Tribute Thread For the Recently Raptured Faith

How can one with such intellect capable of nuanced complex communication within a syntax of brevity and clarity not know that such stories are fictitious? The parts of the brain that lend skill to the one should be more than capable of analyzing the egregious lack of legitimacy and integrity of the other.You are an enigma. What happened? Did you get dropped hard on your head into the baptismal?Well, Merry Christmas anyway and I hope you recover soon.

Well that is all very flattering and thank you very much. It is obviously the spirit of Christmas in you.I have done a lot of reading on this subject and in the end frankly I find that it is much harder to not believe than it is to believe. However I’d like to point out a couple of things.Firstly there are some people who really do have brilliant minds who are firmly committed to their Christian faith. Look at Francis Collins who headed up the Human Genome project. He wrote, and I read, his book The Language of God where he views DNA and evolutionary biology as God’s fingerprints in our world. One of my favourite authors, and I’ve read several of his books, is John Polkinghorne. He was a highly awarded physicist in the last century who became an Anglican minister in the Church of England in his 40’s. He was part of the team that discovered the quark.I am not saying that this proves anything about Christianity, but it does prove that you can be a particularly brilliant individual and be a Christian.Another field I find fascinating but in which I have zero background is the world of physics. I’ve read Brian Greene and found the concepts fascinating but the conceptual level is as far as I can go. This forum has been very educational. I bring this up though to make a point.When we look at the world of relativity and quantum mechanics we find that our world is far more non-intuitive than even Christianity. We all experience time differently. Particles pop in and out of existence. Make a change in a particle here and somehow information passed at infinite speed to a paired particle light years away and makes a change to that particle.Just look at Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. Look at particles themselves. It seems that are dimensionless bits of information and/or energy that make up everything. In the end, everything appears to be nothing. It seems to me that the one thing that is fundamental is consciousness that causes us to perceive a particular form of reality.I mentioned earlier that I see the narrative in the Bible that describes a progressive revelation in our understanding of the nature of God. I contend that we continue to learn although that progression is certainly not linear.I realize that my specific belief in the resurrection of Jesus Christ sounds strange to you, Percy and others. However if someone were to describe modern physics to Newton he would have said they were nuts. The progressive revelation in the field of physics has led us to understand the world that is far weirder than we could ever have imagined, and in fact far weirder than the idea that Jesus after death was resurrected.Physicists talk about other dimensions and other universes. They talk about an infinite number of universes and parallel universes. We are told that our perceived universe is only 4.5% of what exists. It seems that we are an emergent part of a greater reality. Why then is it so hard to believe that there is another dimension/universe that Jesus, somewhat particle like, could physically move from another dimension to our own and back again. Does that really sound any stranger than the quantum world?Have a great 2019Edited by GDR, : typosEdited by Admin, : Fix Collins link.

I am coming to the conclusion that no matter what evidence is available, belief comes down to a basic choice and decision. I can see that for some, confirming information would help...but then it would be an external source making their decision for them. There is no convincing.
Its like Yoda said: There is no try. Do or Do Not.Believe or Don't.

We've only just started trying to work this stuff out - just a few generations of scientific effort.There's an underlying assumption of science that we can eventually understand everything; I'm not at all convinced. I certainly never will, the physics went way past me be I was born.There are very few people that understand the physics as we know it today. That leaves billions that can't and never will. The human brain must have limits, there's no intrinsic reason why we *should* get to the bottom of it. That's not weird or difficult, it's just a story. We have an infinite supply of them. We need to explain things; we used to do it through fantasy and storytelling, we now try to work it out objectively. It's a far better method but it will never satisfy those that need simple answers.

Put another way, you find discussion difficult with those who don't already accept your claims. Or evidence. If the NT is evidence then so are the Koran, the Bhagavad Gita, and the Epic of Gigamesh.You've already been over this ground, the answer hasn't changed, yet you keep saying it without any empirical support. This is often true of things that didn't happen. I think it would be more fair to say that I've become more direct the more repetitive and preachy your arguments. You're not acting like you want a middle ground. It's more like you have preconditions for what others must first accept. And if they don't accept your preconditions, like that miracles are possible, then they're being unreasonable. Where are there any messianic claims in either OT or NT of reestablishing Israel and/or making it the most powerful nation in the region? Maybe they exist, but my skepticism of your claims keeps growing because requests for substantiation are generally met with...crickets. Liberate them from the Romans, sure, but rebuild the Temple? Before it was destroyed? Not likely. You're again repeating the story of the dunderheaded apostles, and again without substantiation. It couldn't possibly be the case that you believe repeating something enough times makes it true, so why are you doing this? Anyway, it's not the story of the gospels. You're going over old ground again, repeating a previous and already rebutted claim. The usage in Daniel and the NT differ. From the Son of man (Christianity):

quote:

