ditchmyster

iTrader: (7)

Exactly.

thenewgalaxy

Yes, for all the good points he makes he, in my opinion, feels the need to push his point of view too far.

Fundamentalists exist in religion and aethiesm.

JTaylor

I just wanted to clarify the highlighted point. By saying I view the Fall as allegorical I mean its illustration in the Bible, for example I do not believe there was an actual talking snake, a literal tree of knowledge or a physical forbidden fruit. I did not and do not mean that the Fall itself is allegorical. For me the fall of man is evidentially correct, man has and is fallen and Jesus Christ is his saviour.

warrenm2

Nurse! Its medication time again!

Blue by You

iTrader: (23)

All joking aside, I hope He gets His finger out before it's too late.

JTaylor

I hope that man gets his finger out before it's too late.

JTaylor

On another thread you've accused cultural Marxists of attempting to gag the right using smear campaigns and yet you've used the very same tactic here to link liberal Christianity to mental illness. You're clearly impressed by the Frankfurt School, after all imitation is the highest form of flattery.

warrenm2

I'm not gagging you, you go right ahead, doesn't mean I won't pick up on your points and say why I think you're suffering from delusion. If you want to rebut that, go for it.

Cultural Marxism is about destroying society, there is nothing impressive about that

JTaylor

According to the conspiracists, cultural Marxism seeks to subvert traditional western cultural norms - if anything falls in to said category then surely it's Christianity. You're unwittingly batting for the opposition (so to speak), a полезные дураки as the Communists would call people like you. Your charge that to follow Christ is delusional would appear cogent and joined-up if you were a leafleteer for the SWP, but in fact you rattle postboxes at the other end of the political spectrum.

Which of Christ's teachings do you reject?

warrenm2

Thanks for the useful fools label - you learn something everyday (if you try!). Yes its true western cultural norms have historically been very much Christian based. Yes its true I support a lot of things that are traditionally called "Christian", do unto your neighbour etc, turn other cheek, good Samaritan, that kind of thing. I am happy, even think its desirable, for people to continue to hold those views. That is the baby, and I want to keep it, its the rest of the dirty bathwater that must go. So no, I do not accept I am batting (inadvertently) for the opposition. You can have decent morality, and a strong society, without the religious baggage that goes with it. Here's a helpful poster....





P.S. Liked that postboxes line, nice turn of phrase!

JTaylor

Yet that poster talks about literalism. In my initial clarifying post I explicitly state "I do not believe there was an actual talking snake, a literal tree of knowledge or a physical forbidden fruit." To me, when I read that poster I feel nothing more than a smidgen of frustration that its producer simply doesn't get Christianity. I think that progressive and liberal and theistic evolutionist Christians are to be encouraged and applauded for endeavouring to build a bridge between the material truths of modernity and the spiritual truths of scripture. TE seeks to un-muddy the waters and very much keep the baby. I discovered, despite my best efforts, that attempting Jeffersonian Christianity (all the good philosophic stuff without that which is faith based) is like building a house of cards. As Kevin DeYoung puts it, "the man who attempts Christianity without the church shoots himself in the foot, shoots his children in the leg, and shoots his grandchildren in the heart."

When a child asks you about Jesus of Nazareth, please don't show them that poster, but instead teach them about Christ's altruism, what he gave up for humanity and that he tried to teach us how to be better at being human. Give them the gift of a seed that can grow into something beautiful.

Maz

iTrader: (34)

Please James, you can't expect an insular, greedy, xenophobic and committed capitalist to care for anyone other than himself.

warrenm2

OK fair point, you did say that about forbidden fruit etc. I disagree though, in that the poster producer DOES get Christianity, its just you don't hold a traditional (more literal) view of it. I have said I am happy that people promote good, societally beneficial values you describe. But there are plenty of examples of self sacrifice around that are not rooted in fantasy, but real world events. We even recognise them with bits of metal we call Victoria Crosses for example, or erect large columns in busy parts of London with their image. You say that you cant (or give a quote to be accurate) separate out the good moral guidance part from the rest despite what you prefer. Fine, like I said, you can have good morals without being religious, they are not mutually exclusive. Therefore humanity does not need religion at all and all the baggage it brings.

By subscribing to and defending Christianity, you do however still seem to believe and want to retain the idea that there is an omnipotent superbeing, that we should suspend critical thinking and just accept the supernatural element. Sorry but that ain't ever going to happen. As for the church and organised religion aspects, we are now moving into the more harm than good territory.

