tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post1525239084927999807..comments2024-03-25T17:35:02.238-04:00Comments on Debunking Christianity: An Email Discussion With Dr. Dan LambertUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger38125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-85661651380790765532010-09-08T18:17:42.046-04:002010-09-08T18:17:42.046-04:00...Every academic disciple changes, readjusts and ...<i>...Every academic disciple changes, readjusts and redefines terms, ideas, and hypotheses all the time. That's what's required for intellectual integrity. As we gain more complete knowledge, we assimilate and accommodate that into our existing knowledge and adjust as deemed appropriate. <br /><br />If all other disciplines do that, what do not allow theology to do that?</i><br /><br />For what reason does knowledge change though? In the sciences, knowledge is adjusted because of evidence much of the time. In theology, it seems, "knowledge" is modified to just not look so stupid as it did previously.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-58879918129253798552010-02-22T19:23:01.532-05:002010-02-22T19:23:01.532-05:00Just to make sure I'm not understood: Christia...Just to make sure I'm not understood: Christian faith does not work against/without evidence. I'm not saying you have to believe first and then you will see evidence. Everyone sees the evidence for God's existence, and I believe historical & scientific evidence will ultimately conform to the truth, within the scope of their natural error. As a result I expect there to be historical and scientific evidence for my Christian faith. I'm not saying you won't see evidence for God until you believe.<br /><br />But there is still something to <em>faith</em> - to believing in something you can't see.Matthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06708209663362939644noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-13333172643892989832010-02-22T19:10:06.391-05:002010-02-22T19:10:06.391-05:00Hendy:
"So, which is it? Always hidden, super...Hendy:<br />"So, which is it? Always hidden, supernatural and undiscoverable?"<br /><br />I was thinking about this the other day, from that other post. I thought of this verse, where it looks like Jesus talks about something like this:<br /><br />===<br />John 14:21-24<br />(Jesus:) "Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me. He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love him and show myself to him."<br />Then Judas (not Judas Iscariot) said, "But, Lord, why do you intend to show yourself to us and not to the world?"<br />Jesus replied, "If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him. He who does not love me will not obey my teaching. These words you hear are not my own; they belong to the Father who sent me.<br />===<br /><br />This says something about the biblical model of faith. I'd say it says something like that people who love him and obey him <em>will</em> see him. I guess faith trusts first, sees second.<br />And of course there are exceptions - Paul saw first, believed second. And there were many people like that.<br /><br />With miracles, I would just suggest the Bible says you can believe without them, and that this is (often) better. And that it is (typically) wrong to ask for them as a reason to believe. (God knows people's hearts, and knows those situations where it is and isn't wrong.)<br /><br />I also would suggest that not everyone sees the same evidence. For instance, Thomas doubted until he <em>saw</em> Jesus after he had been raised. But if we assume God is just, I think everyone must have seen sufficient evidence, at least to believe in God and to choose what is right. (Obviously not everyone has enough evidence to believe in Jesus, simply because many people don't even know about him.) <br /><br />So from your 3 options, I would suggest something like the first one:<br /><br />- you can only see the evidence the right way if you have faith, aka you already believe the hypothesis that God exists<br /><br />keeping in mind that not everyone sees the same evidence, and I would suggest everyone sees enough evidence for belief in God and an understanding of morality.Matthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06708209663362939644noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-59592543591804871112010-02-14T00:48:08.368-05:002010-02-14T00:48:08.368-05:00Zdenny doesn't actually even "know" ...Zdenny doesn't actually even "know" that he has faith.<br /><br />He has faith that he "knows" that he has something running around in his head called "faith."<br /><br />Faith must therefore be the foundation of . . . FAITH!Jimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03562922818694517439noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-35429945746577917352010-02-14T00:47:17.307-05:002010-02-14T00:47:17.307-05:00@zdenny re. knowledge being based on faith: I will...@zdenny re. knowledge being based on faith: I will actually grant you this depending on your definition. Everyone must have some a priori foundations for their starting point of knowledge based on faith. This is absolutely the case. These would be things that cannot be proven, but if not taken a priori lead us nowhere. This is akin to trying to decipher anything form the natural world if we do not accept, on faith, that we actually live in a 'real' world, not in a dream or matrix-like scenario. Accepting that what we experience is actually happening and real is a necessary a priori argument.