Subject:
|
Re: Religion and Science
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 5 Dec 2000 23:44:16 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
805 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
>
>
> 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.
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 much the same thing. Why choose one over the
other? He'll advance the same arguments as you - in absense of personal
experience how do I *KNOW* which one to choose?
>
> 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).
Again, this does not address my question. It just makes a claim, but offers
no reason to accept it over any other claim beyond that you believe it.
Further, it argues against what you just claimed above: now you are saying
that the messenger is what is important. It doesn't matter what he said, it
matters who is. This becomes the sole means of justifying the validity of
what the message was (the message is "true" because it comes from God, not
because it necessarily has inherent value). Since the messenger is what is
important, and not the message, you need to ascertain the validity of the
messenger.
>
> -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.
See, if you cannot resolve this, you are admitting that you will not or
cannot "prove" your point - you are proceeding on faith alone. I don't have
a problem with that at all, except when you claim otherwise.
Bruce
> >
> > 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 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Religion and Science
|
| (...) Well, being God and man at the same time is quite a trick;-) Fully human, fully divine. As for Hinduism, don't know anything about it. (...) I don't have the answer to that. And I will be the first to say that God is probably bigger than (...) (24 years ago, 6-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Religion and Science
|
| (...) 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
