Subject:
|
Re: Problems with Christianity
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 18 Dec 2000 05:32:23 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
641 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Steve Chapple writes:
> > > You could prove the existence of God or love in a court, but not a lab.
> >
> > Oh? That's new. I either doubt your conclusion or have a
> > different definition of "prove" than you. Probably the latter.
>
> ie. Beyond a reasonable doubt. Witnesses describe what they have
> experienced and any corroborating (or contradictory) physical evidence
> is examined, etc. Theoretically I could present my "Case for Christ"
> to you, but while it's proven as far as I'm concerned, you probably
> wouldn't concur. I don't think it would be fair to say that I hadn't
> proved my case just because I hadn't proved it to you though, as the
> key thing that would be missing is an impartial judge.
Ah. As I suspected. Our definitions of 'prove' differ. To take a rather
contravertial case, did O.J. Simpson commit murder? Both sides presented
their cases, and O.J. won. Does that prove that he didn't commit murder?
Perhaps he 'proved' it to the people on the jury, such that they were
convinced that he didn't. But I don't think that's really proving anything.
And as far as proving something "beyond a reasonable doubt", I doubt that.
Obviously to date, you haven't been able to show anything to beyond a
reasonable doubt as to the existence of God with me, or any other people
arguing against you on this issue. And I doubt you can. Maybe to various
individuals you can show God's existence beyond their idea of a reasonable
doubt, but I count my doubt as very reasonable. Again, this method of
"prove" of which you speak is subjective. I prefer objectivity (obviously).
Again, which is preferable? Objectivity or subjectivity? I suppose there are
arguments against each, but personally, I'll opt for objectivity.
> Christ isn't finite - neither are you for that matter. Your earthly body
> is finite, but your soul - all that you really are - is going to continue
> on for eternity. It's up to you whether you spend it in heaven or
> hell - I can't "debate you into heaven".
The 1st dimention is infinite. It is also infintesimal. Same with Jesus.
Although by your account he may span infinitely through time, there are
other aspects of Him that do not span infinitely. And while I'm at it, I'll
argue against what you said with respect to time ANYWAY, because Jesus at
one point in time DIDN'T exist. And suppose for some reason human society is
nearly wiped out on Earth, leaving perhaps only a few people, no Bibles, and
no knowledge of Jesus? Are his deeds still somehow "known" to these people?
If so, then why do WE NEED the Bible, since obviously without it we'd still
be able to have some knowledge of God and His word? And again, Jesus, even
if he WERE infinite with respect to time, is not infinite with respect to
location. Some person in an aborigine tribe in New Zealand may never have
heard of Jesus, nor ever will. Or perhaps some native american living around
1000 A.D. again with no POSSIBLE way of having ANY knowledge WHATSOEVER of
the Bible or Jesus.
> > …People who lived 3,000 years ago had no chance…
>
> You're not responsible for their souls - just yours.
I never made ANY claim that I was RESPONSIBLE for their souls. However, I
may yet show my concern for their souls. If by your theory, it would appear
that you damn them-- or at least that they did not have the same chances as
we do today, then your theory does not hold with me, as I believe that all
humans 'should' have equal chance at any sort of judgement of knowledge of
truth that might exist. For me, that's reasonable doubt in your proposed theory.
> Again, I'm trying to lead you to the living water[1], but even if I
> succeed, I can't make you drink.
Ah yes. And am I not trying the same? To try and get you to see from my
perspective? You may see my perspective quite clearly and yet disagree, yes?
(Although admittedly, you do say later that you haven't clearly seen my
point yet, so I may yet attempt to persist if you remain curious) Could it
be that one of those ideas is wrong and one is right? Could it be mine that
is correct and you will not drink of it? Could it be the other way around?
Or perhaps could both our theories be right for each one of us respectively?
Or are you more insistant that one of us MUST be wrong, and that it MUST be
me? Why are you so sure of your way? Why am I so sure of mine?
> > > It's the very turning away from
> > > God that is the root cause of the problems (and problems is a rather
> > > drastic understatement) that are destroying our nation from within.
> >
> > I lost you.
> > #1. Prove that the problems are caused by turning away from God.
> > #2. Prove that our problems are any more worse now than they were
> > 200 years ago. I think they're just different. And some I doubt I'd
> > even consider problems, that no doubt you would.
>
> When we turn away from God and focus instead on ourselves - what we
> want - what feels good to us - that's selfishness.
I commented on this before, I think in a footnote... I shall now claim that
"Humans ONLY act insofar as they perceive that their actions will benefit
themselves." And, as I made sure to note before, I shall note again: "Keep
in mind that benefit is not nearly limited to carnal benefit."
