'not really a Christian'

[fccool]

I'll be glad to be perhaps the one to open your eyes to other possibilities, if you in exchange would attempt some level of humility about what you believe.

Quote:

Christ was born of a Virgin (unless you want to take the common Rabbinical argument against this that is circulating the internet). How did Christ construct that? ... His place of Birth.

First of all, I'd like to mention that Christian religion is not the only religion that lays claim on virgin birth. Just go over the following myths that were really believed and followed in the antiquity... yet you dismiss the possibility of:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miraculous_births

The obvious possibility would be that Marry in fear of being stoned to death for her extra-marital affairs would use the virgin birth as a way to save both herself and the baby. Likewise, Joseph decided to go with the same story... then the self-fulfillment factor of the prophecy took on that angle as time went on. I'm not saying this was the case, yet if you don't see the alternative possibilities, then you are not really being honest with yourself... and therefore should have no problem with believing all of the other virgin births claims in history.

Likewise, his place of birth can be an example of self-fulfilling prophecy. If you know the place of the expected birth of the savior, and you believe that you your child is one... then why wouldn't the place be the Bethlehem? Likewise, the scripture states that Christ at times purposefully travels to places so that prophecies would be fulfilled.

Likewise, you have to be aware of certain problematic inconsistencies and illogical actions on behalf of certain people when you read the account of birth, which could not be witnessed by the writers directly... it had to come either from oral tradition, or from direct revelation.

http://agnosticreview.com/birth.htm

Quote:

Christ was crucified on a certain day, at a certain time, in a certain year. How did Christ construct that?

Once again, a person who is pregnant at certain time could see it fitting to claim that the event is the fulfillment. People can count, you know .

There was never a direct reference to a crucifixion in prophecy. There were plenty of references to a birth of the king and establishment of the kingdom. Plenty of references of the scapegoat who will suffer for the sake of the people... yet I'd like to point out that Jews did not believe that person to be Christ. They knew about the prophecy. If you don't understand what Jews believed, the you simply dismiss the very basic alternative reality on this issue while claiming the victory of your view... so, please... read up.

http://www.whatjewsbelieve.org/explanation03.html

Here's a quote that strikes me familiar:

But the changes that Christianity claims were made by Jesus are not perceivable at all. They must be accepted on faith, and faith alone.

Exactly the claim that Christians are making . There are not substantial and perceived changes that would have ample historical record outside of Biblical accounts that were apparently copied and modified from the Book of Mark.

Quote:

The details of the crucifixion were explicitly stated in Isaiah and the Psalms. How did Christ construct that?

We've had a lady in church giving a testimony about her life and Christianity. She told the church that she was married to a homosexual, and that he was abusing her, and that she ended up starving on the street with her children.

Later on, I ended up talking to her mother about the hard life that her daughter went through and how amazing it was... only to find out that the account was nothing short of "Ann of Green gables" type of exaggeration.

To make an alternative point about filling the details in prophecy...

He did not have to. The details could be filled in by the authors, when they've written their recollection and could have exaggerated, just like many of modern Christians do with their testimonies... 20-30-40 years down the road.

Again, these are not to show you that your view is incorrect. These are to show you that it's impossible to know that your view is correct based on lack of substantial evidence that does not stem from "interest groups".

A perfect example of the "interest group" testimony would be recent attack on humanitarian flotilla by Israel. Israel has one account of the events, the flotilla occupants had a totally different one. Each one seeks to justify their actions, thus the evidence is slanted.

No need for illogical arguments by pointing to "the facts" to make people believe. Christian faith is based on PROMISE not facts. And faith in that promise is attributed to us as righteousness, because IT'S DIFFICULT. For any logical person, it's very difficult to believe the claims of the Bible, and rightly so. Hence the idea that little children are in much better position in regards to it. Children's mind is not developed enough to act logically, and demand strict evidence.

What you are trying to do is to present an argument from "facts" basis, when there is no such argument. If faith was based on facts, then why call it faith? Is it by faith do you believe that sky is blue? Is it based on faith do you believe that your donuts will be filled with cream ?

NO

Faith is difficult. It requires you to push aside certain evidence, and believe in an alternative explanation that's perhaps at times is less logical.

