The core problems of epistemology remain with us, and are particularly charged in the case of religious propositions, because of the severity of the consequences involved. If Christianity is true, then God exists and Heaven and Hell exist.
Pascal’s Wager does not provide us with virtuous belief in God. If one’s only reason to believe in God is to avoid the eternal torment of Hell, then one’s belief is not honourable, not worthy of credit in the way that Abraham’s faith was creditworthy. However, the gravity of the situation, as emphasised by Pascal’s Wager, should be cause for concern. This is a legitimate basis for earnest, openminded investigation of the propositions of Christianity – the beginning of a journey, to be completed by virtuous means.
Philosophers have debated whether the proposition, “God exists”, is analytic or synthetic and whether it can be known a priori or a posteriori (if at all). Christians have offered both kinds of knowledge in answer to the question of why they believe God exists: some say that reason requires them to believe, while others say they have experienced God – or both.
Belief in the existence of God is only the beginning of religious enquiry. Learning who that God is and entering into a relationship with that God are further steps. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that the ontological argument is persuasive – in itself, it would not tell the inquirer whether God is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Other arguments, evidence, and information are required to lead one to believe the propositions of Christianity.
A distinction must be made between assent to a proposition and one’s attitude towards that proposition. In the Christian narrative, the figure called “Satan” (not to be confused with the satan in the Book of Job) knows that God exists but his attitude towards that proposition, and its Subject, is hostile.
How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.
-Isaiah 14:12-15
Openmindedness is essential in respect of both assent and attitude. Many have rejected Christianity on the basis of a supposed conflict between who Christians proclaim God to be and the suffering of our own existence. Humans have been badly hurt: by nature, by ourselves, and – so Christians contend – by the spirits that hate us. It is easy to acknowledge the existence of evil – much harder to believe in an all-powerful God who lets it happen.
Believing in God – as opposed to believing that He exists – is not easy. In our fallen world, it is natural to doubt. Indeed, philosophical scepticism and caution are virtues. The testimony of others, while persuasive in some contexts, is grating in others.
Rejoice with them that do rejoice, and weep with them that weep.
-Romans 12:15
Relational matters are not like impersonal ones. Discussing geology or archeology is very different from trusting God in the midst of adversity. The deeper our feelings, the more effort is required to persevere in the face of their pressure. Some will say that refusing to give up belief in God in the face of (seemingly) contrary evidence is irrational or a blik. Indeed, Christians themselves would advise adherents of some religions to abandon their gods, because of the evil associated with those gods in the religious texts and theologies extrapolated from them.
So, what is the basis of the Christian belief in their God, the Father? How do they persevere in trusting Him amidst the negative feelings elicited by our own sinful natures and the adversity of life? How do Christians justify their faith?
To say, as St Paul does, that God works all things for good for those who love Him, is to speak of the end, to make a statement that is logically necessary given the nature of God. This is what Christians are called to do: to keep their sight on the end, called by various names (Heaven, the Restoration, the Consumation, the Blessed Hope, etc). But we must not mistake that end with the End: Christ Himself.
The way through is to stay close to Christ. We may endure scorn as a consequence, but Christ is our foundation, our “cornerstone”. Even when He seems silent, yet we may speak to Him in prayer, casting all our cares on Him.
jim- said:
So, if I am skeptical by nature and don’t believe, but agree to believe by choice, will god then judge me for being a liar? If one does not believe the story, but agrees for the sake of community, family, income, isn’t that dismissal of integrity a sin?
can we decide to believe, or If this is the case, I only now can decide to pretend to believe. Deciding to believe is a choice, which makes it a charade of pretense mixed with hope that lacks integrity.
LikeLike
Bosco the Heretic said:
Nothings wrong with being skeptical.
If there is no god then everything is cool. if you want to see if maybe there is a creator, ask him to show himself to you. Put him to the test. Dont let him get away with big fat claims in the bible. Jam him up.
LikeLike
jim- said:
There is plenty of research backing the idea that meditation and prayer can trigger release of the feel-good chemicals in the brain. We basically get what we imagine we want or desire when it comes to belief. These same emotional responses are routinely duplicated in a lab, even when a known lie is the subject matter. We see what we are conditioned to see, hence the regional “visions” of god appearing as the culture. Throughout history, never the same god (unless you’re Mormon)
If god were real, we wouldn’t be arguing about it. It would be evident and automatic without indoctrinations.
LikeLike
Bosco the Heretic said:
Good brother Jim, you keep falling back on the chemical hypothesis. Its all just a chemical released in the brain. Must be the latest modern excuse.
LET me tell you something…..when you meet the Lord you feel horrified at what you used to be and horrified that your friends and family are on their way to damnation. This feel good theory is a sham.
LikeLiked by 1 person
jim- said:
No lord has ever made himself known to me. I’m not falling back into anything. I am keenly aware of how indoctrination works, divides, how belief is defended with by hormones causing a fight or flight response. I am also aware that after submission to authority and repetition that the neurons become hardwired and the ability to handwave contradiction of beliefs is a now a physical problem.
If you were taught these facts of physiology prior to believing some heartfelt testimony, you’d be a non believer as well.
Christianity plays a masterful card on the foibles of human psychology. Awarding faith as an honorable trait, condemn pride, but faith in itself is the ultimate display of pride. Stubborn pride. Pride that digs in with the release of norepinephrine and believes in spite of pure evidence to the contrary.
LikeLike
jim- said:
Besides, what is belief but a conviction of thought without evidence? If there were a god, he’d understand my dilemma. He gave me the ability to think, and then condemned me for it? “Straight is the gate and narrow is the way, and few there be that find it” 2.4billion Christians is not few. If anything, if this life were some kind of test it would be to see if one had the courage to be an atheist in spite of overwhelming condemnation from all religions. I don’t believe it. Am I supposed to say I do?
LikeLike
Nicholas said:
Jim. are you a moral realist?
LikeLiked by 1 person
jim- said:
In what way? Is your question directed at a particular comment?
LikeLike
Nicholas said:
I am trying to find out about your beliefs and whether they are consistent and their relation to your atheism (assuming I have correctly understood you to be an atheist). I understand that you are conversant with biological (and psychological?) terminology, but I am uncertain as to your experience of analytic philosophy. (Not to be confused with continental philosophy.) Some of the terms that I use (“realism”, “rationalist”, “empiricist”) are technical terms of philosophy, and are not to be confused with the nuances and semantic ranges those words bear as ordinary vocabulary.
Realism is the belief in mind-independent objects. Idealism denies realism: there are no mind-independent objects, only concepts and minds.
Moral realism is the belief that morality exists independently of human thought (in that sense, it connects metaphysics with ethics). Most people, until they consciously choose to depart from the position, are moral realists.
LikeLiked by 2 people
jim- said:
Thank you. Please see my last comment to the clown 🤡 guy (kinda long) I do not take this lightly, but I do not think I fit any mold or label of belief. My observations had to be my own without the influence of expert commentary. I don’t think I would fit a label as I have intentionally made this journey alone.
