Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A Minimalist Bible
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 31 of 58 (708423)
10-09-2013 11:34 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Stile
10-09-2013 2:10 PM


Re: Importance requires validity
Stile writes:
An excellent message.
But we don't know it was "His" message, do we? We don't know it was from Jesus/God.
If there are limitations on God... then yes, it may be from God. But also maybe not. Perhaps it was just a message created by some men at that time.
OK
Stile writes:
An excellent reason to follow the message.
Not a reason at all to follow Jesus.
Maybe it's Jesus' message.
Maybe it's not.
We don't know.
However we do have a written account that has been around for centuries of what Jesus is reported to have said. You agree that the message is valid so it is worth following whether or not it is Jesus’ message.
Stile writes:
This doesn't make any sense at all. Your conclusion doesn't follow in any way from your premise.
"If the message of Jesus has proven to be reliable.."
...then all it gives credence to is the idea that the message is reliable.
It doesn't tell us anything at all about the source of the message
You claim the source is from Jesus.
You claim the source is from God.
You also claim that God isn't all-powerful.
You haven't shown any idea that points positively in the direction that God provided this message.
Sure, it could be from Go d, as you say.
Sure, it could be from the more-powerful-being that is holding God captive, as you neglect.
Sure, it could be from humans without any intervention from God at all, as you neglect.
Sure, it could be from some other animal we have yet to understand, as you neglect.
Nothing you say directs us to the claim you make and away from the other claims.
This is why there is absolutely no credence at all "to the idea that God would honour and validate this message."
It's just a claim, the same as all the other claims that don't contradict anything about the world the way it is today.
There's no way to test it, and no way to know if it's true or not.
This confirms that there's absolutely zero credence to the claim you're trying to push forward.
At the time of Jesus the message of loving one’s enemy was anything but mainstream. However, with the passing centuries we can see the validity of the message. God would hardly resurrect Jesus is the message wasn’t valid. If from other sources we come to the conclusion that Jesus was actually resurrected then we can assume that the message is of God. I agree that it all hangs on the resurrection.
I agree that we can’t know in the totally objective sense. It is a faith. However I don’t agree that we should discard the belief just because there is no certainty. For that matter if there was certainty then it is no longer faith and our freedom to choose out the window.
Stile writes:
This is very true.
Lots of people believe many things.
Yes, by faith. When we get married we have faith that it will work out even though we don’t have certainty. Are you suggesting that we should go through life by only coming to a decision when we have certainty?
Stile writes:
You do claim that it is much more than simply blind faith.
What you've failed to do is show how it is more than simply blind faith in any way.
As long as we can't show the distinction between "from God" vs. "from the more-powerful-being that is holding God captive" vs. "from humans" for the claims you make, then yes, it simply is blind faith to pick one of those options as "the one." What else could it be?
I am posted numerous times in this thread reasons why I believe as I do. There is a reason why we exist and it is my belief that Christianity provides the most reasonable answer.
Stile writes:
I've never said that this idea was sterile. In fact, I've stated a few times now that this is a fantastic concept and we should continue to build upon it.
What I keep saying is sterile is your claim that this idea comes from God.
Maybe it does.
Maybe it doesn't.
There's nothing to distinguish this message as "from God" vs. "from the more-powerful-being that is holding God captive" vs. "from humans."
Therefore, the idea that it is "from God" is sterile.
The concept itself is widely known.
It's well known and well studied and progress is being made on the human ability to find joy in our kindness to others.
Yes, and it is either due to mindless natural processes or it is the result of an intelligent planner. I contend that the latter is the more likely answer and on faith I believe it to be true.
Stile writes:
Of course we should be moving toward the world view of finding joy in our kindness to others... we have studied this phenomenon and we can show that it is useful and beneficial to us.
We should not, however, move towards the world view that this idea "comes from God" because progress in that way is sterile because we don't know if it's "from God" vs. "from the more-powerful-being that is holding God captive" vs. "from humans."
From a secular POV what does it matter if we move that way because we believe it comes from God? A secular world view is only concerned with results.
Stile writes:
Exactly. We can have plenty of confidence in the message itself because we can show it to be true throughout human history and society in our present time.
There's just no reason to indicate that it's from Jesus or God. Humans have been trying to show that to be true for thousands of years. No progress yet. Sterile.
By show it to be true I assume you mean to offer objective proof. Nobody is really trying to do that. I can give a rationale for why I believe what I do but in the end my beliefs are subjective and I believe them by faith.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Stile, posted 10-09-2013 2:10 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Stile, posted 10-10-2013 3:19 PM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


