|
« TAP TO LOG IN
|
Play online chess!
Apologetics
« Back to club forum
| |||||||
| From | Message | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
theloneranger 09-Jan-08, 11:59 |
 ApologeticsSo I thought I would see if this subject fires up the postings............. Here we go......... "God has put enough into the world to make faith in HIM a most reasonable thing, and he has left enough out to make it impossible to live by sheer reason or observation alone. " Quote by Ravi Zacharias "What we need is a religion that is not only right where we are right, but right where we are wrong." Quote by G.K. Chesterton "The first and most vital task of apologetics is to clarify truth-claims. When asked to define the 'truth' many Christians freeze, for we seldom pause to consider what it means..........even when we quote Jesus as "the truth, the way and the life." {This mistake can be costly in a conversation with a well educated atheist or anyone of another faith-based religion.} It must be noted here that the claims of our Savior Jesus Christ at their very core are exclusive and they exclude everything to the contrary. {Do you find this surprising? You should not,} because truth by it's mere definition is exclusive. If truth was all-inclusive, nothing would be false. and if nothing were false, what would be the meaning of true? It quickly becomes evident that the denial of truth as an absolute either ends up denying itself or else in effect making any truthful assertions about truth. ....The Scriptures are meaningful and personal because they are true, and not because we can wrest them to advantage or manipulate them into personal meaning. Meaning and application can be prostituted at the altar of self-gratification, but truth will stand in history when all dissenters have said their last." (the above is a quote by Ravi Zacharias.........edited for length by myself and the words in brackets are my own........) Apologetics attempts to render the Christian faith persuasive to the contemporary individual, for unbelievers, it is belief forming. It helps to diffuse attacks upon Christianity and to the Christian, it is belief sustaining. This is just the start of what I hope to be a civil discussion concerning this topic. I know that we have several atheists, and many of different religions and denominations out there. This thread is dedicated to them. I hope again not to be inflammatory, but to be informative. I have read many books on this topic and am currently doing a study of it. Please allow time for responses and do not attempt to be antagonistic. Let's try to stay on topic and consider the merits of the arguments presented in their entirety.. Let's have a productive debate for a change..... It is truly my desire that all would come to a knowledge of GOD; to HIS grace and mercy through the scarifice of Jesus Christ for the salvation of all mankind. GOD Bless theloneranger |
||||||
|
lets start with this one. on the face of it, it makes sense. the world is an amazing place, and it is not unreasonable to believe that it is so amazing as to imply that an even more amazing being created it. and clearly, as we do not and never will understand everything, it seems natural to say that reason and observation will never clarify everything. ok. so far so good. but, there are flaws. 1) if such an amazing universe requires the existence of an even more amazing god, then does not the existence of this uber-amazing god require the existence of a super-uber-amazing creator itself? and so on, and so forth. to explain the existence of an unexpalinable universe by imagining an unexplainable god without beginning or end only transfers the question. instead of trying to explain the universe, we are now trying to explain god. if one can accept the existence of an eternal, un-created god, why then is it so difficult to accept the existence of an eternal, un-created universe? 2) if we try to explain the things we do not understand by supposing the existence of an omnipotent god, then as we learn the explanations of things that we previously did not understand, god shrinks. this is called "god of the gaps.' an example. people used to believe god caused people to get sick. now we know it is viruses and germs. what was once the pervue of god is now seen as the pervue of hygeine and antibiotics. we used to think god made the sun rise and set. now we understand that the earth revolves, and physics replaces god. we cannot explain the origin of the universe, so we attribute that to god. one day we may well figure out what really happened. god will become smaller still. |
||||||
|
theloneranger 09-Jan-08, 14:45 |
