Belief Versus The Scientific Method

Phat writes: And never mind that there are more Frodos out there than simply the one in the Lord of the Rings. (or the Hobbit)

ringo writes: There really aren't.

This shows me that you really *should* be a believer. I think you reject it due to your pride on your own methodology that replaced your belief.

This gets us back to Jesus. Jesus is not simply a character in a book. If He were limited to that, I would have no overwhelming compulsion to commune with Him (since He wouldn't thus exist)

ringo writes: It's about YOU rejecting my argument BECAUSE I don't believe. The whole point of bringing up Frodo is to try to get you to understand that my lack of belief in the character has nothing to do with my understanding of the character.

Thats the whole point. You can understand fiction until the Moon becomes green cheese and the cow jumping over it takes a bite each pass.

You cant tell me what my interpretation of the character must be by forcing me into your argumentative points. Jesus and I do have a relationship. It is not fantasy. Showing you, however...and getting you to listen will require me to agree with your argumentative talking points and throwing away the apologists since I refuse to "throw away" Jesus (which is, by the way the silliest argument jar has ever brought forth.) It would be like throwing away Lincoln and believing in revisionist history!

Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

But we do know that Frodo gave his finger for you.

Phat writes: This gets us back to Jesus. Jesus is not simply a character in a book. If He were limited to that, I would have no overwhelming compulsion to commune with Him (since He wouldn't thus exist)

You keep using the word commune. I don't think it means what you think it means.

How many years have you been asked to explain how you know you are 'communing' with Jesus?

How many years have you either refused or been unable to explain how you do that or even what that means?

Phat writes: Jesus and I do have a relationship. It is not fantasy.

See above. Same questions part 2.

Phat writes: First off, I'm a bit mad at Percy for placing this in the Science Forums as it insists that your evidence-based approach win by default.

The description on the https://www.evcforum.net/Forums.php page says:

quote:

---

Is Creationism science? Is evolution? What is the nature of science, and is either one really science?

---

That description is set in the context of the creation/evolution debate, but it otherwise seems pretty open ended. I've always thought this was the right forum to argue for other ways of knowing.

Phat writes: This shows me that you really *should* be a believer.

How so? I said that there's only one Frodo and you come out of left field with a statement that has nothing to do with what you quoted.

Frodo writes: I think you reject it due to your pride on your own methodology that replaced your belief.

It isn't "my" methodology. It's THE methodology, the same methodology that YOU use for almost everything.

Phat writes: Jesus is not simply a character in a book.

Yes he is. You wish he wasn't but he is.

Phat writes: You cant tell me what my interpretation of the character must be by forcing me into your argumentative points.

I can demonstrate that your interpretation is made up in your head.

Phat writes: I refuse to "throw away" Jesus (which is, by the way the silliest argument jar has ever brought forth.) It would be like throwing away Lincoln and believing in revisionist history!

Utter nonsense. We have all kinds of evidence that Lincoln existed. We're only a couple of generations away from people who knew him personally and did actually commune with him. Please don't make such a fool of yourself.

ringo writes: Utter nonsense. We have all kinds of evidence that Lincoln existed. We're only a couple of generations away from people who knew him personally and did actually commune with him. Please don't make such a **** of yourself.

And my Great-Grandfather was John T Ford so my family has a somewhat personal knowledge that Lincoln existed.

jar writes: How many years have you been asked to explain how you know you are 'communing' with Jesus?

Its not really important to know. Likely it would be close to impossible to affirm anything beyond ones personal belief and convictions. Whether Jesus is alive in Spirit now, as many claim, there is no way to measure this objectivly.

jar writes: How many years have you either refused or been unable to explain how you do that or even what that means?

We have been discussing this stuff here at EvC since roughly 2004. 27 years, jar. I have used just about every argument I can come up with and you have ridiculed or dismissed most of them.

Evidently you don't think that a relationship with GOD is possible or perhaps even necessary. Just because it cannot be explained does not mean it needs to be dismissed.

You keep using the word commune. I don't think it means what you think it means.

What do you think it means? What is Holy Communion to you, beyond a symbolic gesture among humans? What does the Bible say? What have the apologists added, in your opinion?

ringo,explaining a generic way of "testing" for Jesus writes: It isn't "my" methodology. It's THE methodology, the same methodology that YOU use for almost everything.

