Thread: Is it possible for us as men to have a discussion on God

Matt, it's faulted logic to say that every person who came into contact with Jesus is in the bible, and that I have thus dismissed everyone who would be a contemporary.

There are no references of him from contemporary persons that didn't want to further the religion, there's nothing wrong with finding inconsistency there.

And fwiw, I'm not trying to disprove his existance, just show how many inconsistencies there are, and in so doing outline my point of view on this thread: Religions have historically been of near identical structure, are not grounded in solid facts, and are often touted as being "the only true religion" thus excluding all other forms of thought, and are essentially passed on by familial convention, not by way of being presented to the true "chosen people"; so how can anyone claim that their's is superior to the others, as the various religious citizens of the world stand in opposing corners and shout the same ideas back and forth.

There has yet to be a logical argument in it's favor, so I opt out.

Originally Posted by Russel Baldridge

I guess it boils down to "why do you have faith?".

Yes, it does! I first believed in God because when I decided to admit the possibility of his existence, he made himself known to me and I recognized him as God. And since then God has proven himself to me time and time again.

And I first decided to admit the possibility of God because I understood there was no way I could be convinced that he didn't exist. Contrary to what my wife tells me, I don't know everything! Admitting the possibility that God exists seemed to have given him whatever it was he was looking for in my life in order to break through my own misgivings and doubts I had about him. And he does it with me on a heart to heart basis. Seeing a miracle can't prove to me that God exists although it does offer me something natural to agree with. It's that inner recognition that defies reason for someone else. How can I expect you to believe in God based on God having proved himself to me? But I believe that God wants to prove himself to you too. Iif you are convinced it's him, isn't that a reason to believe in him?

They say seeing is believing, but I think that really deciding to be convinced is believing. If you rely on only the natural to prove the supernatural, you are at a disadvantage. But if you are willing to at least entertain that the natural is an extension of the supernatural, then you open up your own reasoning capacities. I say that reason is more than electrical impulses in my brain that are only functions of chemical reactions and physical stimuli. It goes beyond that. It's what makes me more than the animals or the non-living world around me.

What is irrational to me could be completely rational to you and vice versa. Faith doesn't make anyone better than someone else, it is just a representation what a person has been convinced of themselves. I could be the consummate cynic and never believe anything, even my own cynicism. Is that rational? Who decides the upper or lower bounds on what is rational? Does there need to be a general consensus or is it possible for me to reason and learn from within without the guidance of those who would define reason as never going beyond natural decisions based on natural observations? For me to deny God's existence after he has shown and proved himself to me would be irrationality at its finest.

PS Oh, I guess your question was why do you have faith [in Christianity]? Oh well. I think that you've got to start with faith in God before you can consider faith in Christianity anyway

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

Yes, it does! I first believed in God because when I decided to admit the possibility of his existence, he made himself known to me and I recognized him as God. And since then God has proven himself to me time and time again.

I see we are back into the realm of Special Revelation. (which is fine, it's abig part of faith for many people)

two questions:

1. do you think that faith is reasonable if there has been no Special Revelation? I suppose Thomas is a relevant figure here.
2. as the the second half of the above quote, do you objectively think that the "proving" you have seen is there because you are looking for it, and could possibly be attributed to other things?

I'm not trying to be a dick about it, I'm actually curious here. The issues of Special Revelation is incredible relevant to our discussion, and has been something that I've been examining for years. It is my current theory that the overwhelming majority of genuine religious sentiment (as opposed to people just following the herd) is due to either primary or secondary Special Revelation, moreso than actual dogmatic adherence. Interested in your thoughts on this.

Originally Posted by jockeys

I see we are back into the realm of Special Revelation. (which is fine, it's abig part of faith for many people)

Is it Special? Like I said, "How can I expect you to believe in God based on God having proved himself to me? But I believe that God wants to prove himself to you too."

Originally Posted by jockeys

two questions:

1. do you think that faith is reasonable if there has been no Special Revelation? I suppose Thomas is a relevant figure here.

No, I don't think that you having faith is reasonable if God hasn't shown himself to you.

Originally Posted by jockeys

2. as the the second half of the above quote, do you objectively think that the "proving" you have seen is there because you are looking for it, and could possibly be attributed to other things?

Of course not. Like I said, I've been convinced. Does my belief in God mean I can't still be objective? Others would say I am biased against reality but I would say I am biased toward the truth. If I look for proof and I find it, then I have to admit that my predisposition toward looking for it may skew an otherwise unbiased conclusion, but how is that difference than the way anything else is proven or tested. The 3rd step (as I was taught anyway) of the scientific method is to make a hypothesis that attempts to explain an answer to a question you had based on your findings related to the question. That's exactly what I did. Is God real? Well, if I am not going to look for him or for evidence for him then how can I objectively make that determination?