JTaylor

Do you deny the historicity of Christ's crucifixion?

To avoid regurgitating other people's work I'd like to invite you to read 'the moral argument'. Have a look at Kant and C.S.Lewis if you find the time.

Additionally, Christ railed against being 'religious', see the Pharisees.

I do believe in a supreme being, but I do not think or feel that we should suspend critical thinking and "just accept" the supernatural; as I wrote earlier, my journey from atheism to theism took twenty years. I'm an evidentialist and only resort to presuppositionalism when conversing with other theists.

The church is a key part of Christianity, I'm reminded of Ephesians 2 20-22.

Apologies for the short form responses, but I fear we're dealing with topics too big for me to offer something with which I'd be satisfied. Please feel free to ask me specifics and I can then provide a bit more substance.

warrenm2

I'm happy to accept someone got crucified then (even though the details as reported don't work - ie nailing through the hands simply rips the hand apart and you fall off). Not happy to accept they are the "son of god" "dying for our sins" or any other meaning attached to the event.


Fair point, however a) I think the time required is better invested elsewhere as b) if the argument was any good it would be utilised already. Seeing as it is not, I don't feel there would be any undiscovered pearls of wisdom within

Maybe its my definition of religious, but claiming to be the son of god, whilst after the 10thC, being part of a trinity, is pretty much a definition of religious to my mind

A religious evidentialist ?! Talk about oxymoron! Do tell what evidence you are convinced by! I'm happy to debate points with you (up to a point - this takes time!) but here you've completely veered off into delusion. How can anyone take a statement like that seriously?

And thats how the Church likes it - now where's your tithe?

They are preferred TBH, I have seen some real verbose crap from you in the past which thankfully seems to be a phase you went through and have now left behind. This is a public BB, not a university debating society, shorter answers are more appropriate.

Well then, this is an opportunity to hone the skill of expressing your ordered thoughts clearly and concisely in a way that everyone can follow. My only question is above, you claim to base your beliefs on evidence (as do I) - what evidence have you come across of the sky fairy?

RobJenks

He is too busy managing black holes , quasars and keeping the secret of black matter and black energy from us.

JTaylor

Are you happy to accept that it was Jesus Christ who was crucified? Also, whilst I understand your point regarding the positioning of the nails, it's worth considering that He would have supported much of His weight on His legs. John 20:25-27 says that Jesus had wounds in his 'hands', but the Greek word for hands is interchangeable with the word for wrists. Either way, whilst the wounds of Jesus are spiritually significant, their exact positioning is of minor importance.

I'd like the opportunity to build my case for the moral argument if you'll allow me to.

I'm not sure why you place the advent of the trinity after the 10th century, perhaps you could clarify for me.

Again, given the opportunity I'd like to present my case.

This charge could be true of reformation period Catholicism, but what is your evidence that the New Testament church and that of contemporary baptist denominations is centred around tithing? My direct experience has been very different.

Thanks for the encouragement.

None.

warrenm2

LOL I don't have any power here to grant or deny anything. If you want to build a case, go for it. If its straightforward and engaging, presents arguments Ive never thought of, then I could well engage. If its dull, rehashing old crap and intellectually pathetic then I'll probably not bother. How thick a skin do you have?

Ah yes was thinking of the Council of Nicaea, which upon checking was much earlier. I stand corrected

Well, it seems like you're barking up the wrong tree then (with the emphasis on barking!)

Geezer

I do. There are no contemporay accounts of it whatsoever, and the actual historical timeline in the NT does not correllate with the events as recorded at the time.

JTaylor

Warren, you asked "what evidence have you come across of the sky fairy?", well, I do not recall ever having claimed to believe in a "sky fairy". Should you ask me about my evidence for belief in the Christian God, I will happily present my case.

Shaid

He is not a Christian God!

He IS just God.

For all not only for Christians.

Shaid

Or maybe he favours aliens instead.

JTaylor

I'm a trinitarian, Shaid, not a unitarian. I believe Christ was and is God incarnate, whereas a Muslim holds Christ as a prophet. In fact I understand that, like Geezer, Muslims deny His crucifixion.

