What if you consider arguments on Christianity and you are left with major doubt?

[PureX]

If I define God as love and demonstrate that love is a measurable field, and then demonstrate that field has creative powers, I have provided evidence that my God exists and has the power to create. Do you agree?

If I define my God as 'wetness', and I wait until it rains, I can prove to anyone that my God exists, and is real.

The problem with your assertion is that love is love. And love is a concept based on collective (and subjective) human experiences. Experiencing love does not mean one has experienced God, unless the labels are interchangeable, and the common definition of "God" is erased from all consideration. In which case the term "God" will have become redundant, and useless.

 

[Town Heretic]

Welcome to reality. We don't actually even have any proof that Jesus of Nazareth ever existed.

Depends on if you're using proof where evidence would be more appropriate. We have all sorts of evidence.

His character may have been a representation of a conglomeration of itinerant preachers who were traveling around Judea in those days, preaching various ideological variations and criticisms of the Jewish doctrines and leadership of the day (who they saw as being too cozy with the Roman occupiers).

We have less proof/evidence to support that notion though.

The truth is that it's impossible for us to know for sure.

No, but it's impossible to prove, which is a bit different. I know that Jesus Christ lives and lives in me. His existence isn't a thing I wonder about anymore than I wonder about who my earthly father is, but I can understand how that appears to those who aren't satisfied on the question and I certainly can't empirically, objectively prove that my experience reflects empirical, objective reality.

And just pretending that we know by pretending that the stories are accurate is not an honest solution to this problem. Nor is it a reasonable one. Not from my perspective, anyway. It's called "make-believe". And make-believe is not faith, as 'eric h' wisely pointed out in the previous post.

I don't think pretend has anything to do with it and you sound like someone who, not having a thing, begrudges those who do when you couch it like that, but it's your dime.

So as with most things, we will have to use these to try and piece together a likely scenario, if it is a likely scenario that we're after.

Can't be done. Oh, it can be with the existence of Jesus, to some extent, but when you reach the limits of empiricism you run into real trouble on the question of God. There's no more or less likely on the founding question, only an assumption of context outside of a confirmation by some other means.

If instead, we just want a fantasy that makes us feel good about about ourselves, and helps us to trust in 'magical solutions' to real life problems, then I suppose we can do that, too.

You know, there really is something to be said for the pure utility of believing that justice is never escaped, that mercy is never beyond hope and that our existence is inherently meaningful in a way that transcends our individual understanding, but it's still inferior to the experience of God. Better than the alternative, mind you, but a lesser choice if that's as far as it goes with a soul.

But I don't think our real problem is lack of information so much as it's a lack of honesty. And I see 'make-believing' as dishonest.

That's because you first invest someone with that quality. If I decide you're a liar it's easy to then scoff or deride any particular thing you say, by way of. Doesn't mean you are a liar or that I have any reasonable position in assuming it, even if the assumption makes me feel better about my position.

But that's just me. Not everyone else, does.

Which would be a great position if you actually credited the spirit of it, but you don't. You apply a very different thing, supra. I wish you would hold this principle at the center of your thought instead. When you call people dishonest who differ with you on a point that can't be objectively settled that's not what you're doing.

How we humans conceive of "God" varies from place to place and time to time. Jesus was a man in a time and place, and he used the god-concept that was available to him. That's all.

That's all he was to you, which to my mind is unfortunate, as is your use of a label that you so patently reject in premise. It's unfair to both of us.

Religious conceptions of God are just religious conceptions of God. They don't define the reality of God.

The question isn't do they define but do they reflect.

...it's not what Jesus thought, said, or did that matters

Perhaps not to you and that's your business, but it's a mistaken statement in terms of Christendom. What he did on the cross was the most singularly important thing in the history of man since his creation.

 

[annabenedetti]

Science doesn't prove anything. It is has supporting evidence.

That's the point I was making, over several prior posts in the conversation. I'd said: "Possibilities, strongly supports... that's scientific research language..." in responding to Elo's claim of archaeologists "proving" the site is Sodom.

 

[PureX]

Depends on if you're using proof where evidence would be more appropriate. We have all sorts of evidence.

