You have heard of Him though, you see the world around you, you can easily believe in Him.


I've also heard that a corked bats make you hit farther. Did anyone catch the last Mythbusters? :D

If it were easy to believe in God, why don't I believe? God, and what I know from the Bible, are comforting thoughts that any person would want to believe. But, that does not give any credit to their validity.

The Bible talks about times when God was silent for generations, like the time before Jesus Christ was born (if there was in fact a Jesus). If God is silent, and the belief was not properly passed down to the next generation, and the first-hand accounts were not retold, how can we believe? The Bible just does not have credence. What gives a historical document credence?

I just think that if there is a god, then it would better serve its purpose (for all) to know that it does in fact exist. Believers could live strengthened knowing the promises in the Bible. Seekers could become believers. And those that didn't want any part of it could embrace that too, accepting their fate in exchange for having the option to live according to their own rules (moral or not).

It's rather like being born, not knowing your parents. The people who raise you, tell you about what your parents wanted for your life and that they love you very much. When push came to shove, do you think it is wise to listen to the parents that you never knew? What if the people who raised you lied?

How fair is it then if the parents came back and said to the child, "You did not listen to me, even though I was not there physically for you...you did not prepare your life to live in my house...away with you."

How helpful is it when you are going through a tough time, and someone one-thousand miles away says, "I love you, I know what you are going through." How much better is it for someone to be face-to-face to comfort and help through the situation? If someone is there for you in this fashion, how much more apt are you to trust them?

Something fishy here...:bugeye:

What if the people who raised you lied?

This is a fact, not something to be put into a debate, even if they meant well. They were lied, humanity has been lied for centuries, and our parents are no exception.
This doesn´t mean to hate your parents, I say love them, respect them; but the things they taught you since childhood are your obstacles towards inner-realization.

I've also heard that a corked bats make you hit farther. Did anyone catch the last Mythbusters? :D

If it were easy to believe in God, why don't I believe? God, and what I know from the Bible, are comforting thoughts that any person would want to believe. But, that does not give any credit to their validity.

The Bible talks about times when God was silent for generations, like the time before Jesus Christ was born (if there was in fact a Jesus). If God is silent, and the belief was not properly passed down to the next generation, and the first-hand accounts were not retold, how can we believe? The Bible just does not have credence. What gives a historical document credence?

I just think that if there is a god, then it would better serve its purpose (for all) to know that it does in fact exist. Believers could live strengthened knowing the promises in the Bible. Seekers could become believers. And those that didn't want any part of it could embrace that too, accepting their fate in exchange for having the option to live according to their own rules (moral or not).

It's rather like being born, not knowing your parents. The people who raise you, tell you about what your parents wanted for your life and that they love you very much. When push came to shove, do you think it is wise to listen to the parents that you never knew? What if the people who raised you lied?

How fair is it then if the parents came back and said to the child, "You did not listen to me, even though I was not there physically for you...you did not prepare your life to live in my house...away with you."

How helpful is it when you are going through a tough time, and someone one-thousand miles away says, "I love you, I know what you are going through." How much better is it for someone to be face-to-face to comfort and help through the situation? If someone is there for you in this fashion, how much more apt are you to trust them?

Something fishy here...:bugeye:
*************
M*W: Welcome back, jayleew! I just want to say that I am impressed with your new wisdom. I'm glad you came back to share it with us.

jayleew

If it were easy to believe in God, why don't I believe?
maybe you are good at making things complicated
:p

God, and what I know from the Bible, are comforting thoughts that any person would want to believe. But, that does not give any credit to their validity.
such descriptions however may act as an impetus to adopt practices

The Bible talks about times when God was silent for generations, like the time before Jesus Christ was born (if there was in fact a Jesus). If God is silent, and the belief was not properly passed down to the next generation, and the first-hand accounts were not retold, how can we believe? The Bible just does not have credence. What gives a historical document credence?
hence its god's eternal duty to re-establish religious principles amongst a recalcitrant population that has the habit of making things complicated

BG 4.2: This supreme science was thus received through the chain of disciplic succession, and the saintly kings understood it in that way. But in course of time the succession was broken, and therefore the science as it is appears to be lost.