---

Son of man is an expression in the sayings of Jesus in Christian writings, including the Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles and the Book of Revelation. The meaning of the expression is controversial. Interpretation of the use of "the Son of man" in the New Testament has remained challenging and after 150 years of debate no consensus on the issue has emerged among scholars.

---

I didn't ask for proof. I asked for evidence. If all you got is, "You either believe or you don't," then you got nothin'. Say what? If it's all the same God no matter what religion, then of what possible difference could a resurrection make?--Percy

I have nothing against Polkinghorne, but I do like accuracy. What physics awards are you referring to? And I don't think he supports anything you're saying about the gospels, or Collins, either.In general, the greater the scientist the less likely religious belief. But unlike Christianity the quantum world has been empirically established, intuitive or not. Who knows what Newton would have said, but at least he could examine the evidence for himself. Calling Jesus "somewhat particle like" while moving between dimensions sounds pretty strange, but if you've got empirical evidence then I'm believing.--Percy

If long John Silver was more than fiction to me, I still wouldn't make up my own stories about him. In fact, I'd be less likely to go beyond what was written. And yet you can justify ignoring the parts you don't like and making up new parts to suit yourself.

I can understand that logic, but I question your disdain for apologetics in general and about your egotistical view that you understand the Bible (through simple reading) better than the church. One could argue that "we have the mind of Christ" and yet argue that it's not preinstalled into all humans. Of course, that would place the egotistical view in the apologists, rather than us. Bible Studies are designed to be discussions where all participants are encouraged to provide feedback. I have had some Pastors who read the book and taught it well and found that at the studies, everyone arrived at similar though unique conclusions about the meaning of the scripture. I suspect that had you been there, or jar, and began spouting nonsense and challenging the status quo you would be shunned from the group. But God works in mysterious ways...perhaps you were divinely sent as a thorn in our flesh.

What's egotistical about it? That sounds like the Fifty Million Nazis Can't be Wrong fallacy to me. You'd clearly be wrong. And you'd be disagreeing with the apostle Paul. I have no doubt that many groups would shun us for countering their nonsense with sense.

So lets get this straight. You claim not to be an atheist, yet you say God is fiction. True?
You claim that the message of Matthew 25 is the essence of your belief and that we all should strive to give according to our ability. No problem there. One of the few things you preach that makes sense...You claim there is nothing wrong with scrambling someone's faith. I know that an unchallenged faith is a weak faith...but why the need to do so? Are you the Robin Hood of Rationality? Why are you seeking to buck Christianity?And this idea that you are right is...at best...premature. I've read many people more learned than you. Your dad was right, though. You would have made a good lawyer. Im just curious as to what motivates you to argue these points.I do it because I simply like to debate and argue. It is a fun part of my day...to a point. Some of our arguments have been rather good. In my opinion, you win most of them in the minds of a peanut gallery, but I don't think you are right in some things. There would be no valid reason to challenge strangers faith.

Certainly your God is fiction. You yourself believe that most gods are fiction. I don't know of any gods that aren't fiction. The message of Matthew 25 is the message for all social species. Non-social species have evolved other strategies for survival. The site is called EvC. I originally came here for the E but as it turns out, C isn't the only thing that Christians are wrong about. Instead of questioning my motives for pointing out where you're wrong, why don't you question your own motives for being wrong? It's always premature to conclude that one is "right". There's always a possibility of becoming wrong - or at least "less right". On the other hand, when you are wrong, it's less likely that you will become right. What difference does it make how strange they are?

I wish you could watch the videos. The apologists have a good argument

I thought Craig Parsons videos were well done. I shared them with ICANT in our GD thread. watch one and tell me what you think.

An argument often sounds good until you hear the other side.

Im not convinced i am. Then again, I may not want to know. In any case, the counter arguments are at this time unconvincing. Show me a good one.