Although I am an atheist, I do not discount that some people are attuned differently to the universe than others and take advantage of its properties. I believe nothing, but am open to learning anything of substance.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Nicholas said:
I thank you for your candour and the polite tone of your discussion, not to mention the sincerity of your wish to dialogue.
I have read your comment and there is much that I like in it. I also wish to express my personal sympathies (and perhaps empathy). My own journey as a Christian has been rocky at times and I experience doubts. From what I can tell, although you may not care for the label, your view on knowledge and belief seems to come under virtue epistemology – which I happen to like and have mentioned in various posts here. Virtue epistemology holds that true knowledge is acquired by exercising intellectual virtue, and this field of philosophy sits at the intersection of epistemology and ethics.
I would say, however, that as a matter of pragmatism, we do have to accept testimony in order to function in society. There are lots of things that we cannot know directly, but must either accept or reject on the basis of the credibility of the witness who asserts (and also using other contextual knowledge or processes). Our knowledge is, therefore, relational – at least as far as some parts of life are concerned.
LikeLiked by 1 person
jim- said:
Thank you. I hope you do not mind me sharing my ideas here. My position is truly not to dissuade anyone from faith, but to share my ideas with a learned crowd and field test their validity. I am open to change my views. After getting to know Phillip and his reasonable approach (even conceding at times) which is unusual for a religious site, I find the arguments here give reason to think and question everything I have pondered on my own.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Nicholas said:
That is good and I hope you will stay and feel welcome here – perhaps you could link to some of your own posts for us to consider as well. The assorted contributors here are of different backgrounds and temperaments, so naturally we will dialogue in different ways. Phillip and Scoop are both converts to Catholicism, while I am Protestant/non-denominational. Bosco was Catholic before he became saved and non sporadically attends Calvary Chapels. While most people here are Americans, I am a Brit.
LikeLiked by 1 person
jim- said:
I’m up in the NE corner of Washington state near Canada. I am surrounded with every denomination in the separatist variety. Lol. I love em, but wow! I think if they discovered my blog they’d burn me out! I’ll share a link or two on belief.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Nicholas said:
Ah, I was in Washington a few years back on a tour of the Pacific Northwest – went to Canada and Oregon too. Beautiful country.
LikeLiked by 1 person
jim- said:
Here’s one but there are many. My mind works in its sleep.
LikeLike
Bosco the Heretic said:
You will have to get used to good brother Nicholas. He is our philosopher King.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Nicholas said:
Your tongue-in-cheek comment aside Bosco, you and I know full well that you take a nuanced view of St Paul’s comments about the worthlessness of human philosophy. We both acknowledge that logic has its uses, just as we acknowledge that the LORD is the ultimate reality, upon Whom we contingent beings depend.
LikeLike
Bosco the Heretic said:
I profess to know nothing but Christ and him crucified.
LikeLike
Arkenaten said:
Really? And how exactly do you know this?
LikeLiked by 1 person
jim- said:
I didn’t actually reply very well to your comment. My apologies. It is not a chemical “hypothesis”, but a well documented phenomenon. If there is a god he resides in the hormones and is defended there as well. They are particularly powerful in times of stress, need, elation, and of course, love. It is also how prisoners fall in love with their captors, and align with those that torture them.
A few years back I was reading an article about manipulation. It was mistitled on purpose for a point. I thought it was actually an exposé on my beliefs, but the end it was footnoted and was actually brainwashing techniques used by the Chinese and Vietnamese on POW’s. It all follows the same pattern. I noticed your use of fear to get me to think about believing in god. Fortunately I don’t operate that way.
LikeLike
Bosco the Heretic said:
Well good brother Jim, rarely does god come show himself to people rite out of the blue. You have to want it. or you can put him to task and ask him to show himself. Me, i was tricked into it. I always believed in Christ, but after that, there was nothing i could do about it but believe. You grew up having christmas every yr and looking forward to it and the carols and family time. You believed in god. But now its all just a chemical reaction. You are too smart to believe you were created. we are all just happy accidents. Consciences from molecules of rock. One day the rock had a conscience. Happens all the time. Say, who designed those complex chemicals you rely on?
LikeLike
jim- said:
I think you may underestimate my level of devotion for 50 years. I missed a handful of sundays and have studied and read the Bible through about twenty times. The fact is no signs follow them that believe. Either everyone is pretending, or Jesus was false. I didn’t take this journey willingly and it is quite traumatic initially to realize none of your thoughts were your own. It all changed in a day. Virtually every position I held were the apologists and preachers, the doctrines and things that “we believe” were not mine. I tried very long to rationalize it and make sense of it all without excuse. It fails that test.
I am well versed in most sciences and a physiology officianado (paramedic) But I always tried to use those things to bolster faith. One day I turned off the devices, spent three weeks alone by chance in the Panama jungle, and without anyone breathing down my neck telling me what it all meant, I embarked on a journey to compare what we are taught, with what we see and the outcomes of faith. I have never read an atheist book nor watched there videos. My conclusions are mine alone, and my reasoning must stand on its own merits or be adjusted. I believe nothing. Belief is the seedbed of all that is wrong and divisive in the world. It sets people against each other. I don’t align politically either.
We are always given two wrong choices and forced to pick sides. I won’t do it. The problem isn’t what you believe, it is that you believe. Humans are cursed with a desire to believe. The natural man is actually the believer nice bait and switch by Christianity) Everyone want a belief (faith) of some kind and rove from place to place til they find something acceptable to them.
We are raised in deception from birth and nurtured by a society of liars everywhere. Believe? Hah. Really. No disrespect intended. I have about 420 posts and aside from a few mined quotes, it is all my observations without the input of “professionals”. It is as close to my own journey as I can awaringly do.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Scoop said:
I think you are dishonest in your hatred of belief as all men have belief and faith in something. Even in the words you’ve written above, when you walked out of the Panamanian jungle you ‘believed’ your conclusions and in the veracity of your own thinking. And you either believed them to be relative and applicable only to yourself or you believed that they are objective and apply to all other individuals. So you have chosen to believe; either correctly or you are in error. As it is with almost choice in life. I believe that nothing that exists can exist without being created; otherwise, there would be nothing at all as nothingness has no building blocks or substance to make anything that is. This is my choice as it is yours to believe your logic . . . and our logic usually seeks truth. So you believe you have found truth as I think that I have found truth. How do reconcile this obvious paradox of your own person and logical conclusions? Is it that everyone else is stupid but those who agree with you or do allow for the possibility that someone else may be right and that your logic may be flawed? But rest assured that however you answer such things, you have beliefs. I am sure that you believe that the sun will set on today and then rise again tomorrow morning . . . am I right?
LikeLike
jim- said:
That is not a religious belief, which is the subject matter here. Don’t need to conflate. I reconcile the paradox by acknowledging the foibles and quirks of human bias, cognition, perception and neurology. That we are easily fooled throughout our lives and awareness of this fact, conceding this fact, is a step towards reality. I have no dishonesty in my core. I am candid and present my discoveries. I do not need to lie, nor do I really have a dog in the fight or an agenda. I have no spiritual inklings and basically writing here to find out why people are the way they are. I don’t hate belief, but I do see it as problematic to the honest advance of the human condition. I have no malice for no man. I just write my observations in my own words.
