Rational Faith

[cj44]

I think before we can go anywhere with this discussion, we have to determine, what all the facts are about Jesus beyond any doubt. Was there really such a man? Did he actually do all the things attributed to him? Is there any iron clad proof that he did even one of the things attributed to him? If we can't verify these "facts", then any discussion could be based on false premises.

JLM - I don't think anyone can afford you "iron clad proof". There are historical and archeological evidences that support/determine that Jesus did exist. That is to say, yes, Jesus was here on earth some 2000 years ago. If question whether or not Jesus lived, then we should also question if Julius Ceasar and his contemporaries lived. In other words, how much do you trust history? I do not think you would find many a historian, archeologist, or theologian (from any religion) that would deny that Jesus was a historical figure. I'm not saying that people can't be of the opinion that he did not live, but to believe that Jesus did not exist runs against much common and accepted knowledge based on fact.

From there, "You've gotta ask yourself a question: "Do I feel lucky?" Well, do ya, punk?" Yeah, don't ask me why I went for Eastwood's Dirty Harry line. I suppose I should have quoted scripture. Anyway, Do you believe Jesus lived and more importantly, do you believe he was God? In my opinion, that is the most important question of a person's life. Because the answer is life altering.

 

[Cliffy]

Cliffy,
A common belief amongst false prophets/cults is that humans are god, will be god or are in part god. For some reason these groups like to elevate themselves to godhood and at the same time deny the deity of Christ. Your comment regarding "Paul making him God" is also erroneous. Paul taught that Jesus was God because Jesus taught He was God. For starters, read the gospel of John. Now, here you will defend your position by claiming the Bible is worthless. It gets down to who do you believe Jesus Christ is? Is he God? If so, then the Bible is not just a antiquated book of errors. Rather, it becomes the solid, true Word of God because certainly God is more than capable of preserving and guarding his Word - what he wants people to know - throughout the ages.

What I see here is your inability to see the difference between being a god and the spark of divinity that is part of us. We are all part of god and we are made up of the same stuff. That does not mean we are a gods. Your beliefs are blinding. You see only one possibility where the possibilities are endless. You have a drop of water where in front of you is an entire ocean that you refuse to see. I feel genuine sorrow and concern for those who choose to be blinded by dogma. Your disappointment in the end will be astronomical.

JLM - I don't think anyone can afford you "iron clad proof". There are historical and archeological evidences that support/determine that Jesus did exist. That is to say, yes, Jesus was here on earth some 2000 years ago. If question whether or not Jesus lived, then we should also question if Julius Ceasar and his contemporaries lived. In other words, how much do you trust history? I do not think you would find many a historian, archeologist, or theologian (from any religion) that would deny that Jesus was a historical figure. I'm not saying that people can't be of the opinion that he did not live, but to believe that Jesus did not exist runs against much common and accepted knowledge based on fact.

From there, "You've gotta ask yourself a question: "Do I feel lucky?" Well, do ya, punk?" Yeah, don't ask me why I went for Eastwood's Dirty Harry line. I suppose I should have quoted scripture. Anyway, Do you believe Jesus lived and more importantly, do you believe he was God? In my opinion, that is the most important question of a person's life. Because the answer is life altering.

You didn't watch the video interview above, did you? Jesus may have existed, but he certainly isn't what you believe him to be.

 

[cj44]

What I see here is your inability to see the difference between being a god and the spark of divinity that is part of us. We are all part of god and we are made up of the same stuff. That does not mean we are a gods. Your beliefs are blinding. You see only one possibility where the possibilities are endless. You have a drop of water where in front of you is an entire ocean that you refuse to see. I feel genuine sorrow and concern for those who choose to be blinded by dogma. Your disappointment in the end will be astronomical.


You didn't watch the video interview above, did you? Jesus may have existed, but he certainly isn't what you believe him to be.

Cliffy, speaking of astronomical - is the divide between Jesus' teaching and what goes on in your brain. Are you not the one who admonished me to read the "red letter" bible. (Jesus' words highlighted in red) My dear Cliffy, have you even read the Bible. You are most certainly free to believe what you must, but please do stop twisting scripture to suit your dreams. It is always most interesting when one holds opinions that are contrary to scripture. The deniers of scripture then attempt to juggle, jumble and twist their high ranking thoughts to agree with scripture. In the end, you leave us with a mud pie that has fallen from the behind of a donkey.
Astronomical Indeed!

