Onward, Christian Soldiers? Signs of life in the Church of England
An odd topic for a day focused on American sacrifices, I know, but this is a neglected issue. The Church of England is a rich and wonderful institution grown feeble and decrepit, sunk in relativism and multicultural senescence.
As someone who attended services there, it seemed to me that in general, they don’t have faith so much as some nice sentiments and memories. Once a Church of England vicar told me that most educated British Anglicans don’t actually believe in the Virgin Birth anymore.
It’s sad if you’re a Christian just to see a branch of the Church wither. But even from a secular and political perspective this is a tragedy. The spiritual vacuum in Britain is being filled by Islam, some of which is militant, intolerant and dangerous, and much of which doesn’t seem particularly concerned with the militant, intolerant, and dangerous part.*
What’s more, Anglicanism at its best is a practical and reasonable faith, focused on history and apostolic roots, one that has given us the likes of Churchill and C.S. Lewis. Again, stepping back from particular doctrinal criticisms, what a great civilization a confident and strong CoE has birthed. Whether you agree with the 39 Articles or not, most societies could benefit from a few more old-school Anglicans. They’re usually good gardeners, know what wine goes with which meat, despise slavery, work well in teams, and can administrate households, colonies, or businesses with ease.
Surprisingly, there is one Church of England clergyman who seems to agree with that sentiment. Rather than resigning his flock to a shabby twilight of faith, Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali actually seems to think that there is a case to be made for attempting to convert people of other faiths to his:
Pakistan-born Dr Nazir-Ali told the Mail on Sunday that, while Church leaders had rightly shown sensitivity to British Muslims, “I think it may have gone too far.”
He added: “Our nation is rooted in the Christian faith and that is the basis of welcoming people of other faiths. You cannot have an honest conversation on the basis of fudge.”
Telegraph blogger Damian Thompson notes that the CoE response to Bishop Nazir-Ali’s proposals seems to be drawn from a very different playbook:
And did you notice the official Church of England response to the controversy? A spokesman said: “We have a mission-focused Christian presence [sic] in every community, including those where there are a large number of Muslims. That engagement is based on the provisions of Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which provides for freedom of thought, conscience and religion.”
Ah yes, Article 9. A much more agreeable document on which to base one’s “engagement” than the inconvenient demands of the New Testament.
These battles fought over Christian thought will affect the course of the world. If you think, by the way, that just because you don’t believe in a particular religion, you will not be affected by its conflicts and currents, I have a big hole in Manhattan to show you. The doctrines preached in our pulpits do and will affect our politics in ways both subtle and awesome, and for this reason we should keep a close eye on the strange paths taken by Christian clerics.
It seems strange to say so, but I believe our liberty depends on their decisions.
*To be fair, Catholicism has benefited greatly from the decline of the CoE as well.
_______________________
{Post by See-Dubya. More from me about Christianity in Europe at this Hot Air post.}
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- Michelle Malkin » British academic union: boycott Jews; ignore terrorists
- Michelle Malkin » More stirrings of life in the Church of England?
- Church of England: Still (a very little) life in the old girl yet | Jason Hayes - Musing
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Apostasy, Political Correctness
Mudville Gazette
» The five-year plan
Riehl World View
» Dowd: Dem Elites Displeased With Obama As Palin RisesStop The ACLU
» SEALs Charged With Assault for Arresting Top TerroristGay Patriot
» The O So Hip ObamaLegal Insurrection
» Is "Finish the Job" the New "Peace With Honor"?JustOneMinute
» Getting Ready For The TurkeyRiehl World View
» Uncle Jimbo Re-deploys In War With AllahSister Toldjah
» WaPo and NYT to Obama: We love ya, you stylish deep thinker
Fascinating post, see-dubya. Well done.
Nature does not tolerate a vacuum for long. Either England will reclaim its Christian heritage or cease to exist altogether.
Actually the CoE was created in response to Henry VIII’s problems with Catholicism. Henry – miffed that the Church wouldn’t grant him an annulment – broke away from the Catholic Church and established the CoE.
And I would argue the Catholic Church’s benefit is much better for British societies than that of Islam.
The Founding Fathers then sought to escape the CoE by founding America and specifically the First Amendment; which was designed to prevent an American version of the CoE and which – as we all know – is abused by certain individuals to prohibit any public expression of religion.
EQ–yep, the Anglicans got a little uppity back around the time of the founding and still seemed to regard themselves as the Established Church.
In fact Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists–where we get that line about a wall of separation between church and state–was TJ’s attempt to reassure the Baptists that they wouldn’t be subjected to re-established Anglicanism.
The Hot Air post linked above is my argument for competition between faiths instead of establishment.
Not that we really need that argument, but there it is.
Yes well done, but re: “If you think, by the way, that just because you don’t believe in a particular religion, you will not be affected by its conflicts and currents, I have a big hole in Manhattan to show you.” Point well taken BUT I think that on Memorial Day in particular, we could show a bit more respect for some 3,000 plus martyrs than refering to the site of their sacrifice as a big hole.
juss sayin.
Perhaps the Chinese will be the saviors of Christianity. I read somewhere Chinese Christians will overtake ‘regular’ Christians sometime by mid-century. I hope they’ll outgrow the persecution of the communists.
the saviors of Christianity??? the saviors of Christianity??? First a big hole and now the the saviors of Christianity… Am I just having a bad dream?
ahem… Christianity has only one savior!
Bingo. If I might add:
When you deny the virgin birth, you are already g-o-n-e.
Haha, yes.
I actually don’t agree, Mrs. Malkin. The reason is that Islam, not Catholicism is filling the void. Catholicism lost it’s dominance in the UK during the Reformation. Many Anglicans covert to Catholicism because their faith and Church has become too shallow, but it’s the Muslims who are having children over there.
Also, the other reason for my position is that weak Protestant or Orthodox or non-denominational branches hurt Christianity, because ultimately, the Vatican wants Christianity to be united.
As a Catholic, I certainly am not cheering for bad things to happen to other Christians, but their problems are really their own fault.
The trouble is, the many faiths that broke from Catholicism in the last 1700 years were more or less founded on selfish principles. The Anglicans were formed because Henry VIII wanted more than one wife.
So, it really doesn’t surprise me that Protestant churches are having this problem. They wanted to take the easy way out, and that practice hasn’t really changed ever since, and now as society has major gains in secularism, they are falling apart at the seams.
The underlying principle that Jesus taught was that to be selfish is to be as close to the devil as you can get because God is all generous and giving. A priest once told me that.
Yes, I couldn’t agree more. And how would that noble goal be advanced? Oh, perhaps removing state subsidization would have a powerful effect towards that end. Just a thought.
It astounds me that such a simple reform (BTW, Mark Steyn has written extensively on the matter) was not even mentioned. Religion is a human institution and is bound by the laws of human action just like every other human institution.
This is was an interesting post See-dubya. But I think Islam is filling the void more than the Catholic Church. I spent a semester over there my senior year and even though I am a Catholic did attend a few services at the COE. It’s like Mass here, the people were generally older and there were very few single, young adults in the pews.
“The Church of England is a rich and wonderful institution…”
Not really, m’lady. It’s just a copy of the Catholic church. Whether you are cool with the Catholic church or not, it’s kind of lame just to be a copy of something.
Imo. But at least they canned the latin in the last few years. That stuff is hard to understand.
Wait a minute…… C-W wrote this?
Crap.
Can I still use the “It’s Monday” excuse even if it is a holiday?
See-dubya, the Anglican church has become just another watered down politically correct church that earns is ABSOLUTION, by finding or manufacturing causes that it can get on top of. It pats itself on the back for being PROGRESSIVE. Christ is and was absolute. His principles didn’t change with the wind.
I’m half-Brit, and I’m zero impressed with Anglicans abandoment of Christ in favor of conscience re-building.
Bishop Nazir Ali, seems to be a breathe of fresh air, because he wasn’t part and parcel of the new secular Anglican church such as it exists in Britain today.
It’s nice when someone else understands the meaning, motive, and history behind the First Amendment.
I bet TJ wouldn’t have written that letter if he knew how grossly liberals, seculars, and atheists would use that line against him.
Henry VIII did nothing that the French hadn’t done back in the 1480s. Kept Catholicism, told the Pope that they were happy to respect him as the head of the church but he wasn’t going to meddle in their internal politics for his own gain, thank you very much. The difference was the presence of Luther, which made the other Catholics paranoid. The situation was a great deal more complex than “Henry wanted to divorce, Pope said no” – to start with, the Pope said “I would love to say yes, but her brother holds my life in his hands. Just commit bigamy, and I’ll forgive you.” Henry needed a legitimate heir, lest the real be plunged into War of the Roses, version 2.0.
Not to start a Protestant-Catholic Flame War, but how is Catholicism doing in its traditional bastions of France, Spain, and Italy these days?
Englishqueen, THANK YOU, for your honesty and your historical vs. HYSTERICAL accuracy. The NON-EXISTANT separation of church and state was and is merely a notion that ONE RELIGION would not be more official than another.
In the case of T.J., BOTH religions were Christian. The words of Madison et al, have been BASTARDIZED. AND LIBS KNOW IT.
Grey Fox, Catholicism is alive and well.
You’d like to believe that GLOBAL WARMING has hindred the “CHURCH”, but ALAS, you are wrong.
The Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church is thriving.
You’d prefer Islamofascism to the “truth” I presume?
Catholicism IS THE CHURCH.
Flaws failures and all.
I am Catholic, and I am proud.
What are you?
My reading of the founding of the Anglican Church is that Henry used his marital difficulties as a pretext to create a national religion that would further unify the country under his rule. With the decline of British nationalism in favor of multiculturalism, the Church of England has also gone to seed.
How would you feel if I said, ‘It really doesn’t surprise me that American parishes are going bankrupt for paying all the priest sex abuse settlements because of their ridiculous hierarchy system.’? I surely would be called ‘anti-Catholic bigot’.
These statements are what cause resentment and hatred of Catholics. . . case in point. . .
No it isn’t. The Catholic Church isn’t anywhere in the Bible. The arrogance of Catholics who think they have a monopoly on salvation because of some unimportant if non-existent link with St. Peter is what proves to me that Catholicism is NOT ‘the church’.
Salvation does not come by works so that none shall boast. . . yet Catholics boast all the time about how they are the ‘only’ church.
Jesus spoke out against the churches and the priests of the day. The priests he spoke out against were doing the exact same thing that the Catholic priests are doing now. Jesus would be appalled at the way Christianity is propagated through the Catholic Church.
Factually, Protestant Christianity is making more headway into Asian communities than is Catholicism. It is based on the Bible and the Truth of Jesus Christ. . . we don’t need someone telling us what the Bible says now because we can read it for ourselves thank you very much. . . and no church hierarchy is anywhere within the pages of the Bible. . . Catholics made-it-up.