LikeLike
Scoop said:
So a philosophical belief is OK or a scientific belief is OK but only anything regarding a Creator is bad. I get it. That’s fine then, I suppose that we could say that this is the Jim hypothesis or theory which Jim came to believe subjectively. So we can take it or leave it as we choose though you will find that those who disagree are holding to something problematic as your view is the one that is not problematic at all. Or am I going beyond what you are trying to explain?
LikeLiked by 1 person
jim- said:
You have overshot by a bit. I got quite good as a paramedic finding objective truth. I used the soap format. S=Subjective. What you are told by bystanders, police, fire, etc. I=Objective. What I find with my own eyes and diagnostic tools. Rarely did the complaint match the root of the problem. My journey is less subjective than most. I try to view what we see vs what web are told. An
I not allowed this methodology? The experts have been wrong for most of human existence. Just look at it. I would suggest putting down the commentary a while and viewing through the lens of Scoop. Take the simplest of gospel catch phrases or scripture, and you see the world, even the church does not produce the desired outcome. A= Assessment—what I find in a head to toe exam and vital signs. and P= Plan. What I did about it.
I
Took the Gallup strengths test a year ago and by a long margin my strength was ideation. It explains like this “you have the ability to take seemingly disparate topics and link them together to make sense”. So in a way I guess I am an expert.
LikeLike
Phillip said:
Out of curiosity, What would your reply be to the Cartesian notion that O. and A. cannot be trusted?
LikeLiked by 1 person
jim- said:
I will answer that Phillip. I’m just heading out for a few hours so I’ll hit it this evening. Thanks. Great question.
LikeLike
jim- said:
”The world is full of people who have stopped listening to themselves”—Joseph Campbell
Who is it you are going to trust? It seems odd to me that with nearly eight billion different neurologíes and perceptions there are about five choices for most people, through lazy economics, go with one flow or the other depending on where they were born and never truly know what they are aligning with. Of course on the streets I heard opposing views of what happened, many times neither making any sense. I feel objectivity can be achieved but it takes some level of understanding. It takes awareness that our cognition is often flawed and we should err on the side of love. It takes understanding that we are raised in deception by a society of liars at every turn. Tricked, cover up, superstitions, and learn from a poisoned well.
If one makes an effort to understand the biases and perceptions and foibles of human neurology and hormones, it is a step toward reality.
I was trying to get Joe, (another reader) to work with me on constructing a workable morality model. We could iron out the details over coffee in a couple of mornings. He was adamantly opposed to such nonsense. Impossible, he would say. It’s all pretty easy to do until belief comes in to play. That pesky thought conviction without substance that is not even your own doing or your own ideas, we’ve allowed the men of words to convince us that it cannot be done. Only god…
Certainly we can agree that intruding on personal autonomy would be in the spirit of fairness to everyone. Gay, strait, catholic or Muslim. For without that autonomy (through submission) we cannot judge anything objectively.
In my ideal world, in all fairness, everyone would be taught at a young age the complexity and errancy of human cognition, all the different biases, and be shown some neurological studies that demonstrate how easily deceived and manipulated we all are. Then, yes, a high level of objectivity could be achieved.
Let me share with you a story that changed my life. It was from the pulpit, and god moved upon me and everyone else pretty much to tears. It was miraculous how this happened, and I was in awe of the Holy Spirit. At that moment life was perfect. I believe if there were any non believers there, they would have been saved and forever devoted. The story turned out to be a lie. We were completely deceived by our own trust, hormones, synapses, all if it generated an emotional response over a lie. It was a calculated move and it works.
That is the epitome of the human problem. We want to believe there is more and we’ll believe nearly anything to get it. Somewhere along the line our ability to think has outpaced our ability to comprehend or reason. If we can take a step back and hit the reset, it all becomes pretty clear that we’ve been deceived. But, I do believe that until people are ready for the truth, they need the churches to tell them what to think—right up until they don’t.
If I may be bold for a moment, no disrespect is intended, just my observation (haha) The key to understanding the mysteries is unbelief. Through unbelief we can drop the bias and certainly can see closer objectivity. It may not be fun or desirable at first, but quickly we adapt to calling our own shots in a meaningful way.
LikeLiked by 1 person
jim- said:
In a nutshell, the less you believe in Christianity, the more you are able to understand it. The ability to handwave or justify contradictions is diminished by unbelief. That is a plus towards reality. We’re not talking one or two contradictions, but a massive patchwork—it’s thematic
LikeLike
Phillip said:
Interesting…
Ontologically speaking, I do not think it’s possible be a “free thinker.” Take for example, the. The very system you use to communicate, the English language is something that is passed on to you and inherited by tradition. The language, for its function, has rules and structure, that by its very nature, so long as you think within the cultural frameworks of it, you’ll never be able to separate yourself. And both language and religion are fundamental to cultural identity and the Christian religion has deep roots within the English language, as with the Western romantic languages
LikeLiked by 1 person
jim- said:
I think you may be shortchanging your own ability. You’re catholic, correct? Let’s take a look at the Mormons for a moment. Joseph Smith had a vision. He saw god the father and his son Jesus, in the flesh wearing loosely clad robes. He produced an inspired text about 600 pages long about a people that populated ancient America, no one on earth can corroborate. Millions of people believe and pay full tithing and perform temple rituals and baptisms to benefit the dead. They wear strange underwear with Masonic markings on them and also have 3 canonized scriptures outside the Bible. Do you believe their story? You absolutely can judge the character of Joseph Smith and his polygamy, the errancy of their scripture, and the strangeness of their mode of worship. Why can you and they cannot? They are actually some of the most faithful “Christians” of any sect. They believe it’s true with all their ability and easily overlook the contradictions and the ridiculous mistranslations of the book of Abraham. They excuse Joseph Smith at every turn for his dealings, deceit, polygamy, wife stealing, pedophilia, temper, and so forth because they have decided to believe. You however, can pick it apart like low hanging fruit because you don’t believe it. Very easily in fact.
I’m sure by now you have learned to excuse the brutal history and cover up scandals of the Catholic Church. The murders, the unholy transfers of power, all of the forced conversions and extermination’s of Europe and the americas. It takes a lot of effort and wordplay, but it can be done from stem to stern. How? I can pick it apart and personally would never align with it. But I don’t believe. Makes it pretty easy.
Sorry for the long reply, but one more thing. Ellen white of the SDA—has a massive head injury as a young girl. A basilar, la forte skull fracture in which she was expected to die, but survived after several days in a coma. She adapts to her new seizure disorder as a seer and prophetess. Well documented. She has a seizure and in her postictal phase she prophecies Uber conservative religious doctrines that align with her upbringing. They form a church and now have millions of believers. Even though many of her prophecies have failed, she’s like a tarot card reader. She says so much General bs that it applies to someone somewhere every day. I don’t believe god was speaking through her, but she exhibited behavior common to temporal lobe epileptics. I’ve seen it myself in the field. Is god working through epilepsy? Of course not. I’m not sure where you stand on this, but I think with an afternoon of neuro updates on basilar skull fractures and epilepsy you would see the ridiculous nature of their belief in her prophecy. The key to understanding the mysteries is unbelief. I’m not kidding about that.