Keyword: ALMOST. Not only is GOD more than a character in a book, He is human through Jesus and thus able to relate to us, should He so desire.

God is not on the same level as leprechauns, Bigfoot, weird Hindu deities bedecked with jewels, or old Indian legends. If so, it is He who initiated the beginning of the curiosity among pagan cultures to know the truth.

And to be fair, Jesus is not some white guy either. I believe in a multicultural Jesus. He likely would agree with my assessment.

As for "The" Methodology, I disagree with that claim. Science is not to be elevated above belief unless it objectively and conclusively refutes a prior assumption. With so little evidence (objective,physical) to work with, Jesus likely will eternally remain in the belief realm. If He is in fact a Deity, communion with humans should be no problem for Him.

And, no. He does not owe it to everybody to present Himself. He gives them the roadmap and they must do the work to find Him. Which you evidently saw no need of doing after discovering the scientific method.

Finally, you will get back to your primary accusation: That I don't do what the character in that dusty old book says to do. (Thats a pretty brash statement coming from a guy who doesn't observe me or my habits on a daily basis. )

I will not fight it, though. I can always do more. But its insane to imagine that everybody on this planet could, would, and should give up everything they own...for each other. Your defense is that there are select groups of Christians throughout History who have done just that. (Remember truth lover here at EvC?) Bully for them. If they make it and the rest of us don't, I will then agree with your charges.

And why don't you do it? If you go first, I might consider following.

You will argue that you are not a believer and thus don't have to do it. Again...;bully for you. The fact that I don't do it and claim to be a believer is between myself and Him. He may well have me whacked.

Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

Phat writes: What is Holy Communion to you,

Holy Communion is a human created social supporting play, a rite of affirmation.

The Bible really says little about Holy Communion and any such pieces parts taken out of context are also inconclusive and most often mutually exclusive. We've discussed many such passages in the past Phat from the naming of Israel to God and the Pharaoh to the many versions of Saul's conversion and of the Great Commission among others.

Phat writes: What have the apologists added, in your opinion

Absolutely nothing of any worth or value Phat and the apologists have denigrated any possible meaning to nothing but another tool to brainwash those who never learned how to think; to a meaningless catch phrase to avoid actual thought.

You claim that you are in 'communion' with Jesus but avoid explaining what that even means.

P_hat writes: Likely it would be close to impossible to affirm anything beyond ones personal belief and convictions.

All of the evidence supports the position that any such communion is nothing but the creation of that individual's imagination though.

There is no evidence that it is anything other than the creation of that individual's imagination.

Phat writes: Whether Jesus is alive in Spirit now, as many claim, there is no way to measure this objectivly.

But there is far more to it than that. Neither you or anyone else has ever even explained what that means.

Phat writes: Whether Jesus is alive in Spirit now, as many claim, there is no way to measure this objectivly.

jar writes: But there is far more to it than that. Neither you or anyone else has ever even explained what that means.

You have. You often mention that it is the little everyday things we do for others that show our Spirit. One of my favorite scriptures is this:

Matthew 10:40 ESV writes: “Whoever receives you receives me, and whoever receives me receives him who sent me.

Your actions of taking out the neighbors trash likely led them to receive you (accept you) as a trustworthy neighbor. According to Matthew, they then also receive the One who sent you. Unless you are telling me that nobody sent you, in which case I would roll my eyes and smack my forehead.
Also:

Luke 10:16 Whoever listens to you listens to Me; whoever rejects you rejects Me; and whoever rejects Me rejects the One who sent Me." John 12:44 Then Jesus cried out, "Whoever believes in Me does not believe in Me alone, but in the One who sent Me.

Phat writes: Keyword: ALMOST.

Indeed. It's the "almost" that shoots you down. Do you use gasoline "almost" always in your car - and substitute GatorAde only on specific occasions?

Phat writes: Not only is GOD more than a chaacter in a book...

Sure, he's thousands of characters in thousands of books.

Phat writes: God is not on the same level as leprechauns, bigfoot, weird hindu deities bedecked with jewels, or old indian legends.

Blah blah blah.... You're just repeating an opinion. SHOW that he's not on the same level.

Phat writes: As for "The" Methodology, I disagree with that claim. Science is not to be elevated above belief unless it objectively and conclusively refutes a prior assumption.