The difference between proof and evidence is important to understand, because they lead to the difference between knowing and believing. And religious people tend to be very confused about this difference. They are confused about it because many of them have been taught that the pretense of knowing is called "faith", when it is not faith at all. It's just pretense pretending to be faith.

We do not know that Jesus ever existed. We don't know this because we have no direct proof of it. And we have no direct proof because the evidence we have is all "second hand". There is no direct evidence.

So that when Christians say they "know" Jesus, and they "know" God's will, and they "know" the Bible is inerrant, and all that other stuff, they are only pretending to themselves and to others that they know it. Because they don't really know any of those things. They BELIEVE it, but they don't know it. Because they have no direct evidence of it that can be sustained anywhere outside of their own minds. And the difference between practicing faith, and practicing pretense, is the difference between their recognizing this lack of knowing, understanding it, and respecting it; or just ignoring it.

I know that Jesus Christ lives and lives in me. His existence isn't a thing I wonder about anymore than I wonder about who my earthly father is, but I can understand how that appears to those who aren't satisfied on the question and I certainly can't empirically, objectively prove that my experience reflects empirical, objective reality.

How it appears is how it is: you BELIEVE that Jesus lives in you, and through that belief, you've proven it. Jesus does in fact exist, as an idea, inside your mind. And that idea is real, especially to you. But none of this really has much to do with the question of whether or not a man named Jesus of Nazareth lived in Judea 2000+ years ago. Nor does it illuminate anything that man may have said or done. And the stories that we have about him are all second-hand interpretations and multiple linguistic translations of the legend that developed in his historical wake. So the Jesus in your mind, as he is based on those stories, is a legendary being. Like it or not, this is just a fact of reality. And "believing in" those legends with all your heart, mind and soul still doesn't change that.

I believe it's important for 'believers' to understand this to remain honest (humbly realistic) about what they believe vs. what they know to be so. Because their mental and spiritual health depends on maintaining that honesty.

Can't be done. Oh, it can be with the existence of Jesus, to some extent, but when you reach the limits of empiricism you run into real trouble on the question of God.

That isn't the question at hand.

You know, there really is something to be said for the pure utility of believing that justice is never escaped, that mercy is never beyond hope and that our existence is inherently meaningful in a way that transcends our individual understanding, but it's still inferior to the experience of God. Better than the alternative, mind you, but a lesser choice if that's as far as it goes with a soul.

You, not being the yardstick by which all other human experience should be judged, don't really have any means of determining that. I have experienced all three of these "phenomena", and yet for me, the most valuable option is faith; not blind pretense, and not 'charismania'. They have their place, as life-tools go, but I have found that faith is the more useful, by a large margin.

But that's just me.

The question isn't do they define but do they reflect.

All religions "reflect" the reality of God, just as that idea of Jesus living in your mind, "reflects Christ", through you. Realizing the truth of this is partly why I'm a Christian.

Perhaps not to you and that's your business, but it's a mistaken statement in terms of Christendom. What he did on the cross was the most singularly important thing in the history of man since his creation.

Maybe, whether it actually happened or not. I'm hoping so.

 

[ClimateSanity]

If I define my God as 'wetness', and I wait until it rains, I can prove to anyone that my God exists, and is real.

The problem with your assertion is that love is love. And love is a concept based on collective (and subjective) human experiences. Experiencing love does not mean one has experienced God, unless the labels are interchangeable, and the common definition of "God" is erased from all consideration. In which case the term "God" will have become redundant, and useless.

The bible says God is love as in it is his essence.

 

[ok doser]

The difference between proof ....

what would you accept as proof?

do you believe that Tiberius existed?


if so, what proof supports that belief?

 

[Town Heretic]

The difference between proof and evidence is important to understand, because they lead to the difference between knowing and believing.

Proof is rare and incontrovertible, evidence is less than that but can be as compelling. Proof is a fact. Evidence is an indicator.

And religious people tend to be very confused about this difference.

I'd say people in general say proof when they mostly mean evidence.

They are confused about it because many of them have been taught that the pretense of knowing is called "faith", when it is not faith at all. It's just pretense pretending to be faith.