LikeLike
Phillip said:
“I’m sure by now you have learned to excuse the brutal history and cover up scandals of the Catholic Church. The murders, the unholy transfers of power, all of the forced conversions and extermination’s of Europe and the americas.”
On the contrary, it is true that I do believe some of the history is written by those who were/are anti-Catholic, such as the Inquisition, as the witch-hunt craze during the same period was far more destructive in Central Europe than Spain–and never mentioned by popular historians. I would suspect that you could even admit that is the goal of some historians.
Nonetheless, I fully accept that there are scoundrels in the Church, an institution with a 2000 year-old history. I think anyone would be hard pressed to find any institution without scoundrels in it that have not caused great harm. And again, in many ways, this confirms the Christian teachings of ‘original sin,’ In fact, most of history has been full of turmoil and violence because humans are involved. Humans are involved with the Church, so I say “duh,” when it comes to the sins committed by those who operate in it. I think there is wisdom in Pope Francis when he says, “The Church is not a museum of the righteous but a hospital for sinners.” People do excuse many actions, but it does far more to heal both the Church and others to be outraged by such events both in the past and currently.
LikeLiked by 1 person
jim- said:
Curious how you would respond to the topic at hand. I gave a couple of examples of how easy this is, but there there many more. I should’ve left off the Catholic example and regretted sending it as it distracts from the topic of objectivity.
LikeLike
jim- said:
I really like the lost gospel of Thomas V:2 Jesus says:
(1) “The one who seeks should not cease seeking until he finds.
(2) And when he finds, he will be dismayed.
(3) And when he is dismayed, he will be astonished—Dismayed is a perfect word here. There is no mystery. That is the mystery.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Scoop said:
Well you’re entitled to any methodology you believe in as you are also entitled to believe that the Gallup Strength Test is a proof of your expertise.
I’ve held to various philosophies in life until one put all the puzzle pieces together without my having to get out an X-acto knife and trimming the edges. I’m still working on my Faith as are most Christians. Most of us don’t get too far and fall short of the teachings. That is not a failure of the teaching but a failure of the person and their will or understanding. So the ‘Scoop lens” as you call it is rather lenient when it comes to the shortcomings of others and yet rather rigid when it comes to evaluate myself. I am not about to say that I am good Christian, a good dad, a good provider, a good husband or a good person. That is for others to judge and my Creator.
Ever hear the old Mose Allison song “Ask Me Nice”?
one of the lines is:
I just get by with what I got.
Enjoy:
LikeLiked by 1 person
jim- said:
Monotheism—particularly Christianity and Islam have stated that they are the last word—not to be added to. The first to be the last. Muhammad says his is the final word. A culture develops from these teachings that they don’t have to listen to anyone else in matters any more. Stuck in a time of archaic morality when we can do better.
LikeLike
Scoop said:
You mischaracterize Muslims. Their teachings can be changed and even reversed not to mention that they have an evil mindset of killing any non-believer or subjugating them and forcing them to pay a tax . . . though that does not guarantee their safety.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Arkenaten said:
The ‘if’ is the question, is it not?
However, the basis for belief is faith with no evidence whatsoever to support such claims the only way to ensure the continuance of belief is through various forms of indoctrination.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Bosco the Heretic said:
You swear there aint no heaven but you pray there aint no hell
LikeLike
Arkenaten said:
Hell is a literary construct. The biblical character Jesus was a Jew and never taught the Hell that has been indoctrinated into Christians.
LikeLike
Nicholas said:
He taught eternal conscious torment in Gehenna as can be seen from reading the Synoptic Gospels. “Hell” has a broad semantic range, but Christians often use it as a reference to the Gehenna taught by Jesus.
LikeLike
Arkenaten said:
I’ll wager very few average Christians are even aware of the term Gehenna.
The Burn in Hell/Tortured for Eternity variety is something the church manufactured.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Nicholas said:
It is true that most Christians do not know the word “Gehenna”, but the referrent is ensconced in the minds of most. The concept is intended – among others – by the use of the word Hell.
Eternal conscious torment can be found in pre-Exilic, Exilic, and Second Temple Judaism. It was adopted by Gentile Christians as concomitant with the Judaism they entered through the Gospel.
LikeLike
Arkenaten said:
I am aware of your claim but this is simply playing semantics when you know very well that the version almost every Christian across the planet is familiar with is what has been indoctrinated since almost the beginning.
LikeLike
Nicholas said:
Could you be more specific? I am not sure exactly what you are saying.
Are you talking about Christians simplistically believing in literal fire?
In that case, are you asserting that the language of Christ and Revelation is meant to be taken metaphorically and that Christians have largely failed to do this?
Are you asserting that Jesus taught annihilationism?
Who are you listing as candidates for manufacturing the “modern” concept of Hell – the writers of the New Testament? the Patristic authors?
LikeLike
Arkenaten said:
The Dante – like image is what the vast majority of Christians have been brought up to believe.
Consider this ….
Tertullian also had a say ….
And then came Augustine.
But I m sure you know this,
LikeLike
Nicholas said:
Yes, I am familiar with Dante’s “Divine Comedy”, having read it and its footnotes in the Oxford Classics edition.
I am happy to concede that the Fathers and authors such as Dante have added unbiblical concepts to the doctrine. In the video you linked to, the speaker seems to assert that children come under original sin and are thus automatically condemned to Hell unless saved by Christ. I reject this doctrine. Nor do I believe in original sin as taught by Augustine of Hippo and subsequent Catholic authors – in fact, I generally reject his teachings and am on the record here and elsewhere as doing so. I hold that he misinterpreted Romans, and being of the Late Antique period, was sufficiently distant from the Second Temple Period as to be unreliable in many matters of interpretation.
LikeLike
Arkenaten said:
I am sure there are many that also reject these ridiculous teachings. However, the vast majority accept them or a version that reflects similar details. And the Devil is in the Detail is it not?
Such vile rubbish merely highlights the true nature of Christianity and why fear has played such an integral role in the indoctrination of billions of people over the millennia.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Nicholas said:
Do you object to anything that Jesus Himself taught? If you reject the teachings of Jesus Himself, then there is little I can do to persuade you to reconsider. If your objections are to how His followers have acted and what they have taught, then the dialogue, should you wish one, must needs be more complex and lengthy. As a non-denominational/Protestant Christian, I would not be defending particular teachings or practices of a given group where they depart from Scripture or reason.
LikeLike
Arkenaten said:
The scholarly view is that the majority of the sayings of the biblical character Jesus of Nazareth are not authentic, and there is no way to verify the veracity of anything he else he was supposed to have said.
I’m interested on what evidential basis you consider these supposed sayings are worthy of any merit at all?
Couple this with the disgusting Hell Doctrine I’m surprised you can approach being a Christian with any degree of integrity whatsoever.
