|
|
Post by mushroom on Aug 8, 2004 22:56:49 GMT -5
Hold on: Just to clarify, I'm not saying that I thought you were saying this, let me reword it. Are you saying he may have been nuts? I don't believe any god exists. If he did believe he was God, he must have been wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by Tdyans on Aug 8, 2004 22:59:43 GMT -5
Hold on: Just to clarify, I'm not saying that I thought you were saying this, let me reword it. Are you saying he may have been nuts? This brings to mind a quote from C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity: Some may disagree that those are the only choices available, so please don't be offended. I'm really not trying to start an argument about that. The quote was just brought so strongly to mind at this moment that I found it interesting and just wanted to post it. |
|
Ducky not logged in
Guest
|
Post by Ducky not logged in on Aug 8, 2004 23:00:03 GMT -5
I don't believe any god exists. If he did believe he was God, he was wrong. Okay, but that didn't answer my question. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2004 23:02:46 GMT -5
This brings to mind a quote from C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity: Some may disagree that those are the only choices available, so please don't be offended. I'm really not trying to start an argument about that. The quote was just brought so strongly to mind at this moment that I found it interesting and just wanted to post it.  I've read that quote before. That's why I was bringing that up! I recently spent a week at camp and it was mainly focused on Apologetics; defense of the Christian faith. That's where I'm getting a lot of this from. |
|
|
|
Post by mushroom on Aug 8, 2004 23:16:27 GMT -5
Okay, but that didn't answer my question. Yes, he could have been crazy. Maybe I'm crazy. Maybe you're crazy. But I don't think he was necessarily crazy for holding a crazy belief--assuming Jesus existed as described in the Bible, he lived in very different times than we do. All the 'eist's are confusing me....  Theism: one or more gods exist. Pantheism: the universe is God. Deism: a god created the universe, but it doesn't interfere with it anymore--it may be busy elsewhere, it may not exist, it may be just watching, whatever, but we're basically left to fend for ourselves. Atheism: no belief in any god. I think those are all I used. Atheists aren't all skeptics, like I said. Some people inherit atheism the way others inherit Christianity--they never think about it or look closely at it, they just were raised that way. Generally irrational people can have rational beliefs by chance. Agnosticism means a belief that is impossible to have knowledge of God. Agnostics believe that, because knowledge is based on what you can observe with the senses (the physical world) and God is said to be immaterial, it is impossible to know one way or the other anything about God. Many agnostics fit under atheism--there is no reason to believe in something that you cannot have knowledge of. Regarding astrology--you're preaching to the choir, to use an ironic phrase. That it is possible for an atheist to believe in astrology does not mean all atheists believe in astrology. |
|
|
|
Post by althechia on Aug 8, 2004 23:40:20 GMT -5
That'd be my fault. Whups. I'd heard too many people talking about how the book is supposed to disprove Christianity. But here's something to keep in mind about the book. It's fiction. Written as fiction and published as fiction. Can't take any of that for serious, now can you? Especially since fiction tends to lie and make up things, eh? Well, it states right at the start that the facts stated in the book are indeed true. The secret society is actually real, too, and Da Vinci's references to the Holy Grail and such in his paintings are true as well, which makes the book all the more exciting. But all theories presented in it are really just theories that can't necessarily be proven. Or disproven, for that matter. |
|
|
|
Post by althechia on Aug 8, 2004 23:46:37 GMT -5
This brings to mind a quote from C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity: Some may disagree that those are the only choices available, so please don't be offended. I'm really not trying to start an argument about that. The quote was just brought so strongly to mind at this moment that I found it interesting and just wanted to post it. You know, up to when I six, I didn't know who Jesus was. Just random fun fact. And about this. There is no direct evidence Jesus ever claimed to be a God. You'd have to take the Church's word on this one, since they wrote everything down. |
|
|
|
Post by Tdyans on Aug 9, 2004 0:04:12 GMT -5
You know, up to when I six, I didn't know who Jesus was. Just random fun fact. And about this. There is no direct evidence Jesus ever claimed to be a God. You'd have to take the Church's word on this one, since they wrote everything down. In that his disciples were the beginning of the Church, yes. I can't really argue with people who say "prove it" or "where's the direct evidence"? To a Christian, the Bible is the proof. It is indisputable, the word of God, revealed through men. That takes a leap of faith, and I realize that not everyone believes it, so it's not really something that I can or want to debate about. But if we're discussing what is said in the Bible, then I can respond. In the Bible, he performs miracles (and the fact that they defy logic is what makes them miracles and kind of the point), and he gives the moral teachings