1. Joined
    28 Oct '05
    Moves
    34587
    08 Jan '12 09:56
    Originally posted by divegeester
    There is only two indicators that I know of that point to how one Christian or non-Christian should recognise a Christian, and those are: the inner witness of the spirit (e.g. Elizabeth's baby leaping in the womb) and the fruit of the spirit (note fruit is singular despite there being a list of virtues in the Bible). Not seeing that fruit does not mean that the person is not a Christian.
    I befriended two Japanese JWs in northern Japan when I lived there. We had lunch a fair few times over about an 18 month period and talked of this and that. Husband and wife. I used to cycle to our rendezvous because their car looked like it was about to croak. For their sake, I hope they counted their time with me as time off from doing "good works". As nice as their company was, I hope they had some other "good works" that they were involved in, apart from giving me their magazine and talking about their organization and the bible. But maybe it's for Christians - and not post-Christians like me - to assess the "good works" of their fellow Christians.
  2. Joined
    16 Feb '08
    Moves
    116436
    08 Jan '12 10:131 edit
    Originally posted by FMF
    I befriended two Japanese JWs in northern Japan when I lived there. We had lunch a fair few times over about an 18 month period and talked of this and that. Husband and wife. I used to cycle to our rendezvous because their car looked like it was about to croak. For their sake, I hope they counted their time with me as time off from doing "good works". As t post-Christians like me - to assess the "good works" of their fellow Christians.
    I'm sure you are aware of Biblical principles; my previous post is stating my postion to anyone reading, it's not meant to be lecturing you btw.

    Because we (Christians) are justified by faith does not mean we shouldn't be obedient, do good works and grow etc. These things are outputs rather than inputs if that makes sense?

    Another way to look at this is to read the 10 commendments as "outputs" of a change that has already been accomplished i.e. "you shall not/will not do...xyz", becomes a prophetic commentry of a changed life. That change was paid for and accomplished fully by Christ. To talk of good works as in input to this formula becomes a nonsense.
  3. Joined
    11 Nov '05
    Moves
    43938
    08 Jan '12 10:15
    Originally posted by galveston75
    Should a Christian teach non Christians about the Bible? This would include athiest.
    I turn the question 180 degrees around:

    Should creational christians be taught some good ol' scientific evolution?

    If the answer is no, then the same asnwer applies to the original question.

    Because Jesus said "Treat others the way you would like to be treated yourself!" I give christians the right to believe in anything they want. So why don't they respect my will not to be shoven religious stuff through my troat?

    Whenever christians agree to just one thing, no, let's say two to be sure, then I'm prepared to listen. Whenever christian teachings are homogenic, then I'm prepared to listen. Until then, go quarrel among yourselves before you try to quarrel outside the church.
  4. Joined
    16 Feb '08
    Moves
    116436
    08 Jan '12 10:181 edit
    Originally posted by FabianFnas
    I turn the question 180 degrees around:

    Should creational christians be taught some good ol' scientific evolution?

    If the answer is no, then the same asnwer applies to the original question.

    Because Jesus said "Treat others the way you would like to be treated yourself!" I give christians the right to believe in anything they want. So why don't t en. Until then, go quarrel among yourselves before you try to quarrel outside the church.
    Good point. Just be aware that the majority of mainstream Chritianity will not accept the claim that JWs are Christians for very clear doctrinal reasons. Thier Christianity (religion not intent) is one in name only. They worship a different God to me and follow a different Jesus.
  5. Joined
    11 Nov '05
    Moves
    43938
    08 Jan '12 10:26
    Originally posted by divegeester
    Good point. Just be aware that the majority of mainstream Chritianity will not accept the claim that JWs are Christians for very clear doctrinal reasons. Thier Christianity (religion not intent) is one in name only. They worship a different God to me and follow a different Jesus.
    I say it goes for any christians, not only JWers. And every creationist too, christian or non-christian.
  6. Joined
    16 Feb '08
    Moves
    116436
    08 Jan '12 10:31
    Originally posted by FabianFnas
    I say it goes for any christians, not only JWers. And every creationist too, christian or non-christian.
    I can't disagree with that. I enjoy science very much - you don't have to be a "scientist" to enjoy science.
  7. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    13644
    08 Jan '12 15:53
    Originally posted by divegeester
    I can't disagree with that. I enjoy science very much - you don't have to be a "scientist" to enjoy science.
    I like the science that does not fight against the fact that God is the Creator.
  8. Joined
    31 May '06
    Moves
    1795
    08 Jan '12 16:05
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    I like the science that does not fight against the fact that God is the Creator.
    That would be all of it, or none of it, depending on how you define
    "Fight against god as the creator".

    As no science disproves the existence of god (and almost certainly never will)
    then no science is in conflict with the idea of their being a god, (it makes one unnecessary
    but being unnecessary is not proof of non existence).

    Evolution for example provides a coherent and useful explanation for how the diversity of
    life came about and makes useful (and validated ) predictions about life and how it works.
    However it is impossible to disprove that god didn't create all the creatures presently alive
    and create a fossil record of creatures past 6 thousand years ago or 6 years ago.
    But if god did then god did it in such a way as to be indistinguishable from life having evolved
    over billions of years.


    God is the creator is an idea that is totally and completely unscientific, and can never ever be
    part of science.
    In which sense ALL science is against that idea.