<br /><br />This is the caveat: I can't recall the source, but I recall an excellent distinction I came across about what types of statements/beliefs are allowed to be a priori. I believe that the gist was that these a priori statements essentially may be made but need to be proven by our experience. This allows for 'faith' in experience itself, but would not allow you to extend 'faith' to anything not provable.<br /><br />For example:<br />- if I state a priori that I will put faith in the fact that when I leave a room, those who were in it don't disappear, this can be tested. I would presumably have come across others who have tried to study this phenomenon with cameras, by asking friends if they disappeared when I left the room, etc. Since I can find no evidence contrary to the faith based assumption that things remain in existence whether or not I'm present -- my a priori belief holds.<br /><br />- To say that God is in this category would be a mistake. For one, non-belief in God does not utterly cripple the advancement of thought and analysis of the world around us. I'm sure this will be met with disagreement, but it is nowhere near the same as the necessity to believe that we actually are 'real.' I cannot proceed to study, analyze, participate in discussions on this blog fruitfully, etc. if I don't first believe this is all really real. I can do so without belief in God. For there to be a reason to assert an a priori claim on faith, it should be fundamental to the ability to study all other claims. I do not see God falling into this category as scientists, researchers, thinkers everywhere go on with their work all of the time without needing the a priori God principle to complete their tasks.<br /><br />I think God fall much, much more into the hypothesis bin than the a priori faith based claim bucket. Knowledge of God is not necessary for me to study the world around me, but he/she/it IS a hypothesis to explain some of the currently unknown phenomenon we experience: coincidences (miracles), where the universe came from, what happens after we die, etc. God is merely a hypothesis to answer these questions, just as God was once a hypothesis put forth to assert exactly how we came into existence. Science, without the a priori faith in God's existence, brought forth fossils, carbon dating, and evolutionary theory to disprove this former theory.<br /><br />Anyway, this seems to challenge the thought that one can hide behind God as a necessary, basic, unprovable, and non-disprovable belief based on faith. My thinking is that only those arguments which indeed cannot be proven or disproven but without which knowledge can never be attained or pursued are to fall into the necessary/basic a priori faith based belief category.jwhendyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03615608336736450543noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-12332607377146714062010-02-13T23:31:10.736-05:002010-02-13T23:31:10.736-05:00I would suggest to ZDenny,please take a camera and...I would suggest to ZDenny,please take a camera and use some photographic scientific evidence to cross reference and double check to try to see if maybe your wife actually exists.<br /><br />If he gets the same photographic picture of his wife, as he does when trying to photograph gods.<br /><br />Then maybe its correct at best! ZDennys idea,faith of having a wife, remains for now only a certainty of his mind.Gandolfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02624178234332819107noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-37844960762786766012010-02-13T23:12:25.357-05:002010-02-13T23:12:25.357-05:00ZDENNY said... "The fact is that we do know m...ZDENNY said... "The fact is that we do know many things such as, "My wife exists" I am very, very certain that this is true; however, my knowledge of this fact is grounded in faith."<br /><br />Get a hold of this.ZDenny knowledge of his wife is still "grounded on faith".In other words ZDenny is still only grouded in "ideas"(faith) of having a wife.Maybe when ZDenny is in bed bonking his lady,his "thoughts,ideas"(faith), is all he feels he has.<br /><br />Maybe ZDenny believes he has not verified this thought,idea,faith,by use of any physical experience.<br /><br />If so ZDenny would be honestly and faithfully speaking the truth here.Maybe he is suggesting he has simply (not yet scientifically verified) the presence of his wife by actually "pysically bonking"cross referencing between observation-and actual physical experience ...ZDennys dreams,thoughts,ideas,faith in having a wife remains firmly grounded in merely dreaming/faith.<br /><br />I suspect this might be the case because ZDenny suggests he is only "very certain".In other words seems ZDenny honestly feels it hasnt actually been verified.<br /><br />Some folks can be "very certain" about all sorts! of things that havent been verified to exist,like fairys,goblens,ghosts,pink elephants,talking donkeys,talking snakes etc.You name it! some loon who dont verify matters, has his/her faith,ideas,dreams about many things. <br /><br />Maybe ZDenny is just trying to be honest and explain he has not! yet used all scientific methods available for observing, experiencing, cross referencing, with friends opinions etc,and verifying all the cumulative evidence.Gandolfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02624178234332819107noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-7176977905598522702010-02-13T22:38:50.614-05:002010-02-13T22:38:50.614-05:00I agree. Z is ignorant and an asshole.I agree. Z is ignorant and an asshole.Chuckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15657598456196932490noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-90641604997041709602010-02-13T13:07:05.820-05:002010-02-13T13:07:05.820-05:00Zdenny,