that everyone is referring to, but all of the authority and reason for those moral teachings and miracles rests in the basis of his claim that he is the Son of God (not "a God," the God-- I don't know if that might have been a typo, but it's an important point, so I had to clarify). What Lewis is saying is that you can't pick and choose what you want to believe of what Jesus said (and again, I'm referring to the Bible); you can't separate out his moral teachings and ignore his claims to divinity. If you argue that parts of the Bible may be wrong/exaggerated/whatever, and maybe he never said that he was God in real life... then can't it also be argued that he never gave any of those "moral teachings" besides that as well? You have no proof for either as you define proof. What you do have presents the two things together, dependent on each other, inseparable. You have to take it all or leave it all. Like I said, there are people who probably disagree with Lewis' "all or nothing" challenge and believe there are other ways of looking at it, and I wasn't/am not really trying to start an argument or antagonize anyone. This post is really just... clarification, I guess. And the last was food for thought. |
|
|
|
Post by Oily on Aug 9, 2004 4:48:05 GMT -5
But if we're discussing what is said in the Bible, then I can respond. In the Bible, he performs miracles (and the fact that they defy logic is what makes them miracles and kind of the point), and he gives the moral teachings that everyone is referring to, but all of the authority and reason for those moral teachings and miracles rests in the basis of his claim that he is the Son of God (not "a God," the God-- I don't know if that might have been a typo, but it's an important point, so I had to clarify). What Lewis is saying is that you can't pick and choose what you want to believe of what Jesus said (and again, I'm referring to the Bible); you can't separate out his moral teachings and ignore his claims to divinity. If you argue that parts of the Bible may be wrong/exaggerated/whatever, and maybe he never said that he was God in real life... then can't it also be argued that he never gave any of those "moral teachings" besides that as well? You have no proof for either as you define proof. What you do have presents the two things together, dependent on each other, inseparable. You have to take it all or leave it all. Like I said, there are people who probably disagree with Lewis' "all or nothing" challenge and believe there are other ways of looking at it, and I wasn't/am not really trying to start an argument or antagonize anyone. This post is really just... clarification, I guess. And the last was food for thought. Well, I think it's possible to respect his moral teachings, without believing in claims to divinity. There's some good principles behind it all, and that I support. Whether or not I believe in the person I said them I find immaterial. And you could believe he was nothing, or believe he was everything, or just believe he was a moral teacher and nothing more. Belief is a tricky thing (I'm not arguing with you so much - it's just how I see it.) Actually atheism confuses me. You don't believe in a God, you believe in nothing more than what you can see and touch. Then why the interest in astrology? If you think about it there's a possiblity that the stars you're trying to tell the future from might not even exist anymore, light takes time to travel and all that. Agnostic-ism makes a bit more sense, but athiesm - the total lack of belief in any God further than the 5 natural senses, logic and stuff (well, you get what I mean) - makes me wonder how you can still believe in the supernatural. Well, not all atheists believe in astrology or supernatural stuff. You can believe/not believe in astrology whatever your faith really. |
|
|
|
Post by Crystal on Aug 9, 2004 5:44:33 GMT -5
Well, not all atheists believe in astrology or supernatural stuff. You can believe/not believe in astrology whatever your faith really. I should've been more clear I guess - I was referring to people who believed in both.  Whoops. |
|
|
|
Post by mushroom on Aug 9, 2004 5:46:23 GMT -5
But if we're discussing what is said in the Bible, then I can respond. In the Bible, he performs miracles (and the fact that they defy logic is what makes them miracles and kind of the point), and he gives the moral teachings that everyone is referring to, but all of the authority and reason for those moral teachings and miracles rests in the basis of his claim that he is the Son of God (not "a God," the God-- I don't know if that might have been a typo, but it's an important point, so I had to clarify). What Lewis is saying is that you can't pick and choose what you want to believe of what Jesus said (and again, I'm referring to the Bible); you can't separate out his moral teachings and ignore his claims to divinity. If you argue that parts of the Bible may be wrong/exaggerated/whatever, and maybe he never said that he was God in real life... then can't it also be argued that he never gave any of those "moral teachings" besides that as well? You have no proof for either as you define proof. What you do have presents the two things together, dependent on each other, inseparable. You have to take it all or leave it all. Like I said, there are people who probably disagree with Lewis' "all or nothing" challenge and believe there are other ways of looking at it, and I wasn't/am not really trying to start an argument or antagonize anyone. This post is really