LikeLike
Nicholas said:
The textual integrity of the NT is astounding in comparison with other texts from the Archaic, Classical, and Late Antique periods. Do you have scholarship by Bart Ehrman in mind? If the sayings attributed to Jesus are fabrications, then they would have to have been inserted into the Christian tradition very early – in the first century AD.
Is it your contention that there was no such person as Jesus of Nazareth? character,
As to the second part of your comment, could you clarify what you find disgusting about the biblical doctrine of Hell, as opposed to the accretions of subsequent church history?
LikeLike
Arkenaten said:
The textual integrity?
Exactly what do you mean by this?
There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that the character Jesus of Nazareth, as portrayed in the bible – ever existed.
There is no biblical doctrine of Hell. It is wholly a church construct.
I reiterate, the character Jesus was a Jew and such a nonsense doctrine would have been anathema to him.
LikeLike
Nicholas said:
Could you demonstrate why the doctrine of Hell would be an anathema to a Jew? It is clearly taught in Scripture, Second Temple texts, and was preserved in rabbinic Judaism – see the Talmud.
LikeLike
Arkenaten said:
Firstly the word Hell is not Jewish and the concept understood by Christians, that of eternal torture as a mean of punishment would most certainly have been anathema to any Jew.
Once again, the Christian notion of >Hell as is popularly understood is a non biblical construct.
LikeLike
Nicholas said:
You accused me of playing semantic game yesterday, but you have done this in your own statement now. The word, qua word, is irrelevant. It is convenient to use the word Hell – if you would rather I repeatedly said Gehenna, I am happy to do so, but this would also be incomplete. The Jews appropriated the term Tartarus from the Greeks – though altered its definition somewhat – during the Second Temple period. It should also be included in discussions of the spiritual world.
You repeat that the popular notion of Hell is non-biblical, but I do not assert that it is – you are not offering a criticism that engages with my statements. I repeat, the teachings of punishment in the afterlife, ass found in the NT are authentically Jewish.
LikeLike
Arkenaten said:
But the Christian understanding is a non biblical construct.
To put it bluntly. They made it up.
LikeLike
Nicholas said:
I am not sure what you mean by “Christian” in this context or how it is a criticism of my personal beliefs and utterances? If you are saying the visible Church has departed from the teachings of Christ that is not a concern for me. The failure of Christians does not invalidate the claims and teachings of Jesus, nor does it impact on metaphysical claims about Him.
LikeLike
Arkenaten said:
Hell as is popularly regarded by Christians and has been taught as such for the larger part of the religion’s history is simply made up.
You have no way of ascertaining what are the supposed teachings of Jesus.
LikeLike
Nicholas said:
Your assertion that Hell is made up is tendentious. You have no way of knowing whether that is true or not. Nor is there an a priori reason for disbelieving in Hell, whereas there is a posteriori evidence of it, as recorded in human testimony.
LikeLike
Arkenaten said:
Hilarious!
The doctrine of Hell as popularly understood by Christians – eternal torture fire and brimstone etc – and has been taught as such since almost the beginning of the religion’s inception is man made.
LikeLike
Nicholas said:
Again, that is a tendentious assertion and may be tendentiously denied. Unless you are a witness to its creation by man, you are not in a position to make that assertion. There is no a priori or a posteriori reason to conclusively believe that Hell was not revealed to mankind.
LikeLike
Arkenaten said:
We have the biblical text to show that the popular version does not derive from its text.
We also have Tertullian and later Augustine. I have mentioned this already.´
Are you not reading?
LikeLike
Nicholas said:
I am reading and you are talking at cross purposes to me. You are talking about the popular version – which is of no relevance to the basic points:
A) Does Hell exist?
B) Is it taught in Scripture?
C) Who goes to Hell?
D) How is it to be taught to others?
E) Is it to be taught to children, and, if so, how and when?
I care nothing for fabrications and I have not taught them in this post or others, therefore your criticism of fabrications is neither a criticism of me nor this post. It is an additional point you, not I have raised, and I am not obligated to deal with it except in so far as it detracts from Christ Himself. What man has or has not done or taught is not essential to the question of whether Hell exists independently of man’s conjectures or whether man ought to pursue honest, openminded inquiry into the question of God’s existence and, after concluding that He does exist, which God He is. These are the topics of this post. If you wish to argue against popular Christian beliefs and then criticise people who do not hold those beliefs, you are not behaving honourably.
LikeLike
Arkenaten said:
Fair enough.
Let’s back it up.
Are you asserting Hell exists?
If so, please provide the evidence to demonstrate such an assertion.
Also, why does your understanding/interpretation not comport with what has been taught by the Christian Church for the larger part of its existence which is in the main reflected in the video I posted.
LikeLike
Nicholas said:
Textual integrity, also known as textual purity, refers to the transmission of texts by hand (as opposed to by printing press) with a high degree of fidelity to the original autographs. Variant readings of the NT are small in number with no appreciable impact on the meaning of the text and there are no lacunae. By contrast, the exact contents of, for example, the Iliad or the poems of Propertius, are far from certain.
LikeLike
Arkenaten said:
Yes, but this does not demonstrate the veracity of the content. For this you need to provide evidence and that you are unable to do.
LikeLike
Nicholas said:
Do you concede, then, that the NT texts have been accurately transmitted and that they were all created in the first century AD, some as early as the 50s? If you will concede this point, I shall address veracity.
LikeLike
Arkenaten said:
I have no idea whether they have been accurately transmitted, and neither do you.
What we do know is they are anonymous, are not eyewitness testimony and are riddled with errors across almost every discipline.
They also include interpolation, and outright fraud.
LikeLike
Nicholas said:
You should read the work of Peter Williams, a Cambridge scholar of textual criticism, before you make a hasty judgment on transmission. He taught me biblical Hebrew during my time there. He and others have made excellent cases for the textual purity of the NT. If you will not concede that point, I shall not address the NT as a testimony to the life of Christ, because the former is a necessary condition of fruitful discussion of the latter.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Arkenaten said:
I am not arguing whether the text are ”pure” or not.
Besides, without original manuscripts this can never be qualified.
And it is known that the texts we have are ridd
led with errors.
And I reiterate , it matters not if you have ten thousand copies or ten million.
You have to provide evidence to demonstrate the veracity of the content, otherwise we might as well be discussing a Harry Potter novel.
LikeLike
Nicholas said:
Would you provide a list of things that you would accept as evidence, and would you state whether you are a logical positivist or not? I am loath to give a lengthy answer only to have it criticised as “not counting”.
LikeLike
Arkenaten said:
Why must I offer a ”list” of evidence for the veracity of the text?
It is well known that the text is riddled with error across multiple disciplines and also contains, contradictions, interpolation, fraud.