 

[El Barto]

Yes, that's probably true, in the sense that there was a charismatic apocalyptic Hebrew preacher in first century Palestine the tales are based on, but the miracle-working wonder man described in the Gospels, no. That's a fabrication assembled from oral traditions for certain didactic and political purposes several generations after Jesus' death by people who never knew him.

To me it is all political purpose.... get people on the edge .... a second coming?........ apocalyptic event?............ Pending judgment?........ Controlled sexual behavior?

 

[darkbeaver]

So the mysteries remain! -

The mysteries are the human souls befuddlement because of incarnation in matter a hellish place for souls. Only struggle with matter can evolve souls, which we can consider as cells of God. Gods interaction with matter requires constant regeneration and refinement of his cells to meet the changing requirements of universe maintenance. That's a guess based on my reading thus far. I hope that's accurate and not just static feedback from the pot.

.

One can read the bible a hundred times and still be ignorant of the subject.

 

[petros]

Why would creatures that started as goo need to evolve into a highly advanced species with emotions that would make them want to kill themselves or separate themselves from the source of these evolutionary unnecessary emotions because of emotion?


That is baffling.

 

[cj44]

To me it is all political purpose.... get people on the edge .... a second coming?........ apocalyptic event?............ Pending judgment?........ Controlled sexual behavior?

El Barto, The gospel has been used for political gain and power. There will always be scoundrels looking for ways to control people. Look beyond that and hold to the gospel truth. If Jesus didn't work miracles or rise from the dead, would the world powers be so interested in him? No, he was a threat. Why did they kill off nearly all his disciples?


We will all have to answer Jesus' question, "Who do you say that I am?". Don't let the world/politics distract you. Devils run about endlessly to detract from the gospel.


Then Jesus cried out, “Whoever believes in me does not believe in me only, but in the one who sent me. 45 The one who looks at me is seeing the one who sent me. 46 I have come into the world as a light, so that no one who believes in me should stay in darkness.


“If anyone hears my words but does not keep them, I do not judge that person. For I did not come to judge the world, but to save the world. 48 There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words; the very words I have spoken will condemn them at the last day. 49 For I did not speak on my own, but the Father who sent me commanded me to say all that I have spoken. 50 I know that his command leads to eternal life. So whatever I say is just what the Father has told me to say.”

 

[darkbeaver]

Why would creatures that started as goo need to evolve into a highly advanced species with emotions that would make them want to kill themselves or separate themselves from the source of these evolutionary unnecessary emotions because of emotion?


That is baffling.

Did we really start with goo or did we start with a recipe? Which came first the goo or the recipe?
We started, what was the starter?
PROPOSAL
1/--recipe
2/--lump of standard primordial goo sifted
3/--add solar starter slowly and mix thoroughly until goo bubbles
4/--bake until tender and juicy

 

[petros]

I like #4 animals slow enough for man to eat.

Did we really start with goo or did we start with a recipe? Which came first the goo or the recipe?
We started, what was the starter?
PROPOSAL
1/--recipe
2/--lump of standard primordial goo sifted
3/--add solar starter slowly and mix thoroughly until goo bubbles
4/--bake until tender and juicy

EM was the starter. EM that can kill itself for stupid reasons that don't make evolutionary sense.

 

[darkbeaver]

I like #4 animals slow enough for man to eat.

EM was the starter. EM that can kill itself for stupid reasons that don't make evolutionary sense.

You used stupid in the same sentence as Gods name (EM). I 'm sure there's some kind of injunction against that.
I'm averse to equating human sense with evolutionary/creative universal sense. For that reason and others I'm not a big follower of conventional evolution stories.

 

[petros]

You used stupid in the same sentence as Gods name (EM). I 'm sure there's some kind of injunction against that.

I have a good lawyer. If you break a mirror he can get you off with a fine instead of 7 years.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

If Jesus didn't work miracles or rise from the dead, would the world powers be so interested in him?

There's no evidence from the extra-biblical historical record that anyone even noticed him at the time. The powers were interested in his followers because they were viewed as seditious and troublesome, with some cause, that's what the Roman persecution of them was about, and that persecution is what Revelation is about.

 

[Cliffy]

Cliffy, speaking of astronomical - is the divide between Jesus' teaching and what goes on in your brain. Are you not the one who admonished me to read the "red letter" bible. (Jesus' words highlighted in red) My dear Cliffy, have you even read the Bible. You are most certainly free to believe what you must, but please do stop twisting scripture to suit your dreams. It is always most interesting when one holds opinions that are contrary to scripture. The deniers of scripture then attempt to juggle, jumble and twist their high ranking thoughts to agree with scripture. In the end, you leave us with a mud pie that has fallen from the behind of a donkey.
Astronomical Indeed!