Does it take faith to know that 1+1=2? Y...Zdenny,<br /><br />Does it take faith to know that 1+1=2? Your first assertion is simply wrong. Faith is not the foundation of all knowledge, you're just playing the usual lame games of a believer to protect yourself from thinking critically.<br /><br />You're an ignorant fool who wouldn't know a valid argument if it you over the head.Stevenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03009287314335622703noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-49646016480374912192010-02-13T12:22:11.311-05:002010-02-13T12:22:11.311-05:00The foundation of all knowledge is faith. Faith i...The foundation of all knowledge is faith. Faith is the foundation of all thought.<br /><br />Faith in our senses informs us about the physical world.<br /><br />Faith in Jesus informs us about the love of God.<br /><br />The logic is very simple and you guys are making it too hard.<br /><br />No one knows everything with 100% certainty. In fact we don't even know things to 70% certainty because knowledge has to be known 100% before the 75% rule can be applied.<br /><br />The fact is that we do know many things such as, "My wife exists" I am very, very certain that this is true; however, my knowledge of this fact is grounded in faith.<br /><br />John's is making a mistake in affirming absolute certainty for scientific knowledge and then blind faith for spiritual knowledge. The fact is that both rely on faith as faith is the ground of all knowledge.<br /><br />God Bless...D.L. Folkenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14088685389758373359noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-69107245698604816552010-02-12T23:34:16.454-05:002010-02-12T23:34:16.454-05:00Cont...
From this standpoint, Christianity actual...Cont...<br /><br />From this standpoint, Christianity actually runs into a fatal flaw: it's very essence is sustained by the fact that God <b><i>is</i></b> claimed to have intersected the natural, tangible realm via his son Jesus and continues to do so. So far, I have only found that God exists in the natural realm if I believe in Him from an a priori standpoint. <br /><br />So... I think it's reasonable that if I can't expect God to do anything to prove himself to me because of my doubt, it is a double standard for believers to claim that he does things for them because they believe. Also, I challenge the very idea that God does not want himself proven. Here are some reasons:<br /><br />- John 10:38: "But if I do it, even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father."<br /><br />- Exodus 4:5: "Perform this sign," the LORD told him. "Then they will believe that the LORD, the God of their ancestors--the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob--really has appeared to you.:<br /><br />- Numbers 14:11: The LORD said to Moses, "How long will these people treat me with contempt? How long will they refuse to believe in me, in spite of all the miraculous signs I have performed among them?<br /><br />- Mark 16:14:Later Jesus appeared to the Eleven as they were eating; he rebuked them for their lack of faith and their stubborn refusal to believe those who had seen him after he had risen.<br /><br />- Mark 16:17:And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues;<br /><br />- John 1:50: Jesus said, "You believe because I told you I saw you under the fig tree. You shall see greater things than that."<br /><br />- John 2:23: Now while he was in Jerusalem at the Passover Feast, many people saw the miraculous signs he was doing and believed in his name.<br /><br />- John 4:48: Unless you people see miraculous signs and wonders," Jesus told him, "you will never believe. (Right after this, Jesus brings a boy back to life from the dead. I take this mean he acknowledges their need for proof and gives it to them even if he is disappointed by this fact)<br /><br />- John 11:15: Lazarus is dead, 15and for your sake I am glad I was not there, so that you may believe. But let us go to him. (he's glad he wasn't there so that he can bring Lazarus back to life that they will believe)<br /><br />- John 14:11: Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves. (probably the best case for my point...)<br /><br />What is the point? I find plenty of evidence to suggest that God actually does really want us to believe in him via evidence. This coupled with (paraphrase from John 13 or 14) 'It is better that I go, for if I do not go I cannot send the Holy Spirit who will teach you all things and bring to mind all that I have said' says to me that it was not intended that Jesus' acts stay dead when he rose. They were intended to carry on as shown by Peter and Paul's continued miraculous deeds (raising of a cripple, being led out of prison by an angel, seeing mystical visions, teleporting after teaching eunichs about scripture, etc.).