Quizzes & Puzzles16 mins ago
Is there a god?
750 Answers
Is there a god? I mean look at all the different relgions around the world who all believe that THEY are right & the others are wrong. They can't all be right can they. Which is why in my opion it all rubbish.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by LeedsRhinos. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
But, I think we are missing the point here. Far greater minds than mine have defended the Scriptures and, I venture to say, far greater minds than yours have questioned it. It's still standing after some 3,000 years. There are always going to be disagreements on your interpretation vs. mine.
The point is; the testimony, especially in its historical setting, Sitz im Leben, (isn't this great?) clearly, unambigously , declares Ha' Mashiac, one person, one place, at one time in history rose from the dead after being mercilessly slain. A vast body of prophecy predicting this event at this place at this time exists and was fulfilled. One cannot just dismiss this out of hand.
My experience has been that unbelievers fall into two basic categories. The first, not unlike yourself, want a more clear cut proof, and all that entails. The second, represented here by others, just feel that there is no God. They don't conduct the rest of their lives on feelings such as this, they don't approach some new endeavor without "educating" themselves appropriately first. But on this issue, their reliance is on feelings.
Before we move off the "time-line" discussion, in which your argument centers on a "continium of events" (my phrase) take a look at the good doctor Lukes writing in CH. 24, vs 49 and 50. Any reasonable person would deduce that between Jesus' commands to the disciples in vs 49 and the narative in vs 50, some indeterminate time has passed. This occurs in numerous places in all Gospel accounts, especially Mark.
A couple of final offerings for today... a God that can create ex nihilo the vast complexity of the universe is also certainly beyond our comprehension, except as He chooses to reveal Himself. That which we know is that which He permits to be known. Having said that, He has revealed, in great sufficiency, what His nature is. Part of that nature has to do with His , for lack of a better word, humaness. Scripture says we are created in His image, body, soul, spirit. God of the Bible is not a god that cannot be known, that does not have emotions, but, that is integrated, (don't ask me to explain how) with His omnipotence and omniscience. He displays great tenderness and love beyond comprehension to His created. But He also has a purpose... reconciling a lost and sinful race to Himself for those that so choose. A part of that purpose is the preservation of His "chosen people"... but that's a discussion in itself.So, God can display "anger" for a number of purposes and sitll not have any bearing on His absolute knowledge of all things, past, present, future.
This subject was raised in this forum, but was given typically short shrift. How do you account for the fact that since time immemorial in every setting man has recognized something outside himself? This cannot be dismissed out of hand. From the earliest examples of man's existence, cave paintings, burials, etc., man has looked outside himself. No other creature does this. To say that is strictly cultural is no argument at all. I believe I.R. is absolutely correct, this trait is innate to humans. One might even say it's genetic in nature. Does this prove god, much less the God of our discussion. Obviously not. But it does indicate a recognition in all of us that there exists something far greater than ourselves.
Merlin, let me ask one question. Do you believe in any life after death? If so, or if not, please explain. This is not a loaded question. I'm not going to argue any point you make, but you have a pretty good idea of my belief, so I'm requesting that you share yours.
Thanx...
And Now�(1): The two arguments at hand are quite narrow and you should not infer consequences to them unnecessarily. It matters not how many times JC appeared before or after the resurrection, nor how long he remained on earth. The first question at hand is this �Is the Bible to taken as literal truth, as it is written upon the page?�. To say no to this is not to cast doubt at all on any part of the OT or NT. It is a literal question with no hidden meaning or trap.
The second point is a simple matter of rational logic. It does not say that prophecies are false, it does not say that God cannot be angry, it does not say that God does not know the future. What it points to is the integrity of an argument, not, necessarily, what that argument purports to support (although it must do, at least indirectly in some way). It is this: If God created everything ex nihilo &nb sp;(yes, it�s grand, ain�t it?) then God is responsible for the nature of every man. In order to make prophecies, God must know the future of every man. Given that premiss, anger on God�s part as the result of any man�s action cannot be justified.
In respect of both of these points, nothing is dismissed out of hand. IR claims that the Bible is literal truth, so I examined that claim and found it wanting. You argued for the existence of God from the truth of prophecies. As it is impossible to examine the truth of all prophecies, and as they are open, to a greater or lesser degree, to interpretation, I examined the implications that prophecies have for the nature of God, and found inconsistency there too.
The second point is a simple matter of rational logic. It does not say that prophecies are false, it does not say that God cannot be angry, it does not say that God does not know the future. What it points to is the integrity of an argument, not, necessarily, what that argument purports to support (although it must do, at least indirectly in some way). It is this: If God created everything ex nihilo &nb sp;(yes, it�s grand, ain�t it?) then God is responsible for the nature of every man. In order to make prophecies, God must know the future of every man. Given that premiss, anger on God�s part as the result of any man�s action cannot be justified.
In respect of both of these points, nothing is dismissed out of hand. IR claims that the Bible is literal truth, so I examined that claim and found it wanting. You argued for the existence of God from the truth of prophecies. As it is impossible to examine the truth of all prophecies, and as they are open, to a greater or lesser degree, to interpretation, I examined the implications that prophecies have for the nature of God, and found inconsistency there too.
The end is here (2): I am not asking for clear-cut proof and all that entails. All I always ask for is integrity in a description of God and integrity in an argument that seeks to point to God�s existence. It is the absence of the former that confirms my atheism for me. I am not asking for proof, but I do ask for a rational description that has integrity. That is my next staging point and I have yet to find it.
Re v 49-50; yes, I accept that it is entirely reasonable to read �a period of time� into that interval, but what of v 49 �but stay in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high�? Did they then not stay in the city?
There was no short shrift given. If the flaw in an argument is seen soon after the presentation of it, and that flaw is quickly exposed, then it is not correct to say that it was given short shrift.
I�m not sure what you mean by �recognized something outside himself� in a way that no other creature does. I would understand it better if you had said �recognized something inside himself in a way that no other creature does�. BTW � I most certainly recognize the utter folly of dismissing any argument out of hand. When I say, for instance, that the teleological, ontological, probability etc arguments are easily rebutted, that is not to dismiss them out of hand � it would be foolish to do so. It�s just that I have been through them all to a greater or lesser extent.
Re v 49-50; yes, I accept that it is entirely reasonable to read �a period of time� into that interval, but what of v 49 �but stay in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high�? Did they then not stay in the city?
There was no short shrift given. If the flaw in an argument is seen soon after the presentation of it, and that flaw is quickly exposed, then it is not correct to say that it was given short shrift.
I�m not sure what you mean by �recognized something outside himself� in a way that no other creature does. I would understand it better if you had said �recognized something inside himself in a way that no other creature does�. BTW � I most certainly recognize the utter folly of dismissing any argument out of hand. When I say, for instance, that the teleological, ontological, probability etc arguments are easily rebutted, that is not to dismiss them out of hand � it would be foolish to do so. It�s just that I have been through them all to a greater or lesser extent.
And so I face (3): What I believe is innate to humans is a desire to believe that there is purpose to life. I have tried to explain this in more detail, as I mentioned in an earlier posting, but too much detail results in no posting! I have to resort to some circumspection and hope that you get the meaning.
The most basic instinct in all animals is to survive � on individual, pack and species levels. We have not been human for long enough to have eradicated these basic instincts, but we have been human long enough to develop an intellect and consciousness that allow us to override those instincts (for those among us with sufficient intellect and consciousness to exercise our free-will and self-control, that is!). Now, when man�s self-consciousness/self-aware ness had developed sufficiently, he recognised his own mortality. This, perhaps, is one of the most defining differences between us and the other animals. Recognising his own mortality, the human animal was driven to seek a purpose in life because the absence of one may have led to thoughts that were contrary to the instinct for individual survival. Thus, in my most humble opinion, and in this somewhat nascent idea, the search for a purpose in life was prompted by basic instinct in response to the recognition by a self-conscious man of his mortality. That must necessarily have resulted in a �there must be more to it than this� thought. The rest is, as they say, history. That is as far as I am prepared to go with what is �innate�. The desire to identify a purpose may be innate, but probably no more than that.
