Subject:
|
Re: Religion and Science
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 6 Dec 2000 16:50:17 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1069 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> As for Hinduism, don't know anything about it.
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).
>
> > 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.
Then why are you claiming here that God is provable? I suspect it is
suddenly not your concern because I asked you a difficult question for which
you have no answer.
> 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!
No argument there. :-)
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."
Good works - ah-ha! Take that Protestants! :-)
> (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.
This is all fine, but you are simply witnessing at this point. Again, I
take this as a concession that you can't or won't back up your main themes.
>
> Having said that, I doubt whether a person can lead a good and moral life on their own.
Utter nonsense. I've seen too many examples otherwise.
> And even if they came close, arrogance and pride would be their undoing anyway.
Again, utter nonsense. On the basis of arrogance and pride alone, I know
too many people that are doing better than you (or me) on that count on
their own.
> 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.
Witnessing.
>
> > > 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.
Then perhaps you shouldn't have made the claims you did.
> As I mentioned before, I
> condemn no other religion (qualify: which asserts monotheism), unless it actively *denies*
> Christianity.
And the other guys are saying the exact same thing (and Christianity
*denies* them). So, again, why should I believe one over the other? And
let me note that your qualifier means you actively condemn Hinduism
(polytheism) and Buddhism (which says you can believe in whatever gods you
want to, but that implies polytheism is okay). This means the only
remaining major religion that you don't condemn is Mohammadism. And that
one doesn't admit that Jesus is God - I don't know if that counts as a
denial of Christianity.
> If you ask me, I can tell you my experience, what I believe to be true.
But that's simply opinion, a matter of faith. You are not being honest with
me, and more importantly, you are not being honest with yourself. Again, I
don't have the slightest problem with it being a matter of faith, but you
represented that you had something demonstrable, something quantifiable.
!
> >
> > 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.
As I said, you believe the messenger is more important than the message,
i.e. the message only has validity because of who it is from. And again,
that means the question is not the validity of the message, but the validity
of the messenger. Since that ever-annoying Hindu over there keeps pointing
out that Krishna is an incarnation of Vishnu the Preserver, his message is
claiming to be the same thing as you are claiming. And that means I'll once
again ask the question, how do I *know* who is telling the straight story?
Just admit that you don't have the answer beyond you accept your version as
a matter of faith and be done with it.
>
> > 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...
You don't understand that you believe the messenger (Christ, in this case)
is more important than the message is the point. Since the message is only
valid if the messenger is valid, the question becomes how do I figure out
*your* messenger is valid and not that other guy's? I'm giving you your
chance: tell me why!!! No, don't tell me your message is from God because
the other guy is making the exact same claim. If all you have is faith,
just stop beating around the bush and admit it. I'm more impressed with
honesty and openess than phoney proofs and circular reasoning.
Bruce
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Religion and Science
|
| (...) Ack, "Muhammadism" is a lousy term. It's a coinage of 18/19th-C. Orientalism, designed to denigrate Islam by reducing it to its Prophet. Muslims don't believe Muhammad was a (er, the) deity. They *do* deny Jesus's inherent divinity, but not (...) (24 years ago, 6-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