<br /><br />So, which is it? Always hidden, supernatural and undiscoverable? Or very concerned with being discoverable via the evidence left when the supernatural impacts the natural? Surely evidence is evidence both to the nonbeliever and believer. The only options I can figure to be viable are:<br /><br />- you can only see the evidence the right way if you have faith, aka you already believe the hypothesis that God exists<br />- there is no evidence whatsoever because God is not subject to the test tube<br />- there was a ton of evidence, but the only way to access it now is through a book written 2000 years ago<br /><br />If it's the middle one, Christians have to stop giving glory to God in situations where they think he answered their prayer.jwhendyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03615608336736450543noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1782642958744929522010-02-12T22:51:55.701-05:002010-02-12T22:51:55.701-05:00You're conveniently ignoring the fact that if ...<i>You're conveniently ignoring the fact that if God exists, he is supernatural, and as such cannot be objectified.</i><br /><br />I've been thinking about this one a lot and rolling it around in my head. On one hand, I was tempted to allow it... on the other hand, I think that it's yet another double standard employed. Let me explain:<br /><br />Since Christmas I've been doubting my Catholic faith quite heavily. It began with a simply idea to google the historicity of Jesus and the authenticity of the Bible -- so I googled them and I've been engrossed in research, discussion, and debate ever since. Many times, I've brought up my hunt for tangible evidence of what I would expect to find if there were a god. I am very interested in this, as it would certainly be part of the cumulative case method. One can look for God in any number of ways: philosophical, theological (kind of), historical, moral, etc. One of these, though, is certainly in the realm of the tangible. On to the point:<br /><br />- Me: wow, did you read about this prayer experiment with heart patients where prayer was shown not to produce any difference? That's really interesting.<br />- Response: that proves nothing. God saw through the study and would never bend to that level for our observation.<br />- Summary: God won't answer prayers under scientific study. If He wasn't being watched, he would definitely have helped those patients.<br /><br />- Me: I'm really having trouble believing. I just can't find any reasons to believe anymore now that I'm looking at things with an outsider's perspective.<br />- Response: what about the Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano (the Eucharist is said to have become actual flesh in the presence of a doubting priest at Mass)?<br />- Summary: here's a scientifically studied example of something that proves God is true.<br /><br />- Me: if you say that universal morality is because of God infusing it into us, why is the concept of God not geographically universal? Couldn't he infuse the right concept of himself into us?<br />- Response: obviously that's not how things work. He's not out to make automatons; he wants people to love him out of choice.<br />- Summary: God can do something magical in the area of morality to help us not kill each other, but not be expected to manifest himself in the tangible world by revealing the 'true' (which God?) source of why we shouldn't kill each other.<br /><br />- Me: So, I was researching the 'incorrupt saints' and it turns out that they were only 'kind of incorrupt' -- maybe mummified at best. Two of the most famous ones (Bernadette and Pio) wear wax and silicone masks because their faces were kind of black and sunken...<br />- Response: what are your sources? Well, I'm sure they were somewhat incorrupt and I'm sure the Church clearly labels this so that people aren't duped. But have you heard of the Shroud of Turin? Science hasn't been able to explain how Jesus' face is in it!!<br />- Summary: if it's really, really tangible and the Church rests on it... I must be wrong about why I doubt it. Also, here's another bit of evidence to help you believe from a scientific standpoint.<br /><br />My point is that I think that the constant issue theists I talk with bring up about my desire for evidence is a blatant double standard. Don't expect evidence, but when it appears it's definitely from God Himself.<br /><br />To be cont...jwhendyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03615608336736450543noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-27454180133924883392010-02-12T20:00:31.205-05:002010-02-12T20:00:31.205-05:00I think we use the cumulative case method,because ...I think we use the cumulative case method,because its "playing safe".<br /><br />Its how we help ourselves decide probabilities of what might possibly be most likely. <br /><br />But working out probabilities and what might likely be possible doesnt cancel out the random matter of chance,So as Harvey pointed out -->"Saints beating the Colts in the Super Bowl...improbable, but it happened." yes of course we still has a percentage of random chance to happen.<br /><br />People place bets on these teams so most folks use cumulative evidence thats been observed to help decide,its about playing safe.But that doesnt simply cancel out the random chance of some fluke win by the Saints.<br /><br />Thats why its not surprising faiths evolved,to early man lacking information and knowledge,the cumulative evidence available at that time with observation of random killer lightning bolts and tsunami etc pointing more towards likely possibility of it being work of gods.<br /><br />This (at that time) was still a matter of "playing it safe",because the cumulative evidence available at the time still leaned far more towards probabilities of gods.