putting in as much time on the minor stuff? How clogged is your drain? How important is your basic question to you, if you seem to be stuck on where people get sidetracked from it so much?

Deal with the clogged drain/base question, and you'll probably learn enough about the plumbing/God to then tackle the others IF they ever become necessary to figure out later. Figure out "God" and you do not immediately have to go with slavery for rape victims. Figure out God, and you'll figure out that one without making it a minor question to figure out before you get to it.

And don't give me that I'm sarcastic stuff either.
1. I wasn't sarcastic at that moment.
2. You're not above being holier-than-thou already. I've seen the condescending streak you've been trying to hide through this. If you don't like being condescended to, then don't condensend.

I give what I get. If you don't want your basic question answered, then the rest never will be.

So are you serious or is this really just a continuing excuse list? Because some of us can help you with your clog drain/original question. I'm not bothering if you need empirical evidence that other people have had pipes too. (Empirical evidence -- proof that one definition fits every single conceivable sample, so one must first find every conceivable sample before creating the definition.)

As for if God is the one Christians say he is? First you have to figure out "God is." THEN we get down to who he is. You whipped it right off to the next question to prove to me my question is valid, and then try to lay that on my feet as if I disagreed with you.

Funny thing -- keep assuming every answer you get disagrees with you tells me two things:
1. You already determined your answer and aren't open to the very question you demand others answer for you.
2. You never wanted a real answer in the first place, because that's not why you asked.

Are you going to keep assuming, or are we going to get down to answering your first question? Because, honestly? I already knew the second question. Some of the people answering your question do so from asking it ourselves and getting answers already. (And, yes, I suspect some rather talk about Christmas parties at plumbing suppliers. lol)

We'll answer, and keep answering until we do so in full, but only if you want the answer. I've seen hints that you might not want an answer, so I'm really asking -- do you want answers to your original question?

Depleted · Apr 18, 2016

Demi777 said:

It doesn't work. You can't prove a negative, so the positive really is the responsibility of the people who agree with that. (Which plays into the hands of people who come to argue but never want to find an answer. They don't have to do the work of proving. We do.)

Magenta · Apr 18, 2016

Karaka said:

I think this question was answered right at the beginning, in fact I went and looked and it is the very first thing I say in my very first post of this thread, #5... people have knowledge of God that they throw off, and pride is the culprit. You may never understand or accept these answers in your present frame of mind. Plain and simple it is your pride of life that blocks you. You came here asking questions to see if we were right, despite having decided in advance that we are wrong, and that God does not exist. A lot of us used to be there, we thought the same thing, until supernatural encounters with God turned us around. Also, not everyone believes what you may think about hell, which is a translation of four different words in the original languages (Sheol, Hades, Gehenna, and Tartarus). Hell is the grave. Eternal life is granted only to those who place their faith in the propitiatory sacrifice of Jesus Christ on our behalf. All others pass into the second death following the resurrection of all, after which time everything is to be made new and sin and suffering removed from the equation. Again, the original language words used means to utterly destroy. Please ask yourself why anyone should be given more life by the architect of the universe when those same people refuse to acknowledge that it was the architect of the universe who gave them life in the first place.

Depleted · Apr 18, 2016

(Ignore this post. Just bumping this back to the first page, because I think Karaka works fulltime, so might have trouble finding it again when he gets the time to look for it.) Bump.

Karaka · Apr 18, 2016

depleted,

I have read a lot of the appologist literature and amongst appologists, I have found William Lane Craig to be one of the best. His main line of argumentation for the existence of God is 5 fold, cosmological (kalam), fine tuning, morality, resurection and finally personal experience. I am not convinced by the first 3, but I went on to look into the last 2 anyway. This thread is part of a bigger search from my part to look into those 5 arguments. It is relevant to my question of whether there is a God or not to look if there is something into the resurection and personal experiences because people like Craig say so. We're not talking about clogged pipes here, I really don't think your analogy works.

I do have to say, not being convinced by the first three, I find it hard to accept the last two and I'm sure it shows. But I wanted first hand talk with people who believe in it, because just reading about it in books is not enough for me on such a topic as personal experience. And I'm glad I did because a lot got said and I did learn a lot.

So I appologize for talking harshly to you, now let's move on.

Karaka · Apr 18, 2016

On the resurection,

I checked what you said, I read some more, and here is one of the main argument that got my attention last time looked into it. I still think it is valid :

We have to start with two propositions that I think everybody would agree with:

1 – the agreement of all the parts of a story does not prove the story to be true because the parts may agree but the whole could be false

2 – the disagreement of the parts of a story proves the whole cannot be true.

I don't see how one can not agree with this, it is the white swan story all over again.

So are there any black swans in the resurection story, any disagreement?