I believe this part of the above statement addresses this point.......'there are flaws'. I appreciate the fact that you are starting off in the right direction......... As for your second points, GOD has set a lot of things into motion, and it is because of the 'fallen' nature of man that things such as disease exist, we are a dying and decaying creation............as for the question of the sun rising and setting........true we now understand how those things take place, however that does not preclude a GOD that makes it happen..........physics does not replace God, they explain how HE works. I really think the points you make are valid and frequently ask questions, yet they do not favor each other.........they should be made separate so as not confuse the topic. So, if you start at the beginning, which is to accept GOD as truth, then we can move on to what is the 'true' nature of GOD. Epicurus stated this metaphysical problem centuries ago............."Something obviously exists now, and something never sprang from nothing." Being, therefore, must have been without beginning. An eternal Something must be admitted by all; theist, atheist, and agnostic. So what is this eternal Something? it can not be the physical universe, because it is obviously contingent, mutable and decaying. How could a decaying (decomposing) entity explain itself to all eternity? If every contingent thing or event depends on a previous contingent thing or event and so on and so to infinity, then you are right, it explains nothing adequately. For there to be anything at all contingent in the universe, there must be at least one thing that is not contingent; something that is necessary though out all change and self-established. (necessary here means a thing, and it means "infinite, eternal, everlasting, self-caused, self-existent.) It is not enough to say that eternity will solve this problem of a contingent being/universe. No matter how much time you have , a dependent being is always going to be dependent on something. Everything contingent, will be at some particular time, non-existent. If there is a moment that nothing existed, then nothing would exist now. The choice we have then is simple: one chooses either a self-existent GOD or a self-existent universe, and the universe is not behaving as if it is self-existent. The very existence of everything again leads us back to the very existence of something........The Bible states that the very creation declares the existence of GOD and that mankind is without excuse. note: The above statement is in my own words but extends from the works of Thomas Aquinas's "third way" argument from contingency found in the "Summa Theologica". |
||||||
|
two things about this: 1) if "there must be at least one thing that is not contingent," why stop at one? maybe there is a whole society of 'gods.' what is it that makes you assume there is only one entity that is "infinite, eternal, everlasting, self-caused, self-existent?" if one is possible, then so are many. 2) your argument, once again, is based on ignorance (no...i am not calling you ignorant). what i mean is that, the premise of the argument is predicated on "we do not know." and in order to alleviate that 'not knowing,' people feel obliged to create a creator. i am honestly not sure why 'not knowing' is such a bad thing. i want to know too, but not at the cost of believing something just to avoid not knowing. <The choice we have then is simple: one chooses either a self-existent GOD or a self-existent universe, and the universe is not behaving as if it is self-existent.> but, at least we know the universe exists. it may not be behaving as if it is self-existent, but at least we have proof positive that it exists. that is one very large step closer to reality than saying that a being, whose existence can only be 'proven' by convoluted logic and by showing that we do not know everything, is 'self-existent. <The Bible states that the very creation declares the existence of GOD and that mankind is without excuse.> every so-called holy book has its own version. the analects, the bhagavad gita, the qur'an, the talmud, the tao-te-ching, the upanishads, the veda the book of mormon, and more, all have their own version, believed by hundreds of millions of devout followers. it defies logic that only one is true. a god who genuinely cared for us would surely not let the majority of humanity believe false doctrines. most of these were written before the advent of christianity. some written afterwards. and yet, all believers are absolutely sure that their path is correct, and generally believe that all other paths are false. if you truly believe that faith tells you that christianity is the true path, then you should also believe that when other people's faith tells them that another path is correct, that they are also correct. faith is faith, and no one has a monopoly and all are equally valid. |
||||||
|
theloneranger 09-Jan-08, 17:56 |
>>>if you truly believe that faith tells you that Christianity is the true path, then you should also believe that when other people's faith tells them that another path is correct, that they are also correct. faith is faith, and no one has a monopoly and all are equally valid<<< Please refer to this statement made in the first posting......... <<the claims of our Savior Jesus Christ at their very core are exclusive and they exclude everything to the contrary. {Do you find this surprising? You should not,} because truth by it's mere definition is exclusive. If truth was all-inclusive, nothing would be false. and if nothing were false, what would be the meaning of true? >> << all believers are absolutely sure that their path is correct, and generally believe that all other paths are false.>> this has so many false assumptions it's hard to know where to begin....... <<a god who genuinely cared for us would surely not let the majority of humanity believe false doctrines.