LikeLike
Nicholas said:
All of those are assertions as of this comment, without evidence. Unless you give examples of each of them, I see no reason why I should be required to accept them. The inference is that you want me and others here to recant our Christian beliefs and apostatise as atheists – but you have not offered compelling reasons to do so. We are not obligated to give indepth answers to you unless you give us assurances you will honestly and openmindedly engage with them. I have endeavoured up to this point to engage openly, honestly, and politely with you – but you have not engaged in lock step with my dialogue and I see no reason to continue further. While Scoop and Phillip are free to do so, I will not unless I see evidence of change on your part. We do not practise censorship here, so you are free to comment as you please, but I do not engage after initial overtures show a lack of reciprocity from my opponent. You wil find me consistent on this point as Bosco receives the same treatment from me. You would do well to emulate Jim’s example of atheistic discourse with us.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Arkenaten said:
And I likely never will either. Your current state of indoctrination will put up walls to block anything I say.
De-conversion, if it occurs, will be by your own hand, as it were, and through a process of intellectual honesty, reliant solely on evidence, or in this case lack thereof.
I am always open-minded.
All I ever ask is that evidence be provided for each and every claim that is made.
LikeLike
Bosco the Heretic said:
Good brother/sister Arkenaten, your outrage is toward religions. Religions are all man made and are staffed with evil wicked scumbags. Usually its a distaste for the catholic church which most people see as christianity. If that is ones idea of christianity, sure one would call it insane and evil. Thats because the catholic church has been a blight on the planet, causing untold suffering and misery.
For what its worth, Jesus is a man, not a religion. Followers of him are meek and gentile. One can have a firm belief that there is a creator and not have to subscribe to a sick sad religion.
LikeLike
Arkenaten said:
So what happens if one does not believe in the biblical character Jesus of Nazareth?
LikeLike
Bosco the Heretic said:
Well, you dont believe in this character, nothing has happened to you. Lots of people dont believe it and live long healthy lives. If one wants to believe in Jesus, the bible is the only account of him. One can always pick things not to believe or add things that make it more suitable. One such fable is that Jesus went to India to study transindental meditation or something like that. Its up to the individual.
LikeLike
Phillip said:
Note: Pascal’s Wager, in the Pensees, is often treated in isolation but it’s contingent on more or less someone is already considering being a Christian and shouldn’t be applied strictly to the atheistic skeptic.
Pascal gives more arguments for Christianity that do not get as much attention as this one taken out out of its context.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Nicholas said:
We have to understand his context: he was writing in a (superficially) Christian Europe. Society had not reached the unchurched status that obtains today. Nevertheless, I do think it is a cogent reason for someone to consider religious philosophy and from there religion itself.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Bosco the Heretic said:
Arkenaten, you are a joke. Male or female. Jesus spoke more about hell than he did heaven. He said its a place of gnawing of tongues for pain. But i dont slight you for not knowing what you talk about. The Word of god isnt for you so i dont expect you to know it.
LikeLike
Arkenaten said:
@ Bosco
No he didn’t. The biblical character, Jesus was a Jew. The Christian doctrine of Hell as is popularly understood would have been anathema to him.
However, you are the perfect example of why most Christians are not only ignorant of the bible but a shining example of how easy it is to indoctrinate credulous people such as you.
LikeLike
Bosco the Heretic said:
I dont know much about this popular view of hell. Jesus said that hell/ lake of fire, is where the fire is not quenched and the worm dyeth not. And thank you, i heard somewhere jesus was born a Jew. Say, how did you get that smart? Was it yrs of hard study or were you born genius.
And i know what gehenna is, thank you.
LikeLike
Arkenaten said:
I am not sure what the comment policy is regarding people like you who behave like ignorant Nobs.
Perhaps Phillip or Nicholas could tell you?
LikeLike
Bosco the Heretic said:
This is the newer gentler kinder Bosco. Ive gone thru my anger managment classes. Youre lucky you dont have to deal with the old Bosco.
Ill apologize if anything i said wasnt nice.
LikeLike
Arkenaten said:
Well, all Christians suffer from some sort of inner torment. It’s why you need Jesus to save you, right?
LikeLike
Bosco the Heretic said:
I didnt know about salvation from Jesus. I thought i was cool. I was tricked into accepting the Lord. After knowing jesus, then i realized i needed his blood to cleans me. It wasnt nice, because then i knew most people i know will spend eternity in the lake of fire. Fortunately god gave me the promise to save my house also. Which he did. Now its up to me to share to good news with friends and people like you who cross my path. I welcome you as a friend.
LikeLike
Arkenaten said:
I’m not sure if you are on the level or taking the piss.
But whatever, that comment is hilarious.
LikeLike
Bosco the Heretic said:
Im on the level. What you see is what you get from Bosco the Magnificent.
LikeLike
Arkenaten said:
Then you need to seek professional help.
LikeLike
Bosco the Heretic said:
I resemble that remark
LikeLike
Arkenaten said:
It is somewhat disconcerting, but typical that the real trolls – just lime you – never have a blog where one can visit.
LikeLike
Bosco the Heretic said:
Oh frer mon contraire, i would be honored for you to visit my journalistic hard hitting site……cherrybombcoutour.blogspot.com….sign in and become a member. kick yer feet up and rest a spell. find rest for your soul.
LikeLike
Arkenaten said:
Sorry . Too weird for me. Did have a run in with a Priest at some stage when you were young?
LikeLike
Bosco the Heretic said:
You mean was i buggered by a catholic priest when i was young? I was raised in prot church. At least thats what the mary worshipers call us. No homopredator pastors. The pastor was a family friend. I grew up with his kids. When i was young, heaven help any pervert. We went after them with glee. Albeit there were hardly any. We were all normal kids. Normal families. We hated injustice. I had friends who were catholic, and they gave those mean nuns hell. The catholic schools should thank the devil, or who ever they pray to, that i, Bosco, wasnt in a catholic school. I took no mess from any adult. My momma and grand momma protected me. Or rather protected the teachers from me. My parents used to threaten me with catholic school if i didnt do better in school. So i tried to do better.
LikeLike
Bosco the Heretic said:
I rather enjoy good brother Jims spin on things. He strikes at the heart of whats wrong with religions. As quiet as its kept, god would rather one be hot or cold, because if one is luke warm(religious) he will spew you out of his mouth.
The Lord can work more with someones disbelief than with someone who is comfortable with their beads and rattles.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Nicholas said:
I certainly think it is productive to have a non-denominational stance, because it allows one to pursue contextual understanding of the Scriptures without being bound by various traditions. It’s easier to adopt a paradigm shift, if necessary, this way – as can be seen in secular fields of inquiry like physics, archaeology, etc.
LikeLike
Arkenaten said:
The great thing about physics and archaeology is that they haves taken to pieces bit by bit every foundatonal tenet of Christianity.
Ah … reality!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Nicholas said:
Do you mean they have challenged the validity of synthetic Christian propositions? They are not in a position to challenge analytic propositions – by their very nature. Philosophy is a necessary condition of archaeology and physics, not vice versa.
LikeLike
Arkenaten said:
What the heck is this waffle supposed to mean?
The HGP has shown the Adam and Eve story is nonsense and archaeology has shown that among other things the Exodus tale is nothing but myth.
Are you wanting to go through the entirety of the Tenets of Faith so we can consign each and every one to the scrap heap?