So, stop trying to prove to people who demand facts that there are some... you'll just end up with this:

http://www.snopes.com/religion/lostday.asp

Ironically, I have to confront pastors about such stories quite often.

As Polonius would say : "To thine own self be true"

[Twilight]

After perusing your conversation with Bravus, I'd say you've got room to talk too...

Your audacious declaration sets you up for a lot of these type of posts.....Get down to brass tacks there Twighlight, ol' buddy and apply yourself....

Answer Bravus' question, or admit you don't know nor know where to find the answer in the bible....

I have answered all of Bravus' questions as far as I am aware...

I am still waiting to hear how he knows that gravity did not exist in the "singularity (which I think he believes is God)...

I am still waiting to hear how he knows that the galaxies did not just come into existance fully formed...

As the Hubble telescope indicated...

[Twilight]

I'll be glad to be perhaps the one to open your eyes to other possibilities, if you in exchange would attempt some level of humility about what you believe.

Quote:

Christ was born of a Virgin (unless you want to take the common Rabbinical argument against this that is circulating the internet). How did Christ construct that? ... His place of Birth.

First of all, I'd like to mention that Christian religion is not the only religion that lays claim on virgin birth. Just go over the following myths that were really believed and followed in the antiquity... yet you dismiss the possibility of:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miraculous_births

The obvious possibility would be that Marry in fear of being stoned to death for her extra-marital affairs would use the virgin birth as a way to save both herself and the baby. Likewise, Joseph decided to go with the same story... then the self-fulfillment factor of the prophecy took on that angle as time went on. I'm not saying this was the case, yet if you don't see the alternative possibilities, then you are not really being honest with yourself... and therefore should have no problem with believing all of the other virgin births claims in history.

Are you denying the Virgin birth fccool?

I know very little about you.

Are you a member of the SDA church?

Where do you stand on "evolutionary theory".

I am not asking to be rude, but I am finding your arguments a little left field...?

[fccool]

What does it matter to you . It constantly amazes me that need to know the "affiliation" of the person in order to properly address their claims. If you can't address my independent stream of thought right now, what difference will it make if I provide you with "identity by affiliation". I will give you only more reasons to demonize and engage in groupthink.

The followers of Christ should have no classification if you fallow Biblical model of belief. Paul did not want to create a separate sect that that of other disciples. It was pretty obvious that he desired forsaking petty arguments for the sake of love and unity, hence we have 1st Corinthians 13. So, I will not answer about my "affiliation" or "membership" because in terms of truth it will make no difference.

And that's the problem with your mentality. You don't see people as those who pose legitimate questions. You see them as deniers and heretics... and then you have a ready prepared label to put on them to justify your inability to properly address the confrontation, instead of humbling yourself and working through these with sense of respect and honesty.

I can't argue with the circular mentalities of:

1) I'm correct because I belong to the group that's correct

2) I'm correct because I know I'm correct

3) I'm correct because the Bible says so

4) Everyone who does not think so should be labeled "leftist", and feared and ostracized because they are dangerous and undermine our faith.

My attempt is to strengthen faith through honestly recognizing our basic epistemological limitations.

Again, you ignore my fundamental question... why would faith be called faith if it rests on evidence? Faith is a belief in something in which there's no firm proof.

“Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen”

What does that mean to you, when we asked to present the act of faith as the evidence itself? It may be confusing to you, because you rest you existence in a reality that systematic theology is painting. If that systematic theology falls apart, then you apparently have no other reason to exist. If Sabbath is not the mark of the Beast, then it would invalidate the entire Bible for you (my educated guess, based on observation of you arguments). Furthermore, if Bible is debunked as not true and fabricated, the you have no other reason to believe in God. That's the implications that you are painting.

Such mentality will ironically deny God himself if He comes down and says something contrary what people derive from their own systematic view of Him. They would say... "You said that, so it can't be... you are not really God, because God would not say that". That's exactly what Biblical narrative pointed out about Jewish belief about Christ. He could have not been Christ, because we already have it all worked out... our system and expectations. The alternatives are impossible. Case closed. If you propose alternatives, then you are not really "true Jew" and you don't believe in "real God".

And that's the position that I find any type of fundamentalism today. If needed, they will deny God himself to make sure that they are correct. If God somehow would reveal that Biblical narrative was falsified in His name, would you believe Him, given the constraints of your systematic theology?

