My Religion

[Guyver]

We believe the evidence shows divine revelation. Reasons include prophecy fulfilled...scientific accuracy.... painfully honest...unique message of salvation....geographical accuracy...unique in unity (Over 40 authors...over 1500years creating one cohesive story)… "The Bible Describes Reality Better Than Any Other Religion Or Worldview
It tells us why the universe has laws, design, order, complexity, simplicity, elegance, symmetry and beauty – because there is a great and wise and powerful Designer. It tells us why there is beauty, love, wisdom, justice, truth and personality."https://www.shema.com/ten-evidences-that-demonstrate-that-the-bible-is-the-divinely-inspired-word-of-god-272/

Thank you for expressing your beliefs.

 

[ok doser]

Real proof would be fine thank you.

How about eyewitness accounts?

 

[Guyver]

The only reason the twelve step program is being mentioned at all is because you brought it up. I couldn't care less about it one way or the other. What I'm trying to do is flesh out this religion of yours that one would think that a thread entitled "My Religion" is supposed to be all about.

You could "flesh out" your understanding by reading what I've written already.

So far, we've been discussing generalities, lets get more specific. Since you accept the existence of at least some sort of God, we don't have to go over the ground that established atheism as being irrational and since we're on an overtly Christian website, let's focus on that religion. Just what is it that you think is irrational about Christianity?

Clete

Claiming that someone is guilty because of the sins of another person for starters.

 

[6days]

What I'm trying to do is flesh out this religion of yours that one would think that a thread entitled "My Religion" is supposed to be all about.

Clete... Do you think Jesus was religious? Are atheists religious? Is evolutionism a religion? (Yeah... Depends how you define the word). You might have seen this video before... Jesus hated religion. https://youtu.be/1IAhDGYlpqY

It is interesting that the Bible defines true religion as helping out those in need. (Ie. Widows and orphans)

 

[JudgeRightly]

You could "flesh out" your understanding by reading what I've written already.



Claiming that someone is guilty because of the sins of another person for starters.

Christians believe and accept what the Bible says.

The Bible records God saying the following.

Spoiler

The word of the Lord came to me again, saying,“What do you mean when you use this proverb concerning the land of Israel, saying: ‘The fathers have eaten sour grapes, And the children’s teeth are set on edge’?“ As I live,” says the Lord God, “you shall no longer use this proverb in Israel.“Behold, all souls are Mine; The soul of the father As well as the soul of the son is Mine; The soul who sins shall die.But if a man is just And does what is lawful and right;If he has not eaten on the mountains, Nor lifted up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel, Nor defiled his neighbor’s wife, Nor approached a woman during her impurity;If he has not oppressed anyone, But has restored to the debtor his pledge; Has robbed no one by violence, But has given his bread to the hungry And covered the naked with clothing;If he has not exacted usury Nor taken any increase, But has withdrawn his hand from iniquity And executed true judgment between man and man;If he has walked in My statutes And kept My judgments faithfully— He is just; He shall surely live!” Says the Lord God.“If he begets a son who is a robber Or a shedder of blood, Who does any of these thingsAnd does none of those duties, But has eaten on the mountains Or defiled his neighbor’s wife;If he has oppressed the poor and needy, Robbed by violence, Not restored the pledge, Lifted his eyes to the idols, Or committed abomination;If he has exacted usury Or taken increase— Shall he then live? He shall not live! If he has done any of these abominations, He shall surely die; His blood shall be upon him.“ If, however, he begets a son Who sees all the sins which his father has done, And considers but does not do likewise;Who has not eaten on the mountains, Nor lifted his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel, Nor defiled his neighbor’s wife;Has not oppressed anyone, Nor withheld a pledge, Nor robbed by violence, But has given his bread to the hungry And covered the naked with clothing;Who has withdrawn his hand from the poor And not received usury or increase, But has executed My judgments And walked in My statutes— He shall not die for the iniquity of his father; He shall surely live!“ As for his father, Because he cruelly oppressed, Robbed his brother by violence, And did what is not good among his people, Behold, he shall die for his iniquity.“Yet you say, ‘Why should the son not bear the guilt of the father?’ Because the son has done what is lawful and right, and has kept all My statutes and observed them, he shall surely live.The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.“But if a wicked man turns from all his sins which he has committed, keeps all My statutes, and does what is lawful and right, he shall surely live; he shall not die.None of the transgressions which he has committed shall be remembered against him; because of the righteousness which he has done, he shall live.Do I have any pleasure at all that the wicked should die?” says the Lord God, “ and not that he should turn from his ways and live?“But when a righteous man turns away from his righteousness and commits iniquity, and does according to all the abominations that the wicked man does, shall he live? All the righteousness which he has done shall not be remembered; because of the unfaithfulness of which he is guilty and the sin which he has committed, because of them he shall die.“Yet you say, ‘The way of the Lord is not fair.’ Hear now, O house of Israel, is it not My way which is fair, and your ways which are not fair?When a righteous man turns away from his righteousness, commits iniquity, and dies in it, it is because of the iniquity which he has done that he dies.Again, when a wicked man turns away from the wickedness which he committed, and does what is lawful and right, he preserves himself alive.Because he considers and turns away from all the transgressions which he committed, he shall surely live; he shall not die.Yet the house of Israel says, ‘The way of the Lord is not fair.’ O house of Israel, is it not My ways which are fair, and your ways which are not fair?“Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways,” says the Lord God. “Repent, and turn from all your transgressions, so that iniquity will not be your ruin.Cast away from you all the transgressions which you have committed, and get yourselves a new heart and a new spirit. For why should you die, O house of Israel?For I have no pleasure in the death of one who dies,” says the Lord God. “Therefore turn and live!” - Ezekiel 18:1-32 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel18:1-32&version=NKJV

