What do you believe and why do you believe it?

[calibob]

I think you've hit the nail on the head about Christian motivation. We are mortal and it sucks. I am opposed to death and disease. I think they are horrible. It is our moral duty to extend the quantity of life and improve the quality of life for everyone. We can't individually do it on our own but we can all make a small contribution. Be a good parent. Wake up to what is going on politically.
The point of living is what you make of what you've got. To live in the now moment and try to appreciate life in all it's wonder and majesty. There may be an afterlife but I do not see how the type of afterlife is determined by whether or not I believe in a very old book of myths and folk tales.

The bible is the factual story and history of the relationship between modern man and God from the dawn of history. It is not fiction!

 

[Chester]

It was not an emotional statement. It's an experiential one, having had meaningless debates with presuppositional Christians who basically exploit Munchausen's Trilemma to shut down meaningful discussion so it's impossible for them to be perceived as having lost the debate.

So you are using your past experiences with Christians to suggest that I am trying to shut down meaningful discussion? And implying that I trying to shut down discussion because I have lost the debate? Or am I not understanding you?

 

[Chester]

As I've said countless times on this thread, science doesn't prove with absolute truth statements. It's a methodology that produces consistently reliable, testable, falsifiable results.

So then if science doesn't prove anything with absolute truth statements, then you have no way of knowing what is truth - you can make guesses and assumptions, but you might be wrong - you admit that here . . .

I begin with a totally different premise - that God was in the beginning and He is truth.

 

[Magenta]

I think you've hit the nail on the head about Christian motivation. We are mortal and it sucks. I am opposed to death and disease. I think they are horrible. It is our moral duty to extend the quantity of life and improve the quality of life for everyone. We can't individually do it on our own but we can all make a small contribution. Be a good parent. Wake up to what is going on politically. The point of living is what you make of what you've got. To live in the now moment and try to appreciate life in all it's wonder and majesty.

There may be an afterlife but I do not see how the type of afterlife is determined by whether or not I believe in a very old book of myths and folk tales.

It is believing in God that is the crux of the matter. The book shows us His plan for humanity and the history of His chosen people with Him, which also highlights the human condition being in constant rebellion against Him, which is the plight of every unregenerated man, woman, and child. Life, which you acknowledge as being precious, is a gift from God, though naturally you do not agree with this when you deny the existence of God. Still, God will not be giving MORE life to those who deny Him as being the Giver of life in the first place.

The problem now as I see it is that by being here and continuing to argue against what you are being told, you are simply solidifying your position in standing against faith. I understand it is natural for you to do this, for it is the state everyone is born into, being an enemy of God and hostile toward Him. But it does not serve you on this site, and calling the Bible a book of myths and folk tales is very disrespectful toward the very people you came to this site to seek answers from.

 

[Chester]

It could be argued that basic assumptions around situational ethics are arbitrary. E.g the assumptions that life is preferable to death, pleasure is preferable to pain, health is preferable to disease, freedom is preferable to incarceration, etc. Once we have agreed on those bedrock assumptions, then we can begin to make a scientific assessment of what constitutes mental and physical wellbeing. The secular social sciences have been doing this for years and very often getting good results with proper safeguards. There is an objective optimum wellbeing that can be measured.

When a teenager that we care for does something outrageous, do Christians consult Leviticus about stoning them to death or consult the New Testament about not casting the first stone? Or do they talk to them appropriately, using secular morality, and try to get them to modify their behaviour through reasoned argument and a positive, caring intention and by appealing to their better nature? They usually do the latter because it comes from an understanding about what it is to live in a co-operative society.

It could be argued that "basic assumptions around situational ethics are arbitrary" - Exactly - unless you have some kind of a measuring stick that is truth! (which I have and you don't! ) I will not agree that pleasure is preferable to pain, or that health is preferable to disease, etc. - I absolutely not will agree with your "bedrock assumptions" - How do you come up with them? You are coming up with an "arbitrary optimum wellbeing" that you think can be measured in your own way! How do you know you are right? Maybe Hitlar was right after all and you are wrong?

And what you are saying Christians do to convince their teenagers is another assumption you make which is not how I operate at all with my teenagers.