(1)
Message 32 of 58 (708451)
10-10-2013 9:38 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Faith
10-09-2013 3:56 PM


Faith writes:
Not dictated by God? Claims the Bible does not make about itself? What do they do with 2 Timothy 3:16:
quote:
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness
ALL scripture... GIVEN BY INSPIRATION OF GOD. Some translations say "God-breathed."
If you are going to understand that passage this way then you might want to consider yourself Jewish and not Christian as the NT didn’t even exist when that was written and it would have been in reference to the Hebrew Scriptures as they were at that time which was not exactly the same as our OT is today. The Gospels hadn’t even been compiled then.
What does it mean to be inspired? Let’s say I’m an author who has broken my arm so I ask my wife to help me. She sits down at the computer and I dictate what it is she is to write. Would you say I’d inspired her to write? Of course not, I gave her specific instructions with no inspiration whatsoever. If however I tell her that she has a real talent for writing and that she should sit down and use her talents to write something wonderful using her abilities then I have inspired her.
People say that Beethoven wrote inspired music. Nobody is suggesting that God or anybody else gave him the notes. If a pitcher pitches an inspired game nobody is suggesting that it is anybody but the pitcher himself that threw the ball.
Now let’s look at the term God breathed. This again does not even suggest that it was dictated. What it does suggest though is that in some way God metaphorically inhabits the Scriptures through His breath or Holy Spirit so that our hearts and minds may be touched and given understanding and instruction through these books written by men. I’ve said in other posts that I believe that God subtly influences us through our hearts and minds and uses this book as one way of doing that.
The Word of God is incarnate in Jesus. If we consider the Bible as inerrant then we have superseded Jesus and made the Bible the focus of worship. Yes, we need the OT to understand the Gospels as Jesus was a Jew, speaking to Jews and using the Hebrew Scriptures, but then in order to understand what it is that we can take from the OT we have to read them through the lens of Jesus. It was Jesus that was resurrected not the Bible.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Faith, posted 10-09-2013 3:56 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-10-2013 11:13 AM GDR has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 58 (708463)
10-10-2013 11:05 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Faith
10-09-2013 5:31 PM


You are using the word "inspired" in a casual sense; in the accurate sense it's the equivalent of God's dictating the original Greek and Hebrew. "The WORD of the Lord came to me" say the prophets. Not the concept of the Lord, the general idea of the Lord, but the WORD of the Lord.
I see. Truthfully, though, "The WORD of the Lord came to me" is a cliche that we only see in the Old Testament and it is not something that Paul actually wrote to Timothy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Faith, posted 10-09-2013 5:31 PM Faith has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 34 of 58 (708464)
10-10-2013 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Phat
10-09-2013 6:34 PM


Re: Inspiration
Being inspired by God means that it comes from Him and not from our own vain imaginations.
Okay, but that doesn't have to mean that the words are being verbally dictated to you. Too, you could be inspired to create things that don't even contain words, like music or paintings.
Now, lets say that you do have the words verbally dictated to you, i.e. you're hearing voices. How do you know that it is coming from Him rather than your own vain imagination?
Isn't it pretty vain to think that God is talking directly to you?
Further, if someone writes something and says that God verbally dictated it to them, then how do you know that it came from Him rather than their own vain imagination?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Phat, posted 10-09-2013 6:34 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 35 of 58 (708465)
10-10-2013 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by GDR
10-10-2013 9:38 AM


