My Beliefs- GDR

Instead of saying "A" why don't you give an example of what I am claiming that God does where science can close the gap. I agree we have natural laws that function without intervention. Even if science finds a way that those natural laws evolved it still will not tell us whether or not the natural process that produced our natural laws originated from an existing intelligence. (It's turtles all the way down. ) If you go back to the OP I presented the reasoning for my beliefs. Obviously you can reject my reasons but I did present a rationale for my beliefs. Do you or do you not "believe" that my beliefs are wrong?

Well in one very real sense I am a creationist in that I believe that God is responsible for the fact that we exist at all. I simply don't see scripture as a means to determine what processes God used to make it happen. Scientific study is the only means that we have to answer that kind of question.If you are saying that I am trying to fill in a gap with God, when I cite HIm as being responsible for our existence, then I'd like you to explain why it isn't "science of the gaps" for you to fill in that gap with science. Also I'd like you to tell me what experiment or study that science could perform that would rule God out of the picture. OK let's look at lightning. We have figured out why we have lightning and all the laws of electrical reactions that cause it to happen. That still tells us nothing about how the system exists at all. Sure we can demonstrate that we don't need a switch flicker for lightning but it tells us nothing about whether or not it was a system designed to function on its own or not. We've got satellites whizzing around in space functioning on their own. It still took someone to design them. (This was in reference to the turtles.) Of course I do. The point was that you do exactly the same thing. You are saying that since we've discovered evolution we understand the process of how we have come to the point we are at today, and that science will eventually discover the means by which the process started naturally, and then we will discover the process that started the process that started evolution.............. and it is turtles all the way down. I distinguish my theistic beliefs from the tooth fairy by subjective reasoning. We decide lots of things subjectively. Things like does my wife love me, whether or not something is beautiful, etc. What is closer to the point is whether or not if what someone says is a lie or if it is correct, and if not to what degree is it wrong. That is what I do when I study the Bible. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you believe in a materialistic world, although you would likely acknowledge the possibility of their being an intelligence that is responsible for our existence. I believe that there is an intelligence that is responsible for our existence but I acknowledge the possibility that I could be wrong. We both have our beliefs. The only difference is that mine are much more reasonable.

No disagreement there. All that religion has to say about science is that as our existence has an intelligent root it is discernible to us. Again, no disagreement there. You didn’t answer the first part of the question. However with the first quote you seemed to be trying to rule God out of the picture, and I assume by your answer that there is no experiment or study that can rule God out of the picture.If of course there is no god then there is no value in having god in the picture. If however God does exist and we truly are part of something greater than we perceive, then maybe that should be the focus of the picture. I agree with the first statement. As far as religion is concerned I’ve already given one possibility of why that isn’t a valid argument. The discussion with Straggler was interesting as it made me realize that if my speculation about us being an emergent property of a greater whole with higher time dimensions is correct, then our universe doesn’t require a first cause. However all life on earth has been finite and so even if the universe doesn’t require a first cause, life as we understand it still does. I’m pretty sure that you apply reason to your subjective conclusions. I have used reason to come to my theistic beliefs and I have used reason to believe that the tooth fairy doesn’t exist. Then I have a lack of belief in the idea that the material world that we perceive is all that there is. I’m quite happy to admit that it is my belief that the tooth fairy doesn’t exist and call it a belief. If you have come to a conclusion which seems pretty clear that you have then it is a belief.Edited by GDR, : No reason given.

I could have phrased that better. My point was that if we have an intelligent root, then with intelligence the science of our existence would be discernible to us through biology, physics etc. An intelligent root should mean that we would expect order in science. I didn't mean that the root itself is discernible to us but I see why you would think that's what I meant. Again, where have I done that?I agree that science fills the gap with real world knowledge but filling in gaps with the idea that science just hasn't discovered yet is very much the same thing. However, I am largely in agreement with you but the implication is that I have done that and in my view I haven't.If we look at the resurrection as a miracle then the claim is that it was unique. That isn't a gap. Actually I agree but you had said this earlier which I kinda took you to suggest that science would eventually disprove God's existence.

quote:

---

Your position seems to be the equivalent of admitting that we understand how lightning works but still insisting that only God can flip the switch. If we can figure things out, why would you conclude that there must be a limit to what we can figure out?