Why do you act? Do you not act so that your soul will be saved? So that you
will enter into heaven? Do you not act good to others so that you will feel
good about yourself, even if it's only insofar as you percieve yourself to
be actually being 'good'? Are you being selfish? How can you be sure you are
not acting selfishly?
> The dramatic increase
> in divorce, drug abuse, STDs, theft, abortion, murder, adultery,
> homosexuality, lying, assault, child and/or spouse abuse, etc. is the
> result and the evidence.
Sorry, I really lost you there. While you still may be right, you just
haven't backed up your claim at ALL. Can you show that it is the direct
result of our society lacking faith in God? And personally, I don't think it
is. Some of the above I really don't see as problems that you obviously do
(homosexuality, abortion, divorce), and others I really don't see as having
really increased (drug abuse, STDs, theft, murder, adultery, lying, assault,
child/spouse abuse). Perhaps in the actual NUMBERs maybe, not not percentage
wise. There are more people now-- it quite stands to reason that the numbers
may increase, while the percentages are the same.
You could of course counter that 'before' when everything was so much
better, it was only those who didn't at THAT time have faith that were
causing trouble, but again, A. Who are you to judge that, and B. why does it
matter? Didn't you say you are only responsible for your own soul? Should
you not try your best (even to convert other people if that is what is
needed) and, as long as you do so, not worry about the general state of the
world?
> You went on a great length, but I confess I didn't understand - not only
> what exactly you were proposing, but how it could work.
Without going into it in even extremer detail, I suppose I won't be able to
communicate the idea to you fully. Perhaps I may yet do so. However, the
basis for my suggestion was that just as the human mind learns things as it
grows older based on what experiences it has, so too does one's sense of
what morality is. And each person's view on morality (while similar) is
different, if only in the minor aspect. And what is MOST important of all
about this is that NOBODY is WRONG in their definitions of morality, BUT
they are ONLY right for THEM.
> If everyone does whatever they want, isn't that anarchy?
Ah, but here's where the the theory gets interesting. While, yes, in theory,
this could be anarchy, in actuality, it doesn't happen. Why? Because part of
the FUNDAMENTAL development of the human concept of morality is in our sense
of SOCIETY. Morality wouldn't develop without it. And it is only by virtue
of human similarities that societies develop so similarly. Humans in ALL
societies have concepts that are shared. Almost EVERYONE has had a best
friend, parents, having done something wrong and been corrected, hurting
themselves, being embarassed, having something they loved, losing something,
forgetting something, etc, etc, etc. And it is the conglomeration of these
experiences that lead us as humans to develop morality similar in each
other. So yes, everyone does what they want, but as it turns out, people
don't WANT anarchy. After all, do you? Wouldn't you act towards a balanced,
healthy society? I would. Most people I know would. And yes! There are those
who don't. And suprise suprise, they often have a DIFFERENT sense of
morality. AND what's more, they often have VERY different experiences than
'regular' people had (traumatic childhoods, etc). Does that help at all?
> There's a passage in Philippians chapter 2 that I think is
> particularly relevant to your query:
>
> 3 Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility
> consider others better than yourselves. 4 Each of you should look not
> only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others.
Ah yes, but let's play for a second. What if I say "why should I?" What's
your response? That I should do it for my own salvation? Why should I do
anything for someone else's sake? Again, could it not be said that I will
only act to help others because I think it'll make me feel better about
myself for helping them? Or that some good will come out of my action for
ME? (Salvation, the others' helping me in return, or whatever)
> 5 Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
> 6 Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God
> something to be grasped, 7 but made himself nothing, taking the very
> nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. 8 And being found
> in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to
> death-- even death on a cross! 9 Therefore God exalted him to the
> highest place and gave him the name that is above every name,
> 10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on
> earth and under the earth, 11 and every tongue confess that Jesus
> Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
Wow, that couldn't have been better timed, could it? See (9) above.
Reader-"Why should I be selfless?"
Bible-"Because Jesus did it and 'God exalted him to the highest place and
gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every
knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every
tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father'."
So I should be selfless because maybe if I am, I'll get some portion of that
glory! Cool! Isn't that pretty gosh-darn selfish? Should I not simply do
good to others because it IS good to do such things? Why must my reward be
brought up time and again if it doesn't enter into the picture? Why should
it matter what good Jesus got IN RETURN for his selfless actions?
DaveE
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
| (...) Interesting - I was thinking of using the same analogy. :-) Two big differences though - Murder is a crime giving death, and O.J. denied it. Christ's resurrection gives life to whomever accepts him, and not only did he "admit it" afterwards, (...) (24 years ago, 19-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
| (...) ie. Beyond a reasonable doubt. Witnesses describe what they have experienced and any corroborating (or contradictory) physical evidence is examined, etc. Theoretically I could present my "Case for Christ" to you, but while it's proven as far (...) (24 years ago, 17-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
298 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
|
|
|
|
