|
God
Jan 7, 2006 6:55:39 GMT -4
Post by PeterB on Jan 7, 2006 6:55:39 GMT -4
DH quoted:
And yet there have been, and continue to be, unrighteous people in the world.
Why do three-quarters of the world's population not adhere to Christianity if it's so self-evidently correct? Think carefully about this, because by far most of the people who become Christians in the world live in Europe, North or South America, or Sub-Saharan Africa. Yet Christianity is a religion accessible to most of the world's population.
|
|
|
God
Jan 8, 2006 4:41:16 GMT -4
Post by turbonium on Jan 8, 2006 4:41:16 GMT -4
I don't like the word 'atheist' as it usually implies some sort of militant viewpoint and that there is a set of beliefs of some kind involved. But surely this God stuff is all nonsense isn't it? Belief in The Bible is no more reasonable than belief in Ovid's Metamorphoses or Norse Sagas. (Or, indeed, to use the old analogies, Santa Claus, pixies or leprechauns.) This guy puts it pretty well (warning: quite long articles). He does get a bit militant and angry but his points are mostly valid. And the final few paragraphs of the second piece are quite beautiful. Getting back to the original issue here, I think that we need to make the distinction between "God" and "religion". The author of the linked articles uses the fictional "Santa Claus" as a metaphor for "God" as a fictional character, or at least as being an entity not proven to exist. The main argument he makes, however, are how present-day interpretations of Biblical passages have been imposed on Western society as dogma that unjustly restricts individual freedoms. "God", however, can also be viewed as something other than a "person" as ascribed through the Bible or the Torah. or as Allah in the Koran, or polytheistic "Gods" as "beings" in Hindu scriptures. "God" is also equated by some to not be a person or being, but rather, for example, as the Absolute Infinite (as posited by the mathematician Cantor).
Others may not believe in the personification of a "God", but relate the word to an infinite, universal, all-encompassing "power" or "force" that we are too limited to comprehend as humans. Others think that "we" are all part of a collective Universe that defines "God" as "All That Is". The basic point I'm making is that the main argument of the author would be more convincing if he had understood and thus clarified that it is not an unproven "God" he has a problem with, but rather the societal imposition of religious dogmas. He seems to declare himself an atheist not so much because he sees no proof of God's existence, but primarily over how "believers in God" have unjustly prohibited his free will, and declared how he must conduct himself within society. I would think the author would oppose the same edicts and dogmas which he feels infringe on his freedoms today (with no proof that "God" exists) as he would if proof of "God" ever was found to undeniably exist. I don't disagree with that view, either. But whether one is an atheist or not is quite simply irrelevant. to his main point of contention.
|
|
|
God
Jan 8, 2006 15:27:17 GMT -4
Post by Dead Hoosiers on Jan 8, 2006 15:27:17 GMT -4
DH quoted: And yet there have been, and continue to be, unrighteous people in the world. Why do three-quarters of the world's population not adhere to Christianity if it's so self-evidently correct? Think carefully about this, because by far most of the people who become Christians in the world live in Europe, North or South America, or Sub-Saharan Africa. Yet Christianity is a religion accessible to most of the world's population. The scripture I posted doesn't say that Christianity is self-evident. It's says God put into all people the knowledge that they didn't happen by accident, witnessed by creation and the witness of our own hearts. The message of the good news must be preached to the world--it is not otherwise known. 1Cr 1:21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. Europe and N. America are now post-Christian and are turning back to materialism and paganism. Mexico and South America are finally being evangelized and people are leaving the Roman Catholic Church in droves. There is a huge underground church in China. As for Africa, I need to look up what's going on there. False gospels and Roman Catholicism don't count as Christianity. We're in an age of apostasy and Jesus said this would take place before He returns. The Gospel of John tells us that people won't come to the light because their deeds are evil. I have seen this to be true in the lives of people I personally know. The Lord calls people to die to self-interest and put on His yoke and follow Him. Not a popular teaching with this arrogant and self-obsessed generation. The gospel has not made much progress in the middle east--evangelists and believers being murdered as quickly as they are discovered. The true church is persecuted throughout the world and you must see the signs that it will be starting here in America pretty soon. Mat 7:14 Because strait [is] the gate, and narrow [is] the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. There is a powerful, malevolent entity with a singled-minded mission of keeping the world in ignorance of the freedom that has been purchased for it and destroying God's creation. He works by spreading false information that appeals to men's corrupt natures.
|
|
|
God
Jan 8, 2006 23:06:10 GMT -4
Post by Data Cable on Jan 8, 2006 23:06:10 GMT -4
[Scripture] says God put into all people the knowledge that they didn't happen by accident... As previously stated: I do not posses this knowledge. God could not also "put into all people" this knowledge as well? It seems to me, if an omnipotent being wants His/Her/Its imperfect creations to behave in a certain manner, He/She/It would convey that information directly to said creations, rather than depend on those creations to spread it amongst themselves. Or, for that matter, simply prevent proscribed behavior from the realm of possibility. And that entity's name: Bart Sibrel. Thank you, thank you. I'll be here all week. Try the veal. All kidding aside (and all irreverence front-and-center), if said malevolent being exists, it is because God wants him/her/it to exist.
|
|
|
God
Jan 9, 2006 1:31:52 GMT -4
Post by PeterB on Jan 9, 2006 1:31:52 GMT -4
DH said:
Heh. Read the stats. Church attendance in the USA is higher now than at any time in history.