---

Actually we can never really know if God is perceivable or not. I generally use the term directly perceivable but that isn't really correct either. The only way that we would know is if God were removed and then compare the difference. Fortunately I have it on good authority that we won't have the opportunity to make that comparison. However, even if God isn't directly discernible I contend that trutrh matters even if we can't objectively prove it. I think it matters that we know that we are ultimately teleogenic beings. I think it matters that we know the origin of our morality. I think it is important to know that what we do matters. I think it is important to know whether or not their is ultimate justice.None of that is to say that atheists can't be moral, just, loving etc but part of my belief is that if we truly do open our hearts to God to be changed that as individuals we become more moral, just and loving. We all believe things that can't be objectively demonstrated. We all have our subjective beliefs and you can rationalize all you want but simply put you believe that God doesn't exist. I am never quite clear why you atheists make such an issue of that.

Intelligence can take a random stack of books and arrange them alphabetically creating order. Whether or not our existence is the result of an external intelligence is a matter of our own subjective beliefs but my only point was that if we are the result of an external intelligence then we should expect that there would be order. No it is not a gap. It would be like asking science to confirm any historical event. Science can't replicate the Battle of Hastings. We look for historical evidence and we come to our own conclusions of what happened. In the case of the resurrection we have the historical accounts in the Gospels and we come to our own subjective conclusions about the accuracy of the accounts. I could tell you who I voted for in the last election but I can't prove it. Is it the truth? It may or may not be but there is truth to be had. Can you prove love? Is it real? That is your subjective belief, and you can't objectively prove it. It may or may not be true. I'd say that it matters to all of creation, including ourselves. Says who? We all die sometime and we'll be in a better position to discuss the question of ultimate justice then. What label would you use?

Granted that if you throw up a deck of cards into the air and then randomly gather them up it is possible that they will be perfectly sorted by suit and number but when you see a deck of cards perfectly sorted chances are there was intelligence involved. The Bible is an historical document and we can choose, as in any historical document, to accept, reject or partly accept its accuracy. If I tell you how I voted I know I'm telling you the truth and it remains the truth even though neither of us are able to confirm it. That's rather a bizarre argument you're making. Aren't you the romantic. Once again it ios only your subjective opinion that it approaches "the truth" more closely. I would say just the opposite. That's a cop-out, but it is probably a good position to take rather than having to defend a rationally indefensible position.

If my theistic views are correct it would make sense that our sense of orders would in some way image the sense of order of an intelligent designer. All I ‘m saying is that out of order comes consistency which is what we should expect and find with scientific research.Make your point about crystals as frankly I have no idea what point you want to make. Exactly my point. You are convinced that there is sufficient historical evidence to support the subjective choice that the Battle of Hastings was an historic event. I’m confident that if you researched different historic accounts of the battle that you would find variations in the details but they would all agree that the battle actually took place.The Bible contains historical documents. In the case of the Gospels and the Epistles they all tell the story of the resurrection even though there are variations in the details. They all agree however that Jesus was resurrected. I am convinced that there is sufficient historical evidence for me to subjectively choose to believe the accounts of the resurrection whereas you subjectively choose not to. I was talking about something I objectively know’ to be but you subjectively decide whether or not to believe me. The fact remains it is the truth. Yes we can see how morality evolved amongst humans but that tells us nothing about the fundamental basis for morality.I agree that some things are considered moral in some societies and not in others. That isn’t the point. Our morality isn’t specifically about what we do. Our actions flow from our morality. A truly moral action is driven by the heart of someone that genuinely loves others as they do themselves. If you noticed I put a smile after the statement about the rationality of your beliefs whatever they are.I did respond to the question of the difference in belief between theism and the tooth fairy earlier.I have acknowledged that I am a Christian. You state that you aren’t an atheist but that you are just ringo. That is a cop-out. You then are free to critique the views of others without having to defend your own views.

