New member, looking for discussion

[VociMike]

From another site:

First, I would like to point out that Paul wrote several years before the Gospels were written, some time between 50 and 60 ce (a short 20 - 30 years after Jesus’ purported ministry). Because of this, we have to take care not to project our knowledge of what later writings (like the Gospels) say onto what Paul said earlier. Since the Gospels are clear that Jesus’ resurrection was a physical bodily resurrection, we are tempted to project that understanding back into Paul’s earlier description of the resurrection. But Paul’s own notion of the resurrection does not appear to be the same as the Gospel-writer’s notion. If you look closely at the body of Pauline epistles, you will find no clear indication that Paul considers Jesus’ resurrection to be bodily in the sense that Jesus’ dead body was resurrected. As far as we can tell from his writings, Paul seems to believe that the resurrection was spiritual - Jesus’ spirit was quickened and he now has a new heavenly body, not his corrupted human body that was buried. If he thought the resurrection was bodily and that anyone had seen Jesus resurrected body, he surely would have mentioned this important detail in his discourses about the resurrected Christ.

No, that argument won’t fly. The same Church that pronounced Paul’s writings as inspired scripture also taught, indisputably, that Christ was physically resurrected. They weren’t all so stupid as to not see that Paul didn’t believe a cornerstone of their faith.

Here’s a bit of what Paul wrote - can you honestly claim it is written by somebody who does not believe Christ rose bodily?:

For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures,
that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures,
and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.
Then he appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep.

 

[VociMike]

I don’t know what was most likely.

You haven’t shown “those in power had means to produce the body”, to be true.

Now you’re being foolish. The Romans didn’t have the power to confiscate the body? The Jewish hierarchy, who got Jesus crucified, didn’t have the power to confiscate the body? You’re beginning to sound like somebody not really interested in a serious discussion.

If the martyrs existed (which you haven’t shown), their claims (which you haven’t shown they made), show only that they believed that jesus was resurrected. The belief of one or more persons does not provide reliable evidence that something is true.

OK, so all the reported martyrs are just a part of some enormous lie, and somehow that lie has never been refuted, never been exposed. Like I said, you’re beginning to sound like somebody not really interested in a serious discussion.

 

[wasmit]

That you’ll never get.

I disagree, it is conceivably possible. how do you know it is impossible?

Nor will you ever get proof beyond a reasonable doubt of the atheist claims.

I disagree, it is conceivably possible. how do you know it is impossible?

So then what? Without proof beyond a reasonable doubt on either side, how will you address what may be the most important question of your life?

In that case I can stay undecided, as I am not forced to choose.

 

[Wildgraywolf]

If you believe in something, no proof is necessary. If you don’t, none is sufficient.

 

[wasmit]

Now you’re being foolish. The Romans didn’t have the power to confiscate the body? The Jewish hierarchy, who got Jesus crucified, didn’t have the power to confiscate the body? You’re beginning to sound like somebody not really interested in a serious discussion.

OK, so all the reported martyrs are just a part of some enormous lie, and somehow that lie has never been refuted, never been exposed. Like I said, you’re beginning to sound like somebody not really interested in a serious discussion.

You’re stating “This is true” without backing it up. Why should I believe you?

 

[VociMike]

You’re stating “This is true” without backing it up. Why should I believe you?

You shouldn’t. You should just continue to deny everything you choose to deny.

 

[wasmit]

No, that argument won’t fly. The same Church that pronounced Paul’s writings as inspired scripture also taught, indisputably, that Christ was physically resurrected. They weren’t all so stupid as to not see that Paul didn’t believe a cornerstone of their faith.

Here’s a bit of what Paul wrote - can you honestly claim it is written by somebody who does not believe Christ rose bodily?:

For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures,
that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures,
and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.
Then he appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep.

what does “ni accordance with the scriptures” mean?

 

[wasmit]

If you believe in something, no proof is necessary. If you don’t, none is sufficient.

What then should a believer do when faced with proof that his belief is wrong?

Also, what should a non-believer do when shown a proof?

 

[wasmit]

You shouldn’t. You should just continue to deny everything you choose to deny.

I mustn’t deny that which is shown to be true, and I must deny that which is shown to be not.

After my original choice to believe in logical, rational, evidence based demonstrations, I can make no other choices in what to believe.

 

[Wildgraywolf]

What then should a believer do when faced with proof that his belief is wrong?

Also, what should a non-believer do when shown a proof?

If it is indeed proof; both should question and test it. You mention only believers and non-believers, this translates as black and white, this or that, 1 or 0. For these types of people just about any kind of proof might be meaningless. What is needed is humility and a desire to honestly seek truth and the courage to embrace it when it is found.

 

[wasmit]

If it is indeed proof; both should question and test it. You mention only believers and non-believers, this translates as black and white, this or that, 1 or 0. For these types of people just about any kind of proof might be meaningless. What is needed is humility and a desire to honestly seek truth and the courage to embrace it when it is found.