LikeLike
Nicholas said:
If necessary, yes. It is an a priori judgment that the Adam and Eve story is to be read literally, and even if we do read it literally, it can, with qualifications, be defended, along with a global flood, which submerged a a territory south of what is not Kuwait beneath what is now the Persian Gulf circa 13,000 years ago. I direct you to Sentinel Apologetics.
As for the Exodus, I know of no material that refutes it. Modern scholarship and various ancient conjectures are mistaken in the dates and locations of various parts of the Exodus saga.
LikeLike
Arkenaten said:
Oh dear, a Creationist .
Sorry, as much as I thoroughly enjoy discussions regarding Christianity I have no desire to engage the terminally stupid.
Give my regards to Ken Ham when you see him.
It is utter nonsense to even try to defend the tale of Adam and Eve.
LikeLike
Nicholas said:
I am not an adherent of Ken Ham, and it is not “stupid” to admit the possibility that God is the ultimate source of creation. One must ultimately posit something eternal at the beginning of the chain of creation and it is no more foolish to posit an eternal God than eternal matter or energy. Indeed, modern scientific understanding of the Big Bang strongly suggests a single point of creation whence the universe flows.
LikeLike
Arkenaten said:
The HGP refutes any notion of an original couple as per the biblical tale.
There was no global flood as recorded in the bible,
LikeLike
Nicholas said:
That is not a criticism of my beliefs – I neither believe in a global flood, nor that such is recorded in the bible. As a reader of Biblical Hebrew and ancient Greek (which I was reading from age 13), I can conscientiously assert that the bible does not unambiguously assert an original couple or a global flood. Even if it did, that would not impact on my own view of biblical inspiration – you would be incorrect in identifying me as a fundamentalist, if that is what you have done. I would be considered heretical by various portions of the Protestant world.
LikeLike
Arkenaten said:
The problem with so many Christians is they tend to skirt issues and use somewhat ambiguous language so as not to be obliged to deliver a definitive yes or no answer to a direct question or statement.
I call this the theological two step.
You are an adult (I presume) and I care nothing for your beliefs, providing you do not try to inculcate them into others, and especially children.
What you interpret of the biblical tales is not the same as what has and is imparted.
One reason there are over 30,000 sects of Christianity.
The tale of Adam and Eve is a myth and a scientific impossibility.
The global flood tale in the bible is equally nonsense.
LikeLike
Nicholas said:
If your objection is fundamentally moral, then you must make a moral argument as to why the basic doctrine of Hell (i.e. unrepentant adult sinners are subject to eternal conscious torment in the afterlife) is morally repugnant.
Whether the matter has and should be communicated to children is a complex debate in itself – if you wish to address that too, that is fair enough, but so far you have largely offered assertions rather than arguments. The video you linked to yesterday, in its more extreme elements, is not representative of most Christians and even if it were something that we must work harder to address, in itself, that extreme element would not invalidate the basic teaching of Hell, which is taught in Scripture.
LikeLike
Arkenaten said:
You use the term eternal conscious torment – a term most Christians throughout history would not relate to.
If you wish to teach this to kids then the onus is on you to demonstrate its veracity otherwise, it is simply child abuse, and many former Christians will attest to this.
One only has to look at the video I posted.
LikeLike
Bosco the Heretic said:
One only has to look at the school shooting by school kids because god has been removed from the class and kids are told they are animals and just mobile lumps of protoplasm and so what if you destroy them. They have no soul and you have no soul. But its Ok to have witches and gobblins all over the walls during halloween, but no nativity scenes. They are offensive. Its child abuse.
Ill tell you what child abuse is…..when the souless animal of a student sitting next to another brings out a AK 47 and blows their head off and walks down the hall randomly ripping to shreds other students. That doesnt bother you one bit….does it good brother/sister Arkenaten. But for heaven sake, lets not offend children with Christmas stories It might traumatize them.
LikeLike
Arkenaten said:
Of course it might be prudent to ban firearms or at least implement stricter controls.
This though would be impinging on your ”freedoms” I suppose?
LikeLike
Bosco the Heretic said:
Ban firearms. Oh yeah. That will work. I know, why dont we tell kids to stop shooting each other. That should work
What worked is a rounded education where Christ is lifted up..We didnt have this problem befor the ACLU and others like you communised american schools. Thanks alot.
LikeLike
Arkenaten said:
I | also said implement stricter controls, but I guess being a myopic Dick you missed that?
And yes, ban them. It worked in Australia.
LikeLike
Bosco the Heretic said:
Good brother/sister Arkenaten, please excuse my good brother Nicholas.He says he doesnt believe the world wide flood of Noah. And he poopoos the account of Adam and Eve. You see, he subscribes to a religion. Like the Creator of heaven and earth says…i rather one be cold or hot…if you are luke warn i will spew you out of my mouth.The Maker would rather work with a clean slate, like the one you have , good brother/sister, than to work with the fearful and unbelieving who have a form of godliness but deny the power thereof.
I firmly believe on know the account of Genesis is 100% true. The flood is true. There is amble evidence in Antarctica for it. There is evidence where i live for it. I see it every day.
You mumble the word archaeology. Dont you know it has proven the bible accounts true, every day. The palace of Sargon was found in 1950. Tower of Babel was found. Nineva was found. The palace of King David is being unearth as we speak. Sodom and Gomorrah are tourist traps. Pharoes chariots are on the bottom of the red sea. There is an account of Jesus the trouble maker in a Roman document. Ur has been found.Babylon is a tourist trap.
Good brother/sister Arkenaten, in the face of all this, people still raise their fist to heaven and say the word of god is not true, …because they say so.
You dont want it to be true. Your life depends on it not being true. Because deep down inside, you know if it is true, you are in for large trouble when you die.
Jesus knocks of your door, because he loves you and wants to be with you. Open and he will come in and sup with you.
LikeLike
Arkenaten said:
Tell you what, instead of spewing out Creationist/Apologetic polemic provide the evidence for your claims.
And as your claims for the Global Flood fly the face of all recognised science if your claims an out I will add my name to recommending you for a Nobel prize.
Until then, I am afraid you come across as nothing but a ginormous Dickhead.
And I said before you need professional help and I mean it. Please stay away from children.
LikeLike
Bosco the Heretic said:
Every thing i mentioned you can look up. you want evidence, google any of the archeology i mentioned. Its hard to be alive and watch TV and never hearings of any one of these things. May i ask, uh, have you been in confinement.
LikeLike
Arkenaten said:
Have you heard of paleontology?
LikeLike
Bosco the Heretic said:
no, because im stupid. what about it.
LikeLike
Arkenaten said:
Then research it and you might grasp the significance regarding the Flood.
Maybe.
LikeLike
Scoop said:
This essay might tie into the conversations as late:
https://www.davidwarrenonline.com/2019/06/22/on-something-nothing/
LikeLike
Nicholas said:
While set theory is beyond my remit, I certainly find taxonomies useful, and have employed them in my career when appropriate. Exposing the different ways of defining categories in hierarchies can help students to untangle the problems of language.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Scoop said:
I thought the business of mathematics, though interesting, a small part of his general observations. But the understanding of an eternal supreme being without beginning or end (an eternal now) cannot be defined by the tools at our disposal. Evolution and mathematics only point to an orderly intelligent unfolding which needs an architect and designer or it makes no sense.