The scriptures were twisted by men and misrepresented as fact. Yes I have read the Catholic, the King James, the JW and the Red Letter bible. I also know who wrote it, when, why and how it came to be in its present forms. I have studied these things for most of my adult life. But, of course, that is only a part of the story.

 

[petros]

The scriptures were twisted by men and misrepresented as fact. Yes I have read the Catholic, the King James, the JW and the Red Letter bible. I also know who wrote it, when, why and how it came to be in its present forms. I have studied these things for most of my adult life. But, of course, that is only a part of the story.

What year was the first bible compiled?

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Isn't the title an oxymoron?

That was my first thought too. And my second, and third... Rational faith cannot mean anything as far as I can tell, faith understood as belief in the absence of evidence is by definition not rational. Francis Collins, as an accomplished scientist, winner of the Templeton Prize, and director of the NIH in the U.S., is sort of the poster boy for sophisticated faith, and tries to argue in his book that he arrived at his faith like a good scientist, by rational analysis of the evidence. I haven't read the book and don't plan to, but if his arguments in it are anything like his arguments in the interviews I've seen and/or read, I'd have to conclude he's just trotted out the tired old God of the Gaps argument: something seems inexplicable, so let's imagine a deity did it. That's the end of the analysis, there's nothing more to say after that, and it explains nothing, it just postulates an explanation that's even less explicable.

Collins believes, for instance, that evolution could not have produced ethical behaviour in humans, morality was inserted into us by the deity at some point after our divergence from the line of our apish ancestors that also led to chimpanzees and gorillas. That would mean that for him, any neuroscientist or biologist or ethnologist or whatever, wishing to study the nature and origins of morality should not be funded, there can't be anything that science could discover about it. That's obvious nonsense, ethical behaviour like altruism has been observed in other creatures, but that's the kind of silly conclusion that evidence-free mystical thinking leads you to. And this guy's in charge of a major scientific funding institution.

 

[petros]

Spock.

 

[Cliffy]

What year was the first bible compiled?

There were Christian writings from day one but most of the stories are borrowed from much earlier writings about the Sun (Son) God. Then, of course, there is the OT which is the Jews version that was written 6 or 7 hundred years earlier, which most Protestant Christians have no clue what it means. The bible was put together at Nicaea around 315 - 317 in its present form at the orders of Constantine. The Christian writings that were rejected were those that did not fit into the political criteria set forth by the emperor. The Gnostics did not only have all their writings burned but they were systematically slaughtered (to cover up what?) [abbreviated version because I can't be bothered to go into more detail - it would be an exerciser in futility]

 

[petros]

That Sun of God is a load of crap. One YouTube video and you're convinced eh?

 

[Cliffy]

That Sun of God is a load of crap. One YouTube video and you're convinced eh?

No, 40 years of reading and talking to hundreds of people from many different faiths has. I posted the video because he is articulate and passionate and he is well educated about the subject. I could show you much more but da Beav has been posting a lot of material on the subject too.

 

[El Barto]

That was my first thought too. And my second, and third... Rational faith cannot mean anything as far as I can tell, faith understood as belief in the absence of evidence is by definition not rational. Francis Collins, as an accomplished scientist, winner of the Templeton Prize, and director of the NIH in the U.S., is sort of the poster boy for sophisticated faith, and tries to argue in his book that he arrived at his faith like a good scientist, by rational analysis of the evidence. I haven't read the book and don't plan to, but if his arguments in it are anything like his arguments in the interviews I've seen and/or read, I'd have to conclude he's just trotted out the tired old God of the Gaps argument: something seems inexplicable, so let's imagine a deity did it. That's the end of the analysis, there's nothing more to say after that, and it explains nothing, it just postulates an explanation that's even less explicable.

Collins believes, for instance, that evolution could not have produced ethical behaviour in humans, morality was inserted into us by the deity at some point after our divergence from the line of our apish ancestors that also led to chimpanzees and gorillas. That would mean that for him, any neuroscientist or biologist or ethnologist or whatever, wishing to study the nature and origins of morality should not be funded, there can't be anything that science could discover about it. That's obvious nonsense, ethical behaviour like altruism has been observed in other creatures, but that's the kind of silly conclusion that evidence-free mystical thinking leads you to. And this guy's in charge of a major scientific funding institution.

First off one has to define and agree on what morality really is. That would vary from society to society and what is moral for one is not so much for the other.
Morality seems to be what the mob dictates it to be.