It doesn’t matter what a person’s belief is before a proof is read. The person must change their belief to the position that the proof supports.

how can a proof ever be meaningless, when it always proves the question?

how is humility related to a proof? An arrogant man can understand a proof as well as a humbe man.

 

[wasmit]

Another question just popped up:

Given the following information:
-The church considers human life to be most sacred, and animals are nothing in comparison
-The church considers humans to have immortal souls, but animals not
-humans, as all animals, have evolved from common ancestry.

At what point did a god give homo sapiens a soul? 10,000 years ago? 1,000,000 years ago? Longer? How is this point delineated?

Did a god give a soul to homo neanderthalensis (neanderthals), which evolved in parallel with homo sapiens, but have now died out ?

Did a god give a soul to homo habilis, a precursor to homo sapiens?

Thanks for your help.

 

[Wildgraywolf]

It doesn’t matter what a person’s belief is before a proof is read. The person must change their belief to the position that the proof supports.

how can a proof ever be meaningless, when it always proves the question?

how is humility related to a proof? An arrogant man can understand a proof as well as a humble man.

I’m referring to a persons predisposition to accept or even to consider new or contradictory information. Just poke around the forums here and you’ll find folks who cling to extremes. You’ll find folks who are so convinced of their certitude that intelligent debate or discussion is impossible.

Certainly and arrogant man can understand proof, but would never accept it. Arrogance is a closed system.

 

[Wildgraywolf]

Another question just popped up:

Given the following information:
-The church considers human life to be most sacred, and animals are nothing in comparison
-The church considers humans to have immortal souls, but animals not
-humans, as all animals, have evolved from common ancestry.

At what point did a god give homo sapiens a soul? 10,000 years ago? 1,000,000 years ago? Longer? How is this point delineated?

Did a god give a soul to homo neanderthalensis (neanderthals), which evolved in parallel with homo sapiens, but have now died out ?

Did a god give a soul to homo habilis, a precursor to homo sapiens?

Thanks for your help.

These are all good and interesting questions, but questions we may never have answers to.

 

[John1]

so, you choose to absolutely believe in something that may be wrong because it comforts you?

Isn’t the cognitive dissonance uncomfortable?

Hi again wasmit,

To answer your questions, first “yes”, but I chose not ,believe that it may be wrong or I would have no comfort. Secondly, “no” I don’t get an uneasy feeling because there’s no conflict. For example, if a person really believes absolutely that science will one day find the answers to all of mankinds questions, then they will naturally find reasons to support that idea as credible, while finding ways to discredit any opposing thought. it’s all about a persons belief system and how they choose is the way it develops. I believe that in your OP you said that you started out going to church, mostly because your parents made you, and then when you got older and went to college you started to question things and started believing some of the things that you learned there. You made the choice and chose the wisdom of the atheistic teachings on campus as apposed to the wisdom of your parents and the Christian instuctions that you had received. I think that choosing to believe in Christ would be your best option, but you have to make that decision.

 

[JRKH]

neither does it make something exist. our inability to understand a particular concept shows nothing.

what is grace? how does it flow? i don’t know what you are talking about.

For example, If i am convinced that there was a thing that created the big bang, and does nothing afterwards, that only changes my opinion, and nothing else.

how do you know it is a god, and not another explaination?

ok

how do you know that god knows that?

how specifically do you grow? how can a god give us anything when this cannot be shown to happen?

how do you know this? how do you know that it is impossible for a civilisation or a person to know everything?

why is it important? it sounds like you are just limiting your curiosity and critical thinking by saying “oh, I can’t know that. ignore”.

are you saying that i am not praying correctly, and never have?
how do you know that a god has given humans free will?
how can you trust something that doesn’t exist? How is saying “trust god” different to saying “trust FSM”?
how do you know that that is the most important prayer?
if you pray for healing, why is it not granted?

Sorry for the delay in responding. We had a bad day yeserday.

I could go through and give answers to the various points listed above, but all of it really boils down to a question of faith.
When you were fifteen you rejected religion and faith in God as being “Silly”. That is certainly your right. You placed all of your faith in what you can see and discern for yourself as “verifieable” and “provable”. Placing your intellect at the pinnacle and above all other reason. That too is your right.
In many of the cases placed before you here by myself and others you express the simple fact that “There could be other explanations”. which is certainly true. However, you seem to prefer the “other” explanation to admitting the possibility that the right explanation is God. Again that is your right.
Our faith in God, while it might prove silly and futile, promises the possibility of Life eternal. It feeds us on a good and just set of life principles. It is a creative and positive faith and not a negative one. What does your faith offer your. Nothing but death. Maintaining such a faith without even allowing the possibility of God actually assures you of that outcome - death.
You might want to ask yourself this question. Assuming for the moment that God DOES exist, and that theBible IS true, who would want to influence you to believe the way you do? Who would want you to close your mind to the possibility of God’s goodness or even existance?
Another question that you might want to consider is this. If your view is so certain and logical, why are there many scientists and other highly educated people who are just as positive of God’s existance?