>> If God forced us to worship Him, and He imposed His will upon us..then you lose the free-will aspect of faith........GOD wants us to seek Him and discover Him, not impose Himself upon us. <<your argument, once again, is based on ignorance >> you always come back to this word.......one of your favorites I assume, and if my argument is based on ignorance, then how in the world can you say you are not calling me ignorant.......which is what you always do when this topic comes up. I could turn that around a say that you are basing your arguments in the same manner when the evidence that you say does not exist, actually exist right in front of your very face......you just refuse to acknowledge it. As I have several times in the past, I have look at many roads and have through knowledge and revelation (which is how GOD reveal Himself to us) came to a saving knowledge of GOD's abounding grace and mercy. You too, have that same opportunity. Faith does come into play, but that seems to be a concept foreign to you. >>every so-called holy book has its own version. the Analects, the bhagavad gita, the qur'an, the Talmud, the tao-te-ching, the Upanishads, the Veda the book of mormon,<< They all acknowledge the existence of GOD, some make an argument of many gods...........but they all go back to a Supreme being. Truth is exclusive, rather you see it or not, there are absolutes..........not all things can be true if they claim to be the only truth, Jesus Christ claims to be the truth the life and the way.........that is an exclusive remark, undeniably...that has never be denied. I think we have to start with the fact that there is a Supreme being, that Christianity calls GOD. To stick on the point that you want too stick on, is an attempt to deny the topic's spirit which is to advance the evidence for the Christian faith. You choose to believe that their is no God, I choose to believe that there is a GOD and that HE is personal and knowable.......... i am certain that you are attempting to hijack the topic and make an argument that their is no God.....you have made your feelings and thoughts on this topic very well known........so let's stop here and agree that you do not believe so why attempt to disrupt that which you have no belief in?.....move on to another thread and or start one refuting the existence of GOD. I have addressed this point as far as it will go with you and that is all that needs to be said. You could not resist resorting to the "ignorance" remark and that really turns me off...........where do you get off with a statement like that? It was meant to be derogatory and your ...."I am not saying your ignorant remark"........was both condescending and border line pandering. |
||||||
|
tlr i ma not sure what you mean by hijacking the thread. maybe i misunderstood the purpose of the thread? can you please tell me what the heck this thread is about if it is not about god? is this your main point? <<the claims of our Savior Jesus Christ at their very core are exclusive and they exclude everything to the contrary. {Do you find this surprising? You should not,} because truth by it's mere definition is exclusive. If truth was all-inclusive, nothing would be false. and if nothing were false, what would be the meaning of true? >> so what you are saying is that your truth is the only truth? and anything else is a tangent or a hijacking? please clarify. |
||||||
|
theloneranger 09-Jan-08, 19:15 |
Yes, this thread is about defending the Christian faith......Apologetics usually is associated with that topic............and in here ....this thread is dedicated to that principle. With time and effort we might actually get to move pass the point that there actually is a GOD. Being an atheist and or agnostic as you claim does not give you the right to run circles and make it all about your lack to understand basic truths............You will not even submit yourself to the simple basic assumption that there is GOD and you refute evidence that has not even been presented yet!! we all get that, so you do not have keep hammering at the foolish notion that there is no GOD. You know what you are doing and I respectfully ask you to stop..........your like a kid in a class room that derails the class room topic for self-interest...........why do you not just see if there might be something to be learned from not seeing how frustrated you can make the instructor (this is an example...an anology......I am not a qualified teacher, but I am a qualified Christian).(I use this analogy as you are a teacher and i am sure you have pupils that do nothing but twist what you say and derail the class) (of course you are the perfect teacher and probably never had a difficult student, they all agreed with you completely and fall right in to step). |
||||||
|
theloneranger 09-Jan-08, 19:19 |
Are you saying that your ignorance is the only ignorance? |
||||||
|
nope |
||||||
|
and right. <you refute evidence that has not even been presented yet!> so...present this evidence...you have certainly had enough time...what are you waiting for? so...what you are saying is that this thread is a discussion for those who already are sure there is a divine being, but are not quite ready to be convinced that the christian god is the man, and jesus was hiw only begotten son? |
||||||
|
theloneranger 09-Jan-08, 19:34 |
Deleted by theloneranger on 09-Jan-08, 19:43.
