22 Jan 07
2 edits
Originally posted by XanthosNZConcerning religion - I think the presence of Christ is the absence of religion for starters. But that's another discussion.
The old chestnut that only the religious can have morals?
Christ is verses religion.
The athiest may have morals. Of course an athiest can have morals. But the ground for his morals are kind of arbitrary and not too solid.
Some say, "Well for survival of the species Evolution has developed something like morals as a matter of selection preasure."
That doesn't really give much incentive for me to fear to rape, to murder, to gossip, to steal as does the realization that every act is recorded by God. And He will remember and call into account.
Somehow the morals of the athiest sound noble but lack force. Human nature seems to be that we are always easy on ourselves but strict with others. We tend to be very moral in checking the other guy and very lenient in checking with our own behavior. Sure you are.
You're strict with the other guy. You are merciful on yourself. It is typical human nature.
22 Jan 07
Originally posted by twhiteheadSure truth matters. The gospel affirms my entire sense of humanty. Not only justice is served but truth as well. They are united together.
So are you saying that in your opinion one idea is superior to if it encourages people to be just? Or if it appears 'fair' to you?
Does the truth matter at all?
Surely that makes the flying spaghetti monsters 'Supremely Just Plan' far superior to anything that Jesus came up with.
I still don't quite understand how you reconcile the conflicting concepts ...[text shortened]... o elephants."
Then when asked why you reply: "well because they have horns of course!"
I regard it as a great truth that Jesus did rise from the dead. I regard it as also a great justness that such a person could not possibly be held by death.
It is truth that He rose and is alive. And it is just and righteous that He rose and is alive. It is a matter of justice that death could not hold such a Person.
It is right and just that such a person as Jesus Christ could not be held by the grave. This is not a matter of my sentimentality. This is a matter of the impossibility of God being defeated by death.
22 Jan 07
Originally posted by jaywillSo in order to be strict with yourself you invent a fictional character and imagine that he is being strict with you?
You're strict with the other guy. You are merciful on yourself. It is typical human nature.
You are simultaneously claiming that you have weak morals but want strict morals. Sounds to me like you lack self control.
22 Jan 07
3 edits
Originally posted by XanthosNZWell, that's your opinion (which you regard very highly).
Jaywill, you have said nothing worth saying in the last page and a half. You've rambled, you've waffled but when it comes right down to it, you've got nothing other than blind faith. And blind faith, by its very definition cannot be based on logic or reasoning.
I have said quite in a lot in a concise way, in a condensed way. Here are some of the things I said:
1.) I requested someone to put forth a philosophy that offers me or mankind something superior to Christ.
2.) I described why the morality of an atheist is there but arbitrary and has a weak foundation.
3.) I described briefly why accountibility to an ultimate God is a superior foundation for morality than the arbitrary basis of the atheist. Basically there are no consequences to be concerned about.
4.) I desccribed briefly that "feelings" are a ligitimate component of my humanity.
5.) I added that I did not stress "feelings" per se but do not feel compelled to excude feelings from my search for truth.
6.) I also pointed out before that self hypnosis is not an adaquate reason to explain Christ's fulfillment of some prophecy given concerning Him.
7.) I briefly discribed the questionable motives of some people claiming to be concerned for evidence.
These are a few of the ideas I discussed in this brief format.
Now, blind faith? No my faith has sight. And my faith has a certain amount of verification internal and external to clue me that I am on the right track.
The Christian faith knows nothing of "blind faith".
22 Jan 07
4 edits
Originally posted by XanthosNZOkay Xanthos let me ask you this:
Jaywill, you have said nothing worth saying in the last page and a half. You've rambled, you've waffled but when it comes right down to it, you've got nothing other than blind faith. And blind faith, by its very definition cannot be based on logic or reasoning.
If God were to become a man, walking and teaching on the earth, in human history - who would you consider to be the most likely candidate to have acted like that?
You can forgo wisecracks. I'm interested in a serious answer. In your exercise of "critical thinking" who would you assume in human history seems to have allegedly acted the most in a manner like God become a man?
If you have more than one candidate list a few and briefly tell me why. This is not your admission that you believe that God became a man. I only ask that who would you say history seems to suggest is the strongest candidate if such a thing were to have happened.
Critical thinking now, remember.
22 Jan 07
Originally posted by jaywillThat's not critical thinking at all. That would be speculation based on aesthetical judgement and lacking any real evidence. Also, it would add nothing to the likelyhood of Jesus being the son of God.