When the Bible says that we should have faith - the question is faith in what. If the only way that we can be made right with God resulting in salvation is believing any specific theology, then it does become a matter of works as it requires us to make a conscious effort to believe something. What God wants is changed hearts not changed minds and that is very clear in the teachings of Jesus.As Christians what makes us right with God is that we read or hear what Jesus has to say and that it resonates in our hearts, and as a result we desire to make him Lord of our lives. If we truly do that we open our hearts up to the Holy Spirit who somehow speaks into our hearts and minds so that we are made more aware of the lives God would have us live. We are saved now to become part of God’s Kingdom as established by Jesus to be image bearers of God’s love for us to the world.So yes, it is by God’s grace that we can be made right with God. We are owed nothing. As Jesus said, it all boils down to love, as both He and Paul tell us when we are told to love others as ourselves. It’s good to be grateful but that isn’t the point. If the message is that by becoming a Christian and believing the right stuff you are going to have eternal life, then you are marketing the faith for an individual’s own personal benefit. That is all about the self. That is not something that changes hearts so that the individual will love others as him or herself.What matters is faith in Christ’s message of love, peace, forgiveness, mercy and justice. Yes, it is a very good thing to understand and have faith in Christ’s resurrection and ascension but in the end it is about heart knowledge and not head knowledge.

Jesus also said that we must be born again. That implies that we are to become a new person which means that we are to allow a basic change to our moral outlook, which in turn means that we are to genuinely desire that God’s desire for our hearts will become reality. What is required is a heart change and not a mind change. We are called to turn from a desire to be self serving to a desire to serve others. If we make becoming a Christian all about personal salvation there is no turning from being self serving to become a servant to others. If you want to save others as you put it then I would suggest that the worst thing that you can do is to sell them on the idea that the point of becoming a Christian is that you get to live forever. I suggest you read Matthew 7:21 to find Christ’s response to those who accept Christianity on that basis. That response to Gospel is a selfish response to Christ’s call for selflessness. Again, what is that we are to have faith in? You seem to believe that Christianity is about having faith that Jesus will keep us with Him and out of hell. I believe that we are called to have faith that Jesus’ way is the model for our lives and as a result of that faith, and with the help of the Spirit, our lives become less about us and more about Him. In the sheep and the goats parable in Matthew 25 Jesus tells us what making it more about Him looks like. We are called to feed the hungry, visit the prisoners, take in the homeless etc. He also points out that the sheep who did those things had no idea that they were doing it to and for Jesus. They were doing it because that was where their heart was and that was what made them right with God through Jesus.

That’s fine but can you give me an example of what molecular arrangement I’m saying needs intelligent intervention.? It simply makes the subjective argument stronger. I agree. On the other hand there is no objective evidence to say that it is impossible. We can objectively say that our normal laws as we understand them don’t allow for it but that is not the same as saying that it can’t possibly happen. In the first place the 4 Gospels are from a collection of accounts as we can see in the first part of Luke. Secondly if someone else viewed the resurrection then they would no longer be unbiased. I suggest that the Gospel accounts are from unbiased sources. If they didn’t find it outside the ordinary they wouldn’t have written them at all. They simply wrote about what had been observed to the best of their ability. Yes, I subjectively believe that there is a fundamental basis beyond what we objectively know. I’m pretty sure that you apply reason to your subjective conclusions. I have used subjective reasoning and a subjective take on personal experience to come to my theistic beliefs and I have used subjective reasoning to conclude that the tooth fairy doesn’t exist. Hmmmm..... it’s still a cop-out but your reply is a bit of a gotcha.

Matthew 7:7

quote:

---

"Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.

---

It does require an action on our part. Of course it’s metaphorical but Jesus talks about asking, seeking and knocking. We are called to actually seek to be more loving, more forgiving, more kind, more just etc.This is from Matthew 15.

quote:

---

8 " 'These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. 9 They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.'"

---

It isn’t about the mind it is about the heart. Jesus critiqued the Pharisees for thinking that if they kept all of the laws that God would redeem Israel. It was in a sense an Earthly salvation by works. What you are espousing is that by believing the right things that you will gain personal salvation, which is salvation by works and the same thing that Jesus criticized the Pharisees for. Exactly my point it is me me me. If I accept certain doctrine I will get to live forever.Paul writes this in 1 Cor 4:

quote:

---

Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait till the Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of men's hearts. At that time each will receive his praise from God.

---

Paul gets it. It is our hearts that are judged not our theological beliefs.Paul also writes this in Romans 2:

quote:

---

1 You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. 2 Now we know that God's judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. 3 So when you, a mere man, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God's judgment? 4 Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, tolerance and patience, not realizing that God's kindness leads you toward repentance? 5 But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God's wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed. 6 God "will give to each person according to what he has done." 7 To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. 8 But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. 9 There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; 10 but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. 11 For God does not show favoritism. 12 All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 13 For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, 15 since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.) 16 This will take place on the day when God will judge men's secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.