At the time of Independence, one person in six went to church. At the time of the Civil War, it was 1 in 3. A century ago it was 1 in 2. Now it's 2 in 3.
Jesus also said he'd return before the death of some of those he was speaking to...
|
|
|
God
Jan 9, 2006 16:11:23 GMT -4
Post by bughead on Jan 9, 2006 16:11:23 GMT -4
This is from the CIA World Factbook:
Religions: Christians 32.84% (of which Roman Catholics 17.34%, Protestants 5.78%, Orthodox 3.44%, Anglicans 1.27%), Muslims 19.9%, Hindus 13.29%, Buddhists 5.92%, Sikhs 0.39%, Jews 0.23%, other religions 12.63%, non-religious 12.44%, atheists 2.36% (2003 est.)
So according to this, the non-religious and the atheists total 17% of this planet's sentient population. Almost as many as Catholics, more than the Hindus, and, surprisingly given the ways things are reported to us, not that many less than the Muslims.
According to mainstream religious belief (any of the above) God or some designated agent thereof came along and told everybody the truth.
Add the "other religions" in as variations on freethinking and searchers for alternatives to the "majority" beliefs, and you get almost 30%, close to a third of the planet that doesn't want to buy in to someone else's trip.
If Yeshu ben Josef of Nazareth was the one-and-only son of a one-and-only god, shouldn't he have a bigger market share after 2000 years, and the worlds largest ad campaign (Missionaries) during the European expansion?
|
|
|
God
Jan 9, 2006 19:38:23 GMT -4
Post by echnaton on Jan 9, 2006 19:38:23 GMT -4
If Yeshu ben Josef of Nazareth was the one-and-only son of a one-and-only god, shouldn't he have a bigger market share after 2000 years, and the worlds largest ad campaign (Missionaries) during the European expansion? Not that I agree with DH, but while you are probably being somewhat sarcastic, this line of argument is starting to sound like some of our hoax believers. Religion (that is human manifestations of the perceptions of spirituality) really is a bit more complex than this. Unlike DH, most Christians are very happy to let others live their own lives with their own faith and feel perfectly free to let God, not men, judge over the individuals fate.
|
|
|
God
Jan 9, 2006 21:35:05 GMT -4
Post by bughead on Jan 9, 2006 21:35:05 GMT -4
Yah, I was being a bit sarky with that, but the point is I don't think anybody can claim a monopoly on the truth. Also, pointing out that the word jesus did not originally apply to the man.
I've read books about this OTHER THAN the Bible.
|
|
|
God
Jan 9, 2006 22:27:43 GMT -4
Post by echnaton on Jan 9, 2006 22:27:43 GMT -4
...but the point is I don't think anybody can claim a monopoly on the truth. Quite true. All of us are subject to the same failings whether it is attributed to original sin or not. Claiming a monopoly on the truth is a fundament failing whether one is religious or an atheist.
|
|
|
God
Jan 13, 2006 1:53:39 GMT -4
Post by Dead Hoosiers on Jan 13, 2006 1:53:39 GMT -4
PeterB & Bughead: It all depends on whose stats you're using. The churches themselves put the numbers much lower. All major denominations in American and Europe report a steep falling off.
echnaton: Any Christian who is content to see others live in darkness and/or go to hell without speaking up isn't worthy of the name. We are commanded by Jesus Christ to take the gospel to the ends of the world.
I'd just like to clarify here that the gospel is a declaration and not an argument and we are responsible only for proclaiming it--not for making people believe it and anyone who attempts to use anything other than reason to persuade (i.e. "cramming," persecution, killing, imprisonment) is disobeying the Lord ("be harmless as doves"). It has become fashionable these days to accuse anyone who proclaims, explains or defends the gospel of being a "crammer." Try not to be so fashionable. It's lazy and dishonest.
So when you see an oh-so-"tolerant" Christian who remains silent when he should speak up, the odds are good that he isn't a Christian at all. The same goes for those who harm others in an attempt to "save" them.