I think you are being wilfully ignorant here. In theory, professional social scientists could ask the people in their care to rate their happiness and health on a scale of 1 to 10 (1 being miserable and sad, 10 being extremely healthy and happy). If they get lots of low scores that indicates they are miserable and sad and this violates the Wellbeing Standard of maximum wellbeing. So then we would need to decide how to massively increase those scores to make the people feel better. Did Slave Masters from Biblical times ask their slaves about their wellbeing when they were beating them? Perhaps they should have done.

Now what kind of accusation is that - accusing me of being "willfully ignorant"?? !! You are judging my motives -- You may do that if you want, it is OK with me - but I prefer just to deal with facts . . .

Not so. There is an objective truth to be discovered about wellbeing. Instinctively, most of us know this. Good parents know this and try to pass it on their children. What kind of society do you want to live in?

Reality is the way the Universe works – best understood by a scientific method.

Truth is reality accurately described using language.

"Reality is the way the Universe works - best understood by a scientific method"

I challenged these assertions earlier, and you seem to have no substance to support them. Now you are just restating them. I will not agree with statements without supporting evidence.

I disagree that the scientific method is the best way - in fact at a different place you admitted that 100% truth cannot be undisputedly found using the scientific method. And you have never answered how we can use human reasoning as a basis when "human reasoning" came about by random processes.

Now here you switch and say "instinctively most of us know" - so are you are suggesting that the "instinct" of the majority (most) is what determines objective truth? What are "good" parents? How do you know what a "good" parent is? My idea of a "good" parent is obviously very different than your idea? Are you right and I am wrong?

What kind of a society do I want to live in? Not one that uses random reasoning and instincts and the "scientific method" and majority rule as a basis for objective truth! But I understand that our society is headed down that pathway, so it means I am living in such an environment - but I will not adopt such standards because I have different standards of objective truth. If it means suffering, prison, sickness, etc - that is much preferable to a life of pleasure, ease, prosperity, and selfishness!

You surely do not have to adopt my standards of objective truth, and you may say you have your own standards of objective truth, but I have not seen you prove it yet . . .

 

[Chester]

Science does not conclusively prove anything. It does not make absolute truth pronouncements. Although it does demand a peer-reviewed response with evidence if you want to challenge an accepted Theory. So if you think science is all wrong, then you would need to produce your evidence and put it up for scrutiny in the academic arena. Would you be willing to do that?

You clearly say here that science does not "conclusively prove anything" - Exactly! I am glad you admit that!

How did you come up with this "accepted theory"? Does majority mean it is an "accepted theory"? Or does it take 90%? or 99%? However you decide it - you have no way of knowing if it is true or not?

So why should I try to disprove something that I do not know is true or not? And how can I disprove it with more methods that I have no way of knowing if they are true or not?

You may use science, instinct, reason, etc. to come up with what is "truth" - but you have no way to know if you are right or wrong! You do not have to accept the Bible and God as true, but don't think you can prove some moral goodness or truth if you have no foundation to start with!

I admit my basis as a bias - I choose to believe in God as supreme truth.

 

[Chester]

What kind of a society do I want to live in? Not one that uses random reasoning and instincts and the "scientific method" and majority rule as a basis for objective truth! But I understand that our society is headed down that pathway, so it means I am living in such an environment - but I will not adopt such standards because I have different standards of objective truth. If it means suffering, prison, sickness, etc - that is much preferable to a life of pleasure, ease, prosperity, and selfishness!
.

Put it this way - if I could bear suffering, prison, or sickness, and it would bring you (or others) to become a part of the reality of God's Kingdom, I would do it!

 

[PennEd]

Science doesn't attempt to devalue God. The Bible self-devalues when it's claims don't tally with reality. You think complexity arises from a Sky Hook, whereas complexity actually arises from self-elevating Cranes. Evolution has tonnes of self-corroborating evidence, painstakingly put together by experts. If you want to prove evolution wrong, you could do it with a single discovery - if you find the fossil of a T.Rex on the same geological layer as a neanderthal. So if I were you, I'd start digging!

Science itself has already proven evolution wrong. It's called DNA. It is comprised of a DIGITAl error correcting code that transmits information. The issue isn't the Universe's material (though it is) It is INFORMATION.

The information in the code MUST come from a programmer, or designer, or..... GOD!!