I just think that if there is a god, then it would better serve its purpose (for all) to know that it does in fact exist.
and he does so, without of course infringing on our independence (if we would prefer to teach other things in school, hey that's okay)

Believers could live strengthened knowing the promises in the Bible. Seekers could become believers. And those that didn't want any part of it could embrace that too, accepting their fate in exchange for having the option to live according to their own rules (moral or not).
perhaps god is addressing these issues through enabling us the opportunity to express our independence within the material world

It's rather like being born, not knowing your parents. The people who raise you, tell you about what your parents wanted for your life and that they love you very much. When push came to shove, do you think it is wise to listen to the parents that you never knew? What if the people who raised you lied?
therefore religion is primarily a process about getting to know god

How fair is it then if the parents came back and said to the child, "You did not listen to me, even though I was not there physically for you...you did not prepare your life to live in my house...away with you."
its more a case of we don't want to live with god and the material world is an attempt to secure god's kingdom without god

How helpful is it when you are going through a tough time, and someone one-thousand miles away says, "I love you, I know what you are going through." How much better is it for someone to be face-to-face to comfort and help through the situation?
how sincere is a person who wails for help one moment a year and spends the other 364 days in contempt

If someone is there for you in this fashion, how much more apt are you to trust them?

Something fishy here...
something fishy with this

Heaven n. A place where the wicked cease from troubling you with talk of their personal affairs, and the good listen with attention while you expound your own.

:D

therefore religion is primarily a process about getting to know god

That's impossible, even should god exist. We have no way of knowing wether or not knowing god exists, so how is it possible to then 'get to know god' (as you put it), without it merely being a construct?

how is it possible to then 'get to know god'

http://www.coffsharbour.nsw.gov.au/resources/images/stop,-look,-listen.gif i.e. Study the NT Gospels, in particular, the Person of Jesus.

That's impossible, even should god exist. We have no way of knowing wether or not knowing god exists, so how is it possible to then 'get to know god' (as you put it), without it merely being a construct?

how do you know that there is "no way to know god"?

:confused:

http://www.coffsharbour.nsw.gov.au/resources/images/stop,-look,-listen.gif i.e. Study the NT Gospels, in particular, the Person of Jesus.To what!, you have yet to establish a god or a Jesus existed, which is what Kenny was saying, so until such time as you can show a god/Jesus exists, it is nothing but a construct/idea/imaginary.

how do you know that there is "no way to know god"?Well as you have yet to establish that any person can have direct perception/know a god/gods, it can only remain a construct/idea/imaginary until you can show they exist.

geeser
“
Originally Posted by Lg
how do you know that there is "no way to know god"?
”
Well as you have yet to establish that any person can have direct perception/know a god/gods, it can only remain a construct/idea/imaginary until you can show they exist.
never encountered a normative description in scripture, eh?

geeser
“
never encountered a normative description in scripture, eh?

Quit using your scriptures. The scriptures provide no evidence in this because they are questioned aswell.

Quit using your scriptures. The scriptures provide no evidence in this because they are questioned aswell.
evidence is arrived at through practice
practice is established from a foundation of theory

Scripture establishes a foundation of theory and recommendations of practice

if you disagree with this it appears you have a wider issue with the nature of acquiring knowledge outside of any issues of religion/god/etc ......
:shrug:

evidence is arrived at through practice
practice is established from a foundation of theory

Scripture establishes a foundation of theory and recommendations of practice

if you disagree with this it appears you have a wider issue with the nature of acquiring knowledge outside of any issues of religion/god/etc ......
:shrug:

Ok i was under the impression you meant religious scripture.. but i guess you didnt then ?

Ok i was under the impression you meant religious scripture.. but i guess you didnt then ?

never encountered a normative description in religious scripture, eh?

never encountered a normative description in religious scripture, eh?

So you are refering to religious scriptures... :bugeye:

So you are refering to religious scriptures... :bugeye:

you are not going to post something that indicates you have a wider issue with the nature of acquiring knowledge outside of any issues of religion/god/etc .... are you?

you are not going to post something that indicates you have a wider issue with the nature of acquiring knowledge outside of any issues of religion/god/etc .... are you?

No i just came by to tell you the previous. Keep looking for evidence..

Scripture establishes a foundation of theory and recommendations of practice

what your doing is a logical fallacy, called a generic fallacy you cant use the same source to verify itself, what extra-sources do you have to verify your beliefs.
I know the answer is none, so do go away and get an education you've been on these boards, for some time now unfortunately, but you've learnt nothing.

http://www.coffsharbour.nsw.gov.au/resources/images/stop,-look,-listen.gif i.e. Study the NT Gospels, in particular, the Person of Jesus.

