Darwin's Dilemma - coming soon

[jen_fla]

I would like to make something clear to the atheists out there who are looking for “proof” of God or of Christianity:

Christianity teaches us to live by* faith*, meaning that God will not have proof that will completely satisfy a person.

Just know this: That if Christianity is the truth, that means God wants us to live by faith, and if God wants us to live by faith, you will never 100% know in* this* life.

In other words, if Christianity is true, you’ll never “know” it.

Neither will you.

willie,

the way someone knows that their spouse truly loves them is something to consider. i mean he or she could be the world’s best actor/actress that is living a huge lie scheming to throw you down a well, but when you have a solid loving relationship you just know that love is real.

and it is even more so with those that have a great relationship with God because not only do we feel the love, but we experience how He actually communicates with us sometimes in very bold ways. my friend was struggling with the idea of Jesus and finally flat out asked a certain question in earnest and a piece of paper flew to her and there was her answer. if that happened once or twice you could say coincidence, but when things like that happen numerous times, you just know. also the manner in which these things happen you realize no human could be pulling these tricks, so you are left with accepting God or telling yourself it’s just another bizarre coincidence.

also may i suggest, the everlasting man by gk chesterton. i think that can give a very solid detailed intelligent explanation. or for those that might find it a bit daunting*, mere christianity* by cs lewis might be helpful.

and rossum is right that the Catholic Church does indeed acknowledge what is true and good in all religions. even the early polytheists got man headed in the right direction towards contemplating divinity, but to accept multiple gods now would be a step backwards.

peace.
jen

 

[Oreoracle]

I believe we also learned about respect.

Perhaps. But many years later (usually sometime in high school or perhaps even middle school), we learn that respect doesn’t get you very far in this world. Quite simply, you must fight fire with fire, and you can’t reason with those who are unreasonable. “Respect” will get you cheated out of a decent life, and we all know this. Thus, how we choose to respect is somewhat selective.

 

[shoewindow3000]

Perhaps. But many years later (usually sometime in high school or perhaps even middle school), we learn that respect doesn’t get you very far in this world. Quite simply, you must fight fire with fire, and you can’t reason with those who are unreasonable. “Respect” will get you cheated out of a decent life, and we all know this. Thus, how we choose to respect is somewhat selective.

Well, to be a friend of God is to be an enemy of the world.
(Just another example of how being a follower of Christ contradicts the ways of the world.)

Have you ever read the Sermon on the Mount?

It pretty much contradicts your philosophy (If you care).

P.S. Don’t any of the skeptics have any evidence (not speculation) to counter my claims that I made several posts ago, in regards to the validity of the Gospel of Mark, Paul, etc.?

 

[snafu]

shoewindow3000,

In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus talks about how the Temple will be destroyed.

This happened in the year AD 70.

Now, a “liberal” scholar (starting out with the assumption that there is no such thing as the supernatural, God, etc.), will read that and say, “Well, since we “know” that it is impossible for somebody to know future events, we can infer that this was written after the fact,after the year AD 70.”

I’m afraid I don’t see how that little example relates to the claim that Luke is a historian par excellence.

You give a general claim that historians’ naturalistic bias is the problem here. Well, I’m reluctant to let you withdraw to less specific grounds. Which parts of my comment on Luke are untrue or unfair? Why does he deserve a reputation as a pre-eminent historian when nothing he writes is attributed or dated? For comparison, can you name just one other highly-regarded historian outside the sphere of Christianity who never names his sources?

 

[shoewindow3000]

shoewindow3000,

I’m afraid I don’t see how that little example relates to the claim that Luke is a historian par excellence.

You give a general claim that historians’ naturalistic bias is the problem here. Well, I’m reluctant to let you withdraw to less specific grounds. Which parts of my comment on Luke are untrue or unfair? Why does he deserve a reputation as a pre-eminent historian when nothing he writes is attributed or dated? For comparison, can you name just one other highly-regarded historian outside the sphere of Christianity who never names his sources?