<br /><br />Though i dont see how we could quite compare the random chance of the possibility of gods to the case of the random chance of the "Saints beating the Colts " happening. <br /><br />The lengthly amount time spent waiting! for verifiable evidence of gods,combined! with better imformed information for understanding certain elements like what causes lightning strike and death by tsunami and earthquake etc....Has now changed the cumulative evidence available.<br /><br />We see evidence of random chance things like "Saints beating the Colts ",ACTUALLY HAPPEN !,far more often than we have ever observed any verifiable evidence of any gods.<br /><br />The two very different situations still just cannot honestly be compared.<br /><br />Playing it safe and calculating the verifiable cumulative evidence thats available this way is not about ruling out all possibilities of random chance.Its more about having better chances for survival,and about trying to be calculative! rather than simply faithful.<br /><br />And when we have experienced through time just how experimentation with ideas about simple faith,has killed many folks by sacrifice or witch burnings,exorcisms or even suicide through the heartbreak of shunning and excommunication etc etc etc....Surely!! the reason for (our need) to try to learn to lean more towards (scepticism and need of being more calculative) and looking for decent verifiable cumulative evidence, becomes quite obvious!...Yes!?<br /><br />Theist of course armed with their amazing infinite imagination and mere (human standard), then set off to conquer the world and try and dream up all manner of HUMAN ideas of gods to fit HUMAN ideas of god. who according to their infinite visions seemS have reason to hide from us?,in effect disallowing us evidence?.Yet still somehow connects to being loving?.<br /><br />Classic !! theism they call it im told.Quite classically! too, its killed many folks in the past! ...Love is where its at?.<br /><br />What i find quite funny also, is here we have theists arguing for random chance of possibilty of gods etc.<br /><br />Yet many of them somehow find it hard to considder random chance? with regards to beginning of the universe etc.<br /><br />Im still agnostic/atheist because of possibility of random chance,however i dont see any reason why i should think loving gods, would want us to faithfully guess matters of gods?.<br /><br />Specially when time has already taught us! how very dangerous and deadly it often is.Gandolfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02624178234332819107noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-29329215205282322272010-02-12T18:44:29.075-05:002010-02-12T18:44:29.075-05:00jbudrdanl,
The criticism that Christians are alwa...jbudrdanl,<br /><br /><i>The criticism that Christians are always redefining terms to win arguments seems hypocritical and insincere to me. </i><br /><br />You may be right. It would take some scholarly undertaking to see if religion is uniquely different in this endeavor. If one took it as an hypothesis to be tested, then it would hardly be hypocritical or insincere.<br /><br />It just seems that the incidences stick out like sore thumbs with religion.<br /><br />God "loved" all the children in Numbers 31 that he ordered to be hacked up with swords--screaming to their deaths, no doubt. That is pretty radical.<br /><br />Post-modernists re-engineer the meaning of words, but everyone is laughing at them, for the very reason that they are re-engineering the definitions of common words.<br /><br />If I just had the time . . .Jimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03562922818694517439noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-64776608187275287382010-02-12T18:07:04.690-05:002010-02-12T18:07:04.690-05:00J,
You said, "our understanding of the Bible...J,<br /><br />You said, "our understanding of the Bible is imperfect and incomplete." I see you are unwilling to say that the Bible itself is "imperfect and incomplete" and it is this level of logical gerrymandering that leads one to objectively conclude you don't seek truth but rather, confirmation of your presupposition.Chuckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15657598456196932490noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-25702207566332696522010-02-12T17:44:12.076-05:002010-02-12T17:44:12.076-05:00The criticism that Christians are always redefinin...The criticism that Christians are always redefining terms to win arguments seems hypocritical and insincere to me. name a single discipline in which that doesn't happen. Every academic disciple changes, readjusts and redefines terms, ideas, and hypotheses all the time. That's what's required for intellectual integrity. As we gain more complete knowledge, we assimilate and accommodate that into our existing knowledge and adjust as deemed appropriate. <br /><br />If all other disciplines do that, what do not allow theology to do that?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-69517322522001089082010-02-12T17:40:29.017-05:002010-02-12T17:40:29.017-05:00To Chuck who wrote -- "Yet what was convenien...To Chuck who wrote -- "Yet what was conveniently left out of this series was, "theology is incomplete." or even better, "the bible is incomplete.""<br /><br />You're correct, I should have included that. It was not intentionally left out. All theologies are imperfect and incomplete and our understanding of the Bible is imperfect and incomplete as well. I fully agree.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-80048647978913645162010-02-12T17:15:21.306-05:002010-02-12T17:15:21.306-05:00"The Necessity of Christians to Redefine Term..."The Necessity of Christians to Redefine Terms" sounds like a good topic for a book.