How many schisms in ‘THE CHURCH’ does there need to be before people start to question its authenticity as an institution? No question about the faith (in Christ), but the institution (Catholicism) is bunk. . . here comes the accusations of anti-Catholic bigotry because of responding to some fairly absurd comments by arrogant Catholics. . . that roll off the keyboard with all of the rote ritualistic memorization of a good Catholic.
Christianity is much bigger than the Catholic Church. Christianity will live long after the Catholic Church is gone. Look at the Catholic Churches in Europe that have become Mosques and tell me how strong they are in Europe again.
Sorry for my rant (as I’m sure the thin skinned Catholics are offended as they are with any criticism. They can dole it out but don’t you dare give it back to them.). But these previous posts are perfect representations of where resentment for Catholics comes from. Catholics point to Catholicism as proof that they are saved. . . Christians point to the Bible and Christ as the only proof that they need.
Europe’s religious malaise affects all of the Christian sects.
The Church may decline in some places, but then it grows in others, as it is in China and Africa (Nigeria is the new Ireland with regard to priests).
The scuttlebutt in the Vatican is that the Holy Father is preparing the Church for a “contraction” in the West… and looks eastward for rebirth.
“…He takes away every branch in me that does not bear fruit, and everyone that does he prunes so that it bears more fruit…” – John 15, 2.
Ah. Sola Scriptura. Where in the Bible does it command that? Funny, how the fundamentalists insist on Sola Scriptura, yet seem unable to provide the passage to support their erroneous assumption. That’s circular reasoning, you know.
Goodness. There is a link with St. Peter – every priest or bishop can trace the laying of hands to Peter. However, your rant that our claim proves that it is NOT the “true church” to you is a bit irrational… let’s not get all Christopher Hitchens here. Sorry, if your panties got in a wad, but for us to say that the Church is the TRUE CHURCH is not out of arrogance, but out of TRUTH.
The Roman Catholic Church has been here since the beginning. That’s right, we still say the Nicene Creed by rote, because we’ve been saying it since the FOURTH BLOODY CENTURY. Heck, we’ve got a library chock full of letters and books written by popes, bishops – some saints – from the very beginning of Christianity. And wonder why we also have the Shroud of Turin, which is reputed to be the very shroud worn by our Savior? How did the Church manage to “acquire” all these ancient artifacts, letters, manuscripts, etc…?
And in all your rantings about the Bible and how you know, in all YOUR ARROGANCE, how to interpret it yourself, let me ask you:
Where did the Bible come from?
Gee, last I read this blog during ole Benny’s visitation, the Catholic coterie who wanted to turn this into a Catholic proselytizing site promised never to foul this nest again with their liturgical drivel because of MM’s critiques of the Church’s well-honed hypocrisy.
Pray, why are all you would-be Inquisitioners still hanging about?
Y’all so dogmatized, yah can’t even tell what a mirror-image you are of the Islamic fanatics.
As I’ve noted before, I read your doctrinal and mythical blandishments, and I see y’all promising that given your way, our future will once again be the Church’s rabid Catholico-fascist past.
Thanks, there’s a reason I left all that behind: look at the jihadis and behold yourselves.
America to the rescue again! There is an American Christian group, called Community Bible Study, who has recognized the threat, and has formed a group called “CALEB”. They send couples, usually retired Americans, to foreign countries to form Bible study groups. I have friends who just got back from Belgium, and will be going again. Basically they’re trying to pull Europeans, sometimes kicking and screaming (figuratively), back to their roots; the Bible!
Actually, Roman Catholicism broke from Orthodox Catholicism when Rome insisted in installing a Pope to preside over the traditionally council rule of Bishops. As a Catholic in the Anglican sense, Protestantism came about because of papal rule, as much as it did from CoE.
Oops, as another follower of the Nicene creed, I guess you meant the likes of me?
I’m sorry. [Not because I probably just "needled" you, but that you left God's Word]
To go back to Se–dubya’s original point, it is refreshing to see the Church of England, at least in a small part, go back to what it’s supposed to be: an organization guiding people to Christ as the Church understands the way. The Catholics and main Orthdox churches have the best historical claim to acting as the successor to –if not the Bride of–Christ. Since I live in the West, I don’t know about the Orthodox churches, but the “mainline” churches are stronger when they stick to the Word of God, as they see it, rather than politically fashionable causes.
just catching up from a long weekend.
I would point out that there are people who dont think any religion really has it right so far. And watching some of the verbal back and forth here illustrates that somewhat.
I dont really have anything to add, other than anything you guys are talking about is infinitely preferable to anything involving Mohammed.
The Episcopal Church (until previously known as The Episcopal Church of the USA (ECUSA), continues to alienate their members by the thousands. Churches are closing, and the “leaders” answer by suing the parishes for their property if they disagree with their new interpretation of this 200+ year old US religion. They would rather destroy the church itself then agree to listen to the parishioners who built the institution over the years.
If you look around and focus on many of the protestant churches, you will find many are in the throes of divison based on cultural relativity and political correctness leadership.
I watched the Pope closely as he was here – - I listened to his sermons and felt some hope again for this world. The Episcopal Church has lost it’s way and I am looking to Rome now, as many are doing.
Though its a bit off-topic, it was mentioned in the comments:
It bares noting that Jefferson didn’t believe in the virgin birth either (why bother cutting it out from the Jefferson Bible anyway)?
Furthermore, the 1st Amendment had more to do with just reassuring some Bapists.
Jefferson was very wary of organized religion creeping into politics.
It’s really a shame when people willifully ignore the very likely possibility that Jefferson was a Deist.
TJ would have probably sided with the secularists, liberals, and atheists of today on this topic.
In any case, fire away. I’ll not be coming back to this thread to watch some of you practice cognitive dissonance, the resource materials are out there and easy to find on one’s own.
libocrat said:
I’m not a Catholic, I’m a Christian. There is a difference.
Jesus wasn’t a Pharisee, or a Sadducee, or an Essene. He was a Jew.
atheling said:
Matthew 15:3-9
There is nothing wrong with having traditions, just so long as those traditions do not negate the Word of God. Catholic tradition does just that – for example, the Bible teaches that a Bishop must be married with children, Catholicism says nope.
abstractmind said:
No, it doesn’t. Just because there may be competing theories in science, is that proof that none of them are correct? Not at all. Just because a multiple-choice exam has several wrong answers, that doesn’t mean all of the answers are incorrect.
I am not afraid to dish it out or take it, ThackerAgency. But I will not tolerate outright lies, willful ignorance, or biogtry – all three of which are displayed here and at HA whenever Catholicism is mentioned.
For better or worse, Catholicism has a history it can trace back 2,000-plus years to St. Peter.
Protestantism (and I was Lutheran) has bits and pieces of all that Catholicism offers because when you start messing with doctrine – as Martin Luther did – anything goes.
Which is why there are dozens upon dozens of independent Protestant sects and even synods within the same groups (like Wisconsin v. Missouri Lutheran synods) all teach different things.
Without Catholicism, you wouldn’t have the Bible. You wouldn’t have Christianity. It was those first priests and apostles and followers who gave their lives to spread the word and often died (horrible deaths) for doing so.
And Catholicism has one thing Protestant churches never will — the Eucharist.
I don’t understand how people who profess sola scriptura 1) are missing books from their Old Testament, conveniently ignore things like passages that talk about salvation through works and not faith alone, and 2) deny the most literal, fundamental passage of them all: when Christ says the bread IS His body and IS His blood. Not a metaphor. Not a symbol. Christ was pretty clear on His literal teachings, and when He was speaking in metaphor (i.e., the parables).
I also find it highly ironic that those who claim to be so assured in their faith and salvation have a problem with the Catholic Church saying she is the “one True Church” – that, to me, is a clear indication one is not so certain of one’s faith, if it bothers them so for someone else to claim the same.
Yeah, I totally forgot it was a cabal of priests that crashed planes into the WTC on 9/11. Oh, and that it’s regularly priests who blow up markets, recruit mentally unstable and/or disabled persons to complete homicide bombing missions, priests who call for fathers to kill their daughters for “honor” and the like.
For what it’s worth, I sent Michelle a private e-mail regarding the other thread attempting to bury the hatchet. Forgive and forget and move on – you know, the things the Catholic Church teaches.
It really is rather disgusting the way people who blast Islamic radicalism, liberal atheism, and the like have no problem turning on Catholics and then wonder why folks like me don’t really consider ourselves part of the grand ol’ GOP…
Your Catholic-bashing gives Republicans and conservatives a bad name in many Catholic circles. And it really does nothing to prevent liberals, secularists, and atheists from running roughshod over our First Amendment rights.
None of you guys are exactly winning converts to your respective sides with this debate, you know.
englishqueen01 said:
1. There are different kinds of works. The kinds of works that are not required for salvation are: the works of the Law of Moses and works of merit. But Christians are not saved apart from works of faith (works done in obedience and faith in God to receive what we did not earn).
2. The bread and the cup are not literally the body and blood of Jesus. Matthew 16:6-12 is but one clear example of how Jesus used bread as a symbol for something else.
When Jesus taught that He is “the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh” (John 6:51), He wasn’t teaching that He was literally a walking, talking, loaf of bread.
So the insistence that the bread and the wine must literally be the body and blood is inconsistent with other passages in the Bible.
The bread metaphor appears throughout the book – from the time of Moses through the New Testament.
But the summit of that teaching comes to fruition in the real, literal transubstaniation of the Body and Blood at the Last Supper.
Whenever Jesus talked about eating His flesh as the “bread of life”, He turned many away from the faith and a common claim against early Christians (i.e., Catholics) was that we practiced cannibalism.
Does that lead you to believe He was speaking in metaphor? Wouldn’t He have clarified His metaphor if He saw the literal meaning of His words were turning people away from His church?
And, FWIW, the passage you cite comes well before the Last Supper.
See Matthew 26:26-28. In Matthew, after that, bread is not mentioned again in the same context.
See Mark 14:22-24. Once again, bread is not mentioned in the remainder of this Gospel.
See Luke 22:19-20. In this, bread is mentioned once, in Luke 24:30, when Jesus is eating with His disciples.
englishqueen01 said:
Jesus didn’t always explain His metaphors
Jesus often taught in metaphors, where His audience thought He was speaking literally, and He didn’t explain to them that He was speaking metaphorically. Some of His teachings were not meant to be understood until some time later.
When Jesus said “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up” (John 2:19). His audience didn’t understand what He meant (they took His metaphor literally). It appears that even His disciples didn’t even understand what He meant until after He was resurrected.
In John 3, Jesus tells a startled Nicodemus that he must be “born again”, which was not to be taken literally.
Getting back to Jesus’ teaching that people must eat His body and drink His blood (John 6), Jesus did not explain that He wasn’t talking about literal cannibalism. People thought He was being literal, and the thought of cannibalism drove off many of His followers. That Jesus didn’t explain precisely what He meant is evident in the fact that even the Twelve were aghast at Jesus’ teaching.