This has nothing to do with Luke. I was commenting on “modern biblical criticism” in general. (considering how you seem to hold it in high regard.)

 

[shoewindow3000]

This has nothing to do with Luke.

I was making a comment on “modern biblical criticism.”

 

[Oreoracle]

Well, to be a friend of God is to be an enemy of the world.

Catholics are willing to be enemies of this world because they believe a better world awaits them. Misleading, no? I’m sure I would do the same if I held such a belief.

(Just another example of how being a follower of Christ contradicts the ways of the world.)

Just another example of the genius involved in forcing beings limited by nature to follow supernatural laws and then calling this collection of laws the “Natural Law.” Again: misleading, no?

Have you ever read the Sermon on the Mount?

No. I’ve never read past Genesis.

It pretty much contradicts your philosophy (If you care).

This isn’t a “philosophy,” but merely a simple observation. “Respect” is a fluffy word that people use to persuade others to be reverent even when the orders don’t make sense or are completely useless. It’s one of those words whose meaning is spread so thin that it is virtually meaningless. We can respect our friends, our enemies, the power of natural disasters, etc. Considering this, respect certainly can’t refer to “love,” “affection,” or even “empathy.” To respect something, in fact, seems to mean “see it the way it is.” I do this, and then treat what I’ve observed accordingly.

 

[snafu]

This has nothing to do with Luke. I was commenting on “modern biblical criticism” in general. (considering how you seem to hold it in high regard.)

Ok, that’s fine.

You don’t seem willing to defend or elaborate on your claim (quoting Ramsey) that Luke was a first-class historian.

My argument doesn’t depend on holding “modern biblical criticism” in high regard (though, as a layperson, all I can do is evaluate it to the best of my ability).

My point is that Luke doesn’t attribute his sources - and that seriously questions whether he’s a first-class historian. That argument applies even if modern biblical critics are a bunch of muppets.

 

[kk23wong]

I don’t think we are asking for proof of Christianity. Thta would certainly entail proving Jesus was God.

The question is how one determines a body of literature is true revelation. Any ideas? Are the Vedas true revalation? Ever read them?

With reference to the above,

First, the proof of the validity of the Holy Bible is the existence of the God. Nobody can deny the existence of the God, even though the nature of the God varies from one religion to another. The Holy Bible has to be the words of the God. Otherwise, WE must not be reading it. As I used to say, “Old and New, both from God.”

Second, the truth refers to the concept of the God. The God exists, these concepts exist. As I used to say, “Beginner the God and with her end, brings us ours.”

By the way, these beliefs are not old school thinkings. Faiths, I must say.
(Please kindly read through this thread if you do not understand.)

God Bless.

Teru Wong​

Check out my academic portfolio by visiting the link as follow, sites.google.com/site/teru382/home

 

[liquidpele]

With reference to the above,

First, the proof of the validity of the Holy Bible is the existence of the God. Nobody can deny the existence of the God, even though the nature of the God varies from one religion to another. The Holy Bible has to be the words of the God. Otherwise, WE must not be reading it. As I used to say, “Old and New, both from God.”

Second, the truth refers to the concept of the God. The God exists, these concepts exist. As I used to say, “Beginner the God and with her end, brings us ours.”

By the way, these beliefs are not old school thinkings. Faiths, I must say.
(Please kindly read through this thread if you do not understand.)

God Bless.

Teru Wong​

Check out my academic portfolio by visiting the link as follow, sites.google.com/site/teru382/home

Okay… I’m pretty sure this guy is a troll. I mean… his posting history is like reading a stream of consciousness from a random thought generator.

 

[kk23wong]

Okay… I’m pretty sure this guy is a troll. I mean… his posting history is like reading a stream of consciousness from a random thought generator.

You are your own master. Be calm.

An atheist cannot escape from the reality,
even though it is hard.

A thought generator is a young philosopher with scientific minds.

God Bless.