Faith isn't a pretense unless you don't understand at least one of those words.

We do not know that Jesus ever existed.

Rather, you can't prove he did absent bones and a clear chain of historical evidence. True of any number of ancient figures who weren't kings.

We don't know this because we have no direct proof of it. And we have no direct proof because the evidence we have is all "second hand". There is no direct evidence.

That's not really true. We have accounts from people who knew him and one from a fellow who met him on the road to Damascus. Now you can discount Paul as a liar if you like, but that's not a lack of first hand evidence, only an opinion on it and the author.

So that when Christians say they "know" Jesus, and they "know" God's will, and they "know" the Bible is inerrant, and all that other stuff, they are only pretending to themselves and to others that they know it.

You don't really know that, which is funny when you think about it.

Because they don't really know any of those things. They BELIEVE it, but they don't know it. Because they have no direct evidence of it that can be sustained anywhere outside of their own minds.

You could say the same of love. People can appear to be in love and not be and not appear to be and actually be. It's a near cottage industry.

How it appears is how it is: you BELIEVE that Jesus lives in you, and through that belief, you've proven it.

Not exactly, but there's no point in getting into an argument over what color to paint a house you don't believe exists to begin with.

Jesus does in fact exist, as an idea, inside your mind.

Rather, that's what you're forced to concede. He's an idea in any mind that contemplates him, but his existence is much more than that.

And that idea is real, especially to you. But none of this really has much to do with the question of whether or not a man named Jesus of Nazareth lived in Judea 2000+ years ago.

It does to me. And that's where facts and sums and their imprint live or fail to find purchase. But, again, the authenticity of Jesus as a historical figure has gone largely undebated and is absolutely more likely than the contrary notion, however interesting the possibility of an alternative might be for some.

Nor does it illuminate anything that man may have said or done. And the stories that we have about him are all second-hand interpretations and multiple linguistic translations of the legend that developed in his historical wake.

That's certainly what you believe, the idea in your mind.

So the Jesus in your mind, as he is based on those stories, is a legendary being. Like it or not, this is just a fact of reality. And "believing in" those legends with all your heart, mind and soul still doesn't change that.

Believing was never meant to alter Christ.

You, not being the yardstick by which all other human experience should be judged, don't really have any means of determining that.

I actually do. Logic and human nature will establish the preferable nature of the absolute. Human civilization is a study in the search for meaning and value. And our very biology delights in survival. But that''s a longer and different conversation.

Maybe, whether it actually happened or not. I'm hoping so.

I'm an optimist so I'll hope there's a seed in that.

 

[ok doser]

I'm an optimist so I'll hope there's a seed in that.

can you get me a discount on contact lenses?

 

[rako]

Dealing with the conclusions I referred to in the opening message is being recognized more and more as a major problem for people to deal with spiritually, mentally, and emotionally.

The Psychiatric DSM manual has included a section on religious issues.

Loss or questioning of faith
Shafranske described a man of professional accomplishment whose life was founded upon the conservative bedrock ofRoman Catholic Christianity. He came to doubt the tenets of his religion and, in so doing, declared he had lost the vitality to live.

Some crises of faith are recognized as part of spiritual development James Fowler, PhD, building on the work of Piaget, Kohlberg, and other developmental theorists, has proposed that there is an invariant order of faith development in six recognizable stages. Problems may arise in the transition from one stage to another, often experienced as a crisis of faith. (James Fowler, Stages of Faith).

Associated Clinical Problems For some individuals, loss of faith involves questioning their whole way of life, purpose for living, and source of meaning.. In addition, their social world can be affected since religion is for many an important part of their social network. Barra, Carlson and Maize conducted a survey study and also reviewed the anthropological, historical, and contemporary perspectives on loss as a grief-engendering phenomenon.

www.spiritualcompetency.com/dsm4/dsmrsproblem.pdf

Yes, I feel emptiness about thinking that the extreme claims are more likely unreal. During the section the author writes about this. I have also heard about Fowler's research on the stages of faith. It is also relevant.