If Jesus had explained to them that He was really just saying that His body would be turned into bread, then the teaching wouldn’t have been offensive. This is but one example of how many of Jesus’ teachings were not to be fully understood until after the cross.
Jesus often taught in parables and metaphors. Sometimes He explained them, some He only explained to a few, and some were not explained until after the cross.
The Lord’s Supper
In Matthew 26:29, after Jesus has pronounced that this cup was “the blood of the covenant”, He then refers to it not as His blood but as “fruit of the vine.” So then, even after it is offered for them to drink as “His blood,” it is still wine.
Connection to the Apostle Peter
As far as being able to trace a direct connection to the Apostle Peter, that matters not. The Jews in the first century thought they were saved because they were directly connected to Abraham. Therefore, they though they were therefore the true people of God and that the Gentiles were all lost.
What did John the Baptist, Jesus, and the Apostle Paul teach? Don’t say to yourselves that you have Abraham as your father, but if you do not repent, you will be cut down. God can raise sons for Abraham from other places.
It isn’t about being able to trace a connection all the way back to Abraham, or Peter, for that matter. It is about having the same kind of faith as Abraham and Peter. God doesn’t care what the name on the sign outside your church is – all who seek Him by faith and obey the Gospel are Christians.
One more thing about the cup being the blood:
Drinking blood was against the Law of Moses (Leviticus 17).
It wasn’t until Acts 10 that it was revealed to Peter that the Law of Moses was no longer binding, and thus he could eat/drink those things that are forbidden by the Law of Moses.
If Peter thought he was drinking blood at the Lord’s Supper, then how could he later say “By no means, Lord, for I have never eaten anything unholy and unclean [those things forbidden by the Law, such as blood]” Acts 10:14, since he had already been (according to you) drinking human blood?
You’re right, at least that there are competing theories in science.
But the fact that science has a process for proving theories, and that religion by its nature cannot be proven, negates the argument. It also doesnt show me which religion is right. That argument of yours dodges that rather poorly as well.
CW is right though…as someone searching for the truth, you guys really arent convincing people like myself of anything positive.
Thank you see-dub. They seem to be missing the point here. We all have the right to believe the way we want to believe until one group, Islam, decides to KILL all who don’t believe their way. We should be uniting against them instead of fighting amoung ourselves.
Who has the thin skin here? Someone says ‘The Church’ and you go off on a irrational rant like that? I’m glad they didn’t draw a picture of your pastor!
I see the Know Nothings are back to put us evil Papists and Freemasons back in our place. Once again our plans for world domination have been exposed. Darn!
FWIW, even though as a Catholic I’d love to see the Anglicans come back, I’d rather see a strong Anglican church over a radically Islamicized UK. Sooner or later, people are going to realize secularism and socialism still leaves a hole that needs to be filled. The only chance the Anglicans have are with the African and Asian bishops.
Guys, given that Islam, with its blind hatred for Christians and Jews alike, stands posed to over-take Christianity as the world’s largest religion, do you really think we can afford to continue this Christian-on-Christian bashing in a 9/11 world?
abstractmind said:
That aspect of science isn’t relevant to the point of my analogy. My point was this: the presence of multiple religions does nothing to prove that none of those religions are true. It still might be the case that one of those religions is true, and that the rest are false.
I wasn’t trying to prove one religion is true. As far as religions being impossible to verify/falsify, that is partially correct.
Take a religion such as Taoism. It is basically an abstract philosophy. You either accept it, or you don’t. But not all religions are like this.
How do we know Islam is false?
The Koran makes various claims about what the Bible teaches that are verifiably false. Not just minor differences, but major ones, such as the crucifixion of Jesus. The Koran denies that Jesus was crucified (the foundation of every N.T. book), yet endorses the Bible and claims it teaches the same thing!
Since this is obviously false (the author of the Koran had apparently never read the Bible), the typical Muslim response is that Christians and Jews corrupted the Bible. This is verifiably false as well, since we have actual manuscripts of the Bible that predate the time of Muhammad, and even OT manuscripts that predate the time of Jesus and Christianity. So the Bible could not possibly have been corrupted, as they claim. Therefore, Islam is false.
Now look at Christianity. Christianity is based upon historical events, particularly that Jesus really did rise from the dead. While we can’t prove with 100% certainty that it did or didn’t happen, since it is an historical question, we can (at least potentially) find evidence for/against it.
What is the evidence for the resurrection?
One line of evidence is predictive prophecy. The OT books (which we can prove were written centuries before Jesus) predict that the Messiah will come in the time of the Roman empire, before the rebuilt Temple is destroyed (which happened 40 years after Jesus was crucified). He will be rejected by His own people, and yet accepted by people from all over the planet.
He will be made a public spectacle in His death, have His hands and feet pierced, people gamble for His clothes, and will die a violent death. God will deliver Him from death, and the story of how God saved Him from death will go out into the world, leading people from everywhere to worship the God of the Jews. This isn’t just my interpretation, some Jewish theologians who reject Jesus, nevertheless have concluded from the same Scriptures that the Messiah was supposed to have come within one generation of when Jesus did come.
You also have other circumstantial evidence, but space will not permit me to continue on. If you believe there is no evidence for Christianity, I recommend The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel as a good intro on the subject.
see-dubya said:
Reasoned arguments over doctrinal matters is a part of Christianity. Much of the N.T. is Jesus confronting His fellow Jews, & Paul confronting false teachers, over differences in doctrinal matters. If rational argumentation and discussion turn you off, then Christianity isn’t for you. =)
I think people are more turned off by people not standing on principles, rather than standing up for them. Those churches that are growing are churches that tend to believe in something.
It is precisely because people weren’t willing to stand up for what they believe in that you wound up with such weakness in the Anglican church (and many other churches), and in political areas too (Europe, America, etc.).
I can both “contend for the faith” and oppose radical Islam at the same time. Rational argumentation isn’t bashing, it is constructive.
I reject the notion that this “is a distraction” and that “this isn’t helping my kids.” ;^)
I agree. But I am also called to defend my faith.
There are many, many times throughout the Bible (specifically the Gospels) where – quite frankly – Peter steps in it.
I can’t look up the citations here, but Peter’s reluctance to have Jesus wash his feet, Peter cutting off the ear of the slave in the garden, etc. come to mind.
In other words: Peter was human. He made mistakes, misunderstood Jesus, and could be quite the blunderer.
However, Jesus told Peter that he was the rock on which He would build His Church, gave Peter the keys and said that what Peter bound and loosed on earth would be bound and loosed in Heaven.
So it’s not surprising that Peter would misinterpret the laws of Moses v. the laws of Christ. Christ came to completely overhaul the laws of Moses – to me that would logically support my belief that the Eucharist is the actual Body and Blood of Christ.
And many of the early believed the same.
Trollman:
It is interesting that Historical Christianity (Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Armenian, Coptic, and Assyrian) all understand Jesus’ words in John 6 to be literal. And these are all Churches that have links to the Apostles.
Or take the words of Ignatius of Antioch, who learned from the Apostles themselves:
Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God … They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes.
or
Let that Eucharist be held valid which is offered by the bishop or by the one to whom the bishop has committed this charge. Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be; as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.
Sorry, that should read “And many of the early Christians believed the same.
As someone who doesn’t believe, you’re not winning this one, and you’re not convincing me you’re even close to being correct. And you’re using things you cant prove as “fact”, which is disingenuious on its face. It doesnt *prove* anything if you cant actually provide hard facts and evidence that stand up to scrunity.
As far as christ rising from the dead, thats one of the centers of the christian religion. As far as I know, the death rate for humans is still holding at a steady 100%. And i’m familiar with the case for christ literature. you’re relying on prophecy and anedotal evidence as fact itself. you can phrase a good circumstancial argument, but there’s no real proof for any of this, using either prophecy or circumstance…saying those things are themselves proof cheapens the “evidence”, as it is clearly not proof. I would also say not to use the “absense of evidence is not evidence of absense”, as that too is circular…moving on, if that be the case, then we could use people such as nostrodamus as indicators along the same lines, but that isnt the case either, and i dont see christians lining up around the block to proclaim his sainthood.
I dont want to sit and argue religion, because its a fight you simply wont win. We can prove the fallacy in islam just fine. but trying to justify christianity over it as far as truth is concerned, is a fools errand and one i have neither the strength nor the time to debate further. Islam is based on a flawed belief system centered around a barbarian and murdered who chose a moon god as his patron diety, and centered something that now gets twisted into a “its really god, just called something different” deal. Islam is, by comparison to these things, rightly pointed out as being false as its beginnings stem from untruths to begin with. You and I will agree there, for certain.
i would reference:
but it is relevant. i’m asking which is correct. ONE of them has to be right, so which is it? The point of science is to prove or disprove. Using your analogy, i could gain the same peace of mind in choosing to be catholic as protestant, and so on, simply because there’s no way to prove or disprove who has it right. It’s a circular argument, and one i would point out i also dont want to pursue, because we’d be here all day.
Being agnostic around these parts is a rough gig.
Still love you guys anyway 
abstractmind:
Since you admit to being an agnostic (a position I find infinitely more honest than atheism), I would suggest you read Peter Kreeft’s Fundamentals of the Faith. It is a good, basic introduction to religion and a very strong argument for the existence of God.
I’ll look it up. I’ve talked some with 30 about these things…she even knows i was gonna go to seminary before some things…changed my outlook. I’m always up for some good research!
I completely admit i’m agnostic. Logically…i just cant dismiss the fact there is a higher power. The universe, in all its complexity and wonder, could not have been an accident. That would be ignorant on my part. But i dont know if its God, or something else…and thus, its my search for truth that keeps me going on the subject. Guess i’ll find an answer one day. I just dont like being preached at, or told “its the fact” when clearly, its not to me. and i’m not an ignorant savage, thus, the traditional arguments don’t work on me
Ty for the info though…i’ll do some digging and take a look!
By your own statement, I believe it’s a fight that you simply wont win either.
abstractmind:
You’re welcome. While not making assumptions, I might also recommend Goodbye, Good Men by Michael S. Rose if your seminary (or Church) experience was less than appealing.
Additionally, my inbox is always open if you want to ask questions or discuss things outside the public nature of these threads.
It’s not a win or loss for me. As stated, its completely circular as far as religion goes…there isnt a right or a wrong (a relative thought…we’ve shown islam to clearly be wrong, so take that with a grain of salt)…but what you believe is the truth.
A “win”, as it were, is when i learn what constitutes the truth for me. And thus far, I’ve not found that…i’ve found more questions. And until those are answered, its a search in progress.
Thanks EQ, i might just use that. i enjoy talking to 30, and she’s always polite, as are you.
i’ll send something from my personal email later.
Cool beans.