Please ask yourself this question honestly.

[cardw]

Originally Posted By: cardw

No matter what I present you won't call it real evidence. Sidestep one

I give up Cardw.

You obviously have no intention of backing up your spurious claims.

And you have no intention of being accountable to any rules of logic.

You haven't demonstrated from the evidence that I presented that my claims are spurious. You aren't even able to correctly identify my claims, let alone refute them. You have provided absolutely NO evidence at all.

If you aren't willing to understand the conversation, there is no conversation.

[Twilight]

What does it matter to you . It constantly amazes me that need to know the "affiliation" of the person in order to properly address their claims. If you can't address my independent stream of thought right now, what difference will it make if I provide you with "identity by affiliation". I will give you only more reasons to demonize and engage in groupthink.

It is not an unreasonable thing to do, to ask a question of the background of someone you are talking to, but know very little about...

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Twilight

You obviously have no intention of backing up your spurious claims.

And you have no intention of being accountable to any rules of logic.

You haven't demonstrated from the evidence that I presented that my claims are spurious. You aren't even able to correctly identify my claims, let alone refute them. You have provided absolutely NO evidence at all.

If you aren't willing to understand the conversation, there is no conversation.

That is incorrect.

I asked you for a specific point that we could address.

You refused to do that, citing my inability to communicate or some such...

Then Bravus, to his credit did raise a specific instance, specifically the Prophecy of Christ relating to Jerusalem.

Which I responded to, and he has not replied to yet.

Your claims are not true.

Read back through the thread, if you are in doubt.

You have not cited one specific example once.

[fccool]

Originally Posted By: fccool

What does it matter to you . It constantly amazes me that need to know the "affiliation" of the person in order to properly address their claims. If you can't address my independent stream of thought right now, what difference will it make if I provide you with "identity by affiliation". I will give you only more reasons to demonize and engage in groupthink.

It is not an unreasonable thing to do, to ask a question of the background of someone you are talking to, but know very little about...

Well, it seems like you'd rather find the answers to my logic from my background, rather than attempt to actually address some of the points I'm making? :)

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Twilight

It is not an unreasonable thing to do, to ask a question of the background of someone you are talking to, but know very little about...

Well, it seems like you'd rather find the answers to my logic from my background, rather than attempt to actually address some of the points I'm making?

Actually, it is more a case that your answers were illogical, as you denied the very method Christ used and tried to implicate Christ as deliberately seeking to fulfill prophecy.

To which I pointed out the impossibility.

Due to this illogical argument, I wanted to know your background to see which bias you are drawing from...

It would help me understand you better.

[Bravus]

Just a note to say I'm very much enjoying your thoughtful and philosophical approach, fccool.

And something that occurred to me in reaction to the whole thread, including my own contributions:

"If an answer is given but not comprehended, has an answer been given at all?"

[Twilight]

Just a note to say I'm very much enjoying your thoughtful and philosophical approach, fccool.

And something that occurred to me in reaction to the whole thread, including my own contributions:

"If an answer is given but not comprehended, has an answer been given at all?"

You still haven't answered my question Bravus...

How do you know that the galaxies were not formed fully and instantly?

[Bravus]

I don't know for a certainty, but all the evidence (which I pointed you to but you chose not to read) points to a developing universe over a longer period.

You have the story about the Hubble wrong too: the Big Bang model does not predict a 'centre' to the universe at which galaxies are still forming. Again, refuting a prediction a theory doesn't make is not refuting the theory.

[Bravus]

In turn, perhaps you will answer my question: where in the Genesis account does it say the galaxies were all created instantly in pretty much their current form?

[cardw]

Originally Posted By: cardw

If you aren't willing to understand the conversation, there is no conversation.

That is incorrect.

I asked you for a specific point that we could address.

You refused to do that, citing my inability to communicate or some such...

Then Bravus, to his credit did raise a specific instance, specifically the Prophecy of Christ relating to Jerusalem.

Which I responded to, and he has not replied to yet.

The reason he and I aren't responding is because you use spurious reasoning and you don't appear to comprehend the answers we give.

You just announce that something is logical and true and provide absolutely no evidence for your claims. I'm not the only one saying this.