 

[elohiym]

That's the point I was making, over several prior posts in the conversation. I'd said: "Possibilities, strongly supports... that's scientific research language..." in responding to Elo's claim of archaeologists "proving" the site is Sodom.

I was suggesting he consider that what they are finding at Tall el Hammam proves the site is Sodom, meaning what the archelogists found there so far proves several facts that can be used to argue the site is the ancient city of Sodom, as one of the scientists on the project is doing.

 

[zoo22]

I was suggesting he consider that what they are finding at Tall el Hammam proves the site is Sodom, meaning what the archelogists found there so far proves several facts that can be used to argue the site is the ancient city of Sodom, as one of the scientists on the project is doing.

Similarly, there are all sorts of sites that "prove several facts that can be used to argue the site is..." the resting place of Noah's ark.

Similarly, there are all sorts of sites that "prove several facts that can be used to argue the site is..." crop circles created by aliens.

It's interesting, for sure. But even if they've made a discovery that could point to it being Sodom, or a city like Sodom, it's a far cry from the Bible being true in terms of God. They could discover a big melted entrance plaque that says "Welcome to Sodom! What happens in Sodom Stays in Sodom!" and that still wouldn't prove that God lit the place up because people were having homosexual sex and being backbiters and offering their daughters to be raped to save angels. I don't think there are very many people who'd deny that the Bible has some accuracy regarding actual history. But that there are historical accuracies doesn't mean it's all true, let alone that it's the inspired word of God.

 

[PureX]

The bible says God is love as in it is his essence.

The Bible is a collection of books written by men about how they perceive and conceive of "God". And much of it is written in poetic language, using symbolism and metaphor. How we interpret all this symbolism and metaphor is up to us. It is a subjective interpretation, as all interpretation is subject to the experience and intellect doing the interpreting.

The common interpretation in this case is that "God" is expressed in our experience of being, as love: forgiving, kind, generous, merciful, etc.,. But there are certainly plenty of proclaiming Christians who ignore and even despise this concept.

 

[ClimateSanity]

The Bible is a collection of books written by men about how they perceive and conceive of "God". And much of it is written in poetic language, using symbolism and metaphor. How we interpret all this symbolism and metaphor is up to us. It is a subjective interpretation, as all interpretation is subject to the experience and intellect doing the interpreting.

The common interpretation in this case is that "God" is expressed in our experience of being, as love: forgiving, kind, generous, merciful, etc.,. But there are certainly plenty of proclaiming Christians who ignore and even despise this concept.

Nothing is in that book that God didn't want to be there; even the choice of words. Here I am talking about the translation. There has always existed such a book.

 

[Nihilo]

What if you consider arguments on Christianity and you are left with major doubt?

Don't consider arguments. The Gospel is such good news that all you really have to do is think about how good it is. Philippians 4:8

Finally, brethren, whatever things are true, whatever things are noble, whatever things are just, whatever things are pure, whatever things are lovely, whatever things are of good report, if there is any virtue and if there is anything praiseworthy—meditate on these things.​

 

[PureX]

Nothing is in that book that God didn't want to be there; even the choice of words. Here I am talking about the translation. There has always existed such a book.

This is called 'magical thinking', and I don't believe it's healthy for adult human beings to engage in it. It causes us to engage in self-deciet as we deny the evidence of reality and common sense in favor of fantasies that cannot materialize. And then forces us to continue the practice of dishonesty to maintain the deceit. It's irrational to assume that God would want us to behave in this way. And as it relates to the Bible, it becomes idolatry, which the Bible itself warns us against. (Objects created by men being mis-taken for God.)

 

[annabenedetti]

I was suggesting he consider that what they are finding at Tall el Hammam proves the site is Sodom, meaning what the archelogists found there so far proves several facts that can be used to argue the site is the ancient city of Sodom, as one of the scientists on the project is doing.

You said: "Consider reading about the archaeology done at Tall-el-Hammam proving it is the Biblical Sodom."

There's not single instance of the word "proving," or any instance of the word prove or its derivatives to be found in the document you linked to. Will you walk back your claim that archaeologists have "proved" that the site is Biblical Sodom?

