Ferbs wrote:I’m fine with you not knowing stuff, my point is that if you don’t know certain things, then you shouldn’t claim that those things you don’t understand must be just, or make sense, etc. until you can come back with a firmer grasp on things. That’s all. We’re all limited, but if you’re going to believe that X is true, you should be able to give a good explanation of why you think that’s the case.
True, I probably shouldn’t have pulled a bible cannon ball and leaped in claiming I could explain God, but...my inability to explain the infinite somewhat proves the infinity of it...If I could explain God, He would not be God. Aside from that, which is the obvious part, I have been explaining why I believe the way I do. The only thing is, I’ve been trusting God to be what He says He is even though I didn’t/don’t understand Him all the time, and I can‘t expect that to fly with you, because you can’t see that, and you don’t believe in God. XD This is a problem. Still, I believe the way I do because God has changed my life, helped me on a daily basis, and because it’s how the Bible, as God’s word, lays it out. Though the bible is old, it’s still eye witness accounts. The eyewitness stuff is only a small part of it, considering that changed lives act as a testimony as well.
I never said that truth doesn’t exist, my point is that no one has a monopoly on truth. No one’s peeled back all the curtains and seen it all. The point is that there is always a degree of uncertainty, that life and human experience are full of existential doubts and failings, we are not perfectly rational or all knowing, and hence no one can claim complete certainty. That other people won’t see things exactly the same is not just a practical fact of the universe, but makes complete sense. It’s not necessarily a diminution of their character if they don’t see the “truth.” Because we’re all imperfect. If truth exists, what it means to be truth, and what is truth, are all things we all grasp for, but can never claim to fully see. If something deviates from the truth it is wrong, but the question remains of what the truth is? Because of the above reasons, you can’t just state that Christianity is the truth and that’s that. Your reality is just as subjective as mine, and that’s something that needs to be argued with the understanding that you don’t have it all, that you may turn out to be wrong. To frame a discussion with the statement that X is truth, and other viewpoints are simply refusals to admit what is clear to all to be true, is to say nothing at all.
Definition of truth:
1.the true or actual state of a matter: He tried to find out the truth.
2.conformity with fact or reality; verity: the truth of a statement.
3.a verified or indisputable fact, proposition, principle, or the like: mathematical truths.
You say you didn’t claim truth didn’t exist, then say “If truth exists, it’s subjective, and so who can say what it is?” (paraphrasing your paragraphs into a sentence). Truth like that can‘t exist, because truth is what is. We’re not even talking about absolute truth here either, just...the general type. Truth is not what you and I have experienced, or something we think. It has to be beyond that, or it’s only opinion. Truth isn’t truth if it comes from our own selves. There is room for doubt in this life, yes. But if that’s the case, then there is also room for faith and trust. Doubt and trust and faith work curiously together. Point being, Christianity reaches past personal doubts, fears, and experiences, to show what the truth is. Because, though you and I can’t see what’s behind the curtain, God has. He is what’s behind the curtain. I can claim Christianity as THE truth, because though there are loads of ways to answer 2+2=4 (being life, in this case), there is only one correct answer.
YES. The bible has to be true, otherwise the Christian God doesn’t exist!!!!! Unless….. The Christian God indeed doesn’t exist!!!! Your logic is so strange dude. Why yes, if the premises supporting a belief are shown to be flawed, then the belief is shown to be in potential error, and other, contrary beliefs can then be argued to be true. Nothing has to be true buddy. That showing the bible to be flawed would start to poke holes in the strength of Christianity’s argument is exactly why non-Christians go out and make such arguments.
Nice. The point of that was not that the only thing showing God is the bible (which it’s not) and that without that being real, He can't exist. It was just a flawed way of me trying to tell you that God can indeed get His words throughout history. “Nothing has to be true” is...lame. And you know it.
It makes schooling useless and conversing about facts pointless.
That’s the definition of intellectual suicide, dogmatism, and simple foolishness. If I prove the earth is round mathematically, and you still insist it’s flat, well, that’s just baffling.
You are commiting such a suicide if you insist that something has to be true.
Are you really willing to say that insisting something is true is committing intellectual suicide? What value is anything then? To recycle an analogy, if I stick my hand into the fire and say it burns, and have a burned hand smoldering on the desk in front of me, I’m insisting that fire burns. Does that mean I’ve committed intellectual suicide or that I’m unwilling to sway on what is the truth?