Bravus to his credit gave up on trying to explain this to you a while ago. I have to admit that I don't know how to communicate with you.

[fccool]

[fccool]

Basically this is what I see religion trying to do. It seems the human race finds it profitable to gather together and assert a particular description of god. What is so bizarre is that humans feel the need to kill over this illusion of knowledge. Are we so afraid that we can't withstand even the simplest awareness of our limitations?

I hope we evolve past this need to have no mystery or whatever drives us to kill over stuff we make up in our own minds.

I would partially agree with you as much as opposing unsupported violence goes. The basic root of violence is in fact ignorance of who we are, and that all of us are essentially multiple unique versions of the same being... not in the "new age" sense of it, but rather in existential sense.

The problem of violence is not as much behind the individualism in violence... because individual potential of retribution can in fact serve as a true deterrent. Where we get in trouble is by essentially following authoritarians, be it secular or religious ones. That's where we choose to abnegate our personal preferences for the sake of the dubious "greater societal good".

You've made a point before that you don't find much secular examples of authoritarianism, and forgive me for being caught up in other subject, and sort of ignoring this idea, which perhaps historically can be justified on account of "Holy" Roman Empire, the Divine Blood idea, and etc.

Yet, in recent history, you'd think that we'd wise up and stop this nonsense of giving one particular group the sole authority to use violence for preventative purposes (i.e. the doctrine of preemptive war)... thus for the "progress". In reality, it's the same historical ideology using slightly different ideals and name.

I grew up in Soviet Ukraine, so I know what justifiable deed were done in the name of the progress without religious thought. Of course, I know better than blaming atheism and ascribing atheism as the sole cause for these kinds of ideas. Yet, I'm sort of asking the same questions that you do...

Are we so afraid that we can't withstand even the simplest awareness of our limitations?

If you have not seen Guy Richie's "Revolver", then pick it up once you have a chance. He makes some very interesting points in the film that sort of drive the narrative about belief, fear, pride, and understanding of self. Critics did not really received the film well, because they did not understand its premise.

In the film, he basically creates a metaphorical heist film to depict our internal struggle with certain aspects of our self. What struck me the most true, is what he points out about our personalities using several quotes:

First rule of business, protect your investment. --Etiquette of the Banker; 1775

The truth is that we invest enormous amount of time, money, and effort in our "ego" so to speak... or our perceived idea of reality as it relates to our self. So, once we make this enormous investment of our life in a certain belief system, we protect the investment, even if it means killing other people for some individuals or groups of individuals.

He then proceeds to make other points through quotes:

There is no avoiding war, it can only be postponed to the advantage of your enemy. --Niccolo Machiavelli; 1502

and:

The greatest enemy will hide in the last place you would ever look. --Julius Cesar; 75 BC

Forgive me for spoilers , but essentially your greatest enemy is you... in a sense of self-seeking "ego" that protects its investment at any cost possible.

Thus, because of all of that investment in a certain worldview is made, it becomes infinitely difficult for one to detach oneself from that worldview and open up to other possibilities... thus you see many individuals go down with their beliefs in the same manner that companies like GM go down due to careless over-expansion.

Yet, he likewise points out the fundamental basis behind truth-seeking:

The only way to get smarter is by playing a smarter opponent. --Fundamentals of Chess; 1885

I.E. how can you find the true nature of things, if you only playing with those who don't make any moves that you would not expect? I.E. Can you really know how things are by avoiding alternatives?

You may think that I'm trying to convert you to my way of belief in God, which would be the alternative for you in this case. That's not my dubious attempt. I understand your problems with Christian God, and I think they are valid on the level of facts or lack there of.

My point is that the way to truth is through Socratic understanding of our limitation (as you have pointed out), and thus considering multiple possibilities... perhaps holding on to one, but not to the point of investment where we are so attached that it actually becomes our reality by means of simply believing it.

[fccool]

"If an answer is given but not comprehended, has an answer been given at all?"

Great variation on the proverbial falling tree in the woods . But, as vain as it may seem, the only real objective is to develop your own understanding of the world.