I could study every word of the gospels and come to the same conclusion. I could study every popular nursery rhyme and still conclude that they are fiction. Jesus, even if he existed, is still almost 100% fiction.

The writers of religious scripture borrow ideas from past scriptures, and liberally embellish new ideas for what they think will help them gain more followers and power. That is it.

how do you know that there is "no way to know god"?

:confused:

Well, I know one thing for sure - I know a man can not write a document and proclaim "THIS ENABLES ME TO KNOW GOD!"

I could study every word of the gospels and come to the same conclusion. I could study every popular nursery rhyme and still conclude that they are fiction. Jesus, even if he existed, is still almost 100% fiction.


I agree it is fiction until proven. You say "almost". What do you mean?
I know my college history professor used the Bible for historical reference, but how much of the Bible is really based on historical events?

From my knowledge, I have not confirmed any of it aside from some of it being copied from ancient texts and laws. Like sumerian and babylonian texts.

How much of the Bible can be confirmed by duplicate historical accounts?
Does anyone here have real knowledge of these figures?


Well, I know one thing for sure - I know a man can not write a document and proclaim "THIS ENABLES ME TO KNOW GOD!"

As far as knowing a real god from just a document, I see your point. But you can know a fictional character (but in the case of God, not completely).

Someone like me, I know the Christian God in the Bible as much as any average person could, but not in real life because God has not introduced itself.

Your main point is well taken, a document written by man is not enough to embrace a theology as the truth.

what your doing is a logical fallacy, called a generic fallacy you cant use the same source to verify itself, what extra-sources do you have to verify your beliefs.
I know the answer is none, so do go away and get an education you've been on these boards, for some time now unfortunately, but you've learnt nothing.

The Bible is not one source, but a collection of different sources or books. The last time I checked, the Bible was not written by one person, but many people.

I could study every word of the gospels and come to the same conclusion. I could study every popular nursery rhyme and still conclude that they are fiction. Jesus, even if he existed, is still almost 100% fiction.

If Jesus were to exist, how is He fiction? Could you elaborate?

The writers of religious scripture borrow ideas from past scriptures, and liberally embellish new ideas for what they think will help them gain more followers and power. That is it.

What motive will these people have when Christians were being persecuted. Saint Paul went to jail and remained on house arrest for most of his life. Stephan and others were stoned to death for believing in Christ Jesus. What does it profit all these men and many other figures to go to the death for merely a myth?

Well, I know one thing for sure - I know a man can not write a document and proclaim "THIS ENABLES ME TO KNOW GOD!"

Man did not write the books of the Bible. Man was assisted by the Holy Spirit in writing those books.

I agree it is fiction until proven. You say "almost". What do you mean?
I know my college history professor used the Bible for historical reference, but how much of the Bible is really based on historical events?

The bible itself is a historical document, and can legitimately be used as historical reference depending on the context. If for example someone refers to the Bible to say that Jesus' resurrection was a historical event, then that is just foolish.

If Jesus were to exist, how is He fiction? Could you elaborate?

Simply put: it's not unrealistic that the story of Jesus is based on a real preacher, but it's unrealistic to assume that the supernatural aspects were true. It's more realistic to assume the supernatural aspects of the story were simply penned by the writers based on decades worth of chinese whispers and story telling.

What I'm trying to say is that christians would be in for a big shock if they seen the real person this story was based on. Similarly, if you met the leaders of certain tribes and heard all the stories about him beforehand... let's just say the real person would be a letdown.

Real people without the myths are just... real people.

What motive will these people have when Christians were being persecuted. Saint Paul went to jail and remained on house arrest for most of his life. Stephan and others were stoned to death for believing in Christ Jesus. What does it profit all these men and many other figures to go to the death for merely a myth?

Actually, martyrdom is actually the best thing for spreading a religion and gaining said people historical notoriety. Just look where it got Jesus...

Man did not write the books of the Bible. Man was assisted by the Holy Spirit in writing those books.

OH COME ON! THAT'S JUST STUPID!





this post was edited by the Holy Spirit

Man did not write the books of the Bible. Man was assisted by the Holy Spirit in writing those books.