To carry that further, let’s bring evolution into this. Not the arguing about it, but the theory itself. By denying something created the universe, and deciding it is some random chance combination of particles, and refusing to sway your thoughts, are you committing IS or are you just certain of the truth?
Just a question.
More to the point, you have no proof that God doesn’t exist, and yet to my knowledge, refuse to entertain the thought that He might, actually. Do you see my point here?
Well your example doesn’t make any sense. How can you prove something, yet have no proof???? Believing something without any good reason, and eventually turning out to be correct, is simple luck, like guessing the winning number of the lottery. It doesn’t make believing something without good reason intellectually justifiable.
Who says there is no proof of God? I don’t just blindly believe in God because of the way I was raised. I don’t blindly believe in him at all. Nor do I believe without any good reason. Is that what you think of Christians? That we simply believe because we need a crutch, and we have no real reasons?
If you’re referencing Galileo, that’s ironic on so many levels. Galileo’s trial is often misunderstood. It was ironically the Church that took Galileo to court for claiming to have figured things out without sufficient proof in his books. They were giving him a hard time for exactly what I’m criticizing you for. Galileo turned out to be right, but when he asserted stuff without the evidence he was just being arrogant and foolish.
(Of course, the Church still deserves a bad rap for the incident, because they shouldn’t have the power to censor and imprison people.)
And that’s my problem. It was rather arrogant and foolish of me to jump into this feet first. But I would like to gently point out the further irony that Galileo turned out to be right despite the insistence's that he wasn’t.
Paradox's pop up in an infinite God because of His infinity...Just because I/we can’t understand something, doesn’t mean it’s wrong, contradictory, or inexistent. That’s equivalent to a child that says “make it didn’t happen” when he sees something scary. Our minds can’t wrap around Someone of that magnitude...In yet another allegory, I have, literally, no understanding of nuclear physics...much of it seems impossible, blind leaps, or just random numbers on a page. Yet that doesn’t stop someone from understanding it, or mean it’s false.
I wasn’t trying to say that God was created, but trying to explore the many, many paradox that pop up when you have a concept of an infinite God. You still haven’t helped me unravel those concerns, you just stated what I was responding to in the first place.
Paradox's pop up when talking over this subject matter. Namely, the infinite from a finite perspective. It's like asking a fish about land, or a frog about flying.
So then evil and hate are part of Him too? Or are the bad things created? If God’s infinitely powerful etc., then the nature of something like love is something He determines, because to suggest otherwise makes Him finite.
I’m not sure I understand your logic. Evil was created when Satan rebelled. But evil is not a part of God. I’m drawing a blank on how you jumped from A to B there. The answer to your second point is this: His love is as big as Himself. That’s pretty mindblowingly awesome, but the truth. God didn’t create love, it’s a part of Him, and since He's infinite, and unending,, His love is too.
Well, I would hold an all powerful benevolent God to higher standards than people, what we do here on earth is tyrannical in the sense that it’s not perfect justice. Everlasting punishment seems to be a bigger version of our view down here of justice that’s been in practice since the first dude sharpened a spear. That cop is pulling me to the side of the road for speeding and blowing my brains out. I would hope for something grander, better, from the absolute truth of the universe.
God’s justice is perfect though, whereas ours is flawed. The fact people can get off with a lessened sentence or none at all after committing a crime testifies to that. What would you want from the ultimate authority though? Acquittal for the guilty?
Or...perhaps Someone innocent that was willing to pay your debt in your place?
Because of the reasons above, you can’t just state to me that something must be right and end it at that. You haven’t proved to me that God cannot be wrong. If you saw superman punch an innocent citizen of Metropolis in the face, but insisted that He’s still a hero because He’s superman, and superman wouldn’t do that (just because apparently, as you haven’t justified it) you would be in a serious state of denial. I just showed you how I think your example of God being just is actually and example of Him being unjust, and all you’ve done in response is stuck your fingers in your ears and closed your eyes.
But what you seem to be missing is that God is not human, and cannot be wrong. What proof would you have? We have His word, and since God can’t lie, that works. What other authority would be higher than God to call Him wrong? Thinking about God in human terms won’t work, because all humans fail and mess up. God never does, and you have to take that into account before talking about His justice.