Can you truly change the minds of other on a certain subject? Perhaps you can cause them to re-evaluate, yet essentially... all of you are just guests in my own world, just as much as I am a guest in yours. Can a guest change the mind of the host by criticizing the food, and the color of the drapes? :)

[Twilight]

I don't know for a certainty, but all the evidence (which I pointed you to but you chose not to read) points to a developing universe over a longer period.

You have the story about the Hubble wrong too: the Big Bang model does not predict a 'centre' to the universe at which galaxies are still forming. Again, refuting a prediction a theory doesn't make is not refuting the theory.

I may have some details wrong.

But they fully expected to find Galaxies forming when they pointed the Hubble back to as early a point in time as they could.

Why?

Because of the "big bang" theory.

But they found fully formed Galaxies.

Which was a bit of a shot in the foot, for those who were insistent the big bang happened...

So the visual evidence clearly shows that the "fact" of the "big bang" is not a fact but an assumption that is not based in anything but a desire to have a universe that follows naturalistic evolution, without Gods involvement.

All you have done Bravus, along with many others, is agree with it and then tried to:

"Insert God here..."

When you should never have even accepted the theory as "fact", or even the "best possible option".

Why?

Because of its roots in athiestic dogma and doctrine...

[Bravus]

Have a go at my Genesis question. It's kind of crucial in the light of your claims above.

[Twilight]

In turn, perhaps you will answer my question: where in the Genesis account does it say the galaxies were all created instantly in pretty much their current form?

It doesn't.

I have never claimed it does.

I can honestly say "I do not know".

But if one to speculate honestly, based on the biblical account, God creates instantly.

He also creates fully formed Beings, fully formed Suns and fully formed Moons.

God seems to just call things into existance fully formed, if we use the example of the creation given in Genesis.

Using that as a basis should give us warning to limit God to evolutionary processes, as He did not do it that way for life, so it is unlikely he did it for matter...

God does not need to use evolution.

He speaks and it is done...

This fundamental point, is something atheistic evolutionary dogma attacks at every point.

Which I believe you have bought into and promote?

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Twilight

That is incorrect.

I asked you for a specific point that we could address.

You refused to do that, citing my inability to communicate or some such...

Then Bravus, to his credit did raise a specific instance, specifically the Prophecy of Christ relating to Jerusalem.

Which I responded to, and he has not replied to yet.

The reason he and I aren't responding is because you use spurious reasoning and you don't appear to comprehend the answers we give.

You just announce that something is logical and true and provide absolutely no evidence for your claims. I'm not the only one saying this.

Bravus to his credit gave up on trying to explain this to you a while ago. I have to admit that I don't know how to communicate with you.

Bravus has been responding.

You just keep using the:

"I don't like your arguments, so I am not talking to you.." Approach, that just kills debate.

You are right and because of my lack of intelligence or reasoned thought, you do not have to back up any of your points....

....seems to be the general thrust of your replies.

And as to people agreeing with you.

A room full of confused people, does not become a room of logical thinkers by sheer press of numbers...

[Bravus]

So, basically, what you're saying is that you are happy to viciously attack me and accuse me of atheism and of reading books from Satan's library on the basis of...

SPECULATION ?

I think we're done here.

[Twilight]

Thus, revealing the identity from which I argue would actually complicate argument and give you more reasons to avoid my direct questions.

Fair enough...

If you are unwilling to share your bias, then I cannot see how I can communicate with you.

[Twilight]

Have a go at my Genesis question. It's kind of crucial in the light of your claims above.

I have answered your question, unless I missed it?

[Twilight]

So, basically, what you're saying is that you are happy to viciously attack me and accuse me of atheism and of reading books from Satan's library on the basis of...

SPECULATION ?

I think we're done here.

No...

I am saying that we are both "speculating" at best.

That the foundation of your speculation is based on reading from the devils library.

You are the one trying to say it is not speculation...

You are the one that is trying to intimate it is fact...

Which has been my whole point all along.

You do not know the Big Bang happened in the way you accept.

You have absolutely no basis to even pretend that is the best possible answer.

But out of some misguided notion that it is scientific to accept athiestic dogma, you have bought into this idea that you can more than speculate.

That lacks humility...

God has not told us how He created the universe and we must not pretend that we "know".

Yes we can discuss and consider, examine and search.

But the minute we start presenting a naturalistic basis for our beliefs, is the minute we have stepped on satans ground...