    So you either accept all science is against your religion or none of it is.

    You don't get to pick and chose.
  9. Joined
    11 Nov '05
    Moves
    43938
    08 Jan '12 16:59
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    I like the science that does not fight against the fact that God is the Creator.
    That's not within the domain of science.
    Science cannot prove, nor disprove, the existance of god, of any god. That's religion.
    Science and religion cannot ever meet, but they can both live side by side.
  10. Joined
    31 May '06
    Moves
    1795
    08 Jan '12 17:07
    Originally posted by FabianFnas
    That's not within the domain of science.
    Science cannot prove, nor disprove, the existance of god, of any god. That's religion.
    Science and religion cannot ever meet, but they can both live side by side.
    They really can't. Scientific world-views will always be at odds with faith based world-views.
  11. Joined
    11 Nov '05
    Moves
    43938
    08 Jan '12 19:04
    Originally posted by googlefudge
    They really can't. Scientific world-views will always be at odds with faith based world-views.
    Science are not even meant to be proving/disproving god. They don't even care to try.
  12. Joined
    31 May '06
    Moves
    1795
    08 Jan '12 23:16
    Originally posted by FabianFnas
    Science are not even meant to be proving/disproving god. They don't even care to try.
    If god were real, in this reality, and had thus had properties and effects, then science would be
    capable of and indeed bound to investigate the existence and properties of god at some point.
    It is only impossible for science to prove the negative that god doesn't exist, the reverse (if god did
    exist) is not a given.

    However most theists claim that god is incapable of being detected by science and has no
    properties or effects that science could detect.

    Which is why their belief is based on blind faith.

    Believing in things based on blind faith is the complete antithesis of the scientific skeptical world
    view.

    The diametric opposition of the scientific skeptical outlook and faith based belief is why science
    and religion can't cohabit peacefully.
    While some people are able to permit the cognitive dissonance of accepting scientific skepticism
    about everything but god, there is a sizeable number (I would say probably a majority) for whom
    that isn't permissible and who can accept only one of those contradictory world views.

    For that reason, science and religion, and their respective world views, will never coexist peacefully.

    (note: I am not talking about coexisting peacefully in terms of physical violence, but in terms of
    argumentative disagreement. I would hope it is possible for people of (almost) any beliefs to be able
    to coexist non-violently with each other. I would contend that of the two, the theists have the hardest
    time living with each other and with atheists peacefully than the atheists have living with theists.)
  13. Hmmm . . .
    Joined
    19 Jan '04
    Moves
    22131
    10 Jan '12 23:051 edit
    Originally posted by googlefudge
    They really can't. Scientific world-views will always be at odds with faith based world-views.
    Hmmm—

    Why isn’t it the case that a claim that is in principle( a priori) indefeasible in any epistemic sense a claim that technically falls outside any epistemological inquiry at all? If one takes the standard definition of “knowledge” (episteme) as “a justified belief that is also true”, then a claim that is insulated from justificatory testing is strictly, a priori, a non-justifiable belief. In such a case, simple disbelief is warranted (in a sense, there is not even room for the kind of doubt that would undergird agnosticism).

    I want to say that such a claim is not an epistemological claim at all, and therefore that science—as a particular (empirical) epistemological methodology for determining justification—has nothing further to say. It is always possible that a non-justifiable belief could turn out to be true—but “accidental truth” does not entail knowledge.

    The above assumes that the non-justifiable claim does not contain internal contradictions (which are, of course, challengeable). Non-justifiable (and hence non-justified, to be redundant) claims can also be challenged by justified claims to the contrary. That is where, it seems to me, that science—and epistemology in general—can respond with actual argument, rather than simple (justified) dismissal.

    After all that—an exercise in thinking while writing—I think I am just worrying out some detail that is, as usual, in agreement with your point. I also wanted to bring in philosophy because I don’t think that science can get to ethical claims without philosophy (that is, getting from an “is” to an “ought” ), and ethical claims I also think are subject to justification—or dismissible in its absence.

    _______________________________________

    NOTE: It seems that sometimes “belief” is used in non-epistemological (e.g., pragmatic) senses. I try not to, to avoid confusion, but etymologically there seems to be some basis for such usages—both pragmatic and aesthetic. And that may be a bit where FabianFas is coming from…

    EDIT: I intended this post as a reply to yours immediately above, but I got lost...
  14. Joined
    31 May '06
    Moves
    1795
    10 Jan '12 23:191 edit
    Originally posted by vistesd
    EDIT: I intended this post as a reply to yours immediately above, but I got lost...
    Yes, but it is sometimes fun to go down the rabbit hole or go on a magical mystery tour, and this was certainly one of those occasions :-)

    EDIT: I take the Granny Weatherwax view on getting lost... I always know where I am... But I sometimes temporarily misplace everything else.
  15. Standard memberwolfgang59
    Quiz Master
    RHP Arms
    Joined
    09 Jun '07
    Moves
    48793
    10 Jan '12 23:24
    Originally posted by galveston75
    Should a Christian teach non Christians about the Bible? This would include athiest.
    G75: "Would you like to know more about the bible?"
    Mark: "Yes"

    Then its OK

    G75: "Would you like to know more about the bible?"
    Mark: "No"

    Then its not OK
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree