Do you believe in miracles?

[wmrs2]

Actually, evil in the world is proof that God doesn't exist according to Christian doctrine. The Theodicy Paradox, is in a mathematical sense a real paradox, ie the basic theory is flawed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodicy

There are many many more Christian paradoxes. All pose real problems. What the Catholic church has traditionally done is ignore them. Thomas Aquinas penned them all down and hoped future Christian researchers would solve them. This has yet to happen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Aquinas

To be Christian today you have to either reject the accuracy of the Bible or reject logic as a valid system to solve problems. I'm not trying to be cheeky or nasty to Christians now. These are real problems for Christianity which they've been struggling with since Constantin decided that Christian faith was a matter for the state and not a question of personal conviction. This is when he ordered the compilation of the Vulgate Bible. Which is the most popular Christian Bible today.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulgate_Bible

Another solution is to read the Bible liberally. But then you'll have the next problem. What is your opinion, and what is the message from God? But the original New Testament was just a bunch of lose pages and articles, so that is going back to the roots. But it'll be very hard to track all of them down. It also makes it very hard to tell what God wants.

These are all extremely hard problems to solve. And need to be solved for the Christian scientific theories to work even hypothetically.

Religion is More Personal
People like you are necessary and fun to discuss and converse with. If you want the facts, you have these. Your knowledge of the subject is real and very intellectual. It is real on the personal and subjective level. In any intellectual discussion with me, you would certainly overpower me with your vast knowledge.

What I like to talk about is not intellectual in any academic sense. When the cave man discovered fire, he discovered a miracle which he translated into a basic, primitive religion which improved his life and the life of others. For example, in the Bible the Good Samaritan did did not need theological knowledge to help the sick man in the ditch. Theological knowledge often overlooks the personal needs of mankind. It is this personal knowledge and truth that Christ brought to the religious argument. This the truth that the Bible seeks to enlighten mankind. There is no error or fault in this truth.

Your statement, "To be Christian today you have to either reject the accuracy of the Bible or reject logic as a valid system to solve problems" does not apply The point here in the Bible has been well taken. The truth here is obviously true by any stretch of the imagination. You are correct when you say the Bible needs to be read with a liberal slant. That's what Christ preached also. He was very much a liberal.

What many attack as Christianity is not really Christianity at all. Christianity is more than historical interpretation. It is very much more personal. I hope this helps.

[TomOfSweden]

Theological knowledge often overlooks the personal needs of mankind.

What does this mean? Personal is one person. Mankind is all people. If religion isn't about people and their needs, what is it about?

Religion is More Personal

It is this personal knowledge and truth that Christ brought to the religious argument. This the truth that the Bible seeks to enlighten mankind. There is no error or fault in this truth.

Your statement, "To be Christian today you have to either reject the accuracy of the Bible or reject logic as a valid system to solve problems" does not apply The point here in the Bible has been well taken.

You neglected to explain how. Christian scholars have been fighting with this for centuries, so you'd better back your shit up now

The truth here is obviously true by any stretch of the imagination. You are correct when you say the Bible needs to be read with a liberal slant. That's what Christ preached also. He was very much a liberal.

So how should it be read? How do you know what is God's word and what is just your or your priests personal morality?

What many attack as Christianity is not really Christianity at all. Christianity is more than historical interpretation. It is very much more personal. I hope this helps.

You'll have no argument there. I'm not going to hold what one Christian does in the name of religion toward another.

Just to be clear here. I suspect that you're using the word "truth" as an abstract and empty container, void of meaning. And just using it a lot because it has positive connotations. If the message of Christ is the truth, it's is the message and not the label of truth that is relevant, isn't it? Tell me a Christian truth. Anything? Please give me something concrete to have an opinion about or reply to.

[wmrs2]

[QUOTE=TomOfSweden;560628]What does this mean? Personal is one person. Mankind is all people. If religion isn't about people and their needs, what is it about?



You neglected to explain how. Christian scholars have been fighting with this for centuries, so you'd better back your shit up now



So how should it be read? How do you know what is God's word and what is just your or your priests personal morality?

God Wants Actions

Sorry Tom that I took so long to give you an answer. My K-board on the PC broke down. Here's your urgent answer.