|
||||||
|
Jeff What justifies that arrogance? |
||||||
|
theloneranger 10-Jan-08, 11:29 |
thumper So, hopefully we can have a productive conversation instead of ramblings. I hope you post as often as possible............ |
||||||
|
theloneranger 10-Jan-08, 11:35 |
Deleted by theloneranger on 10-Jan-08, 11:38.
|
||||||
|
theloneranger 10-Jan-08, 11:39 |
oops!! |
||||||
|
follow if TLR had the integrity to NOT frequently post then delete his posts soon after someone has responded. Probably not important to unpack further i suppose as in only a few more sleeps this club will be history. |
||||||
|
ok |
||||||
|
theloneranger 10-Jan-08, 18:46 |
---- |
||||||
|
tlr |
||||||
|
theloneranger 11-Jan-08, 20:38 |
I would just delete this thread if I could, but......... So, basically I think that we can just move on to other topics, you will not let me move past the first important point and no one else really seems to be interested. I was foolish at this time to start this thread, I believe in the topic wholeheartedly, but I do not have the wear with all to continue at this time. Have a nice day Joe aka theloneranger |
||||||
|
theloneranger 11-Jan-08, 20:41 |
The answer was........"I truly would hope that one could draw that conclusion based off what most see as irrefutable evidence........" perhaps your comon sense pervented you from reading it..........that is an answer, just not the one you wanted......... |
||||||
|
tlr also, i was not meaning to be impatient...just responding to your post. paz, j |
||||||
|
ok assumed: an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent entity, infinite in time, and creator of all the universe. hypothesis: christianity, specifically, the divinity of jesus christ is the one true path to god. argument for: (...that is your cue. explain to us why the hypothesis is correct) |
||||||
|
theloneranger 12-Jan-08, 03:43 |
If you want to go on then, we will........I am not sure if get started to day.......but I will try. I have to go see an uncle in Atlanta also, who is on his death bed..........that may delay me a couple of days....... Thanks for your patience..........this is not a just post a quikie point and go on type thread. tlr |
||||||
|
thanks and, condolences on your uncle. i lost my uncle, who i was very close to, last year. : ( he was the one who turned me on to gk. i miss him. |
||||||
|
this appears to be But perhaps your debate would be a bit less personal if someone else were to join. As for Christianity, I could offer a lot of ideas for you to ponder. But I will simply start here: It is a brief summary of C.S. Lewis commentary in his book "Mere Christianity" dealing with the issue you are discussing. Basically Mr. Lewis makes the comment that there exists no middle place regarding Christianity. There is no tepid place where Jesus left room for us to accept Him partially, mainly because his own words ruled out such an understanding. Some feel free, as Jeff points out above, that it is "ignorant" to assume that only ONE religion can be TRUE. Here is the problem with Jesus, as opposed to others; He either was a fool, a madman and a fraudulent radical. He must have been crazy, and defiant of the Law. He must have been these things or He must have been these things to have done what He did; or He was and is the Son of God. Why? Because He went about preaching that very point. I will leave it to some evangelical here to find scriptural references to this point, but it is absolutely true that he held Himself up as Deity, the Redeemer of all Mankind, as our Savior, or Advocate and our Judge. This is important, because this leaves no middle ground to say, "He was a nice fellow, with some good ideas about how we ought to live and treat each other. But He wasn't any different than any other person that has come forward and brought an enlightened message." We can’t hold Him in the same light as Martin Luther King, or Ghandi or others that sought to bring about change only. He took that tepid position away. Either you believe Him or you do not believe Him. That He is exactly whom He says He is or He was guilty of heresy, a liar and a fraud. Not just some nice fellow that can be added to a list of other nice fellows that tried to change their world peacefully. Jesus made quite sure that you had to take Him as a whole. He couldn't have been sane and said He was God. Sane people like…well none of us…..don’t go around proclaiming ourselves as the Son of God. He couldn't have been He whom He told His followers that He was -- the Messiah they sought; and a liar, too. He couldn't have walked on water, healed the sick, made the lame to walk, the blind to see, made the infirm whole and been a liar all at the same time. He was exactly whom He said He was or He was a man of considerable fraud. Personally, I think He meant it to be that way; He left it up to us