H
happilycatholic
Guest
He’s your Christ too. He loves you though you doubt He even lived.
- Status
A
aileron
Guest
As best we know right now, energy.
Your questions are incompatible. This gets confusing, so let’s simplify:
Q1. What is eternal
A1. (some answer)
Q2. Where did it come from?
I’ve written this before here, and I’ll write it again. Outside of mathematics, proofs are probabilistic. It’s not “is it proven” but rather “how confident are we?”
We have very good reason to conclude that energy is eternal (though that word has little practical significance in physics - constant would be a better term).
So which is a more outrageous starting assumption for what is eternal, energy or God? Energy is a very simple thing. It behaves in ways that can be reduced to mathematics. God - to be exact - the Christian God is a personal god. So our starting assumption is that a being with intelligence, love, compassion, anger, etc., existed eternally. I don’t buy it. We are making God in our own image.
We should always strive to use the most parsimonious starting assumptions. Energy and mathematics are base constructs. We have considerable empirical evidence and powerful predictive theories to generalize that energy is constant. On the other hand, we have a deity that seems to hide more and more as science and technology advance.
H
happilycatholic
Guest
Okay, let’s back this up a little. I would assume you are a believer in Darwin…so when the earth was nothing but single-celled organisms and began to form into all sorts of plants, animals and the like, how is it that we got the brains and plants did not? Then when animals began to evolve, how is it that some developed brains capable of processing emotion and some did not? Then when humans “evolved” how it is that they developed the ability to love one another? To know right from wrong? To even comprehend the concept of God in the first place?
How did all that happen? Where did it orgininate? Where did the “love gene” begin and why? Why would there be a need for love at all? We could exsist perfectly fine as animals without reason or love so why does it exsist?
You’re telling me all this was happenstance? YOU must be kidding.
The joke’s on you. God Bless You!
A
aileron
Guest
Let’s be clear here. There are no coal fired, paddle wheel steam ships crossing the oceans. We use telegraphs only for historical re-creations. Darwin wrote his works when these technologies were cutting edge. A lot has happened since then, so it rather puzzles me that evolution opponents keep talking about Darwin as if he’s some kind of St. Paul of biology.
Is that really what you think the theory of evolution claims? Do you instead mean undirected?
A
Annabea
Guest
I’m not going to love a rotting (eh, he is soil by now) body whom I never knew. Don’t get me wrong, if someone I love dies, I’ll still love em. But I’ll remember them when they were alive…He’s your Christ too. He loves you though you doubt He even lived.
P
PJM
Guest
Friend,
No doubt you wish this were true. Its not:shrug:
GOOGLE “historical evidence of Jesus” you need not look only at Catholic and Chrisitan belief, TONS of historical information is available.
Check it our for yourself:thumbsup: Or does that take too much effort?
I’ve heard many uninformed opinions on this site. You’re statement puts you pretty close to the top of the list.
God bless you!
Pat
H
HiggDo
Guest
So a source is only to be trusted or deemed ligitimate if it is contemporary?
Wouldn’t the historical accounts of Jesus be rather contemporary, in light of the universe possibly being billions of years old?
There are direct historical accounts of Jesus’s crucifixion written by the Romans- who were not “Christ-friendly” at the time… Do they count?
Peace and good things to you!
A
aileron
Guest
There’s really no need to deliberately offend people in a way that would provoke such a visceral response. We can forcefully disagree. We no longer have to hide meekly in quiet as in days past, but it does not mean we can be disrespectful.
A
aileron
Guest
[double post]
A
Annabea
Guest
fine
J
jam070406
Guest
I made the same point about Christianity and individual Christians behaving badly and was scoffed at by an atheist poster. And now someone turns around and makes the same argument for atheism. Oh the hypocrisy! (not referring to you specifically)
P
PJM
Guest
*Dear Secular Humanist.
I find it a bit “strange” that I agree with you’re position.
There is widespread confusion about “God and Judging” that this seems to be a good time to try to clarify.
In the most common understanding of the term “to judge”, which means “to evaluate and pass judgement” that is NOT what Jesus is going to do. *
It’s even worse than that, God actually actually does not “judge us” we by our personal life choices FACTUALLY JUDGE OURSELVES!*
God’s role, the role of Jesus is to AFFIRM how we have “judged ourselves” and then to ANNOUNCE the sentence, that we ourselves justly deserve.
**
So don’t blame God if you go to hell**, its you’re doing, **HOWEVER Do THANK GOD **if you end up in heaven because it is ONLY by The Merits of Christ Redeemtive act, and the free grace from God, that we are able to COOPERATE with His plan and desire for our Salvation. Amen!
Love and prayers folks,*
A
aileron
Guest
You’re engaging in all or nothing thinking. When exploring matters of probability, there is no meaning to the term legitimate or illegitimate. What is relevant is how reliable various classes of historical records are. In general, contemporaneous records are far better than records written after the events. In general, records with authorship information are better than those without. In general, secular records are more historically accurate than religious ones. In general, first hand accounts are more accurate and reliable than hearsay. Dated records are usually more reliable than undated ones.
In the case of the writings of the evangelists, we are fairly certain that they are in the generally less reliable category on all of these issues.
Recollections of events fade, become rationalized, become mythologized, etc. on time scales much shorter than cosmic time scales.
They count in the sense that they must be examined and a subjective assessment made as to their authenticity, reliability, accuracy, etc. Some are known to be full or partial pious forgeries. Others are ambiguous. None of them were written by people who claimed to have first hand knowledge, and all of them were written at a time when the myth cycle already had time to grow.
All this is not to say that without faith there are not good reasons to argue that Jesus was an historical person. On a dispassionate, secular level keeping religious faith out of the discussion, the issue is uncertain.