What does it mean to be inspired? Let’s say I’m an author who has broken my arm so I ask my wife to help me. She sits down at the computer and I dictate what it is she is to write. Would you say I’d inspired her to write? Of course not, I gave her specific instructions with no inspiration whatsoever. If however I tell her that she has a real talent for writing and that she should sit down and use her talents to write something wonderful using her abilities then I have inspired her.
This is actually a really good point.
If God is just dictating exactly what to write, then he doesn't even need the human there, he could just use telekinesis to move the pen around himself, or just make ink appear on the pages.
That it says that it is inspired, implies that it was not dictated, as you point out.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by GDR, posted 10-10-2013 9:38 AM GDR has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by ringo, posted 10-12-2013 1:16 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 36 of 58 (708477)
10-10-2013 2:11 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Faith
10-09-2013 5:31 PM


The Bible or Jesus?
Faith writes:
You are using the word "inspired" in a casual sense; in the accurate sense it's the equivalent of God's dictating the original Greek and Hebrew. "The WORD of the Lord came to me" say the prophets. Not the concept of the Lord, the general idea of the Lord, but the WORD of the Lord.
But that is assuming that the Bible is God dictated and not inspired. It of course assumes your views rather than supporting them.
Here is a quote from something written by C S Cowles.
quote:
Wesleyan theologian Thomas A Noble tightly suggests that the starting point in forming a truly Christian theology is not what the Bible teaches about God in general but what Jesus reveals about God in particular.
If this is the case, then God is not like the first Joshua, a warrior, but like the second, the Prince of Peace. As the anonymous Christian writing to Diognetus put it, violence is no attribute of God.
When someone preaches a sermon after which the listeners seek to kill him, one can safely assume that the preacher has touched a sensitive nerve. That is precisely what occurred when Jesus delivered His inaugural sermon at Nazareth (Luke 4:16-30). What was it about his reading of Isaiah’s prophetic song that so infuriated the people? For openers, he stopped his reading before getting to the prophetic punch line, which represented the hopes and dreams of an aggrieved and oppressed people, namely, the long anticipated day of vengeance of our God. (Luke 4:18-19; see Isa 611-2)
The entire sweep of Jesus’ life and death makes it abundantly clear that His editing of this passage was not accidental but intentional and that it represented an entirely new way of thinking about God. What Jesus was introducing was nothing short of an entirely new rewrite of Jewish theology. It would not be off the wall but drawn from the deep artesian springs of the Law and Prophets. It would constitute a sweeping recasting of God’s gracious purposes, not only for Jews but for all humankind. It would be the fulfillment of the ancient covenant of Abraham all peoples on earth will be blessed (Gen. 12:3). It would introduce the shocking, unprecedented and utterly incomprehensible news that God is non-violent and that He wills the well-being of all humans, beginning with the poor, the oppressed and the disenfranchised.
To reinforce the fact that He intentionally amended the Isaianic text, Jesus focused attention on two obscure people mentioned in passing in the Hebrew Scriptures . Both were foreigners and idol worshippers (Luke 4:25-27). It did not sit well with Jesus’ listeners to be reminded that it was a Baal worshipping Sidonian widow, descended from Sidon, Canaan’s eldest son — and thus under Noah’s curse — who became a recipient of God’s gracious miracle of continuing sustenance. Even less did they want to be reminded that, even though there were many widow’s in Israel in Elijah’s time who had undoubtedly lost sons, it was not to these but rather to the despised foreign woman that God displayed his boundless compassion by raising her dead son to life in response to Elijah’s earnest entreaty. (Kings 17:22)
The point is that when we take an inerrant Bible we are left to choose between two very different natures for God. Is it the warrior God acting through Joshua or is He the God of peace, love and mercy that we receive in the words, life and death of Jesus. You will argue that you can, but you cannot in actuality have it both ways. One clue to the answer would be that it was Jesus that was resurrected and not the Bible.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Faith, posted 10-09-2013 5:31 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Faith, posted 10-10-2013 2:56 PM GDR has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 37 of 58 (708493)
10-10-2013 2:54 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Phat
10-09-2013 6:37 PM