Which it does. The assumption that God creates thunder has been thoroughly refuted.

Phat writes: He does not owe it to everybody to present Himself.

But you owe it to yourself to think about why he doesn't. And why the leprechauns don't.

Phat writes: He gives them the roadmap and they must do the work to find Him.

You contradict yourself. You've said many times that he doesn't speak to everybody.

Or would the "road map" be the Bible - which you reject?

Phat writes: Finally, you will get back to your primary accusation: That I don't do what the character in that dusty old book says to do. Thats a pretty brash statement coming from a guy who doesn't observe me or my habits on a daily basis.

YOU'RE the one who says you don't do it. YOU say it would be foolish to do it.

Phat writes: But its insane to imaine that everybody on this planet could, would, and should give up everything they own...for each other.

READ. I'll type slowly so you can keep up: Nobody said anything about everybody on the planet. The instruction is to CHRISTIANS.

Phat writes: Your defense is that there are select groups of christians throughout History who have done just that.

It's not "my defense". I point it out when you say it can't be done. I point out that you are factually wrong.

Phat writes: And why dont you do it?

Because I don't believe Jesus will take care of me. Obviously, neither do you.

Phat writes: Phat writes: Whether Jesus is alive in Spirit now, as many claim, there is no way to measure this objectivly. jar writes: But there is far more to it than that. Neither you or anyone else has ever even explained what that means. You have. You often mention that it is the little everyday things we do for others that show our Spirit. One of my favorite scriptures is this: Matthew 10:40 ESV writes: “Whoever receives you receives me, and whoever receives me receives him who sent me. Your actions of taking out the neighbors trash likely led them to receive you (accept you) as a trustworthy neighbor. According to Matthew, they then also receive the One who sent you. Unless you are telling me that nobody sent you, in which case I would roll my eyes and smack my forehead.

Of course I'm saying no one sent me.

BUT Wait! There's more!

Haven't you been told by me and by many others that the same directive; feed & clothe & shelter & protect & comfort & educate & heal are found in EVERY moral system known?

The things you point out have nothing to do with whether or not Jesus is living today (whatever that might mean) or even whether or not Jesus ever lived.

You should smack your forehead because it really is that simple; no one should have to tell you to do those things; they are simply the right things to do.

And you compound your silliness with the additional quotes from Luke & John (most likely they were slogans some apologist told you to use) but you didn't bother to actually read them and ask "What do these quotes have to do with marketing "Jesus lives today"?

Edited by jar, : apalin spallin

ringo writes: Nobody said anything about everybody on the planet. The instruction is to CHRISTIANS.

But that's not fair. Why should you get to sit around in a warm house while I shiver under a bridge due to the fact that I gave up mine?

ringo writes: Because I don't believe Jesus will take care of me. Obviously, neither do you.

Jesus gave me the brains to keep my house for now. He likely knows darn well that a guy in a warm house...perhaps even a guy who doesn't believe in Him...is far better equipped to give out spare change to His children under the bridge. A sheep cannot pull a sheep out of a ditch if it too is in the ditch.

A guy under a bridge cant very well help anyone....

jar writes: You should smack your forehead because it really is that simple; no one should have to tell you to do those things; they are simply the right things to do.

You have mentioned a "charge" before.

Question: WHO gave us this charge? I await a statement of faith from a fellow believer.

And I have explained this to you many times Phat.

Phat writes: You have mentioned a "charge" before. Question: WHO gave us this charge? I await a statement of faith from a fellow believer.

Have I ever mentioned to you that I am a Christian?

Have I ever mentioned to you that the Jesus character in the Bible said that to truly follow his teachings certain things should be done including feeding and sheltering and clothing and comforting and protecting and healing and educating?

Those are charges made to all Christians about how we should behave. But the charges remain whether or not Jesus is living today or even ever lived.

The charges are simply part of the path called Christianity.

They are also the charges were I a Muslim or Jew or Hindu or Buddhist or Taoist or Satanist or atheist or agnostic.

You always try to change the subject when present with the task of trying to explain what your catch phrases even mean like "Jesus is living today" or "in communion with Jesus" or "one must stand for something or they fall for anything" and the rest of the utterly stupid CCoI platitudes.

To say that Jesus charged Christians to behave in a given fashion has nothing to do with whether or not Jesus lives or lived.