The most basic instinct in all animals is to survive � on individual, pack and species levels. We have not been human for long enough to have eradicated these basic instincts, but we have been human long enough to develop an intellect and consciousness that allow us to override those instincts (for those among us with sufficient intellect and consciousness to exercise our free-will and self-control, that is!). Now, when man�s self-consciousness/self-aware ness had developed sufficiently, he recognised his own mortality. This, perhaps, is one of the most defining differences between us and the other animals. Recognising his own mortality, the human animal was driven to seek a purpose in life because the absence of one may have led to thoughts that were contrary to the instinct for individual survival. Thus, in my most humble opinion, and in this somewhat nascent idea, the search for a purpose in life was prompted by basic instinct in response to the recognition by a self-conscious man of his mortality. That must necessarily have resulted in a �there must be more to it than this� thought. The rest is, as they say, history. That is as far as I am prepared to go with what is �innate�. The desire to identify a purpose may be innate, but probably no more than that.
The final curtain (4): (did you see what I did there?!!) � Life after death: no, of course not (I must be consistent!) � No, really. What can possibly remain after brain death? Put simply and crudely, the �soul/spirit/whatever is a projection of the brain. The only �life after death� that I would recognise would be, for instance, as in �Mozart lives on in his music� or our loved ones �live on in our memories�. It would be nice to think otherwise, but again, I don�t get it. You are cordially invited to argue the point if you so desire. I have no qualms about sharing any aspect of my view of the cosmos. It may be an edifying experience for me to have me probed somewhat (Oooooo-eeerrrrrrrr!, steady on missus!).
Here�s a thought � Is it my fault that I do not have a faith that my intellect prevents me from having - must faith be bestowed by God as a gift?
Here�s a thought � Is it my fault that I do not have a faith that my intellect prevents me from having - must faith be bestowed by God as a gift?
As pertains to Luke 24: 49-50. Yes. One needs to understand that the book of Acts was also written by Luke and he clearly indicates, in CH 1, after reiterating the events of Luke 24, that the advent of Pentecost was the purpose of the command to stay in the city. Jesus was on earth 40 days before the ascension, the followers remained in Jerusalem 10 more days, (hence Pentecost) for the receiving of the Holy Spirit...
OK, Clanad (& IR)
So I looked at Acts 1 and guess what? - I stumbled across what looks like another example - this one looks an even more clear-cut inconsistency:
Matthew 27.5: So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself.
He either threw the money away or he bought a field with it. He either hung or he fell and spilled his guts (I suppose he could have done both of those!!).
Would you now please have the good grace to concede this point?
Not so fast...First of all, notice that the text does not say that Judas died as a result of hanging. All it says is that he "went and hanged himself." Luke however, in Acts, tells us that "and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his entrails gushed out." This is a pretty clear indication (along with the other details given in Acts - Peter's speech, the need to pick a new apostle, etc.) that at least after Judas' fall, he was dead. So the whole concept that Matthew and Luke both recount Judas' death is highly probable, but not clear cut. Therefore, if I were to take a radical exegetical approach here, I could invalidate your alleged contradiction that there are two different accounts of how Judas died.
Again, we have an example of two different accounts of the same event. Both accounts are more alike than they are different... just what one would expect in a valid, truthful recounting of events. I would be highly suspicious, as would you I would guess, if all accounts matched word for word.
Matthew was an eye witness, Luke clearly states in Luke 1:3, that he carefully investigated everything from the beginning. However we know that he was not an eyewitness. He received his information from the Disciples, especially Peter. Judas betrayed Yeshua for an exact price, he was paid by the chief priests, he regretted his action, either returned the money with which the priests bought a "potters field" or he bought the field... he killed himself, either by hanging or junmping off a cliff or a combination of both. At any rate, look at all the information that is being provided for an event 2,000 years old! Where's the discrepancy?
Another point... keep in mind that this was Passover. It began at sundown on Friday and didn't end until sundown Saturday. For any Jew, especially during Passover, to touch any unclean thing, most certainly a dead, suicide traitor, would have been unthinkable. Judas may have hanged himself and sometime after Saturday night (more likely Sunday morning), he fell and his entrails burst out. During that time I would expect the body to begin serious decomposition...hence the reference to the entrails, etc...