JTaylor

By denying the historicity of Jesus' crucifixion you place yourself in a tiny minority (excluding Muslims). The most strident of atheist historians and scholars accept that the man Jesus of Nazareth was crucified!

warrenm2

*sigh* its just a turn of phrase - you know exactly what I mean. So what is your "evidence for belief in the Christian God"?

Geezer

It is a growing minority, 300 years ago I would have been part of a tiny minority that didnt believe in God, and look at things now.

It doesn't change the fact that there is no contemporary account. Period. The gospels were written by people who would not have met him. Of course that's not to say that someone you have not met did not exist, of course, but they were after the fact, and considering Herod and the Romans (and Ciaphas) considered him to be dangerous enough to kill, there is no mention of him. However, we do have records of other criminals at the time.

Turbohot

Thing is, even if Jesus was real, and even when Jesus's teachings are fantastic, I don't think anyone who says that Jesus is the ONLY way to God, is anything but blinded. Fair enough, you're entitled to your beliefs, as holding on to your specific teacher Jesus must be giving you something! But other faiths also offer very good teachings, one can pick and choose from all faiths, and there are many other sons and daughters of God knocking about.

In fact, all of us are sons and daughters of Him. We're all the path to God if we are good to each other. Jesus has left some good stuff behind for us to think about, and I appreciate that. The climatic image of Jesus's crucifixion should teach a lot to people. It teaches me something, but for that, I don't need to become institutionalised, go to church on regular basis, and concrete my belief that Jesus is the ONLY way to God. He's NOT the ONLY way to God.

Yet again, some people want and need to become institutionalised to church or alike, have Jesus or alike as their role model etc. Each to their own.

JTaylor

First, I must acknowledge that the existence of God cannot be proved or disproved, at least not in a way that might be correctly described as conclusive. However, I’ve come to accept that there’s such overwhelming evidence to support the existence of a personal, creator God that unbelief would be intellectually and spiritually dishonest. Whilst my brand of apologetics can be accurately described as evidentialist, I feel compelled to clarify and must acknowledge that scripture, the inspired Word of God, has ultimate authority and is my primary source text. It must be stated then that the Bible says this, “And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to Him must believe that He exists and that He rewards those who earnestly seek Him” (Hebrews 11:6) and “Then Jesus told him, ‘Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed’” (John 20:29). This can be rightfully read as meaning faith alone is sufficient for salvation or, as it is within Protestant nomenclature, the doctrine of ‘sola fide’. Nonetheless, as someone who came to faith as a seeker (and the sought, but I’ll come to that later) I entirely understand the need for rational, considered and cogent discourse when witnessing to the agnostic and the atheist.

The Bible states, “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of His hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge. There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard. Their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world” (Psalm 19: 1-4). In other words, if I may be so bold, the evidence for God’s creation is all around us. I became spectacularly aware of this towards the end of my journey from atheism to theism. Below is an extract from a post I made in June 2011, about six months before I came to faith:

Quote:

If God is a place-marker for the unknown, I know it exists; if God is the Universe, I Know it exists; if God is the source of all life, I know it exists; if God is the Sun, I know it exists; if God is our collective consciousness, I know it exists; if God is the sum of human knowledge, I know it exists; if God is my conscience, I know it exists; if God gave rise to beauty, love, happiness, wisdom and fidelity after 3.8 billion years of evolution, I know it exists and if God is abiogenesis, I know it exists. If God is a bird singing, an act of true altruism, a baby's first breath, Mozart, sunset from Vesuvius, sunrise from Table Mountain, the eyes of a chimpanzee or my mother's unconditional love, I know God exists. If God is my desire to find truth and my sense of self beyond the atoms that make up my body, I know it exists.

Take each of these things, and a thousand others, and you have my God.

You’ll notice that I (ignorantly) use the word ‘it’ to describe God. At this stage I acknowledged a pantheistic God concept, but not a personal, Christian God and I felt a non-anthropomorphic description best fitted my beliefs of the time.

From (Ecclesiastes 3:11), “He has also set eternity in the hearts of men.” I’d felt this sense of the eternal from a young boy when I first looked up to the heavens, nonetheless the Bible also states, “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God’” (Psalm 14:1). Like most, I needed logical arguments before I could leap to faith. I needed evidence.

