Subject:
|
Re: Religion and Science
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 5 Dec 2000 21:29:42 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
johnneal@uswest.net*NoMoreSpam*
|
Viewed:
|
728 times
|
| |
|
|
Bruce Schlickbernd wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> >
> >
> > Bruce Schlickbernd wrote:
> >
> > > Indeed, if you could prove God exists, there wouldn't be a need for "faith".
> >
> > And yet, Bruce, if I said to you "there is a God who exists as revealed by Jesus of
> > Nazareth", what would be your first response? Maybe you'd say, "that's nice for
> > you, now run along and play" (oops, that's what *Lar* would say). But what if I
> > pressed and said,"No really, it's true!" Your next thought would be that you would
> > want *proof*. Is that inconsistent to expect? Or maybe you'd want evidence. What
> > amount of evidence would convince you? Hypothetically speaking, what *would* it
> > take to convince you as a skeptic?
> >
> > -John
>
> I'd ask what's more important, the message or the messanger? Is it the
> message that Jesus of Nazereth brought that is important, or who you claim
> him to be? Is the message only of importance because of who it is from, or
> because there is something inherent in it that is valuable?
Yes;-) The message is most important, because it finally reveals God's true nature.
And although the following may sound circular, I think it makes sense. What makes
Jesus so special and that He alone has the final revelation from God? The answer is
because He *was* God incarnate (how conveeenient, I know:) But it does make sense that
*only* He could know God the way He did because He was in fact God. A paradox for
sure, but there you have it.
That is why I can fully believe in His words. Other prophets are conduits and are
subject to human error and fallibility. Jesus was unique. I am not necessarily
negating other prophets and their messages (unless they actively deny Jesus' deity).
-John
> You walk up to me and say the above (God as revealed by Christ), but a Hindu
> walks up at the same time and says, no, I should be listening to Krishna, an
> avatar of God. How do I choose? How do I *know*? Then, just to confuse
> things, a muslim walks up and says Jesus was a prophet of God (not an
> avatar), but the prophet I *really* should be listening to is Mohamad.
> There is a God, but as revealed by Mohamad, not Jesus.
>
> If you cannot give me *proof* of the messanger, what do I have to judge but
> the message? What is left but faith that the message and the messenger are
> true? If one religion was provable, why are there so many?
>
> And I never said I was a skeptic. :-)
>
> Bruce
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Religion and Science
|
| You're missing a point here - WHO SAYS Jesus was God Incarnate. Why, you do, and the Bible (a conflicting, HUMAN AUTHORED document). Why do you believe the Bible is the True Word, and others are not? Other beliefs have been around FAR longer than (...) (24 years ago, 5-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Religion and Science
|
| (...) Okay, but that other guy over there claims that Krishna is an avatar of Vishnu (Christianity has such a hard time of explaining Christ is a manifestation/incarnation of God and Hinduism has little problem with the same concept) which is pretty (...) (24 years ago, 5-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Religion and Science
|
| (...) I'd ask what's more important, the message or the messanger? Is it the message that Jesus of Nazereth brought that is important, or who you claim him to be? Is the message only of importance because of who it is from, or because there is (...) (24 years ago, 5-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
198 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