 

[Guyver]

How about eyewitness accounts?

How about it?

Do you believe that alien abductions are real since there are eyewitness accounts? Do you believe that sasquatch, bigfoot or yeti exists because there are eyewitness accounts?

 

[ok doser]

[MENTION=16942]JudgeRightly[/MENTION] - the part about eating on the mountain - what's that about?

 

[ok doser]

How about it?

There are eyewitness accounts of Jesus, in the flesh, after His resurrection

Do you accept those eyewitness accounts as proof?

If not, I'll revisit my earlier question and ask you again, what would you accept as "real proof"?

 

[7djengo7]

How do you define truth?

I define truth by saying that such and such is true about truth, and that this or that is false about it, 'cause that's what definin' is: sayin' that such and such is true about the thing being defined, and that this or that is false about the thing being defined.

About truth, I say, for instance, that

• Every truth is about something. (No truth is meaningless.)
• To be true is not the same as to exist.
• Truth is fact.
• No truth is a dog, or dogs.
• No truth is a cat, or cats.
• No truth is contradictory to any truth.
• No truth is contrary to any truth.
• Every truth is contradictory to one, and only one, falsehood.
• Every truth is contrary to many falsehoods.

Those are just a few things I can think of off the top of my head, things which I think and say about truth. I define truth by thinking/saying things about truth, like as one would define a yacht by thinking/saying things about a yacht.

 

[7djengo7]

I don't think God made a world of death, I know he did by observation.

That's another difference between the way you think and the way I think: See, in my book, all knowing IS thinking. You don't think? Then you don't know. If I can say, "I know that T is true", I can just as easily say, "I, therefore, think that T is true", because my knowledge that T is true is nothing other than my thinking that T is true while T is true.

That's why I, for one, never do the silly, anti-intellectual "I don't think! I know!"-shtick. But, perhaps such silliness is quite acceptable for "Unreflective John Doe-ism"....er, um, I mean, "Rejective Knowism".

 

[7djengo7]

How about it?

Do you believe that alien abductions are real since there are eyewitness accounts? Do you believe that sasquatch, bigfoot or yeti exists because there are eyewitness accounts?

Eyewitness accounts are accounts of things that are real. Wouldn't you agree?

Since I, for one, do not call anything "sasquatch", I'm certainly not going to call anything "an eyewitness account of sasquatch". What (if anything) do you call "sasquatch"? And what (if anything) would you call "an eyewitness account of sasquatch"?

 

[7djengo7]

Great. Now all you have to do is prove Jesus is alive (resurrected) and you win.

Your problem, here, is that all you're doing is trying to get someone to play, with you, a game you've rigged. See, here is all you mean when you say "you have to prove Jesus is alive (resurrected)":

"you have to CAUSE ME TO BELIEVE Jesus is alive (resurrected)"​

Until you're willing to believe that Jesus lives, you will, because of your pride, always tell yourself that you "win", and you will always tell us Christians that we "lose". What an easy game for you to "win" at, though! To always "win", all you have to do is continue to be willing to refuse to believe that Jesus lives. Do you really think we are so stupid as to imagine that we have any ability, whatsoever, to force your anti-Christ will to go from refusing to believe in Jesus to being willing to believe in Him??

THAT's why, whenever somebody takes your silly bait, and says to you, "OK: X, Y, and Z prove that Jesus is alive (resurrected)!", you will always, without fail, be ready, and eager, to rejoin them with, "That's no proof!", or, "You did not prove it!", or something similar.

Now, if you do not mean "cause me to believe" when you say "prove", then, by all means, please tell us exactly what (if anything) you imagine you do mean by it.

