What's a good website for believing Christians to discuss prophecy? - Page 4

rudi_m · 2017-02-22, 15:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by retina

First step is you have to prove god exists before you can start bestowing attributes like omni*.

How is god defined by the way? I guess if it would exist but not being omni* then it wouldn't match most commonly used definitions of god.

chalsall · 2017-02-22, 15:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dubslow

But for the purposes of "science", empirical observation and inductive reasoning, we accept a certain threshold of confidence to mean "know".

And that's the "leap of faith" I mentioned above.

Overall I think we strongly align in our thinking and our reasoning. But I am often reminded that thinking deeply about very small errors in our observations vs. our theories have led to remarkable insights and discoveries.

chappy · 2017-02-22, 16:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by retina

First step is you have to prove god exists before you can start bestowing attributes like omni*.

I think you may have things backwards. You need a definition of G-d in order to start talking about proofs.

For example, Jasong's conception of G-d seems pretty unlikely to exist. This all-knowing, all loving being makes the entire universe appear to act in one way, gives humans the ability to see the evidence for the way the universe acts, gives humans the reasoning capability to understand bits and pieces of that working, then says no, the universe doesn't work that way at all and if you believe that you are going to spend eternity in torment.

Those things would seem to reduce to absurdity.

It's no wonder though, since his evidence is his own poor interpretation of what are likely bad translations of stories that people wrote down thousands of years ago from stories that were even older. Other traditions crept in and left marks like viral DNA that we can trace (like the concept of an afterlife which was pretty new and limited to some sects of the Jewish faith in the 1st century BCE.) Some parts were intentionally changed, sections were added later. There were votes by humans on which parts get to be called "scripture" there were deals made between factions on which books make the final cut. (this is how the The Revelation of John made it in last and even a century later arguments were being made about it's inclusion)

At every turn we find modern fundamentalism based on the false assumption that finite human understanding can reliably define an infinite being. And they do so with only the crudest of tools and only the basest understanding of those tools. It would be sad if there weren't so many of them trying to push their agenda on the real world.

CRGreathouse · 2017-02-22, 18:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by chappy

I think you may have things backwards. You need a definition of G-d in order to start talking about proofs.

My favorite thing about proofs of the existence (or nonexistence) of God is that they implicitly contain a definition.

chalsall · 2017-02-22, 19:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by CRGreathouse

My favorite thing about proofs of the existence (or nonexistence) of God is that they implicitly contain a definition.

If I may please share a personal experience... This is sincere.

I "found god" after reading an article in a Scientific American I had purchased. Within it was pseudo code for the Mandelbrot Set.

I coded that up on a Commodore 64 in 6502, and let it run for the night.

My mind exploded the next morning. I'm not exaggerating.

jasong · 2017-02-25, 00:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by henryzz

I agree a common fault with Christians. We don't stand a chance of understanding an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent God with a finite human brain.

I guess I have to super-careful how I say this.

Let's say you were 100% certain that something was true. Then someone comes along and contradicts that in a non-obvious manner. I would think it would be quite difficult to change your mind, and people might assume you to be close-minded.

I think of Christianity as being similar to The Standard Model. If you take it in discrete chunks, it's easy to make fun of. It's only when you view it as a cohesive whole that stuff makes sense.

chalsall · 2017-02-25, 22:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by jasong

Let's say you were 100% certain that something was true.

And this is the fundamental error in your thinking. You CAN'T be 100% certain of anything. The sooner you realize this, the sooner you might be "enlightened", and truly "find god".

If you haven't yet read A History of God by Karen Armstrong, I would highly recommend it.

A good friend of mine is a devout Catholic, and also a serious PhD in the medical sciences.

I asked her once if she truly believed there was a "higher being". She said she did, but she also added: "Look, the Bible should not be taken literally. It's a bit like a 'heath and safety' manual. For example, mess with your neighbour's wife, bad things might happen.

jasong · 2017-03-02, 01:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by chalsall

And this is the fundamental error in your thinking. You CAN'T be 100% certain of anything. The sooner you realize this, the sooner you might be "enlightened", and truly "find god".

If you haven't yet read A History of God by Karen Armstrong, I would highly recommend it.

A good friend of mine is a devout Catholic, and also a serious PhD in the medical sciences.

I asked her once if she truly believed there was a "higher being". She said she did, but she also added: "Look, the Bible should not be taken literally. It's a bit like a 'heath and safety' manual. For example, mess with your neighbour's wife, bad things might happen.

No offense, but Catholicism means the pope, and I trust him about as far as I can throw him. Being a well loved and respected Christian shouldn't need any sort of recruitment method.

kladner · 2017-03-02, 01:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by jasong

No offense, but Catholicism means the pope, and I trust him about as far as I can throw him. Being a well loved and respected Christian shouldn't need any sort of recruitment method.

Not to defend the pope, necessarily, but your response suggests a seiously sectarian basis for judgement. Are you talking about the current pope, or papishness in general?

chalsall · 2017-03-02, 18:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by jasong

No offense, but Catholicism means the pope, and I trust him about as far as I can throw him.

No offence taken. And no offence back, but it seems you didn't really understand what we were saying here. It seems like you don't want to face the possibility that your beliefs could possibly be incorrect.

Not really surprising. But a little saddening.

chappy · 2017-03-02, 20:04

Is this a surprise to anyone? He's already decided to let a collection of books that he can't read dictate the limits of his supposedly limitless deity.

You would think that the very notion of placing a book above G-d would be enough to cause a little doubt to creep in, but instead it just proves that modern fundamentalist Christianity worships (a particular and not consistent interpretation of) the Bible not a god.

More power to them, if they were honest. Since they are not, point out their hypocrisy with the zeal of the fanatic--it is the only language they seem to understand.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
What's a good website for reviews of digitally-based content?	jasong	jasong	0	2015-06-23 22:55
ecm-discuss mailing list archives	chris2be8	GMP-ECM	3	2015-04-26 10:34
Good air-cooler good enough for overclocked i7-5820K	RienS	Hardware	17	2014-11-18 22:58
DISCUSS IT WITH YOUR TEAM!	Raman	Game 1 - ♚♛♝♞♜♟ - Shaolin Pirates	18	2013-02-22 08:00
My fatalistic(sp?) reason for believing in God.	jasong	Soap Box	22	2006-05-04 19:26

2017-03-02, 20:04	#44
chappy "Jeff" Feb 2012 St. Louis, Missouri, USA 13×89 Posts	Is this a surprise to anyone? He's already decided to let a collection of books that he can't read dictate the limits of his supposedly limitless deity. You would think that the very notion of placing a book above G-d would be enough to cause a little doubt to creep in, but instead it just proves that modern fundamentalist Christianity worships (a particular and not consistent interpretation of) the Bible not a god. More power to them, if they were honest. Since they are not, point out their hypocrisy with the zeal of the fanatic--it is the only language they seem to understand.