I’ve admitted elsewhere that – as a “spiritual” liberal, I was radical to the left. After my conversion, I was radical to the right (to the point of making my dear hubby look liberal – he often jokes that he’s created a monster).
With the exception of one or two commenters (who don’t comment here, at least not under the handles I do know them by), I find it much more effective (and correct by my Catholic principles) to be polite rather than reactionary.
And I agree that it’s a journey. I did not wake up one day and decide I was going to be a Catholic, or a conservative. Just as I didn’t wake up one day and decide I was a liberal.
I’ll watch my inbox.
abstractmind–Good luck on your search. I pray that you find what works for you. It’s important, so don’t give up.
More generally, and possibly a bit heretically (I never went to seminary or studied religion formally), might not all religions have some degree of Truth? (Some perhaps more than others?) Thus, various denominations may still guide their members to God, even if perhaps not by the best path.
On May 27th, 2008 at 4:18 pm, abstractmind said:
It’s not quite 100%, you’re forgetting Enoch and Elijah; They haven’t died, yet.
englishqueen01 said:
This is true, and when Peter refused to “eat” the animals that appeared to him in the vision, it was because he did not yet understand what was being revealed to him. He wouldn’t figure it out until he preached to Cornelius and the Gentiles were baptized by the Holy Spirit (Acts 10:34-48).
But my point was that Peter claimed he had always abstained from eating those things that were forbidden by the Law of Moses, which would have included blood. At this point, Peter would have observed the Lord’s Supper for a few years. Therefore, Peter must not have considered the cup to be literal blood, even years after it had been instituted.
In John 6, when Jesus tells people that they must eat His flesh and drink His blood, even the Apostles are shocked and repulsed by His teaching. Yet at the time the Lord’s Supper is instituted, Jesus tells them to eat His body (the bread) and to drink His blood (the wine). They did just that, and there is no record of them being shocked. So what changed?
They now understood that He wasn’t literally telling them to eat His flesh and blood, but bread and wine representing His flesh and blood. One was against the Law of Moses, the other wasn’t. If Jesus had commanded them to drink actual blood before the cross, then the Law of Moses would still have been in effect, and Jesus would have been guilty of breaking it (see Matthew 5:17-19). At no point prior to the cross does Jesus set aside or alter any of the Law of Moses.
This is all reinforced by the fact that passages such as 1st Corinthians 11:24-28, after quoting Jesus’ words saying it is His flesh and blood, then repeatedly refer to it as bread and wine, even as it is being eaten. There is not one single passage that teaches the bread & wine is mystically transformed into actual flesh and blood.
englishqueen01 said:
Jesus did not say that Peter was the rock on which He would build His church. In the original Greek, Jesus says “You are Petros (Peter), and on this petra (rock) I will build My church.” Petros and petra are two different things, and is obviously a play on words. You can try to argue that the Peter was the rock Jesus was referring to, but Jesus was never recorded as saying that He would build His church on Petros/Peter.
englishqueen01 said:
Jesus didn’t come to overhaul the Law of Moses, He came to fulfill it, and thereby, abolish it. Peter was correct in understanding that eating certain things was against the Law of Moses. What he didn’t yet know (until it was revealed to him soon thereafter) was that the Law of Moses was no longer binding. One could enter into the Kingdom of the Messiah without being or becoming a Jew, without being descended from Abraham, without being circumcised, and without observing the Sabbath, dietary restrictions, etc.
Prince Consort said:
I don’t have to rely upon Ignatius or the Pope, for I have learned from the Apostles, too. In Ephesians 3:3-4, Paul says you can “get what he got when you read what he wrote”. Rather than depending upon intermediaries, I can go directly to what the Apostles taught by reading their own words.
Just because you can find people from the 2nd century, or even the 1st century, that believe such and such, or had direct contact with an Apostle, or once removed, that doesn’t prove their understanding is correct.
Throughout the N.T., the Bible records that even churches and people that were taught and founded directly by the Apostles continued to get many things wrong, thus you have letters written to them to correct them. You are free to quote Benedict & Ignatius, and I am free to quote the Apostle Paul, the Apostle John, etc.
abstractmind said:
I can’t force anyone to believe anything. A jury found OJ Simpson not guilty. My goal isn’t to win anything, but to preach the Gospel. The rest is between you and God.
abstractmind said:
What have I stated as fact that cannot be proven?
abstractmind said:
This does nothing to contradict the resurrection of Jesus, for an essential component of His resurrection is that He died. So Jesus didn’t alter that 100% fatality statistic (although as another poster stated, the Bible records that there were 2 who never died).
People don’t (normally) come back from the dead – which is exactly the point behind Jesus’ resurrection. It was precisely because dead people stay dead that makes His resurrection so significant.
If you are agnostic, then it may (or may not) be the case that God exists. If God does exist, then I see no good reason why He couldn’t raise someone from the dead if He chose to do so. Resurrection and virgin births are only absurd if one first rejects the existence of God. Since (from your perspective) it is at least possible for God to exist, and therefore, possible for someone to be resurrected, then the question is this: not “am I aware of any other cases of people coming back from the dead” but “is there any evidence that this particular resurrection really happened?”
abstractmind said:
Circumstantial evidence is still evidence. People have been convicted of murder on circumstantial evidence. Look, if you want to say this isn’t enough evidence, or that this evidence doesn’t outweigh the counter evidence, then fine. Ultimately, we all have to weigh the evidence for ourselves. But to say there is no evidence is simply false.
abstractmind said:
None of them have to be right. My point was to show that just because there are multiple proposed solutions, that doesn’t provide evidence that all of them are wrong. All I’m saying is that two or more mutually exclusive claims to truth cannot all be true. They may all be false, or one of them might be correct.
You can fool yourself into having peace of mind with any belief system – just look at those folks that are confident they are going to heaven because they blow up innocent children. But not all interpretations are equal. Anyone that tries to tell you that the First Amendment was meant to restrict religious freedom, and that the 2nd Amendment prohibits private ownership of guns is simply wrong.
abstractmind said:
Something is either a fact or it isn’t. What you believe doesn’t determine reality (unless you are God).
And if you don’t like being “preached at”, then Christianity isn’t for you. Jesus was a preacher, the Apostles were preachers, etc.
Some people probably think I am being too hard. Read the Gospels. Jesus drew in thousands of people, only to intentionally preach a hard sermon with the goal of driving off those who weren’t seriously devoted to following Him. Jesus never said “Here, I’ll make sure not to preach or offend people.” Rather, He told people that wanted to become His disciple to count the cost. As the Apostle Peter wrote, it is better to never become a Christian than to become one and then come up short.
Grace is free, but it ain’t cheap. As Bonhoeffer said, when Jesus calls a man, He bids him to die.
If you don’t like preaching, if you don’t want to hear that you have to humble yourself and that you need to change your entire life, Christianity is not for you.
Kevin K. said:
Sure, all religions have some degree of truth. That doesn’t mean they can get you to heaven, though.
Romans 1:18-32 basically says that you don’t have to have the Bible to figure out that some things are wrong. Here, Paul says that the Gentiles are all under sin even though they didn’t have the Bible.
His argument is this: Common sense should tell you that the idol you just made wasn’t the one that made you. (duh!)
The other sin Paul emphasizes here is homosexual behavior. Again, common sense tells you that the male was made for the female, and vice versa. This is true whether you think we were created directly by God, evolved apart from any god, and everything in-between.
As far as different (Christian) denominations go, it doesn’t matter what the name on the church sign is, but if you have obeyed the Gospel and have the same faith as Abraham. According to the Bible, there are actually very few things you have to get right in order to go to heaven. One can be wrong about a great many doctrinal issues and still go to heaven. As far as I’m aware, there has only been One who had perfect doctrine…
I don’t have to rely upon Ignatius or the Pope, for I have learned from the Apostles, too. In Ephesians 3:3-4, Paul says you can “get what he got when you read what he wrote”. Rather than depending upon intermediaries, I can go directly to what the Apostles taught by reading their own words.
So did Ignatius. He got it from “word of mouth, and by letter”, before the New Testament was even compiled.
Just because you can find people from the 2nd century, or even the 1st century, that believe such and such, or had direct contact with an Apostle, or once removed, that doesn’t prove their understanding is correct.
And yours is, compared to theirs? I think I’d rather trust someone who got the word right from the Apostles, thank you very much. And considering that what Ignatius believed is what the Church believed in Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, and even to India, I don’t think everyone somehow got it wrong all at once.
Throughout the N.T., the Bible records that even churches and people that were taught and founded directly by the Apostles continued to get many things wrong, thus you have letters written to them to correct them. You are free to quote Benedict & Ignatius, and I am free to quote the Apostle Paul, the Apostle John, etc.
I don’t think you’re quite as free as that. The Church predates the New Testament, and Ignatius wrote his letters nearly 300 years before the Christian Bible’s canon was defined. Why did Hebrews, 2 and 3 John, and Revelation make it? Because the Church, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, decided so. Before the Council of Carthage, there was a debate over whether those books were inspired. The Church settled that question, and all over the world, the New Testament was accepted – the very same churches which believed in the Real Presence, the other Sacraments, infant baptism, and a hierarchy. The Catholic Church – guardian of Scriputre.
I recommend Bishop Henry Graham’s book “How We Got the Bible” for anyone who is interested on how the Old and New Testaments both were defined by the Catholic Church.
It would seem curiousity is my bane.
In any case, I skimmed most of this “debate.”
This alone caught my eye, from “abstractmind”:
Abstractmind: try being an atheist (and pro-war, anti-Muslim, fiscally-conservative). The term in itself was originally a pejoritive (and argueably still is), is oft misunderstood, and not well-defined. In fact “hard-atheism” I also find to be scientifically untenable.
In any case, before you go walk into the murky woods of metaphysical “proofs” of supernatural beings that defy definition, please do yourself a favor and read Richard Dawikin’s “The God Delusion.”
You might be pleasently surprised.
Prince Consort said:
To figure out what exactly the Apostles taught, we can either read the writings of Ignatius (who you say was taught by the Apostles), or we can go the Apostles’ own writings. If you go with the Apostles’ writings, you have one less link where error could creep in.
I’ll take an inspired Apostle’s word over the word of an uninspired person who was taught by that same person. In a court of law, which is preferable? Eye witness testimony, or hearsay? I’ll take my doctrinal cues straight from the Apostles and prophets.
Prince Consort said:
That is like saying “Well, most of the Jews who heard Jesus teach in person, and saw the actual miracles, rejected that He was the Messiah. The majority of those eye witness Jews can’t be wrong.” My concern isn’t what churches believed, but what the Apostles and prophets taught. Even in the times of the N.T., those things were frequently quite different.
And I’ll reiterate an earlier point. If people consume actual blood during the Lord’s Supper, then Jesus broke the Law of Moses when He instituted it the night before He was crucified. The Law remained in effect until the cross, so consuming blood was still forbidden. That would make Jesus a lawbreaker and a sinner. He wouldn’t be able to die for anyone’s sin, since He would have to die for His own sin. But Jesus was born under the Law and never sinned, so therefore He did not give His Apostles actual blood to drink during the Last Supper.
