Subject:
|
Re: Problems with Christianity
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 22 Dec 2000 01:18:54 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
858 times
|
| |
|
|
I made a print-out of your post to read over - Do you
realize we're up to six pages even before I reply? :-)
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Steve Chapple writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Steve Chapple writes:
> > > > > > You could prove the existence of God or love in a court, but not a lab.
> >
> > > Ah. As I suspected. Our definitions of 'prove' differ. To take a rather
> > > controversial case, did O.J. Simpson commit murder?
> >
> > 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, He (and others centuries
> > earlier) even said before-hand that he would rise again.
>
> Um-- huh? I don't really understand where that statement came from.
I'm trying to show the difference between these court "proofs".
No I wouldn't say that case proved O.J. guilty or innocent, but let's suppose
[ I'm being hypothetical here y'all - please don't turn this into an O.J.
guilty/innocent argument. ] that a doctor had learned ahead of time of
O.J.'s "plan", but could do nothing to stop/prevent it. Suppose he hid
himself and the medical help he'd need nearby and as soon as O.J. left he
and the paramedics were able to save Nicole and her friend. There would be
evidence, (such as Nicole's blood on his hands/equipment) and witness
testimony. Let's even say Nicole was conscious throughout so she could
also testify. When the police arrive, the doctor describes (admits) what
happened, as do the witnesses. Wouldn't that prove beyond a reasonable
doubt that the doctor had saved her? (And don't say she might not have
died from her injuries, so no - You know that's not my point.)
> > I don't consider your doubt unreasonable. I'll try to allay your
> > doubts, but I'm not following you on subjective and objective.
>
> Ah. Ok, let's see if I can describe. The scientific method is objective.
<snipped scientific and subjective stuff>
We're back where we started. I thought we agreed that by definition,
God can't be scientifically/objectively proved or disproved.
> > > The 1st dimention is infinite. It is also infintesimal.
> >
> > You've _completely_ lost me here.
>
> The 1st dimention is an infinite collection of points.
Ah - The 1st _dimension_ - You probably mean infinitesimal too, right? :-)
> …may not have influence with respect to location…
> …To me, that seems pretty unfair.
I've never said God is perfectly fair or treats everyone the same.
I will say He is perfectly just - there's a difference.
> > Is your concern about Christianity those who didn't have
> > opportunity to hear the good news of salvation? • Yes.
> > This is more of a separate subject IMO.
> No, that was my point from the beginning.
OK - IMO it _should_ be a separate subject. The Bible doesn't have much
to say on this subject, and I'm certainly not the most knowledgeable person
on what little there is. Besides, isn't this rather like Dave Schuler said:
> You make a good point though--it's not fair to ask "according to The Bible,
> what happens to my soul?" and then say "but don't use The Bible to answer me."
> > Abortion would be the prime example of selfishness and its tragic
> > consequences, but I doubt you want this to be a debate on abortion.
>
> Can you prove that someone having an abortion is being selfish?
> What if by the abortion, the mother could live to produce more children?
I was referring to the 99% of abortions where only the life of the
unborn child is in jeopardy.
> > > Some... ...I really don't see as problems that you obviously do, and
> > > others I really don't see as having really increased... ...in percentage.
> >
> > The statistics on the increase _in_percentage_ of these problems
> > should be easy for you to obtain.
>
> Not really. The further back in history you go, the less accurate your
> numbers get. And, I do concede you have a point on some of them. Things like
> divorce and abortion HAVE increased in percentage. It's gotten easier to do
> both. But things like adultery, lying, etc have remained similar in
> difficulty, and I doubt their increase in percentage-- and the ability to
> demonstrate such increases accurately.
OK - Maybe I shouldn't have included lying. I think a reasonable case could
be made regarding adultery though, but again - we'd be getting off topic.
> > The more you describe "your morality", the more (I think) I see the
> > basic problem. The Bible says that man is essentially evil and in
> > need of a Savior - you (I think) say man is essentially good.
>
> Not quite. I say that man CAN be essentially good OR essentially bad.
> However, through the process of evolution, those who have had better
> senses of morality have thrived through the use of... ...society.
Now we're getting somewhere. :-) You originally said you wanted to
discuss your ideas on morality, yet I've been defending Biblical morality
(or my take on it at least) which you've said you have tried and rejected
anyway. If you're not now doubting that rejection, isn't most of this
thread pointless? Why attack Biblical morality when your stated aim is
to defend "David's morality"?
I find "David morality" fundamentally flawed - it is based upon an
evolutionary foundation of sand. I doubt you would be surprised that I
reject evolution as a baseless theory for which there is no scientific
evidence. A similar point to above - Are you now going to try to defend
evolution while I scientifically dismantle it, or will I be expected to
defend attacks on creation? Past experience would suggest the latter, but
I don't want to go down that "branch" - that's not the debate I joined.
> > > 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?
> >
> > No - Salvation is not based upon works. [2]
>
> Sorry, the question shouldn't have said "why should I DO good?" but
> "why" should I BE good?" "Should I BE good for my own salvation?"
No - Salvation is not based upon works. [2]
> > Paul was writing to the Philippian believers - ie. Christians, so it's
> > not surprising that you seem to see this "backwards". [3] I don't
> > "give" in order to "get", I help someone because I love them.
>
> You keep trying to suggest that the only benefit I'd get is some
> sort of physical benefit. Mental benefit is actually...
I'm not suggesting there is benefit, either physical or mental or
anything to doing good. Again - I don't "give" in order to "get",
I help someone because I love them.
> > Christ was already exalted and glorified. The creator of the universe
> > "made himself nothing", in order to pay the price for our sin because
> > He loves us, not to get something he already had. Jesus is the
> > opposite of selfishness, not an example of it.
>
> Ok, but then just answer me this. Why should I be good? If man is
> inherently evil (selfish) then doesn't man need motivation?
Man doesn't need motivation - he needs salvation.
SRC
[2] Ephesians 2:8,9
8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of
yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9 not as a result of works,
so that no one may boast.
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
| (...) I think I tend to do that-- but don't we all in these sorts of debates? :) (...) Ok, back to the issue at hand then, how exactly would one prove God's existence in a court? (...) Precicely true. However, you did bring up that you held that (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
| (...) Show the statistics saying that it's 99%. (...) So instead you believe in Creationism, for which there is ZERO evidence? Just the word of a 2K year old book? Fossil evidence points very highly to evolution being right. I suppose you believe (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
| In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes: I'm gonna correct myself really quick here, cause I realized I should restate this-- it kinda sounds like I'm going against other things I've already said: (...) Instead I'll say: ALL humans have a (...) (24 years ago, 20-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
|
|
|
|