<br /><br />Does anyone know if a book with this theme has been written?<br /><br />Maybe I should get to work--I could make millions!<br /><br />Nah . . . I'm probably too lazy.Jimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03562922818694517439noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-60705100883039199542010-02-12T17:02:40.239-05:002010-02-12T17:02:40.239-05:00I find it interesting that this series of observat...I find it interesting that this series of observations was noted,"Science is imperfect and incomplete. Philosophy is imperfect and incomplete. History is imperfect and incomplete. Human experience is imperfect and incomplete. Logic and reasoning is imperfect and incomplete."<br /><br />Yet what was conveniently left out of this series was, "theology is incomplete." or even better, "the bible is incomplete." <br /><br />I'd accept Christians opposition to natural means of knowing if they applied the same level of skepticism to their revealed knowledge as they do to objective knowledge.Chuckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15657598456196932490noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-61822123685607372752010-02-12T14:48:02.721-05:002010-02-12T14:48:02.721-05:00Heh... well Jim, according to Nietzsche(Genealogy ...Heh... well Jim, according to Nietzsche(Genealogy of Morals), Christians have been redefining things for millenia.<br /><br />Intelligence is stupidity, stupidity is intelligence!<br /><br />Nobility is evil, servitude is holy!<br /><br />Maybe this is just another instance.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12762450398018434571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-74690647462153899142010-02-12T14:26:18.028-05:002010-02-12T14:26:18.028-05:00J. Quinton,
You mentioned that Christians have &q...J. Quinton,<br /><br />You mentioned that Christians have "redefined personal relationship . . ."<br /><br />I don't know if this a new Christian apologetic paradigm or if it's been for eons, but it seems I'm seeing more of it.<br /><br />Redefine, redefine, redefine. Steal a phrase from common English and use it in regards to a question of faith. But the phrase doesn't have the same meaning.<br /><br />"God loves everyone"<br /><br />Ummmmm, he drowns innocent kids in Noah's flood; he orders Abraham to butcher Isaac, etc.<br /><br />"You just don't understand 'Love' in this context"<br /><br />Ummmmm, yeah, I understand very well what "Love" means and it ain't that.<br /><br />This is why Breckmin loves to say we can't have a meaningful discussion about God until we recognize that words are imperfect. (At least I think that's what his intention is).<br /><br />Christians need this "fuzziness." They need lots of wiggle-room to avoid the inevitable fact that any attempt to describe God in any meaningful agreed upon way is futile.Jimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03562922818694517439noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-40466861326472571282010-02-12T14:13:01.858-05:002010-02-12T14:13:01.858-05:00And just one small addition to the point of person...And just one small addition to the point of personal experience being the most important criteria in relating to a personal god- I think that is looking at it far too narrowly. The personal god is also, according to believers, the creator of the world, so it's not just one aspect.<br /><br />But for those believers (I'm talking judeo/christian), personal experience would certainly not trump the believed revelation from god contained in their bible. That, according to believers, is the ultimate revelation, so any personal experience, if it contradicts that, would be invalidated.mchanghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16982178671137868645noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-48893869253612105272010-02-12T14:12:23.237-05:002010-02-12T14:12:23.237-05:00You can't put "wind" in a test tube,...You can't put "wind" in a test tube, either, but you can test for the effects of wind in the real world. The "wind" interacts with measurement devices.<br /><br />We can measure the effects of prayer on sick people.<br /><br />They fail . . . oops.Jimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03562922818694517439noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-62232116098603882272010-02-12T14:10:56.168-05:002010-02-12T14:10:56.168-05:00jbudrdanl,
You need to read your own post:
. . ....jbudrdanl,<br /><br />You need to read your own post:<br /><br /><i>. . . if God exists, he is supernatural, and as such cannot be objectified. <br /><br />The existence of God is objective, you're absolutely correct. </i><br /><br />Huh?Jimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03562922818694517439noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-57896950980352705552010-02-12T14:06:16.913-05:002010-02-12T14:06:16.913-05:00I think the discussion comparing it to love is mis...I think the discussion comparing it to love is misleading, because in mr. Loftus' case, he objectively knows his wife exists, because he can see her, etc. Other people see her, and can validate her existence.<br /><br />Whether she "loves" him is secondary, because he has already recognized her existence. With any divine being, that level of confirmation does not exist, and as such, they're having to ask "does god love me" while at the same time asking "does god even exist?"<br /><br />So I think the parallel is not apt.mchanghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16982178671137868645noreply@blogger.com