Prince Consort said:
The Church did not give the N.T. books their authority. Rather, Christians recognized the authority that the books already possessed, that they were from God. How did the early Christians know that what the Apostles taught (and wrote) was from God and thus authoritative over them? Because they were accompanied by miracles – which served as God’s testimony that what these people taught was from Him.
Something was either inspired by God or it wasn’t, putting it up to a vote changes nothing. It was through the providence of God that we received the Bible.
Trollman,
I haven’t read everything that you’ve said, yet, but what I’ve seen so far is spot on with Scripture… a rarity. What is your background?
Yeah, if you haven’t heard any of the same rhetoric from atheists for the past 2,000-plus years.
In which case, you should believe in the apostolic succession of the Catholic Church. We’re passing along the exact same teachings as them.
In other words, you’re ignoring history.
If the Bible and the Apostles’ teachings (as written in the Bible) are right – how on earth did they suddenly get it wrong when teaching someone like Ignatius? What makes you right and them wrong?
trollman,
i dont want to argue your religion with you.
But the fact you cant prove “God” exists, much less anything else that people have to take as faith, underlies the entire point of my postings.
How about the existance of “God”. How about the virgin birth? How about basically anything else you take on faith? Again, a circular argument. You can’t prove them. I can’t disprove them. Covered ground here.
More circular arguments. I cant prove they died. You cant disprove it. But taking those things as truth requires you to have faith. I have faith that I’ve never heard (outside of the bible myth) of people not dying, etc. Fact vs faith. Fact will always win with me.
But that’s the crux of the matter. You’re basing it on the fact God exists. You’re not willing, or able, to question that. I have that luxury. Again, its not that i dont believe in a higher power, but…you’re not proving the case of God being real. Are these things possible? Who knows. But trying to justify the existance of events you cant prove, by saying it was done by a being you likewise cannot prove its existance, is flimsy to me. I could replace “god” with “Santa” and we could have the same discussion in effect.
While that is fair, it still doesnt answer the questions with something solid. And circumstancial evidence can be good or bad…a good defense lawyer can get someone we believe is truly guilty off, and vice versa…a good prosecutor can convict with like evidence. I would think that someone such as yourself would place of a value on your eternal soul/damnation on more than circumstance.
So your answer is basically up in the air. It could be anything. Does that make the mormon faith less important or relevant than the catholic faith? or baptists? or methodists? It’s plain that all of these groups (and the litany of others) believe something different. So we’re right back where we started…that no one is really right, but by your assessment and statement, no one is really wrong. That seems…well, rather pathetic. If it doesnt matter which church or temple i go to, then what’s the point? Each has a distinct set of beliefs, but if you’re saying there’s no right or wrong, then that makes the whole exercise of religion futile.
CW was right, in the end. you may know your bible, as I do, but…you’ve still failed to win a convert. I take the fact you’re someone who isn’t open to anything else other than the text you cling to as emperical truth as a sign that you’re not willing to discuss concerns or questions with someone…but that you merely wish to assert your “truth” as being absolute.
I’ll keep looking elsewhere. Obviously, your version of the faith is too flawed and whimisical to be given credibility. Sorry.
Closing this thread.
Irony?
Abstractmind:
If you are still reading this thread, do check out “The God Delusion” (if you haven’t already). It’s been said there are two versions of this book: the one that the faithful have read, and the one that others have read. That’s a bit of a joke meaning that it seems many folks claim Dawkins is thoughtful and polite, while others say he is hateful and arrogant. I am thinking you will be among the former.
I picked it up some time ago thinking I was in for a bigoted and arrogant rant. I was wrong. Please do yourself a favor. In fact, I’d even recommend him to the faithful, if for no other reason than to assess your convictions.
I have. I find Dawkins writing – and his actions elsewhere – to be bigoted and arrogant.
It’s fine that he doesn’t believe, but his actions (like Christopher Hitchens) goes beyond that to wanting to deny us the right to believe. I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt that he’s fair inasmuch as he despises all religion.
As I said above, agnosticism is the honest position. There is logical, empirical evidence arguing for a supreme being in the universe.
I would counter your offer and ask you to read Fundamentals of the Faith.
No. Not ironic at all when you consider that atheism is built on a belief contradicted by logic and arguments from design.
Atheists claim to be more intelligent and progressive than believers, yet they’ve offered no new evidence to support their belief that God doesn’t exist.
Meanwhile minds like Aquinas, the countless believers who pioneered in the sciences, and many believers are intelligent and able to discern from evidence a reason to have faith in God. Archeologists have found many artifacts that support Biblical stories and other religions (and ancient stories) all recount a great flood.
We did not come into existence by a random act of coincidence. Even if you believe in the Big Bang theory, the particles of dirt, atoms, what have you that exploded to create life had to come from somewhere…
If you say atheism = “hard-atheism” then I would agree (as I said, hard-atheism is untenable). However, saying, “I am agnostic” does not portray an accurate picture of me. I am also agnostic about dragons, fairies, and Santa Claus.
Like?
This:
http://www.ignatius.com/ViewProduct.aspx?SID=1&Product_ID=623&AFID=12&
From the abstract it seems this book is about why we want / need God to exist, not that he DOES exist. Is this incorrect?
Only if you think “argument from design” is logical. I don’t.
I can’t offer you any evidence that dragons, fairies, or Santa Claus DON’T exist either. Nonetheless, I am reasonably sure they don’t.
A reason to have faith is not a proof. It’s just proof of wanting something to be true.
Non sequitur. Ancient stories having basis in fact in some parts does not make the whole or other parts true.
It’s not random; it’s a natural course following physical laws, like a bubble forming into a sphere.
In time, we may have a logical explanation, in much the same way our ancestors eventually came to realize the world is not flat or the Earth isn’t the center of the Solar system.
Or not, it may be that anything outside of existence or the universe is simply just that, outside of existence, hence, by definition, such a thing does not exist.
—thought i closed this, but something told me to check again—
zero,
thanks for the book reference btw.
I can see the sides of your discussion, and i feel they are valid points that deserve to be researched, checked, and examined. I guess for me personally, i -feel- that there has to be something else…I have a hard time believing that all this complexity created itself, and that humans are the end all, be all. That feeling guides me, but there’s still so much i feel i dont know…and thats what drives me. I want facts. I want definitive proof. I want something that satisfies my innate and intense curious nature in these matters. Maybe, i’ll find an answer…we’ll see.
thus, my search continues.
Thank you for your discussion though, it is well phrased and clear
From the website of Peter Kreeft, author of “Fundamentals of the Faith”:
http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/first-cause.htm
Oh how rich! Perhaps my “God” IS the singularity the instant before the Big Bang. The singularity that existed at the dawn of time was neither in “motion”, “dependent”, or “imperfect”. It just was.
Abstractmind:
Trust me on this, this thread won’t be closed for a bit.
I am sure you will enjoy the book. I don’t like much of Dawkins politics, but one can get past that. As for feeling there has to be something else: I don’t know how it will end up for you, but I felt much better when I decided the question, “is this all that we are?” itself was pointless and isn’t really a well-phrased question anyway. I don’t think humans are the “end all, be all” so much, think, “pale blue dot.” However, I don’t think something that is supernatural and defies definition is the answer. If you want facts and definitive proof, stick to physics, not metaphysics, you will never get facts or definitive proofs on that road.
Heh. Me too. As I said though, I felt much better when I stopped asking, “What is the meaning of life?” and “Why are we here?” and started saying, “This is a waste of time, I still don’t fully understand quantum physics.”
Good luck.
My email.
And you’re right…this thread could go on a while LOL.
As for the above…
For my own life, i answered those questions, to my personal satisfaction, first. The answers to those are unique for each person, I think. What the meaning of my life, and why i’m here, are not going to be the same as someone elses. I accepted that as my personal reality, and let others decide on their own.
As far physics…yes, i want to see something more concrete than what’s presented. But me being the person I am, when I would say “I don’t understand quantum physics”…i go looking for someone who does and learn it
Again, excellent post.
That is incorrect. Fundamentals deals with the logical, reasoned and philosophical arguments as to the existence of God – driven not from our wants and needs but the tanigble evidence around us.
Again, I pose this question to you:
Even if we *did* come into existence “like a bubble forming into a sphere” – where did the atoms that formed the water that formed into a bubble come from?
Logically, something cannot exist if it had no creator. Even if that something is microscopic, it had to be created.
From the argument from design. You don’t look at a painting, an ancient artifact, or a book and decide it came into existence by a random series of events. It was created by someone. To steal one of Kreeft’s stories – you don’t find a watch on the beach and assume the watch came into being because the waves happened to form the hands and gears just so.
Likewise for faith.
Again, I pose this question:
If you agree that everything in existence came from somewhere – what (or who) is the source of everything?
You cannot have an effect without a cause. Kreeft is arguing that the things in this world – which are dependent on something else for their existence (e.g., you came from your parents, who came from their parents, etc.) – come from God, who transcends the laws of time, phyiscs and space.
It is never a waste of time to explore the possibility that there is more to this world than what meets the eye at first glance.
Abstractmind:
In ancient times, sometime after Rome fell, and sometime before the end of the Cold War, a high-school classmate of mine asked me what I thought the “meaning of life” was.
I had previously given much thought on the subject and had concluded that it was “to be happy, healthy, and kind to others.”
In retrospect, this answer seems a quaint platitude and my current viewpoint is somewhat (though not much) more refined. Examples: one cannot be kind to others in war; you can’t ALWAYS be healthy especially if you like unhealthy food and drink on occasion; and sometimes NOT being happy is essential for survival.
However, I still think my old answer is a relatively good one, all things considered.
It’s been said of quantum physics, “If someone says they fully understand quantum physics, then they don’t understand quantum physics.”
. Let me know if you find anyone.
Likewise, great posts. Hope to hear from you in the future.
englishqueen01:
Is “Fundamentals of Faith” anything more than “argument from design” or “first-cause” arguments?
The short answer to your musings about “argument from design” and “first-cause” is as follows:
Human beings perceive order even when there is chaos. The universe we perceive could be said to be “ordered” only because we perceive it as such. Taking this line of thought, the universe does not require an “higher” creator.
A “God” that transcends the universe, by definition exists outside the universe (back to my earlier point).
It is very simple (and much the same thing) to say, “The singularity at the beginning of time was THE first cause” as it is to say “God was first cause.” This becomes more clear when you consider space-time did not “exist” before this.
If we want to dilute the definition of “God” to some un-definable, immutable, universal law or truth that we all can find palatable, then I agree, there is a God. It doesn’t make much sense to go to church to worship or even pray to such a God though.