 

[elohiym]

Similarly, there are all sorts of sites that "prove several facts that can be used to argue the site is..." the resting place of Noah's ark.

That is a factual error. See Searches for Noah's Ark.

Similarly, there are all sorts of sites that "prove several facts that can be used to argue the site is..." crop circles created by aliens.

I believe that is a factual error, too. Let's stick to the Bible related claims.

It's interesting, for sure.

Yes, that's why I suggested PureX consider reading about it instead of making up myths about Sodom based on a television show he watched twenty years ago. I was sharing something you agree is interesting.

But ...

Here it comes. I must be psychic.

...even if they've made a discovery that could point to it being Sodom, or a city like Sodom, it's a far cry from the Bible being true in terms of God.

No, not a far cry. Eventually the law of parsimony kicks in.

They could discover a big melted entrance plaque that says "Welcome to Sodom! What happens in Sodom Stays in Sodom!" and that still wouldn't prove that God lit the place up ...

It can be determined whether or not the destruction was from a natural disaster, right? There has to be an explainable cause for three feet of ash containing human remains and melted pottery sherds. They estimate the sherds were melted by over 2000F degree heat event. What does that? If you found Pompei without a volcano, how would you explain it?

...because people were having homosexual sex and being backbiters and offering their daughters to be raped to save angels.

Considering some of the things I see occurring in the world today, that doesn't seem implausible to me. I also consider the story was originally written in a pictographic language and what we have today is a rough translation. Also, angels means messengers, and you can find clear examples of human messengers called angels in the Bible.

I don't think there are very many people who'd deny that the Bible has some accuracy regarding actual history. But that there are historical accuracies doesn't mean it's all true, let alone that it's the inspired word of God.

As I said, the law of parsimony has to kick in at some point.

 

[elohiym]

I was suggesting he consider that what they are finding at Tall el Hammam proves the site is Sodom, meaning what the archelogists found there so far proves several facts that can be used to argue the site is the ancient city of Sodom, as one of the scientists on the project is doing.

You said: "Consider reading about the archaeology done at Tall-el-Hammam proving it is the Biblical Sodom."

Prove means to demonstrate the truth or existence of something by evidence or argument.

There's not single instance of the word "proving," or any instance of the word prove or its derivatives to be found in the document you linked to.

Do you expect scientific research publications to use instances of the word prove or its derivatives in order for people to claim that research demonstrates the truth or existence of something? If a person claims measles vaccination prevents measles infection, what proof does he have? You're not going to find the word prove or its derivatives in vaccine research, yet people claim the research proves something.

Will you walk back your claim that archaeologists have "proved" that the site is Biblical Sodom?

No.

 

[elohiym]

If I define God as love and demonstrate that love is a measurable field, and then demonstrate that field has creative powers, I have provided evidence that my God exists and has the power to create. Do you agree?

If I define my God as 'wetness', and I wait until it rains, I can prove to anyone that my God exists, and is real.

Obviously you don't agree.

The problem with your assertion is that love is love.

Love is love? That makes no sense.

Love is an electromagnetic field. There are medical devices to measure magnetic fields produced by electrical activity in the brain. Basically, when you feel love, you are feeling a magnetic field and the effects of that field on your body.

And love is a concept based on collective (and subjective) human experiences.

I agree that love is subjective, but it's more than just an idea.

Experiencing love does not mean one has experienced God, unless the labels are interchangeable, and the common definition of "God" is erased from all consideration.

Well, then you just undermined your explanation of God.

In which case the term "God" will have become redundant, and useless.

Like "love is love?"

 

[ClimateSanity]

This is called 'magical thinking', and I don't believe it's healthy for adult human beings to engage in it. It causes us to engage in self-deciet as we deny the evidence of reality and common sense in favor of fantasies that cannot materialize. And then forces us to continue the practice of dishonesty to maintain the deceit. It's irrational to assume that God would want us to behave in this way. And as it relates to the Bible, it becomes idolatry, which the Bible itself warns us against. (Objects created by men being mis-taken for God.)

Where is the magical thinking? Believing God has actually written something to mankind?