That's why no truly honest secular scientist defends evolution any longer. They KNOW it's fake. Now they still reject God, and come up with even MORE ridiculous theories, but the point is they know evolution is dead.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Science itself has already proven evolution wrong. It's called DNA. It is comprised of a DIGITAl error correcting code that transmits information. The issue isn't the Universe's material (though it is) It is INFORMATION.

The information in the code MUST come from a programmer, or designer, or..... GOD!!

That's why no truly honest secular scientist defends evolution any longer. They KNOW it's fake. Now they still reject God, and come up with even MORE ridiculous theories, but the point is they know evolution is dead.

There is a debate you can find on youtube, it is a debate between a well known atheist scientist, and a christian scientist.

The athiest actually states he agrees there must be a creator. But his excuse is that some advanced lifeform came to earth, and creates human life..

 

[calibob]

@Spectrox : Jesus is the word of God made into flesh and blood and scoffing the word of God is blasphemy against the Lord. I therefore refuse to enable any attempts to mock his word by engaging in this lubricous deception. You obviously are making no attempt to have faith. Rather you are attempting to sew doubt among the faithful. May God have mercy on you, I quit.

 

[Jimbone]

You too, Jimbone. I appreciate your efforts but remain unconvinced. I would have to unlearn everything I've learnt about The Bible and Science.

But it's not complicated really. If "in reality" there is no God, if everything in existence "in reality" is a purposeless cosmic accident, then it has to logically follow that no matter what purpose the biological soup that is our brains puts on itself "in reality" means nothing.

Okay when take this case, and we zoom into "us now", then no matter what fancy things or systems we have developed to do so, the fact remains that the only logical purpose of life, if any, is to multiply its own kind. From a real life universal perspective, looking at all existence in a Godless universe, lets say all life on earth was snuffed out overnight by a comet, nothing changes. Right? All our "right and wrong", and we "should" care about others because we just kind of "feel" that's best, all is gone overnight, and ultimately means nothing right? To me this is just the cold hard, hopeless, and pointless truth if there is no God. To claim otherwise is baseless and rooted in nothing more than subjective opinion. I of course never even thought about this kind of thing before He saved me and I've been amazed how many times since being born again, that is my dead spirit being given life through the forgiveness provided in the saving blood of our God and King, Jesus and reconciled to His Spirit for ever (in real life, just like He's calling you now), that I've said "how did I never see that", but the more He grows me, the closer I am drawn into Him, the more I know that I didn't see it before because our fleshly eyes are truly blind to the things of the Spirit. That is the one thing I wish I could get you to understand, but it is something we are incapable of understanding in the flesh. that is why He transforms us to proclaim the truth and uses that truth .

I truly appreciate the conversation and don't want to keep pushing until the point it's counter productive, it's just worth deep thought. If there is no God there can be no ultimate purpose. Again have a great day.

 

[garee]

I suppose if I believed I would survive death and have a great eternal life I would feel very secure and joyful, But it may be an illusion. You consider yourself a true believer in Christ? Have you ever done the following? If not why not?

Mark 16:17-19 Revised Standard Version (RSV)
17 And these signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18 they will pick up serpents, and if they drink any deadly thing, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover.”

It cannot be a law of faith as it is written and a illusion. Why juggle between the two seeing no man can serve two masters. ?

Its not something we do those metaphors in that parable follow after one hearing the gospel and believing God accompany every believer. The spiritual meaning is hid in that parable . . . the understanding given to those who do believe as it is written . That is a description for one event, By His name or authority He that performs the work in the believer to both will and do His good pleasure. .. There is no law of unbelief as the philosophies of men. You won't find God under a microscope. We walk by faith (believing as it is written) The poison of serpents as philosophies of men as oral traditions will not harm us. . in our new born again tongue we can proclaim the gospel, it can cast out demeons as lying spirits etc.

 

[calibob]

@Spectrox : Jesus is the word of God made into flesh and blood and scoffing the word of God is blasphemy against the Lord. I therefore refuse to enable any attempts to mock his word by engaging in this lubricous deception. You obviously are making no attempt to have faith. Rather you are attempting to sew doubt among the faithful. May God have mercy on you, I quit.

OOooops typo ludicrous

 

[TLC209]

I was speaking figuratively not literally about being drunk. I thought that was obvious?