As to whether you were praying right, I am in no position to judge. All I know is that Jesus taught us that the way to salvation is not easy, the door is narrow, and most do not find it. The writings of the great saints and mystics of the Church bear this out, that the road to holiness is difficult and not without it’s own fears and sorrows.
As to why my prayers for healing have not been answered? I do not know for certain. Other than it is not God’s will at this time. Of course I am also troubled by my desire for my DW to be healed. Shouldn’t I rather pray for here speedy return to our Dear Lord in heaven? These things I do not know. Therefore I pray for healing because I am selfish and do not want her to suffer, and do not want to lose her.
I pray for God’s will in our lives and for the grace and strength to bear whatever comes because I want both she and I to be able to stand before our Dear Lord as obedient and Loving Children of His.

Finally I would offer something that I found most helpful and convincing on my own journey. That is the apparition at Fatima. Granted, you can say that such things might have other explanations. However, the most compelling thing about this particular apparition is the fact that it happened to such small children in such a remote place. That it occurred over the course of many months and that nothing - no threats or punishment of any kind could make these small children recant or change their stories. Not even when they were put in a jail and threatened with torture.
Add to this the obvious fact of so many people seeing the “sign of the sun”.
An open mind might be able to expalin away various aspects of the events, but an open mind also cannot dismiss out of hand the possibility that this is a true and very real sign of God’s Love for His children.

Peace
James

 

[VociMike]

I mustn’t deny that which is shown to be true, and I must deny that which is shown to be not.

After my original choice to believe in logical, rational, evidence based demonstrations, I can make no other choices in what to believe.

And yet you refuse to concede points that a reasonable person would be compelled to concede, such as that the Romans and the Jewish hierarchary would have had the power to confiscate the body of Jesus Christ. By refusing to concede the obvious, you indicate that perhaps your mind is not as open as you think it is.

 

[JW55]

Another question just popped up:

Given the following information:
-The church considers human life to be most sacred, and animals are nothing in comparison
-The church considers humans to have immortal souls, but animals not
-humans, as all animals, have evolved from common ancestry.

At what point did a god give homo sapiens a soul? 10,000 years ago? 1,000,000 years ago? Longer? How is this point delineated?

Did a god give a soul to homo neanderthalensis (neanderthals), which evolved in parallel with homo sapiens, but have now died out ?

Did a god give a soul to homo habilis, a precursor to homo sapiens?

Thanks for your help.

Hello-

The timeline is really not important. We don’t know the date becasue it was pre-history and the story was passed on verbally. The important factor is that at some point God instilled an understanding of right and wrong and the understanding that there was something above and beyond man that was responsible for the world he found around him. Being able to distinguish right from wrong separated him from the animals. He was no longer a creature of complete instinct. He had been given the gift of being able to choose his actions rather than being a product of just responding to a genetic code.

I don’t think we can say if a soul existed with Neanterthal or Homo Habilis or Australopithicus or at what point that this took place. What we do know is that it did occur and that one event makes all the difference in the world of separating us from any other animal species.

God has also indicated he expects us to be a steward of the land and all the creatures that inhabit it. This should instill within us a respect for all living creatures and a responsibility for them.

 

[JLM316]

i have no idea what you are talking about.

you sound crazy and delusional.

thanks for the reply, though.

wasmit: I just saw your reply to my post. Why did you feel it was necessary to insult me by saying I sound crazy and delusional? Please answer. I am very insulted. You know there are real people behind these anonymous postings, and I was actually trying to offer you some help. What I was trying to say (perhaps in a deep or convoluted way) is that I think your OP indicates that you are indeed searching (or seeking) a relationship with a higher being - namely God, and I was trying offer you some constructive and in fact thoughtful advice on where to go- because when I was in my 20s I was in the same place spiritually. Please remember next time you call someone on the internet crazy and delusional, whether you would do the same thing to my face. If not, then stop and think before you post.

 

[JRKH]

so, you choose to absolutely believe in something that may be wrong because it comforts you?

Isn’t the cognitive dissonance uncomfortable?

AHA, but isn’t your cognitive certainty of Death also uncomfortable?

I’m trying to catch up on the thread so I may post some things that are covered later, so bear with me.

It seems to me as I am reading through the posts and your responses that you really are not able so much able to refute God as to simply question His existance. This is not an answer but rather it simply leaves you with the questions.
Personally, in my belief in God, all the other “explanations” re: creation, the substance of the universe, evolution, miracles, etc. all simply become mechanisms God Chooses to use. They do not necessarily contradict God. Thus, even were my belief turn out to be untrue, I could not see it as being something “unfomfortable”.

Peace
James