Where is the story written ?
Matthew 28 , Mark 16 , Luke 24, John 20-21. Also Acts 1:3-12 and a little bit in 1 Cor 15:3-8.
I think we all agree that is it.

So now, can we write a chronological naratives of the events without omitting anything at all from those accounts?

We can't. There are too many discepancies between the accounts, too many black swans.
Now do we still agree with number 2 above?

In that case we can't tell there are only white swans, that the story is just so, we need to compromise by saying some of the accounts are not true to some extent (yes, that means some of the stuff in the bible is incorrect). Which ones? Who got it right and who didn't? Mark ? John ? And if some are wrong, why, how, isn't this supposed to be the perfect word of God? If some accounts are not reliable, how can we tell which one is? This doesn't say the resurection is not true, but it casts doubt. We can't be certain what happened, the whole cannot be true.

I'm sure you guys have an answer for that, I'd like to hear it, because myself I have to conclude certainty is not achieved here.

A little note : still haven't worked my way through the prophecies material but as we see that some parts of the bible is not true, well, how can we tell the rest is, about prophecies for example...

Karaka · Apr 18, 2016

On being certain :

I guess that's what I really would like to talk about now, maybe after I'm done going over what we said so far, I'll start a new thread about this.

On being certain. I've just read a book by a neurologist going with that exact title.
What this man is demonstrating is, and I quote:

«Despite how certainty feels, it is neither a conscious choice nor even a thought process. Certainty and similar states of « knowing what we know » arise out of involuntary brain mechanisms that, like love or anger, function independently of reason. »

Sounds familiar ?
That sounds a lot like the faith you are advocating, down to « function independently of reason ».
Of course the neurologist nowhere suggests that people who are certain necessarily know for sure, his point is to talk about delusional people and how they achieve certainty about weird things that are clearly not true.

I have re read some of our posts, and it really strikes me that the main difference between us is that you think that by having faith and being certain, you actually know for sure what's true, while I find that the knowledge that something is absolutely true can not be attained, despite how certain one might feel about it.

I think the certainty you have blinds you to the reality that we can only achieve levels of probability, like I explained in some previous posts.

You think that I'm a bit foolish for admitting not knowing for sure and that since I don't know for sure, I must be less correct than you.

Well, I'm not sure how we can resolve this disagreement. Any idea?

One thing that comes to my mind is to ask you what would make you doubt. If you can conceive a reason not to be certain, maybe you'll see what I mean.

Is there something you can conceive which would make you change your mind about Jesus?

I'm pretty sure some of you have doubts now and then, many of you admitted as much. What are those doubts and how do you remain certain despite them?

Magenta · Apr 18, 2016

Karaka said:

If you are saying there are no absolutes then your statement is self defeating.

Magenta · Apr 18, 2016

Karaka said:

I can assure you that reason played a role and continues to play a role in why I believe. God invites us, oh yes, in Scripture, we are invited to reason with Him. Of course the atheist/agnostic/what-have-you always wants to pretend there is no rhyme or reason to our belief, so they can perpetuate the myth that they are more reasonable than we are, smarter, more rational, more logical, better informed, better educated, more open minded, yadda yadda yadda, I have gone through this list a number of times during my stay here, I saw it often while talking to non-believers. One thought himself so superior that he would state unequivocally that there was no God and that believers were all unreasonable partly because we had not considered all the evidence, as if there is evidence, haha! What he has is lack of evidence, and an insane desire to dictate to us whom we must listen to and read etc before we can come to our own conclusions, then they will say we cannot think for ourselves and we are brainwashed while they go around parroting all the famous nay sayers LOLOLOL.

Magenta · Apr 18, 2016

Magenta said:

See my post #15. I addressed this already! Even if you are only attempting to say that it cannot
be known whether or not absolutes exist, you are making a self contradictory statement.
And the fact still remains: God as an absolute, absolutely wants you to know Him

TheAristocat · Apr 18, 2016

Karaka said:

I think in most cases that goes without saying. I would like to add one thing to that. Sometimes disparities in the telling of a story can actually support the veracity of the historical account. As an example I feel you are probably aware of, having studied as much as you have: the two different colors that are recorded for the robe placed on Jesus.

The Roman historian Pliny actually talks about these two different colors, and suffice it to say, our ancestors did not define colors in modern terms. A color could be defined by the process that made it or the ingredients used in its making, but it would likely not be defined by the type of light it reflected. The latter definition would require a better understanding of Physics than was available to our ancestors.

When the color of Jesus' robe is mentioned, it is recorded dissimilarly as porphyrous (a purple) and kokkinos (a scarlet). Pliny mentions that both of these colors could look very similar, depending on how long the dying process took for the fabric. But what isn't similar about the colors are the Greek words used to describe each. Why do I bring this up?

