Part 17 of Post Your Tough Questions Regarding Christianity

Nope.. You said

That something is believed by your mind to be true does not make it true in reality.

Proof: Many Christians believe in their minds that Jesus was God. It can not be proved that Jesus was God and so this is not something that can be proven to be real.

It might well be a made up story just like the tooth fairy.

 

Common sense - Good sense and sound judgement in practical matters:
Reason - the power of the mind to think, understand, and form judgements logically.
Logic - reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.

 

The world is full of possibilities now, isn't it? Show proof that what I believe is wrong, in error or is incorrect.

 

Fear is a powerful motivator.

Imagine the existential crises that MR (or other Literalists) would face if he admitted ONE thing in the Bible wasn't true or accurate?

It would immediately open up the possibility of OTHER things not being true or accurate to him......including the Resurrection.

 

Always comes back to that doesn't it?

When asked for evidence that the Bible is true and accurate?.....they cite the Bible. Or they cite some Literalist/Creationist website that never actually comes up with proof of Noah's Flood....just theories on how it COULD have happened. Or never actually proves Creationism...just tries to punch holes in evolution. Or pulls up some random comment by a scribe in Rome--"See? See? This Roman historian 50 years after Jesus dies mentions a 'Christian cult'....that PROVES that Jesus died on the Cross and rose from the dead 3 days later!"


But in the end? It's all about "The Bible proves...that the Bible is true!"

- - - Updated - - -

Incorp loves saying that.....except if you ask him, there is ONE world that cannot POSSIBLY exist?

The world where he is wrong.

 

Maybe you should check with some of the other non-theists... I have sent out PM's to such people admitting to my being wrong on those particular subject matter. Admittedly, the number of occasions are small, but it does happen.

 

So anything you post could be suspect for being in error, then???

 

Well of course... just like with you,,,, unless you are claiming that you are never wrong (which would require proof of claim).

 

To what belief do you refer ?

 

These:

I believe that Jesus is the Son of God, was born of a virgin, was crucified on a cross, died and was ressurected after three days, now sits at the right hand of God. I also believe that the Holy Spirit is our Counsellor (adviser) and Comforter.

 

That's nice. The fact that you believe such things does not make them true. You are welcome to believe what you wish.

Believing something and being able to prove that belief is true are two different things.

 

Do you believe all of the scientific principles that are talked about? Do you believe any of the scientific principles other than the laws of nature?

 

What I believe has no bearing on the fact that "belief in something" does not prove that something is true.

To answer your question though. If there is a God, and God created the laws of nature, then the laws of nature are of God.

When I look out at nature I wonder about the mystery of God revealed to us through nature... and by 'nature" I mean everything.

If God wanted humans to know "these are my laws and you "must" follow them" , then there would be no point in creating humans the way were are created. God could have just created robots. Clearly that is not what God wanted.

If God wanted humans to just blindly follow some list of rules, then he would have not given us other options. In fact we would not have a choice. We would be machines programed to do exactly what the maker wanted those machines to do.

That is not how humans were created so clearly our purpose is something other than blindly following God's rules.

There is no point in creating a being with the capability of reason and logic if you want that being to blindly follow rules. There is no point in giving that being the ability to think at all. There is no point to giving that being intelligence.

Why would I, or God, create a machine that is designed to do something different than what I intended it to do? A plane is not designed to swim in the ocean and a car is not designed to fly.

All you know is that you know. I think therefor I am. There is no point in you knowing anything (being aware of your own existence) if the purpose of your existence is to blindly follow instructions from God.

If God was even remotely serious about wanting to control humans, then he would control humans.

God does not even bother to show up from time to time in an effort to guide humans, never mind control them.

The one thing you know for sure is that you exist. The fact that you have knowledge of our existence is proof that God does not want you to blindly follow rules.

So don't. Quit doing what you were not intended to do. Quit accepting man made dogma as de facto - "the word of God" (not speaking of you personally but to everyone in general)

Why ? Because some the only things you know for a fact about God is that you do not know specifically what God wants you to do and that you were not created to blindly follow the rules of God.

 

What are the laws of Nature?

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/laws-of-nature/ Science includes many principles at least once thought to be laws of nature:............

 

God has hands?
How about legs and feet?
Ears/eyes/nose?

 

Sure it does. To the same degree you have envisioned my beliefs to be.

No argument with that. However, then comes the problem of the interpretation of those laws.

Agreed, with emphasis placed on "mystery of God".

Clearly you are using that fallible human intellect to determine what coulda/shouluda/woulda been done by God.

But as you pointed out, God gave us options... free will.

I agree, and the scripture agrees... Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needs not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

Logic as previously pointed out, is another one of those sets of man-made rules. So, is man to blindly follow the rules established by another who also has a fallible intelligence? Reason, as previously pointed out is also defined as 'normal thinking'. ... not necessarily consisting of a college degree of some type.

Well: about that car.... https://www.google.com/search?q=cab...DsQsAQ&biw=1366&bih=635#q=flying+car&tbm=isch Guess that there has to be exceptions.

Where did I say 'blindly follow'? I don't believe that I did make such a statement.

Another hypothetical.. a creature of your mind and that fallible human intellect. That is the argument most often presented by non-theists in their attempt to refute or discredit 'free will'.