Jim’s thoughts on hormones etc. seems to dismiss the fact that why would this evolve in man (if it is evolution)? Would it not be pointing the human creature to a higher evolutionary scales? If so for what purpose? Something would have to guide it. If this is the latest evolutionary process then it is useful and above that which was before . . . meaning that God is a development toward something useful for man or more true and more advanced. It cannot therefore be judged as inferior or problematic. It is the highest form of evolution that has (naturally . . . guided by the ultimate Architect) evolved. Seems to me that would say to him that belief in God is the Highest form of evolution.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Nicholas said:
Although I do consider Aquinas’ argument, and similar ones from time to time, I tend to focus on the analytic side of things: the structure of human thought itself presupposes the existence of God. This in itself does not show that God exists – since thought need not be connected to the noumenal world – but it has a significant impact on logic and persuasion.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Scoop said:
There is an object and a subject in such thought processes and as the author says people have lately substituted nothing for something.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Nicholas said:
Indeed – for all the advances in our education, I see a lot of woolly thinking: people refusing to accept the logical consequences of their positions or failing/refusing to see contradictions.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Scoop said:
I’m no scholar . . . all I have to serve this feeble body is my lifelong observations and faith was only the first of many hurdles. From there we have to seek out what makes our God the True God. Of all religions only 2 have been founded directly, as history and scripture gives it to us by God Himself: Judaism and Christianity with Christianity fulfilling the first. So one must decide when the doubting Thomas within recoils, what we are going to do with our lives.
LikeLike
Arkenaten said:
Bosco the Heretic said:
Hey good brother/sister, are you hungry? i hope so. Here are some words id like you to eat. I have a choice of BBQ sauce, ranch or teriyaki.
“he great thing about physics and archaeology is that they haves taken to pieces bit by bit every foundatonal tenet of Christianity.
Ah … reality!”
Now open wide while i shove them down your throat……say AHHHHHHHHh…aaaahhhh
In 1847 the young British adventurer Austen Henry Layard explored the ruins of Nineveh and rediscovered the lost palace of Sennacherib across the Tigris River from modern Mosul in northern Iraq. Inscribed in cuneiform on the colossal sculptures in the doorway of its throne room was Sennacherib’s own account of his siege of Jerusalem. It differed in detail from the biblical one but confirmed that Sennacherib did not capture the city. This find generated an excitement that is difficult to imagine today, because amid the increasing religious doubt and scriptural revisionism of the mid-nineteenth century, it gave Christian fundamentalists an independent eyewitness corroboration of a biblical event, written in the doorway of the very room where Sennacherib may have issued his order to attack
https://archive.archaeology.org/online/features/nineveh/
This is just one of at least 100 pieces of biblical archeology that have come to light. This ought to be enough for you for now, or until you feel like another foot sandwich.
Oh gosh i love bustin know it alls..
Bustin makes me feel good. (;-D
LikeLike
Arkenaten said:
And apparently Jerusalem which is also mentioned in the bible is also a real city.- Wow! Who knew, right?
And even Jericho. Just amazing.
Again, are you aware of paleontology?
LikeLike
Bosco the Heretic said:
what about it.
LikeLike
Arkenaten said:
Seriously … read a book on paleontology or take some tablets. Or maybe both?
LikeLike
Bosco the Heretic said:
What about paleontology. If you like best guesses and lots of “we are not sures” and may not be reliable and oops we were wrongs, then you would like paleontology. Carbon dating live clams to be 50,000 yrs old. Not a single transition example. T Rex just came out of nowhere. Which came first…..the termite or the bacteria that digest to wood in the gut of the termite. One couldnt live without the other. When did the whale decide to go into the water. 40 ton animal with not much of a leg on land dont sound to good.Paleontology says whale was land creature. evolved on land. then went to sea. Why are there ants. Everything has had the same time to evolve. Everything should be humans. Why are there still monkeys. They should have evolved.
Oh wait, i think ive got it. the missing link. Good brother/sister Arkenaten, you are that missing link between human and animal. Thats what youve been trying to tell us.A eureka moment in science.
LikeLike
Arkenaten said:
You truly are indoctrinated.
But for some reason, I still can’t decide if you are here for shits and giggles and your crew are laughing as much as I am or you are serious.
If the latter then you need a reality check.
I encourage you to watch this video.
https://attaleuntold.wordpress.com/2018/01/31/evolution-why-is-is-fact-for-my-christian-friends/
LikeLike
Bosco the Heretic said:
Hello good brother/sister, im beginning to think sister, Arkenaten.I watched the video, even though ive seen that vid befor. Can i ask you, do you really think that is news to me? Phylogeny, biology, taxonomy, you name it, ive been put through the paces at Cal State LA and a few other universities. Is that video your guide to the sciences? Its a rudimentary pep talk designed for 3rd graders to 8th grades with no science background. Is that your go to source? Sorry hunny buns, im way past that.
LikeLike
Bosco the Heretic said:
Whats up
LikeLike
Bosco the Heretic said:
Good brother Arkenaten, is that your go to scientific expose? First ive seen it befor and second im way past that rudimentary elementary school classroom visual aid. Ive studied paleontology and biology at Cal State LA and San Antonio Texas. I didnt make any waves. I gave the answers they wanted to hear. I wasnt there to argue. Prerequisites for diag biochem. You know how that goes. But i did ask the head of the biology dept….what came first…..the chicken or the egg. He matter of factly said….the egg. I thanked him and went on my way.
LikeLike
Bosco the Heretic said:
By the way, i noticed good brother Jim commented in that site. Do you two goons run in a pack?
LikeLike
Bosco the Heretic said:
Durig the great flood, god flash froze the poles to begin bringing back the dry land. The poles used to be tropical. in north pole mammothes were flash frrozen with food in their mouths. In the south pole giant waves were flash frozen. Waves dont flash freeze in mid wave. they do if god snapped his finger and froze them. See the pics for yourself;…
https://www.google.com/search?q=frozen+waves+in+antarctica&tbm=isch&source=hp&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj_kamB0oXjAhUGs54KHa5FAFAQsAR6BAgDEAE&biw=1920&bih=966
LikeLiked by 1 person
Arkenaten said:
Hilarious.You’re a Nob …. see a shrink.
LikeLike
Bosco the Heretic said:
cant argue with pictures. Youre as as bad as those catholics. No matter what you show them they still dont believe their eyes. They believe their gurus. You believe your Hitchens and your Dawkins. Well good brother Hitchens knows the truth now. When he didnt just fade to nothing like he hoped, when he died then opened his eyes to a new reality, i bet he was surprised. God is Not great eh? Yes, i have that book. Rite now hes eating the table of contents.
LikeLike
Arkenaten said:
YOu are not well. Seek medical help.
LikeLike
Bosco the Heretic said:
You might be rite. I havent been feeling myself lately.
LikeLike
Arkenaten said:
Well, that is regarded as a sin, is it not?
LikeLike