Okay Xanthos let me ask you this:
If God [b]were to become a man, walking and teaching on the earth, in human history - who would you consider to be the most likely candidate to have acted like that?
You can forgo wisecracks. I'm interested in a serious answer. In you excerecise of "critical thinking" who would you assume in human ...[text shortened]... candidate if such a thing were to have happened.
Critical thinking now, remember.[/b]
22 Jan 07
2 edits
Originally posted by StarrmanPlease use your critical thinking skills and explain how a child was born in Bethlehem according to ancient prophecy who grew up and acted in a manner very much as the prophecy discribed.
That's not critical thinking at all. That would be speculation based on aesthetical judgement and lacking any real evidence. Also, it would add nothing to the likelyhood of Jesus being the son of God.
How did Jesus pull that off? How did He arrange for His birth to be in the city prophesied to be the birth place of a Ruler of Israel who was "from Everlasting"? And that so that men from the far east came knowing of ancient prophecy of a Born King of Israel.
How did a baby arrange that? And please don't tell me that Micah chapter five was inserted after the fact by Christian apologists.
That's a good place to start to examine your unbelief based on your critical thinking.
22 Jan 07
Originally posted by jaywillI can't think of anyone in Human History who has truly acted like they were God. But then if God exists how would we know what he would act like if he became a man without him telling us. Therefore anyone claiming to be God become a man could be telling the truth as we must necessarily get all our evidence from his mouth.
Critical thinking now, remember.
Of course if you are talking about what we would probably think of as Godlike then lets start with Ghandi and Mandela, both of whom had far more effect on the world during their life times than Jesus did. They were just humble enough not to claim to be God and lucky enough not to get crucified.
22 Jan 07
Originally posted by jaywill
Please use your critical thinking skills and explain how a child was born in Bethlehem according to ancient prophecy who grew up and acted in a manner very much as the prophecy discribed.
[critical thinking] Many children were born in Bethlehem, coincidence is a wonderful thing. [/critical thinking]
How did Jesus pull that off? How did He arrange for His birth to be in the city prophesied to be the birth place of a Ruler of Israel who was "from Everlasting"? And that so that men from the far east came knowing of ancient prophecy of a Born King of Israel.
[critical thinking] Since the gospels were written decades after the death of Christ and were also clearly written by prejudiced people and not independent sources, it is far more probable that this was all concocted to fulfil a prophesy in hindsight of events. [/critical thinking]
How did a baby arrange that? And please don't tell me that Micah chapter five was inserted after the fact by Christian apologists.
[critical thinking] I have no idea what Micah chapter 5 is or how it relates to Jesus, so I cannot answer that. However, it seems to me that Christian apologists are probably a massively more prevalent thing than the existence of the supernatural... [/critical thinking]
That's a good place to start to examine your unbelief based on your critical thinking.
[/critical thinking] I don't need to examine my 'unbelief' since it only exists due to a lack of evidence to support the existence of god in the first place. It is not based on critical thinking, or anything else for that matter. [/critical thinking]
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
22 Jan 07
Originally posted by StarrmanApply the same amount of critical thinking to some of the things you believe in and you'll find that your beliefs are a lot more flimsy.
Originally posted by jaywill
[b]Please use your critical thinking skills and explain how a child was born in Bethlehem according to ancient prophecy who grew up and acted in a manner very much as the prophecy discribed.
[critical thinking] Many children were born in Bethlehem, coincidence is a wonderful thing. [/critical thinking]
How d ...[text shortened]... is not based on critical thinking, or anything else for that matter. [/critical thinking]
22 Jan 07
Originally posted by dj2beckerI'm sure there will be some beliefs which need addressing, same goes for everyone, but none that act so importantly upon my life as the notion of Jesus does upon yours.
Apply the same amount of critical thinking to some of the things you believe in and you'll find that your beliefs are a lot more flimsy.
22 Jan 07
Originally posted by jaywillRe-read your post; note the 'redemptive love' bit.
Show me the word "feelings" or "feeling" in the above request that I wrote.
Did I refer to feelings? And if I [b]did mention feelings does that make the request wrong in and of itself for that reason? Are feelings not a ligitimate component of my entire humanity?
Christ said to love the Lord with our whole heart and whole mind and whole strength ...[text shortened]... lies the quality in your philosophy which is more precious and more real than Jesus Christ?[/b]