Who told you this? Did you read this somewhere? If so, where? Is this first hand evidence? In the Christian culture, it is a common belief that this is true. But, you forget that the Holy Spirit was not available until after Jesus died.

Tidbit: Did you know that the term "Holy Spirit" is not mentioned anywhere in the Bible? There are other terms that describe a third entity of the Trinity, but no "Holy Spirit".

The men from the New Testament were filled of the Holy Spirit, but man wrote the Old Testament from instruction from God. Biblical scholars say that Moses wrote Genesis.

Anyway, to say man was assisted by the "Holy Spirit" without first defining and establishing the "Holy Spirit" as verifiable, is useless to giving credibility to the idea you are trying to present.

Aside from all this babbling, man did in fact write the Bible, regardless of the Holy Spirit's presence or not. It was not the hand of the Holy Spirit who put the pen to the page. No use challenging the statement.

The Bible is not one source, but a collection of different sources or books. The last time I checked, the Bible was not written by one person, but many people.but compiled as one, it's quite irrelevant to say there different, theres no prove for that, there just different chapters, named genesis, exodus etc..
but because the bible is a compilation, you cannot use it to verify itself.
Irregardless of there aledgedly being several writers.
you could say in that case, as the there is no proof that Sheherazade (a thousand and one nights) made up all those stories, she must have got them from other sources, but nobody is trying to pass this of as a book of truth, it has just as much morality within.
but if you were trying to prove that sinbad was real because he is in several of the stories, I would call you on the same logical fallacy.
now if you had an extra biblical source, that verified the bible, of which there is none, then fine.

geeser
“
never encountered a normative description in scripture, eh?

lg
re Normative. I wish you would stop using this term.
You know no-one understands it.
It just causes confusion.

Biblical scholars say that Moses wrote Genesis.
*************
M*W: Sorry, but this has long been disproven by biblical scholars and archeologists who also have proven that the Exodus didn't happen.

Some people like the Jews and non-progressive christians still believe Moses wrote the Torah, but scholars have concurred that Genesis was written by as many as five different authors (Described below):

Scholars have concluded that it was literally impossible for Moses to have written the Pentateuch because the timeline for the authorship of Genesis took place about seven hundred years AFTER Moses's lifetime. This theory is still being taught today in seminaries. It's called the Wellhausen (or Graf-Wellhausen) hypothesis. This hypothesis states that there are a number of authors responsible for writing the Torah. The Graf-Wellhausen Hypothesis encompasses the following fragments from the Genesis authors:

Jawist version written c.950BCE
Elohist version written c.750BCE
Priestly version written c.650BCE
Deuteronomist version written c.587BCE

However, these fragments weren't compiled until about 200CE! By that time, however, the RCC was being formed by the early church fathers in full force, but it would still take another 200 years to get that job done! What intrigues me is that the oral torah wasn't actually written down until about 200CE! That was way after Jesus's time, so he never had a copy of the Old Testament to read from. Then how was it that Jesus knew what the Old Testament said? Apparently Jesus didn't know that it wasn't Moses who wrote the first five books of the bible. Oh, well, he didn't exist anyway, but if he did, his folks would have lied to him, too! The stories of Moses and the Torah and Jesus and christianity just don't add up.

*************
M*W: Sorry, but this has long been disproven by biblical scholars and archeologists who also have proven that the Exodus didn't happen.

I did a poor man's skim on the subject (wikipedia). Compelling stuff.

Interesting...so, in your estimate, how much is left that is actually based on actual events?

Also, curious that this idea has not been adopted into the mainstream Christianity...at least in the average Christian....course the average Christian doesn't even read the Bible lol

what your doing is a logical fallacy, called a generic fallacy you cant use the same source to verify itself, what extra-sources do you have to verify your beliefs.
no

what I am saying is that something is verified by practice

I am not saying that something is verified by theory
I am not saying that something is verified by belief (although one can believe in something that turns out being true - like for instance you could believe the advice of your doctor and save yourself a trip to the operation theater several months down the track)

I know the answer is none, so do go away and get an education you've been on these boards, for some time now unfortunately, but you've learnt nothing.
it appears you haven't learnt much either since you are still making the same argument you gave since day one

I could study every word of the gospels and come to the same conclusion. I could study every popular nursery rhyme and still conclude that they are fiction. Jesus, even if he existed, is still almost 100% fiction.
I guess things would get dynamic if you came to the level of practice