God supports the slavery and created the rules. So Jews being punished in the holocaust is justice for them beating slaves in the OT? This is outrageous and morally bankrupt.



So you consider yourself a true believer? Have you ever done any of the following? If not, why not?

Mark 16:17-19 Revised Standard Version (RSV)
17 And these signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18 they will pick up serpents, and if they drink any deadly thing, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover.”



You really are coming across as a thoroughly nasty individual in this post. I just hope that wherever you are, you are supervised. Closely.

No im not a nasty individual. But i have to share with you what the Bible says about those who reject Christ. Dont get mad at the messenger.

As a believer yes I have casted out demons. And Ive taken a bunch of pills a few times trying to end my life and nothing happened. I also sat in a car in the garage while the car was running and nothing happened to me.

But I will end our conversation. I can see you are offended. Have a good day.

 

[Spectrox]

Christianity is not a religion. It’s an historical account of Jesus Christ and manuscript of His teachings. Religion is dogma; Christianity is Truth.

Now we get the "Christianity is not a religion" special-pleading canard.

From a dictionary:

RELIGION
noun

1. the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
   "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
   synonyms:faith, belief, divinity, worship, creed, teaching, doctrine, theology; More
   
   
   
   • a particular system of faith and worship.
     plural noun: religions
     "the world's great religions"

 

[Spectrox]

Most Catholics do not see themselves as Christian; they can see themselves as Catholic. They see Catholicism as the umbrella, not Christianity as the umbrella.

Do you consider Catholics to be Christians? Are they saved?

 

[Spectrox]

So you are using your past experiences with Christians to suggest that I am trying to shut down meaningful discussion? And implying that I trying to shut down discussion because I have lost the debate? Or am I not understanding you?

I was just"nipping it in the bud" before we went down that philosophical cul-de-sac. Did you have something else in mind?

 

[Spectrox]

So then if science doesn't prove anything with absolute truth statements, then you have no way of knowing what is truth - you can make guesses and assumptions, but you might be wrong - you admit that here . . .

I begin with a totally different premise - that God was in the beginning and He is truth.

I don't think you really understand the scientific method, which I'm not blaming you for. However, the evidence for how powerful the scientific method is, is all around us.
Do you use IT technology such as a computer or mobile phone (I'm guessing yes!)?
Do you wear clothes made from synthetic fibres?
Do you take medicines or have you ever had surgery?
Have you flown in an aircraft?
Have you had an X-ray or ultrasound scan?
Do you use batteries?
Do you drive a car?
Do you watch the television?

To take advantage of any of these things and then dismiss science is the ultimate hypocrisy.

 

[Spectrox]

It cannot be a law of faith as it is written and a illusion. Why juggle between the two seeing no man can serve two masters. ?

Its not something we do those metaphors in that parable follow after one hearing the gospel and believing God accompany every believer. The spiritual meaning is hid in that parable . . . the understanding given to those who do believe as it is written . That is a description for one event, By His name or authority He that performs the work in the believer to both will and do His good pleasure. .. There is no law of unbelief as the philosophies of men. You won't find God under a microscope. We walk by faith (believing as it is written) The poison of serpents as philosophies of men as oral traditions will not harm us. . in our new born again tongue we can proclaim the gospel, it can cast out demeons as lying spirits etc.

But faith in what and for what reason? There are lots of alternative faiths out there. How do you determine which, if any, is more likely to be correct?

 

[Spectrox]

You clearly say here that science does not "conclusively prove anything" - Exactly! I am glad you admit that!

How did you come up with this "accepted theory"? Does majority mean it is an "accepted theory"? Or does it take 90%? or 99%? However you decide it - you have no way of knowing if it is true or not?

So why should I try to disprove something that I do not know is true or not? And how can I disprove it with more methods that I have no way of knowing if they are true or not?

You may use science, instinct, reason, etc. to come up with what is "truth" - but you have no way to know if you are right or wrong! You do not have to accept the Bible and God as true, but don't think you can prove some moral goodness or truth if you have no foundation to start with!

I admit my basis as a bias - I choose to believe in God as supreme truth.

To paraphrase Bertrand Russell, the main problem with this world is that intelligent, thoughtful people are full of doubt whereas the willfully ignorant are cocksure.