Jet Jaguar said:
Church of Christ, not to be confused with the UCoC, ICoC, LDS, etc. In practice, they are far from perfect, but the root principle behind the movement – seeking to restore the doctrine of the Apostles and the N.T. church – are right on.
englishqueen01 said:
So the Catholic church teaches that Bishops must be married with children? (1st Timothy 3:2-5)
The Catholic church has a lot of things right like baptism for the forgiveness of sin, but they also have a lot of things wrong.
englishqueen01 said:
The Apostle Paul marveled at how quickly people he had personally taught had descended into total apostasy (Galatians 1:6-9).
Paul warns the Bishops in Ephesus “I know after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves men will arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. Therefore be on the alert, remembering that night and day for a period of three years I did not cease to admonish each one with tears.” Acts 20:29-31
I could easily multiply those examples in the N.T., because doctrinal error and even wholesale apostasy was common even while the Apostles were still alive.
So yes, many that were taught directly by the Apostles had corrupt doctrine. They were no more inspired than you or I, that is why we must always go back to the inspired Word. The Apostle Peter referred Christians to the written Word and not the interpretations of men (2nd Peter 3:15-16).
abstractmind said:
If I was talking with an atheist, then yes, I would first try to establish that it is at least possible God exists. However, there is no need for that since you had already stated that you are already open to His existence.
It is like my discussion with englishqueen01. Our dispute isn’t over the inspiration of the Bible, but the interpretation of the Bible. Therefore there is no need for me to first “prove” that the Bible is inspired.
That is how logical argumentation works – you start with what you both agree upon, and then you go from there.
abstractmind said:
I haven’t even mentioned here the tip of the iceberg in regards to the evidence for Christianity. If I could present even the broadest of summaries on a blog entry, it wouldn’t be very much evidence!
But in regards to the evidence not being “solid” enough, if you want to say the evidence is insufficient, then that is your right. Would I like even more evidence than what I do have? Sure! But it isn’t a matter of “how much evidence would you like to have?” but “what do you do with the evidence you do have?”
abstractmind said:
That is not what I have been saying. What I have said is that if anyone obeys the Gospel, that has the same kind of faith of Abraham, then that person is saved. Not everyone agrees on what exactly the Gospel is, or what it means to obey the Gospel, or even what faith is.
Your own words indicate that you think “faith” is belief apart from evidence. That is a common misconception of what the Bible teaches about faith.
abstractmind said:
And your “empirical evidence” for this “fact” is? The fact is, you are wrong about me and my history.
But here are some things I know (not with 100% certainty mind you, but with high probability) about you. You do not have a solid foundation in logic or philosophical reasoning – or else you wouldn’t have made some of the common and very basic errors in reasoning that I have already pointed out.
You see, when you have studied something a long time, you learn all of the main arguments – which ones are strong, which ones are weak, etc. At that point, you can estimate another person’s level knowledge very quickly based upon what they say and what they don’t say, by their terminology, etc.
About Richard Dawkins… Dawkins is a scientist. But when he starts drawing out philosophical and theological implications of science, he is way out of his area of expertise, and it shows.
One more thing, science is itself based upon philosophical assumptions. Science isn’t the beginning and end of human knowledge, it is but one tool in our intellectual toolbox.
Church of Christ, not to be confused with the UCoC, ICoC, LDS, etc. In practice, they are far from perfect, but the root principle behind the movement – seeking to restore the doctrine of the Apostles and the N.T. church – are right on.
That explains quite a bit. The question is how are you sure that your Church has the right interpretation of the Word; and the Catholic Church, which has the record of what early Christians believed, has somehow got it wrong?
I could easily multiply those examples in the N.T., because doctrinal error and even wholesale apostasy was common even while the Apostles were still alive.
And they dealt with it. Ignatius dealt with it. And after him, others dealt with Marcion, Docetus, Donatus, Pelagius, the ever-present Gnostics and (most notoriusly) Arius. Your understanding of the Trinity is thanks to Athanasius of Alexandria and the Council of Nicea in the fourth century.
So yes, many that were taught directly by the Apostles had corrupt doctrine. They were no more inspired than you or I, that is why we must always go back to the inspired Word. The Apostle Peter referred Christians to the written Word and not the interpretations of men (2nd Peter 3:15-16).
And why is your interpretation of Scripture, most of which tangibly dates back only to the mid-19th Century, better than anyone else’s? Again, I highly doubt that Christendom, from Spain to India and from Britannia to Ethiopia, would have gotten things completely wrong in exactly the same way across the board.
I’d like to thank you for a spirited and civil discussion, but I’d like to leave you with a few points:
You contend that somehow Christianity completely went off the rails around AD 100 and didn’t completely find its bearings until about 150 years ago. You consult a book that is indeed a gift of the Providence of God, but not completely defined until 350 years after the first Pentecost, with the Church existing and flourishing all that time. You choose to disregard the testimony of many from that first 300 years, even though they believed the same things, combated the same heresies, and defended their faith even unto death. I think the burden of proof is on you, and not them, as to why your attempt to go back to the Early Church is right, and they, who lived and died in that time, were wrong.
God bless.
Prince Consort said:
There is a very stark difference between us. Unlike the Catholic church, there is no hierarchy within the churches of Christ. Every local congregation is autonomous. The bishops’ (often referred to as elders or shepherds in the CoC) oversight is limited to their own congregation, and answerable to Christ who is the head of all churches.
Consequently, there is a great deal of variety of doctrinal beliefs from one church to another, and even within a single church.
For example, churches of Christ are often known for 2 things in particular: acapella singing and baptism (by immersion, not for babies, for the forgiveness of sins).
Of these 2 doctrinal positions, I accept their view on baptism as Biblically correct, but I believe the view that acapella (and only acapella) singing is acceptable for worship is incorrect – that it is based upon a misunderstanding of the principle of silence.
So I think your question is based upon a fundamental misunderstanding of how/what I believe. I don’t salute anyone else’s interpretation of the Bible, I study the Bible for myself.
Prince Consort said:
Because I do what the Bereans did. Luke in Acts 17:11 writes “Now these (the Bereans) were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so.”
According to Luke, it is praise worthy to not just believe what someone is teaching (even an Apostle!), but to check it out against the written Word, to make sure they don’t lead you astray. This is what I do towards every teacher/teaching.
For example, I have been discussing the Eucharist. According to Catholic doctrine, during the Lord’s Supper, you have transubstantiation – the bread and wine become the actual body and blood of Jesus. But to say that the bread and wine is literally the body and blood of Christ contradicts the Word of God.
What the doctrine of the Eucharist means is that during the Last Supper, the night before Jesus was crucified, Jesus gave His fellow Jews actual blood to drink, and commanded them to do so. The problem is this: Consuming blood was against the Law of Moses (Leviticus 17). By doing this, Jesus was breaking the Law of Moses, and thereby became a sinner.
Since Jesus was born under the Law (Galatians 4:4), and He didn’t die to the Law until He died on the cross, it would have been sin for Him to do such a thing. Yet the Bible is clear, Jesus was without sin (Hebrews 4:15). What I want you to do for me is to explain to me how it is even possible that Jesus didn’t break the Law of Moses when He offered them blood to drink.
Until you can do that, I maintain that this doctrine goes against the Scripture and therefore is rejected. And if you can’t answer it, if your priest can’t answer it, then that is a real problem.
Prince Consort said:
No, it is thanks to the Apostle Matthew, Paul, and so forth. I couldn’t care less what the Council of Nicea came up with. What I believe about the “Trinity” is this – I believe everything the Bible says about that subject, though I do not understand it. Do I believe in the typical formulation of the Trinity? 3 Persons, but 1 divine substance? I don’t know if that is exactly right, but the Scripture seems to indicate at least something along those lines. I feel no need to crystallize it into an ultra-precise formulation since even the Bible doesn’t do that.
Prince Consort said:
I don’t believe my interpretation is infallible. That is why I continue to study the Bible, and examine and alter my beliefs by what I read in the Bible.
The overarching principle of rejecting the traditions of men and sticking to the written Word of God dates back before the mid-19th century. Jesus referred to Scripture to refute the Sadducees’ rejection of resurrection. Jesus opposed the Pharisees for using their own traditions to contradict the teachings of Scripture.
John the Baptist, Jesus, and the Apostle Paul rebuked those who thought their salvation rested in a tangible direct link to Abraham. Today, you have people convinced they are saved because of a “direct link” to the Apostle Peter. None of those things matter.
Prince Consort said:
This is an argument from incredulity, a logical fallacy. The N.T. is filled with the confrontation of doctrinal error, and warnings of widespread apostasy – during and immediately after the time of the Apostles. Combine that with the fact that most of those who heard Jesus teach, and saw the miracles with their own eyes, did not believe Jesus, it should not be so surprising. The Bible teaches that the vast majority of Hebrews who saw the 10 plagues, who passed through the Sea, nevertheless died in unbelief. Throughout the history of Israel, only a tiny remnant was ever saved.
1+ billion Muslims can’t be wrong. Except they are.
Prince Consort said:
That is a misunderstanding of my view. I believe that, from the beginning of the Church, you have had people who have obeyed the Gospel (gotten the bare essentials correct and were saved) and those who got those things wrong. I don’t believe anyone ever had perfect doctrine but Christ.
Unlike some of those in the Catholic church who claim that only Catholics can go to heaven, I do not claim that only people who are a part of the church (small c) of Christ movement are going to heaven, but that anyone who obeys the Gospel belongs to the Church (big C) of Christ. Throughout the history of Christianity, through the history of the Catholic church, you have had people who have rejected what others insisted upon for the sake of following what the Bible taught.
Anyone who has the same kind of faith that Abraham has, regardless if they have a direct link back to Abraham, Peter, or whoever, that person is saved. I’m not in the business of going around telling everyone who is saved or not, my task is to proclaim what the Word of God teaches. The rest is between you and God.
Prince Consort said:
The beauty of it is, I am not dependent upon what some council of uninspired men came up with. I can (and have) studied the evidence for the authenticity of the N.T. books. I have also read some of the books that didn’t “make the cut.” This is one of the areas where I agree with the Catholic church, I think they got it right. But most of the books that were “officially approved” were obvious, anyway. Of the books that were somewhat controversial, only one of them is what I would consider “doctrinally meaty” (Hebrews).
Now take Romans, 1st & 2nd Corinthians, and Galatians. Those letters are considered to be authentic letters of Paul by virtually every N.T. scholar, liberal or conservative. Those books (with the O.T.) alone are enough to establish every thing you need to know in order to be saved.
Prince Consort said:
That is legit, I gladly accept the burden of proof. All of the things that I believe and disagree with the early church fathers and the Catholic church, I make my case by pointing to the inspired Scriptures. I really would like for you to get back to me on the Eucharist.
Prince Consort said:
Right back at’cha. =)
Trollman,
Your self-righteous argument is as full of fallacy as it is ignorance. But this is correctable. And your entire post proved rather well that you are closed minded to anything except your own view. So this statement:
…was as ignorant as it was rude and offensive.