Imagine, please, just for a moment, that God cannot be wrong, fail, or do evil. Then imagine what the justice from such a being would be. I’m serious. Think about it for a second. Someone you could absolutely trust to not fail you in any way. That persons justice, whether or not you understood it, would always be right.
A term like “evil” only has meaning relative to good. If there is no good in people, evil is the norm, the standard, then they’re not really evil, they just are. Of course I would argue that there is some good, or that we should move beyond framing this discussion in terms of good and evil. (beyond good and evil maybe? Nietzse reference.
If you have any love for me at all, leave Nietzse out of this. XD Bugged me when I studied him. Anyway, the first sentence only works if there is no good to act as a measuring stick by. God is that measuring stick, and though we’ll never be at His standards, He does show us what right and wrong are, and so evil is not the norm, but evil. There is no good in people, but there is good in God, and so the term has meaning.
How do you know the light would be painful? Who’s to say an all powerful God couldn’t make the light of truth available to everyone without making their heads explode? If it’s undeniable, well that’s a good thing, because then everyone would be a Christian, and salvation would be completely up to personal choice.
I was wrong here, a bit...Jesus was the full truth of God, the light of the world, and He didn’t burn anyone up in His presence.
His light was dimmed though, because of the necessity of His death. It was unveiled once, and though no one died, it did stun some people to stammering. But still, He controlled the elements, healed the sick, and raised people from the dead. Only God could do that. Except you’re off a bit still. God still won’t force salvation, and so not everyone is saved automatically. Salvation is up to personal choice. A flood victim refusing to get into the boat is still making a choice.
Either way, God’s light is blinding. Angels, though I’ve not brought them up until now, reflect a bit of God’s light, and pretty much have to start all their talking to humans with “don’t be afraid”.
Yes people deny Him, because we’re not perfectly rational, understanding, or knowing. It’s less denial, and more doubt. Unless you were there when Jesus rose from the dead, there’s ample room for doubt, because you heard about this all from a very old book and from other fallible people.
There’s room for doubt, but also room for faith. As to the age of the bible...it’s not so old, actually. The new testament concerning Jesus is less than 2000 years. Which is long enough, suppose, but in the course of history, not so long. Old accounts from fallible people don’t change the facts over whether something happened or not. I think the last survivors of the holocaust died recently, and it was a very long time ago...Doesn’t stop the fact it happened. Same with the Civil war. The only thing that’s left from that is writings, and ruins. Yet no one doubts it's authenticity. What about the discovery of America?
I didn’t take it too literally, you said that God could be multiple entities yet still one entity. Which is contradictory. Your analogy was also contradictory. So it failed to shed light on the original, similar yet not completely similar, contradiction.
Three distinct persons within one infinite entity is not exactly multiples in one. Ohno gave a better analogy for it, that honestly, is among the best I’ve seen even among srs theologians.
The point here is that justice and mercy conflict with each other. Saying that God is both merciful, and just, is kind of a contradiction. So because God is just, he holds us accountable for a crime, but because he is merciful, he makes a lophole in his justice so that he can be merciful towards us? My point with Jesus is that God is not being consistent. Mercy is contrary to justice, so to show mercy, no matter how it is done, is to break with justice, even if it’s your own justice. Absolute mercy and justice coexisting is a clear paradox. Also, when you factor in the fact that God’s mercy is required in the first place to save humanity because of how His justice and manner in which He made everything damns us to death, well, the whole story seems to loose a sense of design and becomes arbitrary.
His mercy is greater than His justice. Like His love is greater than His justice. But justice and mercy are not contradictory. In fact, mercy depends somewhat on justice for it’s existence. Justice is judgment of what you‘ve done and what you deserve, mercy is forgiveness of what you‘ve done, and love. The textbook definitions of them, anyway. They aren’t contradictions...they’re almost symbiotic. You can't have mercy without judgment. Moreover, Jesus was not a loophole, but a fulfillment of the punishment we deserve. He took punishment in your place, and so the justice was fulfilled. It’s crazy, but the type of crazy that comes from love. Imagine the one you loved most going to prison. Likely, you’d want to take their place, even if they deserved their crime.
Not sure what’s inconsistent about that.
Sorry about the long time...