If a person doesn't want to hear, our instructions are to move on and not cast our pearls before swine. They have a judge.
|
|
|
God
Jan 13, 2006 2:34:51 GMT -4
Post by Dead Hoosiers on Jan 13, 2006 2:34:51 GMT -4
Back to the original topic...............for the interested only. This material is not copyrighted. The author is Dave Hunt. I'm going to post a couple of excerpts along with the link to the entire article from his monthly newsletters. They're fairly short. "...It is unreasonable to believe that man is nothing more than his material body and that death ends one's existence. The conceptual ideas which we express in words are not physical, nor are we. The paper and ink conveying this article have nothing to do with the ideas being expressed. They could just as well be communicated by audio- or videotape, by radio, or Morse or binary code. Only a nonphysical intelligence not matter can form conceptual ideas and express them in words. Neural activity in brain cells does not originate our thoughts or we would be at the mercy of our brains: "What will my brain think up next?!" Wilder Penfield, one of the world's leading neurosurgeons, declared, "The brain is a computer programmed by something independent of itself, the mind." ... thebereancall.org/Newsletters/2002+Newsletters/4464.aspx"...It is not easy for God to reveal Himself. It requires a passion to know Him on our part. How can He help those who, if He worked a miracle in response to their cry, would give credit to Buddha, to Allah, or to some "spirit" or idol or occult force? Reinforcing faith in false gods would not be a kindness but would only grease the road to hell. God hides Himself-yet not from those who can see, only from those who cannot. The ego of man is so inflated that it obscures the God who fills the universe, whose infinite wisdom and power are conspicuous in every leaf and star.... thebereancall.org/Newsletters/1993+Newsletters/7404.aspxI'll put up something soon about the Bible (the New Testament, actually) being the most thoroughly documented ancient book(s) in the world. Phantomwolf was correct is saying there is more evidence supporting the existence of Jesus than there is for the existence of Caesar. Are those links working?
|
|
|
God
Jan 13, 2006 11:28:48 GMT -4
Post by bughead on Jan 13, 2006 11:28:48 GMT -4
If say you have more evidence for Jesus than Caesar, I'll question it. If you want to count "books referring to" as evidence, I can prove Archie and Jughead exist.
If Jesus's life is so well documented then were does the "quest for the historical jesus" come from? It came from people saying "how do we know any of that happened?" Yes, there are ancient memos referring to him in the historical record. Same for Caesar. (I refer to the exchanges back on page 3)
Your quotes refer to Budda and Allah as false gods. Allah IS god, or God if you prefer, and Budda was not a god at all but a man. Early followers had to understand what he said within a larger previous cultural context, and so they elevated the man along with his words. Zen Buddists reject most if not all of the "supernatural" aspects of Budda, and concentrate on trying to do what he told them: sit down, shut up and quit wanting so much.
Yeshu ben Josef had equally interesting and socially useful things to say. Afterword, several different religious ideas and predictions were melded together in his story so that his existence would validate several different beliefs.
I have as much "evidence" that several apostles dug him up and ate the body as I do that he became undead, unwrapped himself from winding sheets, rolled the big rock away and walked off.
|
|
|
God
Jan 14, 2006 11:38:17 GMT -4
Post by Joe Durnavich on Jan 14, 2006 11:38:17 GMT -4
Dead Hoosiers quoted Dave Hunt:
The conceptual ideas which we express in words are not physical, nor are we. The paper and ink conveying this article have nothing to do with the ideas being expressed. They could just as well be communicated by audio- or videotape, by radio, or Morse or binary code.
Only a nonphysical intelligence not matter can form conceptual ideas and express them in words.
This argument is circular. It assumes that there are "conceptual ideas" or "thoughts" in us and that these exist separately from our speech, our actions, and the contexts they occur in. It also assumes that these entities consist of some type of non-physical substance. It goes on to conclude that there must exist a non-physical creator that can form these non-physical entities.
The notion that conceptual ideas and thoughts refer to distinct entities is just folk psychology. It is one of the network of common metaphors we use, being a handy way we talk about intelligent activity. We covered some of this ground in the Evolution of Spirituality thread, where turbonium wondered if anger, for one, was such an ethereal entity to be found inside us.
Neural activity in brain cells does not originate our thoughts or we would be at the mercy of our brains: "What will my brain think up next?!"
True, you won't find thoughts in the brain, but it does not follow that thoughts, then, must exist somewhere else. Since thoughts are not distinct entities--physical or spiritual--there is no need to discover where their home is or what caused them.
Wilder Penfield, one of the world's leading neurosurgeons, declared, "The brain is a computer programmed by something independent of itself, the mind." ...
Speaking more straightforwardly, people learn from their environment and from others. Through ongoing study and practice, people accomplish more in their lives.
|
|
|
God
Jan 15, 2006 20:35:59 GMT -4
Post by PeterB on Jan 15, 2006 20:35:59 GMT -4
Dead Hoosier quoted Dave Hunt:
Interesting idea. The problem is that we can look at chimpanzees and other primates and see in them in a shadowy form the things which make us human. Chimps recognise themselves in a mirror. Capuchin monkeys can plan a complex process of events to bring about a desired result. Various primates can consider situations from the point of view of another, and act accordingly. A range of animals can, effectively, lie.
Put together, this means that whatever, can we assume that animals have souls? If so, how far through the animal kingdom do they exist?
|
|
|
God
Jan 16, 2006 15:01:08 GMT -4
Post by bughead on Jan 16, 2006 15:01:08 GMT -4
I've seen Goldfish and Corydoras cats go into mourning when a tankmate dies. Sometimes they never really cheer back up, and become a much less enthusiastic fish.
|
|