The writers of religious scripture borrow ideas from past scriptures, and liberally embellish new ideas for what they think will help them gain more followers and power. That is it.
or alternatively, they give details on how one has to be (ie free from the pushings of lust, etc) in order to know something of the claims given



Well, I know one thing for sure - I know a man can not write a document and proclaim "THIS ENABLES ME TO KNOW GOD!"
its not clear what the reason would be that prevents a person writing details of their experience in knowing god - unless you know that there is no god ... and I think we have been down that road before .....

lg
re Normative. I wish you would stop using this term.
You know no-one understands it.
It just causes confusion.
How would you suggest I state it then?

no
what I am saying is that something is verified by practice I'm fed up to the back teeth with your inanely stupid replies, how can you verify an imagined/non-existent thing through practice, for F sake man use your head.
Show how the thing is not imagined/non-existent first, then you can say your above comment with intelligence, and pride.
Else shut the F up, you're boring.

re: Normative.

How would you suggest I state it then?

Keep using it if that's the only way you have of explaining what you mean, but keep in mind that no-one knows what you are talking about.

I did a poor man's skim on the subject (wikipedia). Compelling stuff.

Interesting...so, in your estimate, how much is left that is actually based on actual events?
*************
M*W: That I don't know. That's why I'm still searching for the truth. I have a feeling that my search will never end, if that gives you some kind of estimate.

Also, curious that this idea has not been adopted into the mainstream Christianity... at least in the average Christian....course the average Christian doesn't even read the Bible lol
*************
M*W: That's a good question. There are at least three biblical scholars (seminary graduates) of both Catholic and Protestant affiliations who are publishing on the passe ideas of the virgin birth, the trinity, and the resurrection not having occurred. Dominic Crossan is one of my favorite christian scholars. There area also Lee Strobel and John Spong who write on the modernization of christianity to disclude the above topics in that they are not necessary requirements of belief in modern christianity. There may be a lot more scholars who are following this trend, but I don't usually read material especially if it is filed under religious/christian fiction. Most christian-related books are filed under this heading. And sadly, some of the better scholarly works of christian related topics are filed in the New Age section! (But that's in Barnes-n-Noble's stores) where I shop.

I believe you are correct when you say the average christian doesn't read the bible. With a more educated and modernized society, I don't hear of many people reading the bible anymore, but then I'm not a part of that sector anyway. I would think that most believers would have a problem with some of the bible stories. Now with communications devices at our fingertips that faster than a speeding bullet, the bible just doesn't hold up as an antiquated communications device. Christianity is on a worldwide downward spiral, so its holy book is also falling out of popularity along with it. The question to ask would be, "Is christianity serving its believers in modern society?" I believe it has fallen short. Churches across America are closing down due to a decreasing population. People are busier these days trying to survive on two incomes. The megachurches that are televised seem to be packed full of beleivers, but who really knows? When we are used to megamarts for shopping, maybe everyone's going to the megachurches, and god help those who are taken in by the televangelists.

But back to your question about mainstream christianity. I have read there is a trend in christian seminaries today to downplay the virgin birth, trinity, and the resurrection. I would recommend reading Dominic Crossan's scholarly approach to this question.

I don't have much hope for christianity to adequately minister to a modern society. Perhaps with new generations of priest, pastors and parishoners, a happy medium may be found, but I doubt it. People aren't dumb. They've been waiting 2,000 years for Jesus to come back like the holy book promised he would. Well, he's seven years too late, and the light's not on at the door. Maybe he got side-tracked? Maybe there was an emergency at some other place in the universe? Maybe he decided not to come after all? Then the son-of-a-bitch should have RSVP'd! Is this really the kind of god we should believe in after all?

Else shut the F up, you're boring.
*************
M*W: To be sure!

I'm fed up to the back teeth with your inanely stupid replies, how can you verify an imagined/non-existent thing through practice, for F sake man use your head.
you do realize that your above statement is just another way of saying "I have direct perception god doesn't exist" - I think we have discussed how inane this is already

Show how the thing is not imagined/non-existent first, then you can say your above comment with intelligence, and pride.
and without coming to the platform of practice (built on the foundation of theory of course) how do you propose one establish that something exists (particularly things that are beyond the direct perception of your average joe - like electrons, etc)?


Else shut the F up, you're boring.
you have unresolved anger issues

Amazing.

post 32I rest my case, nothing more need be said.