 

[ok doser]

That's what I said

 

[Guyver]

There are eyewitness accounts of Jesus, in the flesh, after His resurrection

Do you accept those eyewitness accounts as proof?

If not, I'll revisit my earlier question and ask you again, what would you accept as "real proof"?

Based on your track record, it's quid pro quo with you. I asked you a question and you didn't answer it. I asked you if eyewitness testimony is sufficient to prove the existence of alien abduction and bigfoot. Well?

 

[Guyver]

So, we've actually taken a step backward here.

First of all, it doesn't claim to be science. Science has to do with a systematic and rational analysis of nature (i.e. with the physical world). Science has little to say about philosophy. In fact, science is an outworking of philosophy. In other words, properly done science presupposes that logic works, that reality is real (there's that law of identity again!) and that it can be understood. Thus it is philosophy that is primary here not science.

Further, your rejection of the paper's point based on its source is irrational. The point the paper makes is either valid or it is not. The religious beliefs of the author are not relevant to whether his statements are true.

Clete

You know what's weird Clete? You go on about logical axioms and philosophy and you don't even know Aristotle. What kind of philosopher doesn't know the Greeks? Aristotle said it is the mark of an educated mind to entertain a thought without accepting it.

I said I neither affirm or reject your logic axioms at this time. Do you know what that means Clete? It doesn't mean I reject your claims. It also means I don't accept them - AT THIS TIME!!!!!

Get it?

When I have time, interest or inclination to give your logical axioms a complete workover, I will do so thoroughly and respond to it. You may be right, and I may be a fan. At this point I'm not and I'm not too impressed to be honest.

And furthermore, do you remember how you said - in so many words - you were judging my worthiness of your time? Well, you're in that same boat in my book. The fact that you would actually read into my comments that I rejected your logical axioms demonstrates an automatic reaction (to something that didn't even occur) called cognitive bias. You actually EXPECTED me to reject your claims whether you knew it or not, and your mind automatically reset to that default.

 

[Guyver]

Further still, if Christianity is in fact rational, one would expect an apologetics ministry to fully understand, endorse and promote the laws of reason. Have you ever discovered another major world religion that does so?


Clete

Of course. There are many. A little search could reveal many more. First, you have the Greeks themselves, they had many religions to choose from and the definitely promoted the laws of reason. Then you have the Ottoman Empire as another example.

Lastly, there are the Catholics. Now, I consider Catholics to be Christians, but yet, I know of many Christians who don't consider Catholics to be Christian and you may be one of them - I don't know. And I don't really care because the point itself is not very impressive to begin with.

Who cares if your religion promotes the laws of reason or not? Personally, I'm a fan of logic and reason, but my brand may not be the same as yours. The purpose for logic and reason according to my religion is the pursuit of truth.

 

[Guyver]

I make no claim to having every aspect of my doctrine correct but yes, Christianity is the only rationally consistent worldview.


Clete

Wrong. Agnosticism makes way more sense.

 

[Guyver]

I define truth by saying that such and such is true about truth, and that this or that is false about it, 'cause that's what definin' is: sayin' that such and such is true about the thing being defined, and that this or that is false about the thing being defined.

Saying things about truth isn't defining it. At the very least you could have used the dictionary and offered a definition.

How is it logical to make statements about something that you can't define?

 

[6days]

Wrong. Agnosticism makes way more sense.

We disagree... again. We CAN know the truth. Agnosticism is essentially a unrealistic and dogmatic religious worldview claiming you can't know, no matter how much evidence exists. Romans 1:20 "For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God."

 

[ok doser]

Guyver gives Clete a challenge:

... all you have to do is prove Jesus is alive (resurrected)...

doser asks:

What proof would you accept?

Guyver responds, vaguely:

Real proof would be fine thank you.

doser offers a form of proof that often is considered "real", at least in courtrooms and historical investigations:

How about eyewitness accounts?

Guyver, still avoiding the original question (what proof would you accept?) responds with three questions:

How about it?

Do you believe that alien abductions are real since there are eyewitness accounts? Do you believe that sasquatch, bigfoot or yeti exists because there are eyewitness accounts?

doser responds to the first of Guyver's three questions and restates the original question that has still gone unanswered:

There are eyewitness accounts of Jesus, in the flesh, after His resurrection

Do you accept those eyewitness accounts as proof?

If not, I'll revisit my earlier question and ask you again, what would you accept as "real proof"?

Based on your track record, it's quid pro quo with you.

ok, but you haven't yet responded to my original question with anything substantial

I'll ask again: What "real proof" would you accept of Jesus' resurrection?

I asked you a question and you didn't answer it. I asked you if eyewitness testimony is sufficient to prove the existence of alien abduction and bigfoot. Well?

i'll be glad to follow your bunny trail after you answer my first question:

What proof would you accept of Jesus' resurrection?