The challenge with the kind of pantheistic view of the universe illustrated above is that it doesn’t solve the problem of infinite regress. To say that “all is God” works until one asks “who or what created the all?” The cosmological argument answers that question. Every effect must have a cause. This universe and everything in it is an effect. There must be something that caused everything to come into existence. That uncaused cause, or ‘unmoved mover’ as Aristotle described Him, is God. Even when this is countered with the question of the multiverse, infinite regress is simply moved further back. The only satisfactory answer is God. Who created God? No one or no thing - God is supernatural and eternal, the uncreated creator.

Exhibit B is the argument from design or the teleological argument. If the earth were significantly closer or further away from the sun, it would not be capable of supporting the life it does. If the elements in our atmosphere were even a few percentage points different, nearly every living thing on earth would die. The odds of a single protein molecule forming by chance is 1 in 10 to the power 243 (that is a 1 followed by 243 zeros). A single cell is comprised of millions of protein molecules. The odds of us being here are virtually infinite and yet here we are, reading and writing and playing and working and breathing and singing. This can again be countered by the question of the multiverse. The teleological argument’s detractors will say that within an infinite number of universes it necessarily follows that one of them will have the exact parameters upon which sentient life is contingent. So did we simply win the lottery? I’d refer my opponent in this to the preceding paragraph and point out that even infinity has a beginning and that only the eternal does not!

The ontological argument uses the concept of God to prove God’s existence. If the definition of God is “a being than which no greater can be conceived” then to exist is greater than to not exist and therefore the greatest conceivable being must exist. If God did not exist, then God would not be the greatest conceivable being, and that would contradict the very definition of God. A thinking atheist will dismiss this as sophistry, but I am of the view (perhaps controversially) that we are hard-wired to seek God; as Cicero put it, “Nature herself has imprinted on the minds of all the idea of God."

A fourth argument is known as the moral argument. CS Lewis argued that "conscience reveals to us a moral law whose source cannot be found in the natural world, thus pointing to a supernatural Lawgiver.” John Henry Newman said that the conscience supports the claim that objective moral truths exist because it drives people to act morally even when it is not in their own interest. If there is an objective moral truth, a distinct right from wrong, and I believe there is, then there must be an authoritative God.

So, if I came to reason my way to belief in a monotheistic, creator God, why not Judaism or Islam? Well, I wanted to know God, and I realised that this lofty ambition could be realised through Jesus Christ. Jesus says, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” (John 14:6) If I wanted to know the Father, there was only one path!

I now realise that the Lord our shepherd came looking for me as a lost sheep and that he was the door to life. All I had to do was knock and the door was opened. I accept that this is not scientific and the evidence - my proof - of the Son’s divinity resides within the deep recesses of my heart. I hope that I can show my friends and family the miraculous workings of Jesus through the transformation in my own life and that they too may come to know His beauty and perfection.

Nonetheless, the Bible says that people will reject the knowledge of God and believe a lie instead. Romans 1:25 tells us that, “They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised.” And that, “For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—His eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse” (Romans 1:20).

It is my view that to reject God on the grounds that it’s not scientific or because there is a lack of ‘proof’ is an excuse. It strikes me that if God exists, then we are accountable to Him for our actions. If God does not exist, then we can do whatever we want without having to worry about God judging us. Additionally, to accept Christ as Lord and Saviour is an admission that we are not our own gods - this is a lot of power to give up! My final observation is that those who most stridently deny Him become the closest to seeing His truth - the Apostle Paul being the most famous illustration of this fact. To borrow a few lines from Francis Thompson’s The Hound of Heaven:

Faith in God is not a blind leap into the dark; it is a safe step into a well-lit room!

Geezer

So in essence, you believe in God because you find it virtually impossible that all this is here without being created? But, what are the chances of al an all powerful being? Far less than any of the things you mention as unlikely.

Simply saying God has always been etc, is just lazy, it doesn't address the fundamental issue. Infinite regress is an issue for science and religion, but for science, they simply say "we don't know yet, insufficient data". God is uncreated creator, come on, that's such a cop out.

One of the issues with your claim for protein formation is that you assume a protein molecule has to form completely without any prior steps. However, this is not the case. Like all evolution, it takes place in steps, and protein molecules did not spontaneously zap in to existence as you propose, which I agree, would be very unlikely.

The process of getting started, however, could take very little time indeed. You are then into the realms of evolution, which as we know, can skip along.

There is evidence that new proteins have formed within recent times. That is new, not evolved, so the process is still going on now.

Turbohot

I love God!