Let’s correct your posts so that we’re on the same page.
You’re using this “well, lets suppose” type of argument to base the rest of your unproven rant. I am open to the existance of a higher power. But your failed attempt to twist this to meet your own argument is disingenous. “His” existance is a question you can’t answer. But trying to make this as the center of the argument, when you can’t prove it yourself (and the “tip of the iceburg” is a question of evidence that you AGAIN cannot prove with any legitimate, measurable means) is weak. So this is dismissed. The fact i’ve asked you for logical, verifiable information is something you can neither provide, and then attack, as is evidenced by:
I see no error in my logic. My basic points here are rather simple. I’ve asked for proof. I’ve asked for information. I’ve asked for something more solid than “the bible says” or “well, my faith tells me”. You can provide NONE of those things. If you could, you would be the first person in the history of humanity to positively verify the existance of God. You have *failed* on all points. Let me spell it out for you a bit more.
1. Prove there is a higher power.
2. Prove that your higher power is God.
3. Prove that God is exactly as he claims in the bible.
When you can do those things, then i’ll be happy to accept your faith as the truth. But therein lies the problem, no? You cannot prove those things definitively. You can say “well, what do we do with the evidence we DO have” (which i deconstruct in a minute), but you don’t offer anything more than strawmen and misdirection as a means of showing you’re correct. I can’t be more plain. Show the illogical argument i made before, and i’ll be happy to clarify or explain. I noticed you didn’t actually quote or deconstruct my arguments directly. Don’t think that didnt escape notice.
But then again…
You dont even have the fundamentals of Christianity down.
I’ll correct YOUR errors now. I see no error in my questions or discussion.
Lets start here:
You mean, like the complete and utter lack of verifiable, “able to be proved” type of evidence?. What evidence DO we have? None, so far. So that’s a moot point. You’re going to have to try harder. Use facts, those tend to help. I’m sure that by pointing out that there is no facts supporting your position, and by already making null the “absence of evidence” argument by virtue it only supports the lack of existance, or doesn’t support your argument, that the burden of existance doesn’t lie with me. It lies with those making the claims He does.
Except you’ve managed to throw a fallacy here. We don’t agree on the points here. We have a different view of the subject. If we don’t agree, does that mean we can’t have a discussion on the subject? How do prolife and abortion advocates debate? They obviously don’t agree on their subject matter. To someone like myself, you would in fact have to prove “divine inspiration”, where EQ and you are more or less on the same page. See the lack of logic on your part? Just saying, you point out my intelligent argument as being without logic or philisophical merit, when I’ve demonstrated otherwise, and will now deconstruct the rest of your post.
You already stated your mission was to teach and preach the Gospel. The Great Commission…you know “go ye therefore and teach all nations”. If you don’t believe that what you’re teaching and telling others is the absolute truth, or is fact…then you might want to take a step back.
Funny you should say that…kind of like this?
Coming from a Christian, this is…amazing. I believe the consensus you’re looking for as to what the Gospel is, is called “The New Testament”. Pretty sure that’s it, anyway. Would explain those odd “The Gospel of Christ, According to Matthew/Mark/Luke/John” at the top of the chapters. You know, that kind of thing. Pretty sure that was agreed on…wow, a REALLY long time ago. Christians have agreed those things ARE in fact the Gospel ever since. I personally believe that things such as the agnostic gospels should have been included (like the Gospel of Thomas), but i digress. As far as agreeing on how to obey them…i believe thats all laid out as well, generally. While there is alot of disagreement on certain aspects of the doctrine, the fundamentals are all in place and generally are not debated. Believe in christ. follow his word. love thy neighbor as thyself. alot more complicated, but…those things are rather plain to anyone with a rudamentary grasp of english.
In fact, your bible says something rather different than you’ve stated, in particular about Abraham, doesnt it?
The New Testament, assuming you’ve read it once or so, would indicate that “I am the way, the truth, and the life. NO MAN cometh to the Father BUT BY ME.” It says additionally that “If thou would confess with thy mouth and believe in thy heart in the Christ, thou shalt be saved”. Saying that if you have faith like Abraham, and just believe…is the exact opposite of what the Christ you believe in said. Unless you’re pulling an Obama gaffe moment, I would think it beneficial for you to examine those passages again. Belief in God is not enough. Belief like Abraham had, when the bible makes it clear that those before Christ lived in a state of grace as they had no savior before then, is a fallacy even you should know better than to place in this thread.
the bible is likewise clear about faith:
“Faith is the *substance of things *hoped for*, the *evidence* of things *not seen*.
2 points if you can identify the source of the quote. Your own bible says this, that faith is evidence of things not seen. The santa clause argument applies. Often, small children dont see santa, but they wake up xmas morning and see presents under the tree. The fact that someone else tells them santa put them there, and the fact that there’s presents there, makes kids believe in santa.
Lets replace that with the following:
Often,small childrenpeople dont seesantaGod, but theywake up xmas morning and see presents under the treeare told the world was created by Him. The fact that someone else tells themsanta put them thereGod is responsible, and the fact that there’spresents therea physical world to see, makeskids believe in santapeople believe blindly that God exists.I’m not trying to be purposely obtuse about this, but…all you’ve given me is supposition, superstition, and the words of people who 2000 years ago thought the world was flat, that demons were responsible for sickness and evil in the world, and the entire myriad of things shown to be abjectly false. I’m asking you to show someone who states plainly they dont believe, something that works. something that REALLY is there and exists.
As the old song lyric goes, “Gimme something to believe in…”
But can it be seen where someone like myself has trouble believing in something that comes from the 1st centure, that’s been redone, revised, translated multiple times inbetween, and that is delivery to people who sit in 4th century pews? I’ll grant some places are a little more modern, but, you get the idea.
I dont want to belittle your religous experience. But stop presuming you’re correct. Stop using this pompous attitude of “well, i’m preaching the gospel”, when i’ve demonstrated you clearly don’t have the basics down, and have to be corrected by someone that hasnt actively read the bible in over a decade.
I’m not trying to be rude. But dont belittle someone by basically calling them a moron, and not expect something in return.
I dont mind having a civil discussion.
Just saying.
EQ, i’ll check my email here in a bit.
Troll, if you can give me something solid…if you can really back up your position…i’m willing to listen. I just havent seen it yet, from someone who is seemingly educated.
I’ll be around. might check this later today.
abstractmind said:
I gave you a sample of the proof – prophetic prophecy.
It is a fact that the O.T. books were written centuries before Jesus’ life. We have the Dead Sea Scrolls, which was the library of the Essene community, that contains manuscripts and fragments of every book of the Hebrew Scriptures (except for Esther). The various scrolls are all dated from 150 BC to 68 AD.
No one supposes that these were the original scolls, which would indicate that they were originally written even prior to that time. Historical records indicate that the Hebrew Bible was translated into Greek around 250 BC, which indicates they are even older than that.
Now take the book of Daniel, for instance. Daniel is supposed to have been written in the 500s BC, when Daniel lived. The book includes prophecy concerning 4 great empires. The prophecies are so accurate, that “critical” scholars have dismissed this book as being unauthentic (without any of the hard evidence you require) since it is impossible to predict the future with such accuracy, and thus date it to 150 BC.
First, there is good reason to believe the book of Daniel is authentic. The book of Daniel includes incidental details that a late forgery likely would have gotten wrong. Until relatively recently, critics had said Belshazzar didn’t exist, that he wasn’t the last king of Babylon – Daniel contradicted other ancient records. That all changed when they found a cylinder that explained that Belshazzar was the son of Babylon’s last king.
Belshazzar was reigning as the crown-prince of Babylon while his father was away. This makes sense when we consider an incidental detail in Daniel 5:7 when Belshazzar offers to make anyone who can read the inscription the “third” highest ruler in the kingdom. He could only make Daniel the 3rd highest since he himself was the 2nd highest. Furthermore, archeologists have discovered the banquet room, and yes, it does have plaster-lined walls, just as Daniel had recorded.
In addition to this, the Hebrew used in the book of Daniel is consistent with the time in which it is supposed to have been written, and not consistent with the language of c. 150 BC. You see, languages change over time – just compare KJV English to modern English.
But even if we set aside all of this and, for the sake of argument, agree with the critics that it was written in 150 BC. That is still 150 years prior to Christ. The book of Daniel contains several important predictions about the Jewish nation, the Messiah, and the arrival of the kingdom of God – which all came true in the first century AD.
If you had been as open-minded and inquisitive as you say you are, you could have asked me questions like “How do we know this is the correct interpretation?” “What are the alternative interpretations?” “How do we know that Jesus and His followers didn’t intentionally rig things in order to ‘fulfill’ these prophecies?” “How do believers who reject that they are talking about Jesus (Jewish theologians) interpret these passages?”
But you didn’t. Rather than seeking to learn more, you dismissed it all with a wave of the hand. You said this was no more impressive than Nostradamus. If that is what you think, then you have the burden of proving that. Good luck.
abstractmind said:
The N.T. is not the Gospel. Four of the books of the N.T. are called “Gospels”, but that is in a different sense. Gospel is also a literary genre, with certain traits. There are 4 official/canonical Gospels, and many more Gospels that are less credible. However, there is only one Gospel.
The one Gospel is “the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes” (Romans 1:16), “the word of the cross” (1st Corinthians 1:18). That is, the Gospel is the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ (with all its implications) – 1st Corinthians 15:1-4.
Since the Gospel is the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus, then how exactly do you “obey” His death, burial, and resurrection? Don’t give me generalities, be specific, please.
abstractmind said:
=)
abstractmind said:
Having a faith like Abraham means believing God, trusting in God’s words and promises, and therefore following/obeying God. Not to earn God’s blessing, but to receive God’s blessing that you did not earn.
abstractmind said:
Abraham obeyed what had been revealed to him. If we have the same kind of faith that Abraham, that we obey what has been revealed to us (the fullness of the Gospel), then we are “sons of Abraham” – a designation of salvation (see Galatians 3, Romans 4).
abstractmind said:
Yes it is, on this we can agree.
abstractmind said:
Hebrews 11:1. There are other passages that people also quote to try to prove the Bible teaches faith is apart from evidence. I am surprised you didn’t also cite John 20:29. Of course, these passages are commonly misunderstood – they don’t mean what most people think they mean (people often don’t bother to consider the context).
Let’s look at Hebrews 11:1. The Greek word translated as “evidence” is elegchos. Elegchos means proof, or evidence. However, like many other words, it has a second meaning – conviction. The question is, which is the correct meaning in Hebrews 11:1?
Hebrews 11:1 is an example of Hebrew parallelism. The word elegchos is parallel with another word used in that same verse, hupostasis, which indicates that “conviction” is the correct translation, not “evidence”.