Teru Wong​

Check out “My academic portfolio” by visiting the link as follow: http://sites.google.com/site/teru382/my_publications/natural_sciences

 

[liquidpele]

You are your own master. Be calm.

An atheist cannot escape from the reality,
even though it is hard.

A thought generator is a young philosopher with scientific minds.

God Bless.

Teru Wong​

Check out “My academic portfolio” by visiting the link as follow: http://sites.google.com/site/teru382/my_publications/natural_sciences

Well… I had removed that post as I decided an ad hominem was not nice, but I guess I didn’t remove it quickly enough. That said… your posts *are *pretty incomprehensible.

 

[WillieWonka]

willie,

the way someone knows that their spouse truly loves them is something to consider. i mean he or she could be the world’s best actor/actress that is living a huge lie scheming to throw you down a well, but when you have a solid loving relationship you just know that love is real.

and it is even more so with those that have a great relationship with God because not only do we feel the love, but we experience how He actually communicates with us sometimes in very bold ways. my friend was struggling with the idea of Jesus and finally flat out asked a certain question in earnest and a piece of paper flew to her and there was her answer. if that happened once or twice you could say coincidence, but when things like that happen numerous times, you just know. also the manner in which these things happen you realize no human could be pulling these tricks, so you are left with accepting God or telling yourself it’s just another bizarre coincidence.

also may i suggest, the everlasting man by gk chesterton. i think that can give a very solid detailed intelligent explanation. or for those that might find it a bit daunting*, mere christianity* by cs lewis might be helpful.

and rossum is right that the Catholic Church does indeed acknowledge what is true and good in all religions. even the early polytheists got man headed in the right direction towards contemplating divinity, but to accept multiple gods now would be a step backwards.

peace.
jen

So, you know Christianity is true bacause you feel it is true? I suppose an atheist could feel it is false, and a Hindu and Muslims could feel their religions are true.

 

[shoewindow3000]

Ok, that’s fine.

You don’t seem willing to defend or elaborate on your claim (quoting Ramsey) that Luke was a first-class historian.

My argument doesn’t depend on holding “modern biblical criticism” in high regard (though, as a layperson, all I can do is evaluate it to the best of my ability).

My point is that Luke doesn’t attribute his sources - and that seriously questions whether he’s a first-class historian. That argument applies even if modern biblical critics are a bunch of muppets.

You are right. Luke does not. I simply quoted the opinion of a scholar.

 

[WillieWonka]

With reference to the above,

First, the proof of the validity of the Holy Bible is the existence of the God. Nobody can deny the existence of the God, even though the nature of the God varies from one religion to another. The Holy Bible has to be the words of the God. Otherwise, WE must not be reading it. As I used to say, “Old and New, both from God.”

Second, the truth refers to the concept of the God. The God exists, these concepts exist. As I used to say, “Beginner the God and with her end, brings us ours.”

By the way, these beliefs are not old school thinkings. Faiths, I must say.
(Please kindly read through this thread if you do not understand.)

God Bless.

Teru Wong​

Check out my academic portfolio by visiting the link as follow, sites.google.com/site/teru382/home

The Vedas have to be the words of the God. Otherwise, WE must not be reading them.

As I used to say, “Cool is a way of life.”

 

[WillieWonka]

You are right. Luke does not. I simply quoted the opinion of a scholar.

I’d say that’s an opinion that deserves no respect.

 

[shoewindow3000]

I’d say that’s an opinion that deserves no respect.

Why? Because his opinion is not your opinion?

Well then, what is your scholarly opinion? If you have a better one, then let’s hear it.

 

[shoewindow3000]

Wanna hear something I find very interesting?

A few liberal scholars believe that most of the books of the New Testament were written before the year AD 70.

The reason they give is this:

The destruction of the Temple (in AD 70) was a significant event to both the Jews and the Christians. The fact that it is barely mentioned in the New Testament indicates that the books may have been written before the event.

I just thought that I would throw that out.