Re: Importance requires validity
Phat writes:
I believe that human nature always seeks to be the "more-powerful being."
And you'd be wrong. Human nature doesn't "always" do much of anything.
Anything that we don't understand is by definition something that we humans can't control.
You use a lot of absolutes when you speak, it causes you to be wrong a lot.
Many people control things they don't understand.
There are plenty of operators that don't understand the equipment they operate.
You seem to control your computer enough to post on the internet. Would you say you understand your computer? What about understanding the entire internet?
It is in our nature to deny God precisely because we cant control Him.
No, it's not.
It may be for some.
But it's not for many others.
If you want to understand why someone doesn't believe in God, why don't you just ask them?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Phat, posted 10-09-2013 6:37 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 38 of 58 (708494)
10-10-2013 2:56 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by GDR
10-10-2013 2:11 PM


Re: The Bible or Jesus?
Jesus, being God, is the Author of the Bible, you cannot choose one over the other. Jesus is both the God of peace and tne Warrior King. He came first as the meek Suffering Servant to save out a people for Himself; He will come again as the Warrior King to defeat His enemies.
(Jesus stopped short of the Day of Vengeance verse in the Isaiah text because He was declaring His current mission as the Suffering Servant who came to bring peace; the Pharisees hated Him for claiming to BE the Messiah, who they knew was also to be God in the flesh. There is no need for other speculations about why they wanted to kill Him. They SAY at one point that they wanted to kill Him because He "made Himself out to be God.")
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by GDR, posted 10-10-2013 2:11 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by GDR, posted 10-10-2013 7:13 PM Faith has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 39 of 58 (708499)
10-10-2013 3:19 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by GDR
10-09-2013 11:34 PM


Re: Importance requires validity
GDR writes:
However I don’t agree that we should discard the belief just because there is no certainty.
Why would you think I wish for you to discard the belief?
This was your question at the beginning of the thread:
quote:
Does understanding of the Bible this way, based on the theistic assumptions that I outlined, reasonably fit with what we conclude through basic logic and reason.
I'm just telling you what can reasonably be determined using basic logic and reason vs. what's a belief or faith.
The message we're discussing is very impressive. It can be tested using basic logic and reason to reasonably determine that it is valid and should be used and built upon.
Ascribing this message to Jesus cannot be tested using basic logic or reason... it's a belief, it's faith.
Whether or not that's a good thing for your life is for you to determine through your own priorities.
GDR writes:
Stile writes:
Of course we should be moving toward the world view of finding joy in our kindness to others... we have studied this phenomenon and we can show that it is useful and beneficial to us.
We should not, however, move towards the world view that this idea "comes from God" because progress in that way is sterile because we don't know if it's "from God" vs. "from the more-powerful-being that is holding God captive" vs. "from humans."
From a secular POV what does it matter if we move that way because we believe it comes from God? A secular world view is only concerned with results.
I don't think I was clear.
I'm not saying that the secular viewpoint cares why or why not you want to follow the good message.
I'm saying that the worldview that this good message "comes from God" isn't based on logic and reason, it's a belief or faith.
Your idea of the "minimalist Bible" will be faith-and-belief as long as it includes things that cannot be tested with basic logic and reason.
You may have removed some of the other faith-and-belief parts... but as long as some of those remain (like the assumptions you want at the beginning of this thread)... then it can only be tested with basic logic and reason internally.
As soon as you try to apply it externally on the rest of the world... you'll run into the issue that not everyone will be willing to accept your faith-and-belief assumptions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by GDR, posted 10-09-2013 11:34 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by GDR, posted 10-11-2013 10:30 AM Stile has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 40 of 58 (708529)
10-10-2013 7:13 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Faith
10-10-2013 2:56 PM