What I have seen as proof absolutely could be contested (irrationally I would say) by others. That's why you have to be convinced in your own heart and mind. Doesn't the Bible tell stories of people standing and watching Jesus work miracles and yet they still would not believe in him? So I don't think it is so strange to think that proof one way or the other could be staring you or I in the face and if we do not want to believe it regardless of the reasoning, then we will not believe it. There's always the opportunity for anyone to not be convinced regardless of what is being proven and regardless of how strong the proof is whether natural or supernatural

Originally Posted by jockeys

I'm not trying to be a dick about it, I'm actually curious here. The issues of Special Revelation is incredible relevant to our discussion, and has been something that I've been examining for years. It is my current theory that the overwhelming majority of genuine religious sentiment (as opposed to people just following the herd) is due to either primary or secondary Special Revelation, moreso than actual dogmatic adherence. Interested in your thoughts on this.

I don't know what Special Revelation is I guess. Special implies that it can't be common. I agree with the Bible when it says that God wants everyone to know him. I believe that because that's how God has shown himself to me. I'm nothing special or out of the ordinary. Any superiority tendency I have is just a quirk of personality, not a divine gift that I am specially divinely blessed with

Originally Posted by Russel Baldridge

Matt, it's faulted logic to say that every person who came into contact with Jesus is in the bible, and that I have thus dismissed everyone who would be a contemporary.

There are no references of him from contemporary persons that didn't want to further the religion, there's nothing wrong with finding inconsistency there.

And fwiw, I'm not trying to disprove his existance, just show how many inconsistencies there are, and in so doing outline my point of view on this thread: Religions have historically been of near identical structure, are not grounded in solid facts, and are often touted as being "the only true religion" thus excluding all other forms of thought, and are essentially passed on by familial convention, not by way of being presented to the true "chosen people"; so how can anyone claim that their's is superior to the others, as the various religious citizens of the world stand in opposing corners and shout the same ideas back and forth.

There has yet to be a logical argument in it's favor, so I opt out.

It is also faulted logic to, out of prejudice against Christianity, discount the written accounts of Jesus' life because they are the first 4 books of the new testament. Prove to me that the events documented in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John did not take place.

Matt

Edit: Also, I note that you admit that Christ lived and died, so is it that you have no issue admitting that Jesus was at least a person who lived in antiquity? My statements were to try and dispell the prevailing myth that Jesus was a fictional character.
Matt

Show me the logical fault; there are inconsistencies, plain and simple. Out of all of the people in existence around Jesus, not one decided to write even the most vague first hand account of him that wasn't in his favor and suited to be used as scripture.

There's no need to be prejudiced for or against something to provide legitimate criticisms of it's inconsistencies. I can criticize the hobby of shaving with a straight razor too, (it's silly to buy more stones than razors that need to be honed, but I do it anyway) am I biased against it? Of course not.

And since we're talking logic, the burden is on the positor to provide proof of an occurrence, not on the skeptic.

One can't simply say "until you can prove that lawn gnomes with nuclear missiles and magical talking kneecaps don't exist, they do". It is the person who suggests the gnomes' existence that must prove it.

I didn't admit that he lived and died, if you look I said "lived" in quotes in order to say that if he lived, his life would have been during X years.

Matt not sure why but you always want to argue about Christianity, "God" belongs to many religions, you choose to subscribe to a particular sect, why do you disbelieve all others? The real only difference is that I also choose to disbelieve yours as well.

I also have never actually disputed the possible life of Jesus, so I really don't feel the need to disprove his existence. I choose not surrender my freewill, free thought and reasoning to any church. Nor do I try to enforce my beliefs or disbelieves on others. If you choose to worship cabbage patch kids and tickle me Elmos, that is fine with me, my problem is when people of religion try to enforce there religion through laws and public policy on others.


Just because Jesus lived, does not require one to believe the accounts that are contained in the Bible.

Please read the above statements carefully, they are general statements on "religion" not personal attacks upon you or your particular religion.

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

I don't know what Special Revelation is I guess. Special implies that it can't be common. I agree with the Bible when it says that God wants everyone to know him. I believe that because that's how God has shown himself to me. I'm nothing special or out of the ordinary. Any superiority tendency I have is just a quirk of personality, not a divine gift that I am specially divinely blessed with

It is a theological term that was bandied about rather freely at the Christian university I attended.
Special revelation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
wikipedia's explanation is actually very good. The way I am using the term, I am not distinguishing it from Direct Revelation, although some people do make a distinction.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_Revelation

Methodists and Southern Baptists generally do not distinguish between Special and Direct Revelation, they are both lumped together as "not General Revelation."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_revelation

Accordingly, when I say Special Revelation, I mean Direct as well. sorry for not being clear.

Originally Posted by jockeys

Accordingly, when I say Special Revelation, I mean Direct as well. sorry for not being clear.

I have never heard of those terms before today! I don't think I want to know! lol





Ok I skimmed the links you provided. I don't think there's any specific test that needs to be passed in order for faith to be reasonable other than your own convincing (assuming you have the capacity to be reasonable at all)

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

I have never heard of those terms before today! I don't think I want to know! lol

clearly, you didn't go to Seminary, shame on you