J
jam070406
Guest
Thanks for the compliment.
I have never denied that there were people who claimed to be Catholic who did bad things.
Lot’s of people from all over the world, in every walk of life, have done bad things. We’re all sinners in need of a Savior.
Can you not agree that these people were not acting in line with Christ’s teachings though? So, it’s rather irrelevant.
When someone willfully acts in disobediance to God they cut themselves off from God. Murder or ordering murder would cut someone off and place them in a state of mortal sin.
Ok, these are not teachings for the Faithful on Faith and Morals. You will not find a Teaching that says murdering is acceptable. Like I have said before, those that commited atrocities in the name of God will be judged and dealt with. If a leader of the Church acts in such a way that condones an evil, we are not bound to obey those actions.
All that aside, I’m not really sure how any of this negates the teachings of Christ. Perhaps you could explain how you think it does and why you are hung up on this.
I can’t really write any more today, I have things to do. Peace.
M
mrhenrik
Guest
It’s legitimacy may be proven in other ways I suppose, but the sources being contemporary certainly helps.
The historical accounts of Jesus (which?), were written at least a decade after his death. In a time of very little books for the common people, it is particularily important for the sources to be as contemporary as possible, as we all know how it is with fishing stories.
Which accounts are these, could you link me to a source?
Peace and good things to you too.
You are mistaking atheism for something organised. It is not. Atheism is this, and only this: the lack of belief in a god. There is NOTHING more to it.
H
HiggDo
Guest
This is what I love about those people who only apply “reason” towards understanding. Makability and Nihilism is such silly nonsense to me and only serves to illustrate how truly ignorant we are. (Ignorant as in unknowing- not as in an insult.)
People will trust what imperfect human historians, with their own bias and presuppositions generally agree upon or don’t agree upon, as if their word is definitive if it is contemporary or meets certain measuring criteria, yet many refuse to believe historical accounts that have survived and withstood the test of time for over 2,000 years.
How is it that Christianity has lasted so long while so many other “belief systems” have died like a shooting star and fallen by the wayside, only to become a remnant of the forgotten past?
Everything we can reason has already been thought of by someone else in the past. Atheism presents no new or refreshing ideas, it is mere rejection of an “unprovable” reality, just like every other onslaught of God over the past 2,000 years. Yet, Christianity remains.
Frankly, I don’t need “proof” only as determined by mankind’s imperfect, limited understanding and folly. I know it and feel it in my heart, the very soul and fiber of my being and have witnessed the magnitude of His presence in my personal experiences in living. I am firm that there is something greater out there than me or mankind and it transcends what I can physically feel or reason.
In short, all the back and forth on this thread will generally accomplish nothing because my faith in He who knew me before I knew Him remains. Whatever faith/ religion society might try to steal from me or divert me from won’t work. It’s as certain as my fingers on my hands. The only “proof” to this effect is that “it is what it is.”
Peace and good things to you and thanks for the chat!
H
HiggDo
Guest
The only problem I have with this logic is that faith and reason must be inseparable in order to truly understand the full meaning behind our “being”.
Peace and good things to you!
M
mrhenrik
Guest
It would seem like you’re leaving the discussion. Could you please show me where to find the Roman accounts of Jesus’ crucifixion, before you go?
A
aileron
Guest
This is a rather more nuanced topic for me than you seem to suggest. Try to imagine a Hindu or Buddhist or Muslim reading the NT for the first time. What do they read?
Well, mostly they read about a man concerned with the method of salvation - a concept foreign to them and so for worldly ethics irrelevant to them. The other consistent feature is frequent use of platitudes and parables that could be interpreted any which way or no way at all. His followers consider them supreme genius but more often than not they can’t agree on what it is they mean. Geniuses can make themselves understood clearly.
On the matter of worldly ethics, Jesus seems to be mostly repeating what Hebrews and Greeks have written for centuries. It’s good stuff, alright, but nothing others haven’t already figured out.
Then just occasionally words and actions are attributed to him that are downright mean spirited and nonsensical, and never seem to be mentioned by Christian missionaries. The reader sees clearly why they are ignored by people preaching a message of love.
So that is my take on the teachings of the Logos as delivered to us in the NT. People have used the same source to justify all manners of things beautiful and brutal. It is so ambiguous, so inconsistent, so loosely worded that both and neither sides of any one ethical or theological debate can be said to be following the instructions.
I’m not expecting adherents to agree or like it, but that is how the majority of the world population, who are not Christians, sees the NT.
Indulge me for a moment. My wife and I have two friends who happen to be more or less fundamental Christians. One day the wife told us that her husband got a new job offer, but it required them to move. The husband really liked the offer. The wife has most of her family here. The wife told us that she had prayed intensely. She was 100% convinced that Jesus had told her to convince her husband to stay. Later, the husband who did not hear this part of the conversation was talking with us. It seems he too had prayed intensely. He was 100% convinced that Jesus had told him to take the offer and move with the family.
That is more or less how I consider “following Christ” to be effectively meaningless. Christians follow the same God and read the same books, and yet on issue after issue some Christians adamantly believe one thing and others something else.
Each side of the debate turns to their go to source, the NT to justify what they have already decided. Each side invariably finds support in the NT for what they want to do. I would venture a guess that there isn’t a single contemporary ethical debate that the Bible does not come down on both sides of the issue.
I know the common arguments… Perhaps the most common is people are corrupting the words. Why is a text revealed from God so easy to corrupt - so easy to disagree on? The U.S. Constitution is vague and did not anticipate many rancorous debates and provide more detail to head them off at the pass. I would expect that from a purely human work. I would not expect that from works where God had a hand in the text.
- Status