Re: The Bible or Jesus?
Faith writes:
Jesus, being God, is the Author of the Bible, you cannot choose one over the other.
I'm sorry Faith but actually read the Bible without the blinkers. Yes, I'm a trinitarian but not in the way that you understand it. Jesus represents The "Word" of God incarnate. That "Word" that existed from the beginning. How many times in the Gospels does Jesus separate himself from the Father. Who was He praying to at Gethsemane? Himself?
Look at John 14:28.
quote:
28 "You heard me say, 'I am going away and I am coming back to you.' If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.
How is Jesus greater than Himself? You have a form of Christianity that would be entirely unrecognisable by either Paul or Jesus.
Faith writes:
Jesus is both the God of peace and tne Warrior King. He came first as the meek Suffering Servant to save out a people for Himself; He will come again as the Warrior King to defeat His enemies.
This is the sort of thing that scares the death out of me. Genesis makes the point that we have been given stewardship over our planet and the Biblical narrative supports that view. Even Yahweh's return to the Jews was done through the man, born in time, Jesus. Your view, supported by an un-Christ-like reading of the OT could be used to support a Christian jihad which is the exact message that Jesus repudiated.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Faith, posted 10-10-2013 2:56 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Faith, posted 10-10-2013 7:32 PM GDR has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 41 of 58 (708532)
10-10-2013 7:32 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by GDR
10-10-2013 7:13 PM


Re: The Bible or Jesus?
What absolute rot. What I've said has NEVER supported any sort of "jihad," what utter stupidity, and it's THE STANDARD REFORMATION UNDERSTANDING. It's the OT READ THROUGH THE New for crying out loud.
Oh forget it. I don't need the ulcer.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by GDR, posted 10-10-2013 7:13 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by GDR, posted 10-10-2013 7:36 PM Faith has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 42 of 58 (708534)
10-10-2013 7:36 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Faith
10-10-2013 7:32 PM


Re: The Bible or Jesus?
Faith writes:
What absolute rot. What I've said has NEVER supported any sort of "jihad," what utter stupidity, and it's THE STANDARD REFORMATION UNDERSTANDING. It's the OT READ THROUGH THE New for crying out loud.
But Faith. It is you that believes Jesus is coming back as a warrior King which is what the first century Jews believed. The Messiah was to lead them in battle to defeat their enemies. Jesus repudiated that message.
AbE
I'm sorry if I implied that you would think that, as I have no doubt that you don't. What I am saying is that your theology could lead others to come to that conclusion. It has happened before.
Edited by GDR, : added apology and explanation.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Faith, posted 10-10-2013 7:32 PM Faith has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 43 of 58 (708600)
10-11-2013 10:30 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by Stile
10-10-2013 3:19 PM