That's part of the problem with trying to understand religious truth. Scholars have only messed up the search for truth by attempting to quantify it. Real truth is generally self evident truth that people just act on! People don't have to back it up academically. For exp., a father doesn't delay teaching his child to stay out of the street until he documents the dangers in the street.Some common sense facts are self evident. Helping the sick man in a ditch is self evident act based on a truth of love. Also, if we help one person with AIDs, I think at the same time we are helping all mankind.

Activist Christians have done a lot to help mankind. Their actions have been based on self evident truth (M.L. King, Pope John Paul, teachers nurses, etc.)
Scholars who argue over which facts about God are real or backed up or can be proven are the ones that have not done shit, as you call it.

I am using the term truth as an abstract. But the truth that Jesus used certainly was not empty. It was very relative. In your responses to this thread, you provide us with many good sources but I don't see the relativeness to any of them in relation to the "human situation." Most people who read these threads do not have the academic background to interpret the sources you cite. They only have to take our word for it that these sources say what we say they say.

The real scholar of truth goes a step closer. He taught in parables and sayings that helped individuals see the self evident facts of live and the human situation.

If the common person wants to know if God is real or does miracles, he doesn't need to ask fellows like us. We might know too many facts that would only confuse persons with real good common sense.

I hope this helps.

[Thorne]

Real truth is generally self evident truth that people just act on! People don't have to back it up academically.

So, if I believe that God wants me to beat my wife because she burned my dinner, that makes it okay? It seems self-evident to me!! (NOT!)

Activist Christians have done a lot to help mankind.

Certainly! Just look at the Crusades, and the consequences which we are STILL living with!

Most people who read these threads do not have the academic background to interpret the sources you cite. They only have to take our word for it that these sources say what we say they say.

Funny, but I was once told by a seemingly intelligent preacher that most people don't have the understanding to interpret the Bible, and should rely on those trained to interpret its "truths." Where's the difference?

If the common person wants to know if God is real or does miracles, he doesn't need to ask fellows like us. We might know too many facts that would only confuse persons with real good common sense.

Yes we certainly wouldn't want to confuse the ignorant serfs with the facts, would we? They might just decide that they don't really NEED us!
This kind of logic kept humanity in virtual slavery to religion for millennia. It's about time we eliminated it, don't you think?

[TomOfSweden]

God Wants Actions

And you base this opinion/truth on what exactly? Your intuition?

That's part of the problem with trying to understand religious truth. Scholars have only messed up the search for truth by attempting to quantify it. Real truth is generally self evident truth that people just act on! People don't have to back it up academically.

The point with academic studies, isn't to impress with big brain on internet forums. It is comparing ideas and learning from each other. You're rejecting this and replacing it only with intuition. I'm guessing that you're not a scholar. If that is the case, what you are doing is rejecting thousands of years of work, that you haven't read, and draw conclusions about the futility of their work. But you're not against studying are you? You read the Bible don't you?

For exp., a father doesn't delay teaching his child to stay out of the street until he documents the dangers in the street.Some common sense facts are self evident. Helping the sick man in a ditch is self evident act based on a truth of love. Also, if we help one person with AIDs, I think at the same time we are helping all mankind.

So what do you need God for? If being good is self evident then religion can be rejected, right? I'd personally call it instinct or human nature. But that's just me.

Activist Christians have done a lot to help mankind. Their actions have been based on self evident truth (M.L. King, Pope John Paul, teachers nurses, etc.)
Scholars who argue over which facts about God are real or backed up or can be proven are the ones that have not done shit, as you call it.

I'm not going to argue. But I think the did what they did, not because they believed in God, but because of helping others made them feel good about themselves, and affirmed them. Humans are a helpful species. We're social, and we like to help those we can connect and empathise with.

I am using the term truth as an abstract. But the truth that Jesus used certainly was not empty. It was very relative. In your responses to this thread, you provide us with many good sources but I don't see the relativeness to any of them in relation to the "human situation." Most people who read these threads do not have the academic background to interpret the sources you cite. They only have to take our word for it that these sources say what we say they say.

Wikipedia is for laypeople. It's the whole point of it. So I think you'll do fine.

If truth is relative you need to give a context.