Without boring you with further Greek grammar, allow me to simply point you to the ASV, NASB, NIV, RSV, NRSV, & ESV, which all agree with my translation against the KJV. The KJV translated it incorrectly. The NKJV follows the KJV with “evidence”, but even in the official NKJV footnotes, it includes the correct translation.
That passage has nothing to do with why people have a strong conviction, but that faith means having a strong conviction, which leads you to obey God.
If you are looking for a Bible passage that actually teaches on the issue of why we should believe, see John 10:31-33, 37-38. Jesus tells His critics that if there is no good reason to believe in Him, no evidence, then they aren’t obligated to believe Him. But if there is good evidence, then they are obligated to believe. Perfectly logical, so no Santa for you!
You want evidence, that is good. Many Christians don’t understand the importance of evidence, nor its relationship to a Biblical faith. But before you can be taught the evidence, you must first learn some humility.
If you truly wish to learn more, then The Case for Christ is a good place to start.
Abstractmind:
If I may be so bold (and forgive me for saying so), but you are wasting your time. You are debating with people that believe “proof” of “God” existing amounts to an ancient text purporting to tell the future.
They will want you to believe that this God is responsible for countless destroyed galaxies, collapsed stars, barren worlds, all to have one little blessed pale blue dot in a backwater section of a nondescript galaxy be inhabited with his creation. Then on this world: innumerable extinct species over an unfathomable amount of years just to finally spawn this creation, humans.
Then, this God waits about 200,000 years (or was it 7000 after 7 days?) and has himself/his son(?) born as a human in a strife riddled wasteland and an unexceptional province of one of many ancient empires.
This “God” then dies for “us” to absolve us of sins he could easily just forgive.
They will say, “you can’t understand God’s plan, you are just a mortal.” Or maybe, “Well you don’t have the background in theology to understand this…” or “God had to do it this way to demonstrate his love.” Perhaps, or perhaps we can apply Occam’s razor and the whole Rube Goldberg Machine falls apart.
I could go on, but it’s really not necessary.
It’s not possible to have an honest debate. The very assertion that you don’t think God exists, or at least, you don’t think thier version is correct ammounts to “slaughtering thier sacred cow” right in front of them.
zeroangel, let’s have that honest debate.
zeroangel said:
So you refute the evidence from predictive prophecy with just a simple shrug? Beware the hand wave of DOOM!
zeroangel said:
There have been some stars that have collapsed?! I guess that does it! Nothing proves the nonexistence of God like a collapsed star. Now if none of the stars had collapsed, then that would be definitive, in your face proof God exists, but this does it.
It is called “argument from incredulity” = logical fallacy.
zeroangel said:
If the argument from incredulity didn’t work the first time, maybe it will the second time…
Now if Jesus had only been born into the house of Caesar, then He would’ve clearly been divine!
zeroangel said:
I’m inclined to agree.
Trollman:
Its not a proof. Its not possible to prove God does not exist (as I said before). I’ll pass on your strawman arguements.
zeroangel, you’re right, what you posted isn’t proof. But you were making a fallacious argument, as I have already pointed out.
You can’t always be right – we all are proven wrong at times – but you can always be honest.
And yes, there is evidence against Christianity. It is just that I find the evidence for Christianity more compelling.
It was not a fallacious argument either.
It was a comparison of the convictions of fundamentalists to a Rube Goldberg Machine. Nothing more.
You did present an argument, zeroangel, just not a sound one.
First, you say this:
You simply dismiss any evidence for God. Not by refuting it, but because it is “obviously false.” After all, evidence and facts can only get in the way when you’re mind is already made up.
Then you go on to say that Christians believe allllll this was made just to accomplish this little, teeny-tiny, itsy-bitsy thing – which is just obviously absurd, of course! I mean, look, it just sounds silly.
Having ruled out all evidence for Christianity from the get go, you then appeal to Occam’s razor. All things being equal, the simpler explanation is to be preferred. Therefore, there is no reason to believe in the Christian God.
If there was no evidence for Christianity, then I would agree with you (and so would Jesus – John:10:37-38).
So yes, you did present an argument. The problem is that it has more holes than Swiss cheese. I guess that explains why you are so impressed with the writings of Richard Dawkins – he has the best arguments of all – those that agree with you.
Trollman:
It was a comparison and it was directed at Abstractmind, not you.
I wasn’t dismissing anything, merely pointing out to Abstractmind (not you) the beliefs of those whom he is trying to debate with.
Is this not what you (for example) believe? Are you saying you DON’T think God created trillions of galaxies with trillions of stars? Or are you saying something else, perhaps there are other worlds then ours that are also inhabited by other sentient creatures with souls? What exactly do you believe here?
If you take a comparison of the universe to a Rube Goldberg machine; followed by an admission that it IS a possibility; further followed by an assertion that perhaps it isn’t the only possibility; as an argument, I would say that is proof positive that discourse on the topic is impossible. Goodness, I even admitted that I CANNOT scientifically rule out the existence of God!
What from my post to Abstractmind don’t you believe?
You believe ancient texts foretold the future, correct?
You believe God created the entire universe, correct?
You believe God created all life on this Earth to include countless extinct species, correct?
You believe the son of God was born in Judaea, correct?
You believe Jesus died for our sins, correct?
If you believe all these things then my point to Abstractmind (not you) is well made.
Now, you can of course dispute the comparison all you want, but I have no interest in debating with you.
zeroangel said:
I’m aware of that. What you posted was targeted towards someone who said they were agnostic and open to evidence towards believing in God. Which sets up the context that supports you were making an argument, trying to persuade him to your side. I don’t mind you trying to persuade people to your side, but I do mind people flat out lying.
zeroangel said:
Whoa, wait a minute. Earlier, you said:
Which is it? Is it some random comparison with no point, or was it a comparison that was meant to go somewhere (you know, to persuade someone)? If you were just saying “Christians’ beliefs are like a Rube Goldberg machine, then how does Occam’s razor fit into the comparison?
We both know the whole point of referring to Occam’s razor – to do away with the perceived need for God – and thus strengthening your position of atheism. I can’t understand why you feel the need to lie and try to cover that up. Could it be that you now realize that, as an argument, it was full of logical leaps? So rather than admitting your flawed logic, you decided to dance?
zeroangel said:
So you are willing to admit that it is at least a logical possibility that some God some where might exist. That concedes virtually nothing – when it comes to what is logically possible, almost everything qualifies (except for those things involving an inherent logical contradiction).
zeroangel said:
Christians believe a lot of things, such as:
love your neighbor as yourself,
the good will ultimately be rewarded,
the bad will ultimately be punished,
that the universe makes sense and thus is open to rational inquiry & systematic study,
etc.
But you didn’t mention any of these things. Why is that? Could it be that you selectively chose certain beliefs, stringing them together, in order to make Christianity look “silly” as part of your fallacious argument?
“I was just typing up some random doctrines, compared it to a Rube Goldberg machine, and then, from out of no where, Occam’s razor just randomly came up.”
Even Hillary finally admitted she lied. Even Obama finally disowned Jeremiah Wright. But will zeroangel ever admit he made an unsound argument, and then lied about it so he wouldn’t have to admit his error?
Trollman:
I was persuading Abstractmind that debate is impossible. I was also trying to politely bow out of this topic. You start with trying to portray my comparison as a formal logic argument, which it was not because I am not debating with you and you and I don’t share the same axioms. Then you shift gears and use equivocation to say I was making an “argument.” Which I was, but it certainly was not fallacious and it is better classified as a comparison. Then came the strawman arguments.
I have said (many times now) that hard-atheism is untenable. I can only conclude that you don’t understand what I am saying, you are purposely mischaracterizing what I am saying, or simply you didn’t read my previous posts.
No one is dancing. I have been clear with my POV from the start.
Secular Humanists also hold the belief that one should love their neighbor as themselves (among other things).
My beef is with fundamentalists. I really have no problem with Deists and progressive Christians (heck I’m married to one).
Any fair-minded reader (if there are any left still reading) should be able to see that plainly. They will also be able to see your prodigious use of ad hominem (with me and Abstractmind) as well as equivocation, strawman, and non sequitor. Finally, its no surprise the favorite tool of a sophist is semantics.
So how about it? Do you believe ANY of the aforementioned “silly” things? You dodged that one.
zeroangel said:
So all you’re doing is trying to explain Christians’ basic beliefs? When challenged that you were dismissing the evidence without first addressing it, you said:
Well, yes, I do believe there are some ancient texts that foretold the future, but that isn’t what you had posted earlier. Let’s refresh our memories:
No, I do not believe the Bible purports to tell the future – a word that has a decidedly negative connotation.
And if a text tells the future, then that is indeed proof or evidence for special knowledge. That is precisely why it is so important for skeptical scholars to argue for later dates for the books of the Bible.
Again, that is worded very differently than what you had said earlier:
Obviously, if God created the heavens and the earth, then He created collapsed stars, barren worlds, etc. But if all you were intending to do was to explain what Christians believe and not to put a prejudicial slant (a la argument from incredulity), then why such a strange presentation of the Christian’s basic belief?
It just now occurred to me. I have read some of Richard Dawkins books (The Selfish Gene, The Blind Watchmaker), but it has been a few years. But your argument (you did finally admit it was an argument, right?) reminds me of Dawkins – his kind of points, manner of expression, and logical errors. Is that what inspired your earlier post?
I’ve been clear what I am trying t o do, I don’t have to repeat it.
So you believe that ancient texts have foretold the future. You also believe that an almighty creator, that could have easily created the world in 7 days (or instantly), created the entire universe with its trillions of galaxies with trillions of stars each; complete with countless collapsed stars; failed star systems etc.. Then he dabbled for millennia with life on one particular world culminating in huge lizards, which he later destroyed, to pave the way for humans. How is this NOT a celestial Rube Goldberg machine? That’s exactly what is it.
My points remind you of Dawkins in the same manner yours remind me of countless Christian apologists. Are they what inspired your posts?
Abstractmind:
If you are still there, I think you can see my point. Now perhaps I should take my own advice.
Earlier, I said this:
To which, zeroangel responded with:
I looked at an excerpt from Dawkins’ God Delusion on Amazon.com. Dawkins included a reference to something you said earlier – “pale blue dot.” Interesting word choice, no? So I take it I did strike home in my educated guess.
If I am not open to debate as you claim, then why have I at least a strong familiarity with the arguments (and even style of particular) atheists? And why couldn’t you single out a particular Christian apologist to compare me to, in return? I suspect because you aren’t actually familiar with the writings of Christian apologists – at least no where near as familiar as I am with atheist literature.
I think it is abundantly clear who is open-minded here – who studies all sides of an issue. It is also clear who is close-minded – who accepts anything that agrees with them, and automatically rejects anything that contradicts their already established views.
You really should do more research.
Carl Sagan’s “pale blue dot” reference is very famous.
Dawkins was borrowing from him in God Delusion.
The more you post the more you make yourself appear foolish.