Re: Importance requires validity
Stile writes:
I'm just telling you what can reasonably be determined using basic logic and reason vs. what's a belief or faith.
The message we're discussing is very impressive. It can be tested using basic logic and reason to reasonably determine that it is valid and should be used and built upon.
Ascribing this message to Jesus cannot be tested using basic logic or reason... it's a belief, it's faith.
Whether or not that's a good thing for your life is for you to determine through your own priorities.
I agree that ascribing it to Jesus is belief and then faith. However, the question becomes is it a reasonable belief. People like to liken it to the tooth fairy but that is just a cheap put down. As anyone past the age of 56 knows that the belief in the tooth fairy is unreasonable.
I'm saying that one way we can consider the reasonableness of the belief is by looking at Jesus' message and, where we are able, see if over the course of history if that message has proven reliable. I'm think I've shown, and you agree that His message of love of neighbour and even of enemy has proven to be the way the world should go.
It isn't that Jesus' message is all that radical in that regard, (although in that culture it was), as many other from Buddha to Mahatma Gandhi have professed similar views. The point is though that we can see that part of it is supported by what we know.
Another part of Jesus' message is that He was coming to establish a Kingdom of His followers in all nations whose job was to take His message of truth, love, mercy, forgiveness, justice etc to the world. Now certainly that Kingdom or what we now call His church has had a very spotty record in doing the job that it has been given to do but just the same it was Christians who led the fight against slavery and worked to have hospitals etc become a reality and who are predominant in bringing aid to the third world today. Regardless of the record of the church though it still exists today so that part of His message that He was going to establish a permanent kingdom has come to fruition and unlike the tooth fairy the believers in the most part are people like myself who have come to belief as adults. So, we can see where that part of what Jesus said is reasonable.
One other aspect of His message though is the individual message. Does it appear reasonable to us as individuals when we do respond by faith to the message. In the thread on my beliefs I think I outlined in there how it has absolutely resonated in my life in practical terms but also with personal experience. That though is something that is essentially meaningless to anyone but myself, but if it could be considered testing the validity of Jesus, (not that I have ever thought of it like that), then it did pass the test.
So to that degree I think it can be tested by basic logic and reason but ultimately, it is belief and faith.
Stile writes:
I don't think I was clear.
I'm not saying that the secular viewpoint cares why or why not you want to follow the good message.
I'm saying that the worldview that this good message "comes from God" isn't based on logic and reason, it's a belief or faith.
It is my view that Christianity aside theistic belief is the most reasonable view to hold concerning the reason for the existence of life. I don’t think that it is reasonable to conclude that sentient life could come into existence from mindless chemicals. I don’t have figures but although it isn’t true around here the majority of people in the world hold that view. I’m not suggesting that tells us anything about a pre-existing intelligence.
It also seems to me that if there is a pre-existing intelligence responsible for life then it seems reasonable to conclude that this intelligence would have an on-going interested in the project he/she/it is responsible for. I also suggest that as we do have a knowledge of right and wrong, and seem to more or less have a sense that the Golden Rule is a universal moral code. As a theist it seems reasonable to believe that it comes from God.
So once again we come back to it ultimately being belief or faith, but unlike belief in the tooth fairy there is a logic and a reason to believe.
Stile writes:
As soon as you try to apply it externally on the rest of the world... you'll run into the issue that not everyone will be willing to accept your faith-and-belief assumptions.
Certainly, but I don’t think that is the point. I don’t see my job as being to convince you of my Christian beliefs. My job, not that I do it well, is just what my signature tells us. I am to reflect God into the world with humble mercy and justice, or again the golden rule. If through that people come to the conclusion that Christian belief is for them so much the better but that is between them and God but as was talked about in the other thread morality and altruism is spread by social memes and as we all know kindness is infectious.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Stile, posted 10-10-2013 3:19 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Stile, posted 10-11-2013 10:55 AM GDR has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 44 of 58 (708604)
10-11-2013 10:55 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by GDR
10-11-2013 10:30 AM