But this begs the question... did the account of Jesus' death, burial and resurrection occur?
The Disciple John says "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched - this we proclaim" (1John 1:1. Peter says "We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you..." 2Peter 1:16. And each of these men that testified to the truthfullness maintained it until their deaths, all as martyrs.
Men will die for that which they know to be true, men will not die for that which they know to be a lie.
Their are glaring discrepancies in other ancient texts, the works of Josepheus comes to mind, but they are still considered authoitative by scholars. The information in the Scriptures has withstood examination for centuries and is still intact...
But this begs the question... did the account of Jesus' death, burial and resurrection occur?
The Disciple John says "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched - this we proclaim" (1John 1:1. Peter says "We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you..." 2Peter 1:16. And each of these men that testified to the truthfullness maintained it until their deaths, all as martyrs.
Men will die for that which they know to be true, men will not die for that which they know to be a lie.
Their are glaring discrepancies in other ancient texts, the works of Josepheus comes to mind, but they are still considered authoitative by scholars. The information in the Scriptures has withstood examination for centuries and is still intact...
There is a common thread though in this discourse. Each time I answer your query, you respond with yet another, to which I respond. You forget one step, any admission by you that the supposed discrepancy, does not in fact exist. I don't see this as any attempt to "win", but a few more "I didn"t know that moments) would be significant.
Bit between the teeth (1): I do absolutely confess my ignorance of the 40 and 50 day periods and, to my shame, I lack the motivation to re-assess the episodes in the light of Pentecost and traditions of the period. I do appreciate that there is a wealth of background knowledge required to understand the Gospel properly and, further to that, that some skill in exegesis is also required. This leads very neatly, of course, into the next sentence.
The point I am addressing is a very precise one: Is the text of the Bible to be taken as literal truth or must it be interpreted to some extent in order to see the �truth� behind the words?
Did you ever go to see a 3D movie (what about Jaws 3D � wasn�t that awful?)?. In order to see the story clearly, you had to don a pair of tinted cardboard spectacles. In order to see the Bible story clearly, do you also, just sometimes, need to don the spectacles of exegesis?
If the text must be �interpreted�, this does not say that the content of the Bible is false. It does not say that the Gospel is false. It does not say that Judas lived happily ever after. It does not cast doubt on the facts behind the ink on the page. Same as with the 3D spectacles � they do not change the story � they enable you to see it clearly (Oh, I just love a good analogy � especially if I made it up! � And I can claim to have made it up even if you have seen it before).
The point I am addressing is a very precise one: Is the text of the Bible to be taken as literal truth or must it be interpreted to some extent in order to see the �truth� behind the words?
Did you ever go to see a 3D movie (what about Jaws 3D � wasn�t that awful?)?. In order to see the story clearly, you had to don a pair of tinted cardboard spectacles. In order to see the Bible story clearly, do you also, just sometimes, need to don the spectacles of exegesis?
If the text must be �interpreted�, this does not say that the content of the Bible is false. It does not say that the Gospel is false. It does not say that Judas lived happily ever after. It does not cast doubt on the facts behind the ink on the page. Same as with the 3D spectacles � they do not change the story � they enable you to see it clearly (Oh, I just love a good analogy � especially if I made it up! � And I can claim to have made it up even if you have seen it before).
Bit between the teeth (2): And I did concede that Judas could have suffered both hanging and a more Peckinpahesque end. The latter either immediately following the former if Judas was inexperienced (and I dare to posit that he was) or following some time later when the law of gravity got the upper hand.
But, to take the words from your keyboard (rather than putting them into your mouth): �either returned the money with which the priests bought a "potters field" or he bought the field... he killed himself, either by hanging or junmping off a cliff or a combination of both�.
I do detect the opportunity to hoist IR by your petard. Each time I bring an example of an inconsistency, you show me how the text is to be interpreted in order to get to the truth of the story. Now please refer to the blue paragraph of the previous part of this posting.
Now����..yield! !