---

As Paul says, the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, which as he points out is for everyone. In this passage he points out that, those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life.. He doesn’t say those that believe that right things but those who genuinely desire to do the right things that receive eternal life.Sure it is good to understand the sacrifice of Jesus and be grateful but don’t get it mixed up with what God really wants, which is loving hearts regardless of what doctrine we believe.That's what the Bible says if you read without your 21st century cultural bias.

Jesus said this from the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5:

quote:

---

43 "You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' 44 But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.

---

Here is just one quote of Mahatma Gandhi. Gandhi was a religious man but not a Christian, at least in the way that you would define a Christian.

quote:

---

It is easy enough to be friendly to one's friends. But to befriend the one who regards himself as your enemy is the quintessence of true religion. The other is mere business.

---

So your point would be, correct me if I’m wrong, that Gandhi can’t have the kind of love I’m talking about because he doesn’t have his theology right. Presumably he is also damned to hell for the same reason. You might want to compare what Gandhi has to say with some of the hateful anti-Islamic things said by fundamentalist Christians.They might want to consider the previous quote from what Jesus said in the sermon on the mount alongside this quote from Gandhi.

quote:

---

Power is of two kinds. One is obtained by the fear of punishment and the other by acts of love. Power based on love is a thousand times more effective and permanent then the one derived from fear of punishment.

---

It is all about the heart. Like Jesus said all the law and the prophets are condensed into the law of love. My understanding of the Christian faith goes back to what Jesus, as well as Paul, James etc had to say.

From an evolutionary point of view I can accept the view that the human body didn't need intelligent intervention as the design was there from the beginning. I do believe that intelligent and moral consciousness require intelligent intervention. No it doesn't. The claim is that this was a one time occurrence in human history and that it is contrary to natural law. Objectively we can conclude that we no longer observe this happening and we aren't able to replicate it ourselves. We don't actually know whether the author of Mark was an eye-witness or not but the accounts were the accumulation of the writings of eye-witnesses. It is a matter of faith or belief but I also think that we should look at the style, intent, and content of the Gospels. They aren't written in anything like the style that we would expect a 1st century Jew to write if they were trying to perpetuate the messianic mission of Jesus. The disciples were badly flawed and the resurrection itself is unlike anything that they would have expected.However it is a matter of faith and belief and I believe that the bodily resurrection of Jesus is an actual historical event. Then it becomes important to understand what to make of that, and just as Paul and the rest of the early church did, we struggle to do that today. No, I'm saying that a Hindu who witnessed the death and resurrection of Jesus and then wrote about it would no longer be un-biased by your definition. Incidentally, Jesus' brother James only became a follower of Jesus after the resurrection. He had not been a believer if Jesus as Messiah prior to the resurrection.There is no motivation for anyone to follow Jesus after the crucifixion without the resurrection. Jesus would simply be another in a fairly long list of failed messiahs. It was hoped that the messiah would lead them in overthrowing the Romans but Jesus had been put to death by them. Why would they then continue to the mission after that. There are no accounts of anybody seriously contending that the tooth fairy exists. There are no accounts of any adult being converted to belief in the tooth fairy. The tooth fairy does not provide and explanation for intelligent existence nor for morality. I have not had any life experience that leads me to believe in the tooth fairy. The opposite is true for my Christian beliefs.