Re: Importance requires validity
GDR writes:
I'm saying that one way we can consider the reasonableness of the belief is by looking at Jesus' message and, where we are able, see if over the course of history if that message has proven reliable. I'm think I've shown, and you agree that His message of love of neighbour and even of enemy has proven to be the way the world should go.
Yes, I agree that the message is the way the world should go.
But it's not reasonable to ascribe this message to Jesus just because the message is a good one.
Brushing my teeth everyday is also a good message, and a way the world should go.
Do you ascribe that to Jesus as well?
If you're being reasonable... then you must.
If you don't... then you need to find some other point of indication in order to ascribe this message to Jesus and have it be "reasonable."
One other aspect of His message though is the individual message. Does it appear reasonable to us as individuals when we do respond by faith to the message. In the thread on my beliefs I think I outlined in there how it has absolutely resonated in my life in practical terms but also with personal experience. That though is something that is essentially meaningless to anyone but myself, but if it could be considered testing the validity of Jesus, (not that I have ever thought of it like that), then it did pass the test.
As aspect of reason is consistency.
I agree that this resonation in your personal experiences leads you to your belief in Jesus.
But there are many other people who'e resonation in their personal experiences leads them away from belief in Jesus.
This point isn't consistent either.
Therefore, it's not a "reasonable" point to believe in Jesus.
If you want logical and reasonable points to support a belief in Jesus... then you need to find consistency in those points.
Something like praying to Jesus and always getting the prayer answered would be a logical and reasonable reason to belief in the existence of Jesus. It wouldn't be proof at all (it's possible that the greater-than-God being is answering these prayers as a trick...) but it would at least be reasonable.
All logical and reasonable points are consistent. If they cannot be applied consistently, then it's not a reasonable or logical idea.
It also seems to me that if there is a pre-existing intelligence responsible for life then it seems reasonable to conclude that this intelligence would have an on-going interested in the project he/she/it is responsible for.
Again, this isn't consistent.
It seems to me that if there was a pre-existing intelligence responsible for life then it seems reasonable to conclude that this intelligence would be objectively active in what they are responsible for. But we don't see this.
So who is reasonable? Me? Or you?
The answer, of course, is that neither of us are being reasonable. Because the idea isn't consistent.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by GDR, posted 10-11-2013 10:30 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by GDR, posted 10-11-2013 2:06 PM Stile has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 45 of 58 (708639)
10-11-2013 2:06 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Stile
10-11-2013 10:55 AM


Re: Importance requires validity
Stile writes:
Yes, I agree that the message is the way the world should go.
But it's not reasonable to ascribe this message to Jesus just because the message is a good one.
Brushing my teeth everyday is also a good message, and a way the world should go.
Do you ascribe that to Jesus as well?
If you're being reasonable... then you must.
If you don't... then you need to find some other point of indication in order to ascribe this message to Jesus and have it be "reasonable."
But I'm not ascribing the message to Jesus. I am as a theist ascribing the message to God. Jesus delivers the message. As the message has been shown to be reliable in the area it does add credibility to whatever else Jesus says.
Stile writes:
As aspect of reason is consistency.
I agree that this resonation in your personal experiences leads you to your belief in Jesus.
But there are many other people who'e resonation in their personal experiences leads them away from belief in Jesus.
This point isn't consistent either.
Therefore, it's not a "reasonable" point to believe in Jesus.
If other people's experiences lead them away from Jesus is it then "reasonable" for them not to believe in Jesus? We all form beliefs based on our subjective views. That does not make them unreasonable.
Stile writes:
Something like praying to Jesus and always getting the prayer answered would be a logical and reasonable reason to belief in the existence of Jesus. It wouldn't be proof at all (it's possible that the greater-than-God being is answering these prayers as a trick...) but it would at least be reasonable.
All logical and reasonable points are consistent. If they cannot be applied consistently, then it's not a reasonable or logical idea.
Sure if prayer was always answered then it would be an indication but it would also be a quite different God than I believed in but even if it were the case it would only be evidence for a god and not necessarily the Father that Jesus prayed to.
It would also mean that it would be a god we can control which is something of a perverse idea.
Stile writes:
Again, this isn't consistent.
It seems to me that if there was a pre-existing intelligence responsible for life then it seems reasonable to conclude that this intelligence would be objectively active in what they are responsible for. But we don't see this.
So who is reasonable? Me? Or you?
The answer, of course, is that neither of us are being reasonable. Because the idea isn't consistent.
How do you know that we don’t see this? All we know is the world functions with what appears to be natural processes. Thoughts come in and out of our head and we muddle along. Who knows what it looks what things would be like without an involved god.
We all have some form of world view even if it just boils down to looking out for number one, and we hold these views with varying degrees of confidence without consistency and without objective knowledge. I assume then from your standpoint that there isn’t a reasonable person amongst us.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Stile, posted 10-11-2013 10:55 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Stile, posted 10-11-2013 3:01 PM GDR has replied
 Message 54 by ringo, posted 10-12-2013 1:24 PM GDR has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024