But, to take the words from your keyboard (rather than putting them into your mouth): �either returned the money with which the priests bought a "potters field" or he bought the field... he killed himself, either by hanging or junmping off a cliff or a combination of both�.
I do detect the opportunity to hoist IR by your petard. Each time I bring an example of an inconsistency, you show me how the text is to be interpreted in order to get to the truth of the story. Now please refer to the blue paragraph of the previous part of this posting.
Now����..yield! !
Did anyone watch the first episode of JONATHAN MILLER'S BRIEF HISTORY OF DISBELIEF BBC4?Was it any good? On the BBC's website I found a simple little article:
Athe ist Criticisms of Religion
Not all atheists are hostile to religion, but many do think that religion is bad. Here are some of their reasons...
;
1. Religion gets people to believe something untrue.
2. Religion makes people base the way they run their lives on a falsehood.
3. Religion stops people thinking in a rational and objective way.
4. Religion forces people to rely on outside authority, rather than becoming self-reliant.
5. Religion imposes irrational rules of good and bad behaviour.
6. Religion divides people, and is a cause of conflict and war.
7. The hierarchical structure of most religions is anti-democratic, and thus offends basic human rights.
8. Religion doesn't give equal treatment to women and gay people, and thus offends basic human rights.
9. Religion obstructs scientific research.
10. Religion wastes time and money.
Religion has good bits to it.
Most atheists willingly concede there are some good things about religion, such as:
1. Religious art and music.
2. Religious charities and good works.
3. Much religious wisdom and scripture.
4. Human fellowship and togetherness
What the article didn't say was that the last four points can quite easily be accomplished without religion!Most of the points have been touched upon (or discussed at length) within this string.
Bobbyx.
I'm atheist (you might have guessed). I'm not hostile to 'religion', I don't think 'religion' is bad and would disagree with almost all of the items 1 - 10 in your list, at least in the way that they're worded. You have used the term 'religion' in a blanket way that removes any meaning from the word in the context in which you have placed it. Do you mean all religions, some religions, theistic religions or what?
Have you actually really considered any of them for yourself and asked yourelf "What do I really think of ......?"
< /P>
Bobbyx
And what's more, your point 8 "Religion doesn't give equal treatment to women and gay people, and thus offends basic human rights." leads you to think what?
Do you think that various sexual persuasions are a recent invention? - Think about it! Acknowledgment of human rights is a more recent 'invention'.
And yes, if God existed I would expect him to have some discrimination - at least between those who are are loyal to him and those who are not!! And I would like to think that he would prefer Bach to Boyzone.
A reasoned response to your question:
The Scripture, OT and NT, contains lies: e.g., Genesis 3:4., The Scripture contains symbolic references, e.g., Joel 2: 13, the Scripture contains analogies and parables. The Scripture contains things that not all believers understand e.g., John's description og God in Revelation 4. But those things that are literal are to be taken literally.
A basic understanding of the times, language and culture is helpful, but not necessary in understanding Yahweh's will and plan to bring it to fruition.
I think you must admit that many things in secular history are not fully understood until much later, sometimes centuries, after the event. The same applies to Scripture.
A basic tenet in assessing any writing, especially ancient texts, is to grant an assumption of truthfullness in the entire body of work if all that has been tested thus far is shown to be truthful. Thus far, Scripture has clearly been shown to be truthfull. Sometimes painfully so. One of the OT most important characters is David. He was and is the most revered person, other than possibly Moses, to all believing Jews. Yet he is shown with warts and all. That's a pretty unusual trait. Reading other texts, such as Tacitus' Annals, or writings of Pliny the Elder, contain glowing descriptions of the rulers of the times in which they write. BTW they both mention Jesus in their writings.
Finally, Paul states in 1 Thessalonians 5:20-21, "...do not treat prophecies with contempt, Test everything". So, here is a collection of writings, all saying the same thing over a period of probably at least 1,000 years, in which we are admonished to test everything, nothing is to be taken for granted, nothing is to be believed without subjecting it to test. I think this puts to rest any charge of fideism. &nb sp; Have a nice weekend
Latest Posts
Jobs & Education27 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles48 mins ago
Shopping & Style49 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles49 mins ago
