Subject:
|
Re: Religion and Science
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 6 Dec 2000 07:24:08 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
johnneal@#StopSpammers#uswest.net
|
Viewed:
|
974 times
|
| |
|
|
Bruce Schlickbernd wrote:
> 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.
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.
> 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?
I don't have the answer to that. And I will be the first to say that God is probably
bigger than Christianity. But I know that God has revealed Himself to me through the
teaching of Jesus Christ. Whether God reveals Himself to others through any other is
possible, but not my concern. I have my doubts as to whether God is hung up on the details
of ritual and belief-- I mean, so many Christians have so many different beliefs
themselves! I think God is more interested in action, in the fruit of an individual. Talk
all you want, but actions better back it up. Even God says in the OT: "For I desire
steadfast love and not sacrifice, the knowledge of God, rather than burnt offerings."
(Hosea 6:6) And in the NT James talks about the worthlessness of faith without works.
Even Paul's point in 2 Corinthians 13 (the famous love chapter) is that you can have
everything, but if you don't have love, you've got nothing. God is love.
Having said that, I doubt whether a person can lead a good and moral life on their own.
And even if they came close, arrogance and pride would be their undoing anyway. As I have
stated before, I believe we as humans need a moral compass. We need God. If we search for
God, God will find us in some way. The only way *I know* for certainty is through Jesus
Christ by my own personal experience. YMMV, but I have no personal knowledge of that.
> > 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.
Maybe I have no reason to convince you to accept it over others. As I mentioned before, I
condemn no other religion (qualify: which asserts monotheism), unless it actively *denies*
Christianity. If you ask me, I can tell you my experience, what I believe to be true.
>
> Further, it argues against what you just claimed above: now you are saying
> that the messenger is what is important.
No, when I said "yes' to your question as to which was more important, the messenger or the
message, I was glibly meaning "both". The messenger (who is not really a messenger, but
the big poopah Himself) delivers the message with authority and with knowledge only God
could have. This is what legitimizes the message because it is from God Himself, through
His incarnation as Jesus, the Christ.
> 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.
Did you mean to say "validity of the message"? I'm lost on your distinction anyway...
-John
> > -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 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Religion and Science
|
| (...) I surmised as much. So you can't answer the question - which is okay, since I already figured that out. Hopefully you now understand that, too (i.e. you are proceeding on faith alone). (...) Then why are you claiming here that God is provable? (...) (24 years ago, 6-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Religion and Science
|
| John Neal wrote in message <3A2DE97F.D6DE09@uswest.net>... (...) on their own. Why not, John? Most of the time, most of us can tell what's the right thing to do, and many of us do the right thing most of the time. Probably just as much of the time (...) (24 years ago, 6-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