I agree that my views are subjective, and for that matter any view of the resurrection of Jesus is subjective. There are numerous ancient writings and predominately the Hebrew Scriptures. I've also read Josephus and I've read the view of first century scholars.Certainly the predominate view was that the messiah would lead them against their enemies and establish himself as "king of the Jews" and rebuild the Temple. It was in many ways a reflection of the religion of their pagan neighbours. It was all about getting god on your side to provide political and military superiority.However, even aside from that if they wanted to perpetuate a myth they would have probably gone with something like a figure shrouded in light as in the transfiguration instead of having Jesus sitting on the shore having a fish fry. Not all of them believed in resurrection but the ones that did only believed it would happen at the end of time for all the right people. I know this has been repeated a number of times but they wouldn't have had women as the first ones to meet the resurrected Jesus. Women didn't have much credibility. They wouldn't write an account in which is followers are placed in such a bad light.It is IMHO obviously a best effort to make the accounts as accurate as they could. Certainly over that span of time there could well have been some legends grow up around Jesus but the one thing that they solidly agree on is the resurrection.I might add in all of this that Paul was a contemporary and was acquainted with what they believed. Paul would have had tyo be convinced by eye-witnesses that this really happened to the point that he gave up a life of position in the community to become a travelling evangelist largely dependent on others for food and shelter. He also spent considerable time in prison, suffered abuse and was eventually put to death. As I have pointed out before they didn't have preconceived notions. They figured that when Jesus was crucified that he was like all of the other messianic claimants - He was just another failed messiah. They were all just busy keeping their head down so they wouldn't suffer the same fate.The point is that the Romans were very good at killing people. If you had seen someone dead and the then three days later see them walking around in a body that was the same but then not quite the same either you then start interpreting those events, whether you were a Hindu or a Jew.Certainly they would start interpreting what it all meant but what Jesus told them before and after the resurrection. Sure, but this isn't that kind of following. They believed certain things about Jesus that caused them to follow Him in ways that went beyond His moral message. He had been executed but they followed Him with the claim that He was still alive and ruling. Come on, we all make decisions about those things. I can't prove that the tooth fairy doesn't exist. It is my belief that he doesn't. I agree, it is all subjective. I subjectively believe the Gospel accounts and you subjectively disbelieve them. There is one common element in all of these which is the belief in God. The question revolve around what God is doing and what His characteristics and from that what that means for our lives. I don't doubt but that some of what I believe will turn out to be wrong. As I say, my bottom line is that God is loving and just, as we see Him to be in Jesus. Why not. I don't pretend to be able to explain everything and even the things I try and explain I acknowledge that I may be wrong about. It isn't an excuse it is just a fact. Just by observation that is obviously true and certainly I was exposed to Christianity in ways that I wasn't exposed to other faiths. I did however have to form my own opinion on things, and a number of years ago I accepted the basic truth of Christianity. I would add however, that over the years my Christian beliefs have evolved as I continue to study and read from a variety of authors and views.

This kind of thinking just astounds me. You claim to take the Bible as inerrant and essentially dictated by God yet you reject everything that doesn't disagree with your pre-determined beliefs.Firstly this was from a sermon made when people had no conception of being saved in the sense that you are talking about, and that includes His disciples. Secondly, have you ever even read the good Samaritan. They believed in nothing but death after death. Read Paul in Romans 2 or 1st Corinthians without blinkers. this is from 1st Corinthians 4:

quote:

---

Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait till the Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of men's hearts. At that time each will receive his praise from God.

---

I'm sure you will say that this only applies to the select group of Christians that agree with you but that isn't Paul is talking to anyone who will listen.With your focus on the self and individual salvation you want to have definitive knowledge of who is "saved" and who isn't, and it all boils down to "having faith in Christ's death to pay for your sins". Frankly, you have turned a "Great God" into a small and petty god. It is again all about what you believe which runs counter to the whole NT. Salvation as a matter of having faith in Christ's death to pay for your sins is a specific theology. Read again about the sheep and the goats in Matthew 25. Jesus doesn't talk about doctrine but about people have loving hearts that serve Him by feeding the hungry, visiting prisoners etc. Jesus asks that we have the hearts of loving servants. It is all in the Bible. There you go disbelieving what Paul says in the Bible again. Thankfully we have a God that is just and that contention is neither Biblical nor Christian. No wonder we have wars. As I have said before your beliefs run completely counter to everything Christ actually espoused. NO wonder we have problems. Read the Bible. Read the parables such as the sheep and the goats, the good Samaritan, the Prodigal Son etc they all tell us how we are to love. Your brand of Christianity is exactly like what Jesus spoke out against with the Pharisees. Much of what the Reformers taught was as a result of the backlash against the abuses of the Roman Catholic church at that time. People died to get the Bible into the hands of the common folk and so quite rightly Bibles became very precious to them.It didn't make them automatically right. Your beliefs run counter to both Jesus and Paul and that doesn't seem to bother you.All I can suggest is that you read the Bible in large chunks instead of short sound bites.