"show up"? Are you speaking in reference to making a physical appearance? In my life, God shows up on a daily basis in and through the Holy Spirit to give to me the necessary guidance I require for my life. Is that Holy Spirit some physical abberation ???? Not hardly... look at the definitions of 'spirit' (excluding alcohol.. I don't drink that stuff).

I agree, however I must add that which you have stated as a restricted or limited knowledge is not accurate.

I agree, and that would or should also include the many things published by the scientific community.

I would will offer this stipulation to your comment: "... the only things you know for a fact about God is what God will permit you to know on a moment by moment basis when you are communing through the Holy Spirit.
Eph 6:18 Praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, and watching thereunto with all perseverance and supplication for all saints;

 

Try this one explaining in detail the nature of laws from a philosophical standpoint as those laws relate to science and or any other discipline.

Goodness... it is the same one that you are referencing. very interestting read.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/laws-of-nature/#BasQueWhaItLaw

 

Does spirit have form? Look up the meaningn of 'incorporeal'. (in the dictionary ... Not what you think my screen name represents).

 

Nature says 'You have lung cancer. You will die'. Science says 'Not necessarily. I can probably cure you now'.
Nature says 'You evolved to live on this planet'. Science says 'Don't worry. I can carry you off world' .

What have philosophers to do with it. Science is slowly dealing with some of the problems of nature. Laws are made to be broken as Adam and Eve found in Eden. (If you believe it)

 

Bad analogy. My wife died of Breast Cancer and science never said they could cure her.

Science says a lot of things, but they are not all 'true'. as evidenced by the cancer scenario you presented..

Are you suggesting that philosophy has nothing to do with science, thus barring philosophers from giving input into the scientific community? Break this law. jump off a tall building unaided by anything and see if you land safely; or drop a 100 lb anvil on your foot and see if it lands as softly as a feather would. Some laws are broken no doubt, but as to whether or not they are supposed to be broken is another matter.

 

There we are. And I always thought this chapter was all about strength, and prayer for that strength, not understanding.

What do you know about God that I, and millions of others, don't?

 

Does philosophy tell me that jumping off a tall building is suicidal - or science.

 

Question: "When were the Gospels written?"

Answer: It is important to understand that the dating of the Gospels and other New Testament books is at best an educated guess and at worst foolish speculation. For example, suggested dates for the writing of the Gospel of Matthew range from as early as A.D. 40 to as late as A.D. 140. This wide range of dates from scholars indicates the subjective nature of the dating process. Generally, one will find that the presuppositions of the scholars greatly influence their dating of the Gospels.

For example, in the past many liberal theologians have argued for a later dating of many of the New Testament books than is probably warranted or valid, in an attempt to discredit or cast doubts upon the content and authenticity of the Gospel accounts. On the other hand, there are many scholars who look to a much earlier dating of the New Testament books. There are some that believe there is good evidence to support the view that the whole New Testament, including Revelation, was written prior to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. It is our contention that the evidence supports the earlier dating more than it does the later dating.

There are scholars who believe the Gospel of Matthew was written as early as ten to twelve years after the death of Christ. Those who hold to this earlier dating of Matthew believe he first wrote his Gospel in Aramaic, and then it was later translated into Greek. One of the evidences of this earlier dating of Matthew’s Gospel is that early church leaders such as Irenaeus, Origen, and Eusebius recorded that Matthew first wrote his gospel for Jewish believers while he was still in Palestine. In fact Eusebius (a bishop of Caesarea and known as the father of church history) reported that Matthew wrote his Gospel before he left Palestine to preach in other lands, which Eusebius says happened about 12 years after the death of Christ. Some scholars believe that this would place the writing of Matthew as early as A.D. 40-45 and as late as A.D. 55.

Even if the Gospels were not written until 30 years after Christ’s death, that would still place the writing of them prior to the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. This presents no major problem with their authority or accuracy. Passing on oral traditions and teachings was commonplace in the Jewish culture of that day, and memorization was highly cultivated and practiced. Also, the fact that even at that time there would have been a considerable number of eyewitnesses around to dispute and discredit any false claims, and the fact that none of the “hard sayings” of Jesus were taken from the Gospel accounts, further supports their accuracy. Had the Gospels been edited before being written down, as some liberal scholars contend, then it was a very poor job. The writers left far too many “hard sayings,” and culturally unacceptable and politically incorrect accounts that would need explaining. An example of this is that the first witnesses of the resurrection were women, who were not considered reliable witnesses in the culture of that day.

The bottom line for Christians is this—whether the Gospels were written soon after the death of Christ, or not until 30 years after his death, does not really matter, because their accuracy and authority does not rest on when they were written but on what they are: the divinely inspired Word of God (2 Timothy 3:16). We should also remember that one of the promises Jesus gave His disciples was that He would send them “another helper,” the Holy Spirit, who would teach them all things and “bring to your remembrance all that I said to you” (John 14:26). So, whether it was few years or many after Jesus’ death that the Gospels were written, we can have total confidence and faith in their completeness and accuracy, knowing that they were written by “men moved by the Holy Spirit” (2 Peter 1:21), who accurately recorded the very words of God.


Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/when-Gospels-written.html#ixzz32ZpyRF2L

 

How about experience standing alone without the aid of philosophy or science. Dang that hurt, sure glad it was not from the top of a tall building. Now that seems a little bit like philosophy... or maybe it was just a matter of associating the pain involved in a low level fall to what might be expected from a greater fall. You tell me what you think.