just... clarification, I guess. And the last was food for thought. That's why I first had a problem with Christianity, long before I started questioning whether it was *true* or not. The Bible describes atrocities--commanded and committed by its god--that I could never condone, and the Christian church bases itself utterly on this book and the god it describes. If others can excuse it, that's great. There are plenty of moral people who are Christian. But for the last several years of my nominal Christianity I read all the online apologetics and religious fiction I could find, trying to convince myself that this god everyone I knew worshipped was at least as moral as I was, and I couldn't. Eventually I realized that not everyone, and not even every good person, was Christian. With that mental block out of the way, I looked over arguments for the truth of Christianity from other sources, and now I'm an atheist. It does contain moral teachings, though, and if they are in any way good advice, it doesn't matter that they aren't divine in origin. You can still sift through and keep what you believe is right, the same way you would sift through the Buddha's ideas or the Wiccan Rede--the last line of the Wiccan Rede sums up my moral system perfectly, even though I'm not Wiccan. The Bible seems to me to be less worthwhile than many. *shrugs* |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2004 16:43:46 GMT -5
All the 'eist's are confusing me.... :P Actually atheism confuses me. You don't believe in a God, you believe in nothing more than what you can see and touch. Then why the interest in astrology? If you think about it there's a possiblity that the stars you're trying to tell the future from might not even exist anymore, light takes time to travel and all that. Agnostic-ism makes a bit more sense, but athiesm - the total lack of belief in any God further than the 5 natural senses, logic and stuff (well, you get what I mean) - makes me wonder how you can still believe in the supernatural. I hope I didn't offend anybody. It's just that I'm sincerely confused, not for the sake of the debate. Well, I don't doubt or admit to the existence of supernatural things like ghosts, because my own parents have had encounters with them, but I deny the existence of a superior, immaterial being because all laws of physics state that if it isn't material, it doesn't exist. I don't base all of my knowledge on the five senses. Otherwise, how could I believe in historical events? My beliefs are a mixture of logic and the senses. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2004 16:46:05 GMT -5
I think this is what TheComedian means: he considers himself a generally rational person, and the position he has found to be the most rational is atheism--with the qualification that maybe another person with different experiences can rationally come to a different conclusion. Exactly! I've always been bad at explaining difficult stuff. |
|
|
|
Post by Stal on Aug 9, 2004 18:17:59 GMT -5
Well, it states right at the start that the facts stated in the book are indeed true. The secret society is actually real, too, and Da Vinci's references to the Holy Grail and such in his paintings are true as well, which makes the book all the more exciting. But all theories presented in it are really just theories that can't necessarily be proven. Or disproven, for that matter. Al, how do you know these facts are true? ;D Sure, maybe these references are real. But were they interperted right? I mean, I can say that The Village is an allegory based on post-9/11 America. The references in the works are all there...for me. But it may not be true as I've misinterperted that whole thing anyway. Seeing as how I really don't know the references referred to and how clear they are, I can't comment too much on that. But where's the proof that this society existed? The proof that this society, if it did exist was as powerful as stated and had the members it's believed to have. The Bible says that all it's facts are true. Not something you take to be true at all. Yet a Fictional book can say its facts are true and you have an easier time believing that? And you're taking the author's word for it, too! Wow. It's funny in a very ironic sense.  |
|
|
|
Post by sollunaestrella on Aug 9, 2004 18:41:47 GMT -5
Well, I don't doubt or admit to the existence of supernatural things like ghosts, because my own parents have had encounters with them, but I deny the existence of a superior, immaterial being because all laws of physics state that if it isn't material, it doesn't exist. But the thing is - Christians believe that God created these laws of physics. God is superior - basically, He can do anything. So why can't he be immaterial? He created physics, so He has the right to defy them, yes? You say your parents have had encounters with ghosts, which conflicted with what you call the law of physics. So, because of that, you say you can't deny their existence or admit to it. But you still deny the existence of God because He wouldn't exist due to physics. What if your parents had a spiritual encounter with God? Would you actually wonder if there might be a God just like you wonder about the ghosts, or would you call your parents off their rockers? I'm really curious, here, as well as trying to make an argument. |
|
I've read that quote before. That's why I was bringing that up! I recently spent a week at camp and it was mainly focused on Apologetics; defense of the Christian faith. That's where I'm getting a lot of this from.
Whoops.