to choose what we thought of Him, but he didn't leave the door open for wide speculation. And He didn’t force anyone to believe. You cannot proclaim yourself as God, and call yourself His Son and then leave us the option to choose that He was a "nice guy", but a liar. I don't think He left that option on the table. Again, His own words leave us no other choice but to believe Him or reject Him, but, like it or not, the middle ground is not available to us. --------- This line of thinking, (for which I claim no credit) which I found compelling some 20 years ago when I was reading many of the Lewis books caught me off guard because I know a lot of people that think Jesus was a prophet or a saint or something of that nature. But Jesus didn't say that. I have a hard time accepting a lying prophet or a fraudulent saint; they're simply mutually exclusive in my mind and in the mind of Lewis, I believe. So, some have asked, "What think Ye of Christ?" --- He is either the most amazing fraud the world has known or we may have to accept Him at His own word, as He did when He lived--revealing Himself as the Son of God. But, as far as some middle ground, it is not an option for us. He asked us to choose sides. And I guess that’s fair enough. DoK |
||||||
|
dok it is nice line of reasoning, as one might expect from cs lewis. but, it is not completely accurate. "...leaves no middle ground to say, "He was a nice fellow, with some good ideas about how we ought to live and treat each other. But He wasn't any different than any other person that has come forward and brought an enlightened message." We can’t hold Him in the same light as Martin Luther King, or Ghandi or others that sought to bring about change only." and i ask, "why not?" in other words, why is it impossible to believe he was insane (believing he was the son of god) and at the same time agree with a lot of his ideas? this line of logic seems to assume that the two are mutually exclusive...it is either one or the other. "Either you believe Him or you do not believe Him. That He is exactly whom He says He is or He was guilty of heresy, a liar and a fraud. Not just some nice fellow that can be added to a list of other nice fellows that tried to change their world peacefully." why must this be true? just because somebody is delusional does not necessarily imply that what he says has no truth and no value. seems to be a bit of a thin rationale for believing something so extraordinary. |
||||||
|
theloneranger 14-Jan-08, 16:52 |
dok As for me, I have made no bones in the past............I am a born again Christian.............Jesus is the WAY, THE TRUTH, THE LIFE, no man comes to GOD accept through CHRIST. More later, as I am away from home now and I have limited time, and resources to work with. Does this answer your private message to me? jeff.......I like your respones and I paln to address it soon, thanks for your patience. I am attending to a sick and dying relative, and I will be back home soon. |
||||||
|
dok <So, some have asked, "What think Ye of Christ?" --- He is either the most amazing fraud the world has known or we may have to accept Him at His own word, as He did when He lived--revealing Himself as the Son of God. But, as far as some middle ground, it is not an option for us. He asked us to choose sides. And I guess that’s fair enough.> 1) "if he was a fraud." maybe the people around him were frauds? or the people that came later who recorded, rewrote, interpreted, translated, and published his remembered words? 2) as far as amazing, there are a few others who were pretty good as well, muhamad, moses, buddha, etc...must we believe them all? were they all frauds? jesus may have been the best (fraud, prophet, or messiah), but where is the line drawn? it seems to be a quantitative difference to me, but i imagine you see it as qualitative. why? 3) <But, as far as some middle ground, it is not an option for us. He asked us to choose sides. And I guess that’s fair enough.> no middle ground? hello? middle ground is what allows people to live together and not kill each other. middle ground is learning, adapting, and growing to function in a changing world. "no middle ground" is the language of extremists. you are allowed to think that, but in this thread, i believe you have to explain why. you cannot just cite scripture as proof of anything. |
||||||
|
saintinsanity 14-Jan-08, 18:40 |
I used to like that argument too More recently I have taken up Jeff's perspective that the bible's authority can be called into question. It's possible that he may have been a really wise fellow who was used by corrupted individuals and turned into a deity. That's what I think happened. But then there is the tricky matter of Jesus's followers willing giving up their lives in martyrdom. It does make a person scratch their chin in wonder. |
||||||
| |||||||