You wrote the bellow text:
"For example, in the Bible the Good Samaritan did did not need theological knowledge to help the sick man in the ditch. Theological knowledge often overlooks the personal needs of mankind. It is this personal knowledge and truth that Christ brought to the religious argument. This the truth that the Bible seeks to enlighten mankind. There is no error or fault in this truth."

Is the Bible seeking to enlighten mankind? Is this relative? If the good Samaritan would have done it anyway, what did he need God and the Bible for? How has he been enlightened if he had done it anyway? And then you go on to saying that "it is no fault or error in it", like a statement. As if it needs pointing out if it would have been true.

The real scholar of truth goes a step closer. He taught in parables and sayings that helped individuals see the self evident facts of live and the human situation.

Again, what does the "real scholar of truth" need God for? If he's taught parables that are self evident, he doesn't need them does he?

If the common person wants to know if God is real or does miracles, he doesn't need to ask fellows like us.

So you're basically saying that God is irrelevant? If the existence of God isn't important, I assume that you don't care either way?

We might know too many facts that would only confuse persons with real good common sense.

I hope this helps.

But your facts wouldn't confuse a man with bad common sense?

edit: BTW. There is no need to apologise for not answering fast. I prefer you taking your time and making sure what you write is what you had in your mind and what it is you want us to understand.

Just to make my point more clear. I'd like to know how you detect the truth? If your only tool for figuring it out is your intuition, you've robbed Christians of any platform from which to judge anything. Their own morality for example. What if another Christians religious intuition goes against yours. Who has truth on their side? How do you know? I think you need to quantify the truth, for moral judgements to have any value.

A problem with parables is that they need interpreting. Which brings us back to the issue with truth. How can you possibly know that you've interpreted something correctly? How can you ever say that you know what God wants? How can you ever say that your actions are in accordance with Gods wishes?

[Ozme52]

Just to make my point more clear. I'd like to know how you detect the truth? If your only tool for figuring it out is your intuition, you've robbed Christians of any platform from which to judge anything. Their own morality for example. What if another Christians religious intuition goes against yours. Who has truth on their side? How do you know? I think you need to quantify the truth, for moral judgements to have any value.

History says their reaction would be to start another version of Christianity with an altered set of "truths". All "protestant" versions of Christianity are sprung from disagreements with the "truths" as professed by the "original" version(s).

Please note the pronunciation of 'protestant' here is meant to be based on the root word... "protest"

People forget that all versions of Christianity other than the "original" Catholicism are in fact heresies. <<==

[TomOfSweden]

History says their reaction would be to start another version of Christianity with an altered set of "truths". All "protestant" versions of Christianity are sprung from disagreements with the "truths" as professed by the "original" version(s).

Please note the pronunciation of 'protestant' here is meant to be based on the root word... "protest"

People forget that all versions of Christianity other than the "original" Catholicism are in fact heresies. <<==

Sorry to be an arse here. But this is irrelevant. We, or rather Christians need a way to measure the level of truthfulness between Christian theories. If you cannot, then how do you know you are right and others wrong. Both cannot be right. They are mutually exclusive. Just because a lot of people have traditionally done something doesn't add to the argument. This is Terry Pratchett theology. A god isn't dependent on it's followers for existence. It is of course the other way around. Measuring the correctness in a certain dogma is critical.

I'm well aware that the religious deny that science can measure the divine. It is after all a foundation it rests on in order for us to have religious faith at all. I've got no problems with that. But if we don't use science to measure it, then what do we use?

How do we tell Gods and God theories apart? How do we differ between a message from God and your own opinion? How do you differ a divine voice in your head from just any old internal discussion in your head? There are no ways to find out.

This doesn't prove God doesn't exist, but it defeats comparing them. If let's say, we're Anglican, we cannot say the Catholics or Tawahedo got it wrong.

We have nothing to use as arguments. Since the nature of God is unknowable we cannot use logic to deduce what God wants. The logical conclusion is that my options are to either:

1) Be arrogant and just assume God is better friends with me and have made sure I know the real truth. Alternatively assuming that I'm smarter/more spiritual, which is just as arrogant.

2) See this phase of human history as a fact finding stage to find more information before nailing down the God theory once and for all.