What we have are two colors that can look very similar but two words to describe each color that are etymologically very dissimilar. This tells me that the disparity lies not in an "imagined oral retelling of a legend" or the re-invention thereof but rather lies in the disparity between two separate eye-witness accounts. In other words, two people saw the color of the robe and related it in different ways. I believe this is more likely than one person inventing a story about Jesus and then another retelling that same story but substituting a completely dissimilar color word in its place, especially since many scholars believe that the similarities among the Gospels indicate a single original source document. If you have the original source document in front of you and you're copying it (there are word-for-word similarities in phrases and sentences), then why substitute "kokkinos" for "porphyrous"? The blunder would be just about that bad.

But this shouldn't come as any surprise. We aren't talking about the resurrection - only the color of the robe. And all modern historians, barring those in the fringe conspiracy crowd that might discount the Holocaust, would agree that Jesus of Nazareth at least was a historical figure. So why was Jesus crucified? Why did he let himself be crucified? Was he crazy? Did he have an agenda that fit in with him dying a horrible death? I think more and more we start to see that the people mentioned in the New Testament were real and did indeed live by the convictions recorded in the New Testament. And we have to question their motives for sticking to those convictions even to the point of torture and death.

God bless.

robbomango · Apr 18, 2016

Karaka, I'm not sure if you're trying to find out if there's a creator or you're trying to get people here to 2nd guess their faith, either way you asked about doubts.

Well, I have my doubts but they are not so much about God or his Son. Do I have questions about the Bible? Sure, but I have questions about many things.. I find myself a bigger skeptic these days than I was as an unbeliever, more so about the wisdom of the day.

These are my bigger doubts

a. Big Bang everything from essentially nothing cosmology.

b. The theory of evolution, a mindless process producing all living things from a single cell.

c. Abiogenesis, the accumulation of chemicals to create the 1st living cell. Basically self creation.

d. The heart of man(myself included of course)

Those are just a few, I find picking apart the first three ideas make any flaws in the Bible seem non existent...

robbomango · Apr 18, 2016

Also you keep bringing up delusional, probably something to it, unbelievers should have that checked out somewhere...

Depleted · Apr 18, 2016

Karaka said:

Ah, one thing you have to know about me is I'm a 20th century gal stuck in the 21st century. If the person wasn't know in the 20th century, I probably don't know of him/her in the 21st century. W. L. Craig. From my brief research on him, that seems like a good thing on my part. My kind of philosophers wouldn't take it down to those particular five arguments, wouldn't try to publically double-dog-dare Dawkins into a debate, (wouldn't even want to waste time with Dawkins at all lol), and wouldn't be influenced by the people he claims to be influenced by.

So, are you stuck on those five arguments, or want to know if God is? Because, honestly? I don't see where personal experience can take you, if you haven't had the personal experience.

BeyondET · Apr 19, 2016

Karaka said:

pottersclay,

I do not see the box. I am under the impression I am asking legitimate questions.
for me the only way to figure out if something is true is by following proposition 1.

it is the only way that has a build in error avoidance mechanism. i can not conceive accepting something as true without first having made sure i was not in error.

you say : "His footprint is all over history, his handy work can be seen in the night sky. His love is shown at every sunrise. His strength is shown in his mercy and meekness. He is a living breathing all knowing all seeing spirit that one day you and all the rest of the world will meet. My question to you is on what terms.
My friend you are warming your hands at the enemies fire you ask questions but you ask amiss. Can the Lord save you....yes he can. Do you need to be saved,...yes you do..Can he open your eyes to the truth..... yes he can. Does he love you ....yes he does.
Did his son die for you.....yes he did. Man did not create God, God created man."

You are giving me the impression you do not want your view challenged, you do not want to consider that you could be wrong. Do any of you think it is possible that you are mistaken about Jesus ? That is it possible that what you believe about jesus is not true ? If you do not consider this a possiblity then i can't accept what you say because it means that you are close minded and have probably not investigated the other side, you have not double checked your beliefs, you have not tried to understand how cognitive biases can affect you, you have not done anything but accepting Jesus on faith. I am sorry but you have failed so far to convince me, not because i want a logical debate, which i repeatedly said i don't want to get into, but because you have shown me over and over that you do not think. You strike me as intelligent and well meaning people, but i cannot but see that you have sacrificed tought and reason and critical thinking for the benefit of blind faith. You have shown me you are not willing to challenge your views. You have shown me you do not understand or value the power of thinking things through. You have shown me you are prey to countless cognitive biases and logical fallacies. Please, i'm begging you, show me what you believe in is based on more than wishfull thinking. I'm going out of my way to give you the benefit of the doubt.

Yo what up? Your speaking it and that's not from knowing the bible either?

Let's talk about god

Banned

Miri

Guest

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Depleted

Guest

Depleted

Guest

Senior Member

Depleted

Guest

Banned

Banned

Banned

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Junior Member

Junior Member

Depleted

Guest

BeyondET

Guest