3) Just ignore religion due to insufficient data. If God wants us to believe in him, he'll just have to make an effort and stop being so vague. Alternatively humanity is much too limited to grasp the deep truth of the universe, which brings us back to ignoring it being the best option. If we cannot find the truth, then why bother? If those who claim that they've found it can't be told apart from those who fake it with something we can measure, we're not better off.

My point is that when it comes to religion we have no way of telling what is true, and this is even after we've already assumed God exists. Catholics have no stable platform from which to judge the validity of other Christian sects. They cannot know if they're heresies or not.

The fact that USA was founded by wonky Christian sects doesn't really change any of this.

[Ozme52]

Sorry to be an arse here. But this is irrelevant.

Well, not really because, unfortunately, while you look for a way to "know" and to prove what is "true" most people are

... arrogant and just assume God is better friends with me and have made sure I know the real truth.

That's also the reason that your personal search will have to be just that. Personal. You're being entirely too rational... and that's anti-faith. The 'faithful' are all sure God is their best friend and approves wholeheartedly and solely with the way they believe.

[wmrs2]

Sorry to be an arse here. But this is irrelevant. We, or rather Christians need a way to measure the level of truthfulness between Christian theories. If you cannot, then how do you know you are right and others wrong. Both cannot be right. They are mutually exclusive. Just because a lot of people have traditionally done something doesn't add to the argument. This is Terry Pratchett theology. A god isn't dependent on it's followers for existence. It is of course the other way around. Measuring the correctness in a certain dogma is critical.

I'm well aware that the religious deny that science can measure the divine. It is after all a foundation it rests on in order for us to have religious faith at all. I've got no problems with that. But if we don't use science to measure it, then what do we use?

How do we tell Gods and God theories apart? How do we differ between a message from God and your own opinion? How do you differ a divine voice in your head from just any old internal discussion in your head? There are no ways to find out.

This doesn't prove God doesn't exist, but it defeats comparing them. If let's say, we're Anglican, we cannot say the Catholics or Tawahedo got it wrong.

We have nothing to use as arguments. Since the nature of God is unknowable we cannot use logic to deduce what God wants. The logical conclusion is that my options are to either:

1) Be arrogant and just assume God is better friends with me and have made sure I know the real truth. Alternatively assuming that I'm smarter/more spiritual, which is just as arrogant.

2) See this phase of human history as a fact finding stage to find more information before nailing down the God theory once and for all.

3) Just ignore religion due to insufficient data. If God wants us to believe in him, he'll just have to make an effort and stop being so vague. Alternatively humanity is much too limited to grasp the deep truth of the universe, which brings us back to ignoring it being the best option. If we cannot find the truth, then why bother? If those who claim that they've found it can't be told apart from those who fake it with something we can measure, we're not better off.

My point is that when it comes to religion we have no way of telling what is true, and this is even after we've already assumed God exists. Catholics have no stable platform from which to judge the validity of other Christian sects. They cannot know if they're heresies or not.

The fact that USA was founded by wonky Christian sects doesn't really change any of this.

The philosopher knows he can never know or prove what is absolute truth. I think I know God is absolute truth. But in the end of the search for truth, I'm forced to accept things to be true without absolute evidence.

The decision that must be made is how much factual evidence is require for me to have enough faith to live a quality and happy life. To make the best choices in life, man must use all the tools available. Academic study is a very important tool, especially in a very sophisticated society. Intuition, reasoning, logic, and experience are other equally needful tools. The combination of all the tools of philosophers used together is probably the best approach to finding truth. keeping in mind that our country was founded on self evident truths (intuition) listed in the Constitution of the USA and other great historical documents.

Take a bad experience one has in religious purists, for example. Would a person be better off to stay away from religion altogether? Should he change his mind about religion? Should he try to change religious behaviors with a different model? Should he become bitter? The bad experience will lead to another experience depending how one reacts (or doesn't react) to the bad experience.

If one feels the need to remain religious he will have to deal with what he thinks is truth, knowing he will never absolutely know. Maybe this is faith. Faith does not make use of the historical approach, the scientific method, or Aristotelian logic of any less value. Faith and all these can make each better.

At any rate, to go on in life, man has to make choices based on what he guesses to be true. I don't want to disprove anything said on this thread or challenge anyone academic character. It would be nice to see an appreciation
of all the approaches used to find the truth.

I hop this helps.